Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) Provisional Standards Study

1. Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) Provisional Standards Study Diane Schilder, EdD and Jessica Young, PhD Education Development Center, Inc.

2. QRIS Pilot Findings • Primary reason for participation was to enhance quality • Providers reported relative ease in completing most components • Level of provider effort varied • Most providers understand QRIS standards • Providers reported some challenges meeting standards

3. QRIS Pilot Findings (continued) • Providers believe observation tools are valuable and appropriate • Documentation from providers varied substantially • Providers value QRIS Pilot • Providers have some misconceptions about QRIS Pilot • Providers reported impact of QRIS Pilot on program quality

4. EDC Recommendations for revising QRIS Standards & Documentation • Streamline the number of standards within each level • Include a dictionary of terms used in the QRIS • Clarify the requirements for each standard by listing the types of criteria that are expected to meet that standard • Provide additional guidance about the number and types of documentation required and/or acceptable to EEC • Provide additional guidance regarding the QRIS Standards exemption rule for providers. • Align the QRIS with NAEYC Accreditation standards, NAFCC, NOA, Head Start Program Standards, etc. as well as the various Environmental Rating Scales, including providing guidance around acceptable scores (e.g., ECERS-R)

5. EEC Response to Recommendations • EEC launched QRIS Provisional Standards Study • Primary goal of study is to update QRIS System based on evidence and stakeholder feedback

6. QRIS Provisional Study Logic Model

7. Timeline of Activities & Outputs

8. Overview of Activities • Review FY2010 documentation • Conduct literature review • Gather stakeholder feedback • Crosswalk of QRIS with other standards • Analysis

9. Activity: Review FY2010 Documentation • Review all pilot documentation • Provide recommendations to EEC regarding acceptable documentation for each standard • Verify each program’s self assessment rating

10. Activity: Literature Review • Gather documentation on the evidence-base related to each standard • Develop a scale to define the strength of the evidence associated with each standard (e.g., strong, moderate, minimal) • Present recommendations in the context of other states’ QRIS programs

11. Literature Review Example Standard with Strong Research Evidence Program has a written policy that addresses the importance of positive educator-child relationships and interactions that is shared with parents. • Evidence: 4 experiment research studies found in peer reviewed journals

12. Literature Review Example of Standard with Strong Evidence: Program director or administrator qualifications and education level • Evidence: 3 experimental research studies published in peer review journals

13. Literature Review • Example Standard with Minimal Research Evidence Room arrangement provides sufficient space for the age of thestudents served to accommodate a variety of activities from which they can choose. • Evidence: To date no peer review journal articles have been found supporting this standard.

14. Literature Review Example standard with mixed research evidence Educator completes a written progress report on children at the beginning, mid year and end of the program’s year, or at least three times in a twelve month period, and shares them with parents • Evidence: One study states “In early childhood, progress monitoring measures have only recently been applied to the process of intervention decision-making.” The study by Walker et al published in a peer review journal describes progress monitoring in early childhood settings and “illustrates how they can be used within a larger problem-solving model to guide intervention decisions for infants and toddlers.” To date, no experimental studies have been found on this standard.

15. Activity: Crosswalk • Side-by-side comparison of QRIS Standards with: • NAEYC • NAFCC • Head Start • PAS • Arnett • APT • BAS • CLASS • DEC/OSEP

16. Cross Walk Example Example Family Involvement Standard • Example school based standard: 4.A2.1 - Family input is solicited on an annual basis through a family survey in the primary, or preferred, language of the family • Example SACERS item that aligns: [34.7.2] Parents involved in decision making roles (Ex: parent representatives on board, yearly evaluation of program, input from parents sought regarding program content).

17. Example Cross Walk Example Family Involvement Standard • Example family child care standard: 4.A2.1 - Family input is solicited on an annual basis through a family survey in the primary, or preferred, language of the family • Example ITERS items that align: [33.3.3] Some possibilities for parents or other family members to be involved in children’s program.; [33.7.1] Parents asked for an evaluation of the program annually; [33.7.3] Parents involved in decision-making roles in program along with staff (Ex. Parent representatives on board) • Example NAEYC item that aligns: [7.B.03] Program staff inform families about the program's systems for formally and informally assessing children's progress. This information includes the purposes of the assessment, the procedures used for assessment, procedures for gathering family input and information, the timing of assessments, the way assessment results or information will be shared with families, and ways the program will use the information • Example FCCERS item that aligns: [35.3.3] Some possibilities for parents or other family members to be involved in children’s program • Example PAS that aligns: [16.3.2] The staff ask families about their values, beliefs, and cultural and child-rearing practices during the intake process

18. Activity: Gather Stakeholder Feedback • Surveys, Interviews & Regional Forums • Collect and summarize feedback and provide recommendations • Engage public schools and provide recommendations on the barriers to participation • Presentations to EEC Board, Committees, and Advisory Council

19. Activity: Analysis • Completion rates • Relevant gaps in standards/measures/documentation • Resources that EEC could provide • Licensing history

20. Interim Outputs • Literature Review document • Crosswalk document • Summary of stakeholder input and data • Draft report (October 15th) • Draft refined standards

21. Ultimate Outputs • Final report (November 15th) • Final revised standards • Final list of acceptable documentation • EEC to launch updated QRIS System

22. Goal • QRIS System is updated based on evidence base and stakeholder feedback • Revised QRIS System is launched in January 2011