Massachusetts’
Quality Rating and Improvement System
Standards
Overview
2

Purpose of QRIS

Overview of QRIS Provisional Standards
Revision Process & Stakeholder Feedback

The proposed QRIS Standards

Next Steps
Massachusetts General Law
“The department shall establish a comprehensive system for
measuring the performance and effectiveness of programs
providing early education and care and services.”
“The department shall monitor and evaluate on an ongoing
basis all early education and care programs and services,
including program outcomes in meeting the developmental
and educational needs of all children.”
M.G.L. c. 15D § 12 Measurement of performance and effectiveness of programs providing early
education and care and services
M.G.L. c. 15D § 2(h) Measurement of performance and effectiveness of programs providing
early education and care and services
3
Create and implement a system to improve and
support quality statewide
Related Indicators of Success



4
Massachusetts has standards for quality in early
education and care programs that are research-based,
broadly understood, successfully implemented, culturally
appropriate, and aligned with a quality-building support
system.
Massachusetts has a system that collects, analyzes and
disseminates program quality and child outcome data to
inform policy and program development and
implementation.
Programs seeking to improve their quality have access to
a range of resources and supports.
Purposes of Massachusetts’ QRIS
Programs and providers use one streamlined set of
standards that are connected to supports and fiscal
incentives to help them meet and maintain the standards.
 Programs receive feedback and are involved in continuous
quality improvement.
 Parents have easily accessible information about the
quality of early care and education programs.
 Policymakers understand where and how to invest
additional resources.

High-quality early education and care and out of school
opportunities are available throughout the Commonwealth that
demonstrate improved outcomes for children.
5
Standards, Assessment and Accountability
Teacher Quality
EEC Core Competencies
Professional Qualifications
Registry
(PQ Registry)
Family &
Community
Context
Program Quality
(QRIS)
Child
Outcomes
(formative and summative assessments)
6
Overview of the Standards
Level 5: Best practice and
demonstrable child growth
Level 4: Full Integration
Level 3: Focused Development
Level 2: Self-Assessment
Level 1: MA Licensing
7
Stakeholder Input in the development of the MA
QRIS
• Defines the policy for
quality standards and
measurements for
use in the statewide
QRIS
• Provide input to
inform decision that
support high quality
practices
EEC Board
EDC Team
• Provides a
mechanism
to reflect on
process, practice and
offer evidence-based for
quality, and desired
outcomes for children
8
Community
Stakeholders
EEC
• Share strategies to
support effective
implementation
and meaningful
participation
• Defines
administrative
procedures
• Provides oversight and,
guidance
• Provides resources to
support QRIS
implementation
2008
• EEC received guidance from EEC Board and EEC
Advisory Team (Feb. - March 2008)
• Anne Mitchell presented overview of the QRIS Systems
to EEC Board (March 2008)
• Initial QRS Stakeholder team developed the concepts
scope, purpose and mission of MA QRS. Evolved into
MA QRIS
• EEC presents at CAYL QRIS Roundtable (July 2008)
QRIS At –A– Glance
2007 – 2009
2009
2007
• EEC began conducting early
research to set the stage for the
design of the MA QRS.
• EEC contracted with consultant to
conduct initial research on QRS
design, and system models.
9
• QRIS Standards presentation to Board (Jan. 2009)
• ASOST Stakeholders Group convened
• Draft posted for public input (Mar -June 2009 (377 survey
respondents)
• EEC conducted presentations to over 900 members of the
field about QRIS
• EEC reconvened the QRIS External Stakeholder team (June
2009)
• Provisional Standards were reviewed and revised [evidencebased and measurable (Nov. 2009 - Jan. 2010)
• Feedback gathered from stakeholders at events with The
CAYL Institute (12/16/2009)
QRIS At – A– Glance
Jan – March
• Feedback provided on
Provisional Standards at
Advisory Team Meeting
(1/29/2010),Wheelock
Mtg. (2/2/2010).
• QRIS Provisional Standards
Approved by EEC Board
(2/17/2010)
• EEC held five regional
forums to allow providers
the opportunity to hear
more about QRIS
initiatives, including the
Pilot and the grant. (March
- April 2010)
• To assist in piloting the
QRIS ~$3.3M in quality
improvement funds were
made available for grants
of up to $10,000 per
program. (March 2010)
10
April – July
• QRIS grantees (640) had
opportunity to use and “test
out” the QRIS Provisional
Standards. QRIS grantees
used fund to engage in
quality improvement
activities to move to next
level in the standards. (April June 2010)
• 840 programs and providers
completed a QRIS Application
and self-assessment, using the
Provisional standards during
the piloting phase.
• EEC purchased and made
available Environment Rating
Scale Tools (ECERS, ITERS,
FCCERS, SACERS)
• EEC begins development of
QRIS Web-based Application
development
January – October 2010
Aug - Sept
• EEC contracted EDC to
evaluate the QRIS Provisional
Standards and engage in a
series of activities to make
standards more streamlined,
less duplicative, informed by
research.
• EEC through EDC conducted
crosswalks of 10
observational measurement
tools, Head Start
Performance Standards and
3 national accreditation
standards (NAEYC, NAFFC,
COA) (Sept)
• Together for Quality grant to
manage FY 11 Grant process,
provide training and TA, and
conduct monitoring for FY 10
grantees Grantee awarded
3.4M
• EEC was selected to
participate in the QRIS
Learning Table State Network
QRIS Standards
Revision Process
and Stakeholder Feedback
Principles Guiding Standards Revision Process

Standards already required by the Massachusetts
licensing regulations were eliminated

Standards were eliminated that:
Lacked a strong research base
b) Do not have an objective basis for providing
documentation
c) Are not aligned with existing standard measures
d) Are not in line with best practice as articulated by
stakeholders and in other states’ QRISs
a)

12
Standards were collapsed into categories when
documentation is the same for multiple standards
QRIS Standards Revision Activities
13

Gathered input from EEC stakeholders on QRIS revision process and
proposed revisions (October – Nov 2010)

Proposed revisions were posted to EEC website and QRIS standards survey
was posted. (Nov 2010)

Planning and Evaluation Committee reviewed evidence and made
recommendations to Board regarding Workforce Professional Development
standards (e.g. should standards be individually focused or focused on
program level quality (Nov 2010)

Additional revisions to Workforce and Professional development standards
were made informed by additional research and stakeholder feedback.

Revisions posted on EEC website and QRIS standards survey, was updated to
gather additional feedback. (Nov 2010)

Presented revisions process, Proposed Revised QRIS Standards to key
stakeholders, gathered feedback on standards, measures, and documentation
at meeting at Wheelock College. (11/30/2010)

EEC disseminated emails to ~28K providers listed in the Registry and
encouraged programs to review proposed revisions to Provisional Standards
via survey. (Dec)
Opportunities for Stakeholder Feedback
5 Regional
Forums
2 Conference
Calls
Focus Groups &
Interviews
QRIS Standards
Survey
QRIS Dialogue
Meeting
14
 Over 400 individuals
participated in Regional
Forums
 30 telephone interviews
completed
 Over 775 surveys completed
to date
 50 individuals
in attendance
at QRIS Dialogue Wheelock
(11/30/2010)
Stakeholder Feedback: Key Themes Identified
 Comments about standards revision process
 Concerns that some standards may be challenging for
programs and providers to achieve
 Requests for clarification of expectations related to
measurement tools and documentation requirements
 Inquiries about Program Support and Professional
Development, Implementation, and Communications
15
QRIS Standards Survey
Do the Proposed QRIS Standards
Measure Quality?
Percent of Respondents that Strongly Agree or Agree that the
Proposed Revisions to Center/School-based Standards Measure Quality
100
Strongly Agree
90
Agree
80
70
60
44
66
50
39
50
47
45
42
42
37
40
30
20
10
0
17
39
36
24
1A. Curriculum, 1B. TeacherAssessment,
Child
and Diversity Relationships
and
Interactions
27
28
31
37
31
37
2. Global
3A.
3B. Program
4. Family
5A.
5B. Supervision 5C. Community
Environment Administrator
Staff
Involvement Administration
Involvement
Qualifications Qualifications
Management
and
and
and
and Leadership
Collaboration
Professional Professional
Development Development
Percent of Respondents that Strongly Agree or Agree that the
Proposed Revisions to Family Child Care Standards Measure Quality
100
Strongly Agree
Agree
90
80
70
60
47
59
60
41
50
32
38
32
31
40
33
40
30
20
36
32
36
10
0
18
1A. Curriculum, 1B. TeacherAssessment,
Child
and Diversity Relationships
and
Interactions
2. Global
Environment
25
3A. Family
Child Care
Educator and
Professional
Development
29
35
4. Family
5A.
5B. Supervision 5C. Community
Involvement Administration
Involvement
Management
and
and Leadership
Collaboration
Percent of Respondents that Strongly Agree or Agree that the
Proposed Revisions to ASOST Standards Measure Quality
90
Strongly Agree
80
Agree
70
60
27
42
41
50
35
24
19
41
40
32
37
34
30
20
42
37
31
31
38
37
10
0
19
1A. Curriculum, 1B. TeacherAssessment,
Child
and Diversity Relationships
and
Interactions
2. Global
3A. Program
3B. Site
3C. Group
Environment Administrator Coodinator
Leader
Qualifications Qualifications Qualifications
and
and
and
Professional Professional Professional
Development Development Development
25
25
32
33
4. Family
5A.
5B. Supervision 5C. Community
Involvement Administration
Involvement
Management
and
and Leadership
Collaboration
Percent of Respondents that Strongly Agree or Agree that the
Proposed QRIS Standards Measure Quality
All QRIS Standards
100
Center/ School Based
Family Child Care
After School/ OST
90
80
70
60
50
40
90 91
83 83
69
30
89
79
75 77 72
82
78
77
66
58
65
62
66
56
73
64
59
79
69
64
75
70
20
10
0
20
1A.
1B. Teacher2. Global
3A.
3B. Program
3C. Group
4. Family
5A.
5B.
Curriculum,
Child
Environment Administrator
Staff
Leader
Involvement Administration Supervision
Assessment, Relationships
Qualifications Qualifications Qualifications
Management
and Diversity
and
and
and
and
and Leadership
Interactions
Professional Professional Professional
Development Development Development
5C.
Community
Involvement
and
Collaboration
Stakeholder Responses to Revised Standards
21

Vast majority of survey respondents agree that
new standards reflect quality early education and
care.

Some suggestions for changing standards were
proposed.

Analysis reveals that providers are less likely to
agree that standards reflect quality when the
standards are challenging to achieve.

Questions exist about how to reach standards.
Like the Provisional QRIS Standards,
the proposed QRIS Standards still:





22
Contain 5 categories, which are customized for each QRIS
program type with five levels to measure quality within in each
category and uses a block system.
Have strong language for the use program improvement plan
(based upon self-assessment findings) and individualized
professional development plans (IPDP).
Are measured as being met by a set of specific criteria, such as
having a license in good standing, verification of professional
development and Educator qualifications in the PQ registry, the
use of the observational tools, ECERS-R, ITERS-R, FCCERS-R,
SACCERS, and APT), submission of related documentation, and an
on-site verification with the ERS tools.
Include Head Start Performance Standards and Accreditation as an
option to demonstrate how a program meets certain standards
Offer an opportunity to request an exemption for one
standard.
Highlights: Proposed Revisions Made In Response to Feedback

Safe, Healthy Indoor and Outdoor Environments standards include
revised language emphasizing the importance of healthy, safe, and nurturing
environments.
 Sinks for hand washing are reincorporated to address recommended
health practices associated with reducing poor health outcomes.
 Workforce and Professional Development revised to focus on the
program level quality vs. individuals.
 Family & Community Engagement Standards were updated to included
community involvement standards and clarify the roles of Educators in
making comprehensive services. New language recognizing community
collaboration as a pathway to quality. Programs and educators are
encouraged to use existing networks, such as CFCE programs, family child
care networks, Head Start partnerships, as a resource for supporting
children and families.

Leadership, Management, and Administration standards now address
program staff retention and paid staff planning time.
 Fiscal audit criteria is revised to include roles other than CPA’s qualified
to conduct a 3rd party fiscal review.
23
Highlights: Proposed Revisions Made In Response to Feedback

Supervision Standards have been enhanced to better incorporate
the importance of reflective supervision, and the role of peers,
mentors, and coaches.

After School/ Out of School Time Standards have been revised
to reflect the diversity found in programs (programs purpose, and
unique workforce qualities).

Center/ School Based are designed so that 100% of classrooms
will have at least one Educator with a B.A. in related field by level 4

Family Child Care Standards criteria for site visits by B.A. level staff
have been adjusted from weekly visits to two visits per month.
24
Summary of Comments and Responses

Curriculum, Assessment & Diversity Concerns were raised about the
frequency that progress reports should be completed and expectations to engage
in formative assessment practices.
 EEC acknowledges the importance of having a clear balance between time
focused on teacher and child interactions to support learning and time spent
assessing children’s developmental progress and learning to
 The use of child assessment systems and screening in early childhood
settings is an important method to support developmentally appropriate
individualized teaching and is an integral piece of high quality programming.
 Family and Community Engagement Concerns were articulated that the
additional opportunities for sharing progress reports with parents were too
frequent; offering family support was not perceived as central to role nor needed
by all families, and developing written collaborative agreements seemed
burdensome.
 As a Strengthening Families Affiliate, Massachusetts has been working to
build the protective factors known to reduce child abuse and neglect.
 Strategies that facilitate children’s social and emotional development,
increase parent’s understanding of their own child’s development, and help
link families to services and opportunities are known to build these
protective factors, and considered indicators of quality.
25
Summary of Comments and Responses

Health Standards Some stakeholders shared that the health standards
seemed lost and needed their own subcategory again.
 MA has strong health and safety requirements in the licensing
regulations. A separate health standard would be redundant as it is also
covered in the Environment Rating Scales and is aligned with other
measures.

Health Care Consultants ® Several stakeholders had strong concerns
requiring annual consultation visits (Level 2). Concerns included health
consultants role and related expenses.
 Both the national health and safety standards and NAEYC identify child
care health consultation as an important component of a high quality ECE
program. NAEYC accreditation criteria (visit at least 2 times
a year, and 4 times for I/T).
26
Summary of Comments and Responses

Environment Rating Scales (ERS) vs. Accreditation Many
stakeholders voiced concerns about the use and function of national
accreditation in the standards.
 ERS systematically examine global quality and allow programs and
external stakeholders to view data on each variable related to quality
 ERS data allow programs and stakeholders to examine comparable
elements of quality across programs
 MA recognizes that accreditation presents a useful measure of quality,
but does not allow programs or stakeholders to compare programs

27
Point vs. Block System Additional comments about the selected block
rating structure were offered (i.e., building blocks, points, combination of
block and points).
 In 2009, the decision to use the block system was made requiring that
programs meet the expectations of all criteria in in all categories of
standards.
 The proposed QRIS Standards will continue to use the block structure,
as it offers a consistent system for demonstrating and measuring
quality.
Proposed
Massachusetts
Quality Rating and Improvement System
Standards
(QRIS Standards)
Features of Proposed QRIS Standards
Revised QRIS Standards Are Above and Beyond
Licensing = Quality 
Many higher levels exceed criteria in other states’ QRIS
Each level reflects increasing levels of quality
Based on strong research ®
Aligned with other existing measures 
In line with best practice 
In other states’ Quality Rating and Improvement Systems 
Articulated by stakeholders 
29
Proposed Structure of the Standards
Level
Revised
Standard
Required Observation
Measure (ERS)
Additional
Required
Observation
Measure
Required
Documentation
Head Start
Documentation
Option
Accreditation
Program
Documentation
Option
 Level: Follows the existing structure of block system. (Each program will still need to meet all requirements of standard
of the proceeding level before advancing to the next “level”).
 Revised Standard: Using the principles guiding the revision process, these are the current standards presently referred
to as the Proposed Revisions to the Provisional QRIS Standards or proposed Provisional QRIS Standards (revised).
 Required Observation Measure: This column includes measurement tools that will be required by all QRIS participants
regardless of program type, or accreditation status, to ensure consistent of measurement tools across program type.
 Additional Required Observation Measure: This column has been added, to supplement the required tool, to
effectively measure additional process (teacher-child Interactions) and Structural (leadership & program
administration indicators of quality.
 Required Documentation: Materials that will be reviewed by EEC as “evidence” of meeting the Standard/
Measurement (i.e. evidence in PQ Registry, demonstrated used of the MA Curriculum Guidelines, and other MA
specific requirements).
 Head Start Documentation Option: This column lists the related Head Start Performance Standard, and the required
documentation that a Head Start program submits (i.e. MA specific and/or not addressed via Head Start Performance
Standards).
 Accreditation Program Documentation Option: This column list the related accreditation standard and the required
documentation that an accredited program will have to submit )i.e. MA specific and/or not addressed via the
30accreditation standards.
Example: Standards Structure with Documentation
Level
Level
3
Revised Standard
Meets Requirements of Level 2
PLUS
A daily two way communication system
is available between the educators and
families through a variety of means. 
Families are encouraged to volunteer
in the program, to assist in the
classroom, and share cultural and
language traditions or other interests
such as their jobs, hobbies and other
relevant information. ® 
Program ensures that there are
translators available, as needed, at
meetings, workshops and conferences
to ensure strong communication
between the program and families. 
Program participates in local
community group work that is related to
early childhood, and the cultural
groups served by the program and/or
family support. ®
Program ensures young children and
their families have access to
developmental, mental health, health
and nutrition services either through
private pay arrangements OR are
offered such services through other
programs. ®+ 
31
Required
Observation
Measure (ERS)
ITERS-R
AND/OR
ECERS-R
reliable rater
score average
of 5 with no
single item
below 4
Additional
Required
Observation
Measure
Program
Administration
Scale (PAS)
score of 5 or
higher by a
reliable rater.
Required Documentation
Document signed by
program administrator
describing the variety of
daily communication
methods (e.g. scheduled
telephone hour,
checklists, e-mail).
AND
Document signed by
program administrator
describing translators
used for all meetings
workshops and
conferences.
AND
Document signed by
program administrator
describing how the
program ensures
children and their
families have access to
developmental, mental
health, health, and
nutrition services either
through private pay
arrangements OR are
offered such services
through other programs
(such as, CFCE
program, mental health
providers, health care
providers, etc.
Head Start
Documentation
Option
Head Start item #
1304.41(a)(4)
1304.51(c)(1)
1304.51(c)(2)
Accreditation
Program
Documentation
Option
NAEYC item
#
7.B.01
7.B.05
7.A.07
8.A.01
8.A.02
Level 3
Family &
Community
Engagement
(Center-based
School-based)
Examples of Scaffolding:
Family Engagement Standard
Level 5: TBD
Level 4: Parents participate on the Advisory Board for the
program and are actively involved in the policy and
decision making for the program. 
Level 3: Families are encouraged to volunteer in the program, to assist in
the classroom, and share cultural and language traditions or other
interests (such as their jobs, hobbies and other relevant information). ® 
Level 2: Parents are offered opportunities to meet with
classroom staff, at least monthly. 
Level 1: Meets licensing standards
32
Example of Scaffolding: Program Staff Qualifications and
Professional Development Center/School Based Standard
Level 5: TBD
Level 4: All (100 percent) of the classrooms have
Educator(s) with a Bachelor’s degree or higher who work
for the full program day.®+
Level 3: 75 percent of classrooms have Educator(s) with a
Bachelor’s degree or higher who work for the full program
day.
Level 2: 50 percent of classrooms have Educator(s) with a
Bachelor’s degree or higher who work for the full program day.® All
educators have high school diploma or GED and a minimum of 3
college credits in early childhood education, or related field. 
Level 1: Meets licensing regulations
33
QRIS Measures and
Documentation
Research and Principles Guiding Measurement
Tools Selection and Documentation Expectations

Reviewed research and state QRIS and found:
• Environment Rating Scales (ECERS-R, ITERS-R, FCCERS-R, SACERS)
used by many states and supported by research.
• Other observation tools used by other states and supported by
research: PAS, BAS, APT, Arnett CIS, and CLASS

Reviewed Massachusetts standards and other measures and
found:
• ERS aligned with many measures
• PAS, BAS, APT, CIS, and CLASS aligned with some measures
• Accreditation aligned with many standards and used by some
states
• Head Start program performance standards aligned with many
standards

35
Focus on measurable and doable documentation.
MA QRIS Observation Tools and Documentation
36

Require ERS self-study for level 2 and outside reliable raters for
levels 3 and 4 for all QRIS Program types

Require ERS, PAS, BAS, APT.

Require as CLASS or Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale to assess
teacher/child interactions.

Require Strengthening Families self-assessment tool (Level 2)

Requires specific list of documentation, not reflected in
Observational tools (i.e. Use of Ma Preschool and Infant Toddler
Guidelines in Curriculum, documentation of workforce
qualifications and Professional development in the PQ registry).

Accredited and Head Start programs and providers are provided
information about alignment, that is “standard-specific”.
Environment Rating Scales
Program Quality Assessment Instrument
Rates 39 (ITERS) 43 (ECERS), 38 (FCCERS), 49 (SACERS) areas of analysis under the following 7 subscales:
Center / School- Based
ITERS-R
Family Child Care
ECERS-R
Out of School /Afterschool Programs
FCCERS-R
SACERS
Space and
furnishings
Space and
furnishings
Space and
furnishings
Space and Furnishings
Personal care
routines
Personal care
routines
Personal care
routines
Health and Safety
Listening and
Talking
Language and
reasoning
Listening and Talking
Supplementary Items (for
Activities
Activities
Activities
Activities
Interactions
Interactions
Interactions
Interactions
Program
Structure
Program
Structure
Program Structure
Program Structure
Parent and staff
Parent and staff
Parent and staff
Staff Development
4
6
children with special needs)
Ratings range from 1 to 7:
1
37 Inadequate
2
3
Minimal
5
Good
7
Excellent
Next Steps
Key Administrative Decisions
 Process/schedule to revisit the Standards for revision to ensure they are
informed by current research and best practice
Recommendation for Discussion: Every three years
 Acceptable frequency of use of observation tools/self assessments
Recommendation for Discussion: program must have completed the observation
measurement tool within a year of QRIS application submission date
 Process for communicating ratings to the public during FY2011 and beyond
Recommendation for Discussion: EEC to post FY2011 ratings on EEC website
(participants will be notified that this information will be shared publically)
 Parties that will be allowed to complete external ratings for programs
Recommendation for Discussion: Initially Staff trained as raters, EEC to discuss with
Planning and Evaluation Committee and analyze potential resources and options to
develop a recommendation.
 Acceptable Criteria for Equivalent Qualifications and Professional
Development to support program and educator participation in 2011.
 Recommendation for Discussion: EEC to discuss with Planning and
Evaluation Committee recommendations for grandfathering criteria for
early educators during the first year of implementation for educators
employed as of January 2011
39
Key Administrative Decisions

How does EEC handle applications for programs that are
in non-compliance with licensing?
Recommendation for Discussion: EEC will analyze the various levels of
non-compliance and make a recommendation
 How long does a program keep a rating?
Recommendation for Discussion: Up to 2 years, then revisit the
expectation to advance a level or demonstrate pathways to
advancement if a key quality indicator changes for the program
(e.g. if accreditation is revoked, expires etc. Can program apply more
often (before their rating expires); EEC proposes that 6 months from
time of verification, programs may resubmit a QRIS application.

The role of Family Child Care Systems in QRIS while
maintaining direct family child care educator participation (how they
work with their providers in the application process; are there
agreements/policies EEC needs to develop to ensure programs are
active in the process; do Systems maintain their fiscal responsibility)
Recommendation for Discussion: Systems can be involved in the
application process, but the programs must be directly involved with
their application and understand how their program can make
advancements on the QRIS
40
Implementation
Implementation
42

QRIS Program Manager a web-based, electronic QRIS
Application Process that enables programs to apply and
manage their QRIS application, includes interface for
verifying professional qualifications as submitted in the
PQ Registry ( Anticipated Launch Jan. 2011)

Communications Activities include the development of
QRIS FAQs and guidance for prospective QRIS
participants
Programs Supports
6 Regional Educator and Provider Support (EPS) Grantees to
provide coaching and mentoring, competency development and
intentional professional development
 6 Regional EOE Readiness Centers to provide coordination
between early education and care, elementary and secondary
education and higher education
 EEC Initiatives to build the system and support the programs and
educators include:
 Core Competencies
 Professional Qualification Registry
 Infant Toddler Physical Environments
 Environmental Rating Scale (ERS) Training
 Course development
• Literacy
• Core Competencies
• Preschool Guidelines
• Formative Assessments

43
Together for Quality (T4Q)




44
The Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) will provide
general oversight and planning support, ensure broad, statewide
access to funding and services, and monitor the quality and
implementation of T4Q.
The United Way has started to monitor and report on a sample of
FY2010 QRIS Program Improvement grants and is developing a
2011 QRIS Program Improvement grant process that will award
between 300-600 grants to programs in EEC’s mixed delivery
system statewide. (Grant funds must be expended by Aug 2011.)
The CAYL Institute will provide preliminary training in the QRIS
system to programs in EEC’s mixed delivery system statewide.
There will be two trainings in each region.
The Wheelock College Aspire Institute will serve as the lead
program agency, coordinating efforts across partners, as well as
oversee a Quality Coach program that will recruit, train and place
26 Quality Coaches to work with a sample of programs receiving
QRIS Program Improvement grants.