Massachusetts’
Quality Rating and
Improvement System
(QRIS)
Purposes of Massachusetts’ QRIS
2

Parents have easily accessible information about
the quality of early care and education
programs.

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.

Policymakers understand where and how to
invest additional resources.
Process for developing QRIS
Standards

Guidance from EEC Board and EEC Advisory Team
(Feb. - March 2008)

Group of internal and external stakeholders created a
draft (Feb. – Nov. 2008)

Presentation to Board about QRIS Standards (Jan.
2009)

Draft posted for public input (Mar – June 2009)


3
Heard that the Standards were complicated
Concerns about whether truly evidence-based

Standards were reviewed and revised in order to
ensure that they are clear, evidence-based and
measurable (Nov 2009 – Jan 2010)

Feedback gathered from stakeholders at event with
CAYL on 12/16, Advisory Team mtg, email
submissions, and at an event with Wheelock on 2/2
Comments on the Standards
received during last month from:














4

CAYL summarized the feedback gathered at the 12/16
event
Participants on EEA conference call on QRIS
Mav Pardee, Children’s Investment Fund
Nancy Marshall, Wellesley Centers for Women
Ellen Gannett, NIOST
Ronna Schaffer and Early Head Start collaborative
providers
Nancy Topping-Tailby and the MA Head Start Association
Kay Lisseck and Directors in Western Mass.
Gwen Morgan, Wheelock
Marcia Ferris, MAEYC
Beverly Prifti, CC Family Child Care System
EEA Public Policy Committee
EEC Board Program and Policy Committee
EEC Advisory Team
Stakeholders at 2/2 event at Wheelock
MA QRIS Standards
5

Standards Categories:
 Curriculum and Learning
 Environment
 Workforce Qualifications and Professional
Development
 Family Involvement
 Leadership, Management and Administration

Customized for:
 Center and School Based
 Family Child Care
 After-School and Out of School Time
Overview of the Standards
Level 5: Best practice and
demonstrable child growth
Level 4: Full Integration
Level 3: Focused Development
Level 2: Emerging Practice
Level 1: Awareness
6
Revisions to Standards over last month:
Comment
Response
Placement of Headstart Performance
Standards and Accreditation
Include as an option at level 4, documentation will be
required for all items not included in Standards or
Accreditation.
Concern: Language in Environment
section about meeting ADA
requirements and other criteria
Edited language with input from the Children’s
Investment Fund. Removed criteria on toilets in each
classroom.
Concern: 5 interest areas is too many
for Center-Based or FCC
Revised to 4 interest areas, and 3 for Infant/Toddler
with input from Wellesley Centers for Women.
Concern: Quarterly visits by health
care consultants for FCC is not
feasible
Changed to annual visits
Concern: Some language not
appropriate to FCC
Edited language. Changed Provider to Educator.
Changed classroom to learning environment. Changed
needing proof of written agreements to formal and
informal agreements and access to. Changed
playground to access to an outdoor space
Concern: Standards not appropriate
for Infant Toddler
Edited language to include Infant Toddler Guidelines,
when developed
Suggestion to use APT in lieu of
SACCRS
Added as an alternative to SACCRS
Concern about degrees vs.
competencies
Strengthened language about developing competency
through individualized professional development plans
Interest in realigning order of criteria
7on special education
Made recommended changes
QRIS Standards – Block System
Massachusetts Standards are now a
Building Blocks System – Must do
everything at Level 1 before progressing
to Level 2, etc.
Is this common nationally?*
8

Building blocks - All standards in a level must be
met to move to the next level: 13 states - DC, DE,
IN, KY, MD, ME, MT, NH, NM, OH, OK, PA, TN

Points systems - Standards are assigned a point
value, which are calculated to determine ratings: 3
states - CO, NC, VT

Combination - A combination of building blocks and
points used to determine ratings: 2 states - IA, LA
* From NCCIC presentation at the 2009 Smart Start conference http://www.smartstartnc.org/conference/2009/Handouts09/528.ppt
National Accreditation and Head
Start Performance Standards
9

Debate about how best to recognize value of national accreditation and
the Head Start Performance Standards and temper any possible
weakness in each system

Nationally other states include NAEYC in the following ways to reach
the top level:
 Must be NAEYC accredited: 2 states
 NAEYC + Additional Criteria: 8 states
 NAEYC + Additional Criteria OR Separate Set of Criteria: 3 states
 NAEYC in points scheme: 4 states
 No recognition of NAEYC: 2 states

Recommendation is:
 At Level 4, Programs may provide evidence of meeting the criteria
detailed at Level 4 in the QRIS Standards, OR
 Programs may provide evidence of being currently nationally
accredited AND providing evidence of meeting a set of MA specific
criteria from the previous levels
• Programs may substitute being currently accredited with
meeting the Head Start Performance Standards (having no
deficiencies during their PRISM review)
License- Exempt Programs
10

Debate about defining quality starting from basic
health and safety (i.e. licensing regulations) vs.
other attributes; and the difficulty of one
particular aspect of the mixed delivery system to
meet elements of these standards.

Recommendation is:
License-Exempt Programs will use the Center
and School-Based Standards. They will have to
demonstrate that are “licensable” at Level 1.
Measurement Tools
11

Intent to move documentation of
standards away from self-report to use
of standard tools. Concern that there are
too many tools. Also concern that there
are not enough tools that measure
process/interaction quality.

Recommendation: Tools currently
measure different items, use the
existing tools in the pilot and review at
the end. 4 tools are required at only one
level, other levels have fewer tools.
QRIS Pilot and Next Steps:
12

QRIS Pilot will provide opportunity to continue
refining standards, asking questions about
equivalencies and efforts needed to implement,
and validity.

Next steps:
 Board vote on the existing QRIS standards to
be used in a pilot of Massachusetts QRIS.
 Develop parameters and evaluation questions
for the QRIS Pilot
 Launch pilot of QRIS Spring 2010