Massachusetts’
Quality Rating and
Improvement System
(QRIS)
Overview of revised standards and
initial pilot design
Overview

Purpose of MA QRIS

Standards – process for development,
content, public comment

QRIS Pilot – options, public comment

Next steps

Direction from the Board
Questions for the Board’s
consideration:
3

Do you have any concerns about the standards,
or their evidence, as they are currently written?

Which programs should be invited to participate
in the pilot?

How should the UPK and Head Start grants be
integrated into the QRIS pilot?

Do you agree that the QRIS, as planned to be
piloted, will help programs to be involved in
continuous quality improvement?
Purposes of Massachusetts’ QRIS
4

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)
Heard that the Standards were complicated
 Concerns about whether truly evidence-based


5
Standards were reviewed and revised in order to
ensure that they are clear, evidence-based and
measurable (Nov 2009 – Jan 2010)
MA QRIS Standards
6

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
QRIS Standards - Categories

7
Topics covered within each category:

Curriculum and Learning: curriculum, assessment,
teacher child relationships and interactions, special
education, children with diverse language and
cultures

Environment: indoor, outdoor, health and safety

Workforce Qualifications and Professional
Development: directors, teachers, teacher
assistants, consultants

Family Involvement

Leadership, Management and Administration:
administration, management and leadership,
supervision, evaluation, community involvement
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
Example: Center-Based: Curriculum and Learning - Curriculum
Level
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Standard
Meets Licensing regulations
Meets Requirements of Level 1 PLUS
Program uses a written comprehensive curriculum that reflects
diversity in its approach, is developmentally appropriate for the children
served, and is aligned with the MA Guidelines for Preschool Learning
Experiences
Measurement
License in good standing
Curriculum from an approved list or submission of the
curriculum for review
Schedule includes specific time each day for reading to children
either individually or in small groups
Teacher uses Materials Checklist in Early Childhood
Program Standards for 3 and 4 year olds.
Materials are sufficient, in good condition, reflect the language and
culture of the children in the classroom and are appropriate to the age of
the children in the class
Meets Requirements of Level 2 PLUS
Staff has received formal training in the curriculum and uses the MA
Guidelines for Preschool Learning Standards to guide their planning of
the written weekly lesson plans
Use of the ITERS (if appropriate) and ECERS
Daily schedule includes individual, small group, child initiated and
teacher directed activities
Level 4
Meets Requirements of Level 3 PLUS
Alignment of the Curriculum with the MA Guidelines for Preschool
Learning Standards is documented in the daily/weekly lesson plans
Staff receive ongoing training and supervision with feedback to
ensure fidelity to the curriculum model
Program supports reflective teaching practices for staff through the
use of peer groups, coaches and /or mentors.
Schedule includes built-in staff planning time
Level 4 +
Level 5
9
Meets Requirements of Level 4 PLUS
Accredited by a national organization
TBD
Daily schedule includes a time allotment of at least 15
minutes for reading to children
Documentation of the staff training in the MA Guidelines
for Preschool Learning
Documentation of the staff training in the curriculum and a
review of the lesson plans
An outside reliable rater administers the ITERS (if
appropriate) and the ECERS with a total score of 4.0 or
better with a sub-score of at least 3.0 in all areas
Documentation of the training (Registry), review and
documentation of the process for supervision, feedback
and reflective practices.
Review of lesson plans and documentation of reflective
teaching practices such as videos, journals, meeting notes
or portfolios
An outside reliable rater administers either:
ITERS (if appropriate) and ECERS with a total score of 5.0
or better with a sub-score of at least 5.0 in all areas
OR
CLASS with a total score in the high range
Current accreditation certificate
TBD
Center-Based: Workforce Qualifications and PD: Teacher
Level 1
Level 2
Standard
Meets Licensing Regulations
Meets Requirements of Level 1 PLUS
Child Development Associate's credential for the age of the children served, with a minimum of
12 credits in early childhood education/child development/special education.
Measurement
License in good standing
Registry
Review of the PDP
Teacher has in Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP) that is developed in conjunction
with the Supervisor that addresses the identified training needs of that teacher.
IPDP ensures that the teacher is trained in the MA Guidelines for Preschool Learning, diversity, oral
language development, supporting children's literacy development, and the Strengthening Families
protective factors.
Level 3
Teacher IPDP addresses the actions and timelines that are required to move to the next level
Meets Requirements of Level 2
PLUS
Meets National Association of Early Childhood Education teacher requirements or timelines
Or
Associate's degree, with a minimum of 30 credits in early childhood education/child
development/special education and enrolled in a program leading to a baccalaureate degree in early
childhood education/child development or a related field.
Registry
Review of the PDP
IPDP ensures that the teacher receives training in the components of the assessment process
including screening, observation, use of assessment tools and IDEA processes
Level 4
Teacher IPDP addresses the actions and timelines to move to the next level
Meets Requirements of Level 3
PLUS
Meets National Association for the Education of Young Children teacher requirements or
timelines
Or
Baccalaureate degree in early childhood education/child development/early childhood special
education including certification as a Teacher of Young Children with Special Needs or Early Intervention
Specialist (DPH) or a related field with 36 credits in early childhood education/child development/early
childhood special education
Registry
Review of the PDP
PDP ensures that the teacher receives training in selection and use of screening and assessment
tools, collection and interpretation of data and strategies for teaching children with special needs and
diverse languages
Level 4 +
Level 5
10
Meets Requirements of Level 4 PLUS
Accredited by a national organization
TBD
Current accreditation
certificate
TBD
Family Child Care: Workforce Qualifications and PD: FCC Provider
Level 1
Level 2
Standard
Meets Licensing regulations
Meets Requirements of Level 1 PLUS
Measurement
License in good standing
Registry
High school diploma or GED
Review of the IPDP
Child Development Associate's credential (CDA); (or higher i.e. AA or BA) for the age of the
children serve
Has a minimum of 24 months experience as a Family Child Care Provider
Provider has an Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP) that addresses their identified
training needs.
IPDP ensures that the provider is trained in the MA Guidelines for Preschool Learning, diversity, oral
language development, supporting children's literacy development, and the Strengthening Families
protective factors.
Level 3
Provider’s IPDP addresses the actions and timelines that are required to move to the next level.
Meets Requirements of Level 2 PLUS
CDA (or higher i.e. AA or BA) with 15 college credits in early childhood education, child
development, and/or special education.
Registry
Review of the IPDP
Has a minimum of 36 months experience as a Family Child Care Provider
IPDP ensures that the provider receives training in the components of the assessment process
including screening, observation, use of assessment tools and IDEA processes
Level 4
Provider’s IPDP addresses the actions and timelines to move to the next level
Meets Requirements of Level 3 PLUS
Associates Degree in early childhood education, child development, early childhood special education
or a related field with 24 credits in early childhood
Registry
Review of the IPDP
Has a minimum of 60 months experience as a Family Child Care Provider
Level 4 +
Level 5
11
IPDP ensures that the provider receives training in selection and use of screening and assessment
tools, collection and interpretation of data and strategies for teaching children with special needs and
diverse languages
Meets Requirements of Level 4 PLUS
Accredited by a national organization
TBD
Current accreditation
certificate
TBD
School-Age: Workforce Qualifications and PD: Teacher
Level 1
Level 2
Standard
Meets Licensing Regulations
Meets Requirements of Level 1 PLUS
Child Development Associate's credential for the age of the children served, with a minimum of
12 credits in working with school age children/special education.
Measurement
License in good standing
Registry
Review of the PDP
Teacher has in Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP) that is developed in conjunction
with the Supervisor that addresses the identified training needs of that teacher.
IPDP ensures that the teacher is trained in the Curriculum Frameworks, diversity, oral language
development, supporting children's literacy development, and the Strengthening Families protective
factors.
Level 3
Teacher IPDP addresses the actions and timelines that are required to move to the next level
Meets Requirements of Level 2
PLUS
Associate's degree, with a minimum of 30 credits in working with school age
children/special education and enrolled in a program leading to a baccalaureate degree in education
or a related field.
Registry
Review of the PDP
IPDP ensures that the teacher receives training in the components of the assessment process
including screening, observation, use of assessment tools and IDEA processes
Level 4
Level 4 +
Level 5
12
Teacher IPDP addresses the actions and timelines to move to the next level
Meets Requirements of Level 3
PLUS
Baccalaureate degree in elementary education/early childhood education/ special education
including teacher certification or a related field with 36 credits in elementary
education/special education
PDP ensures that the teacher receives training in training in literacy strategies, assessment tools,
collection and interpretation of data and strategies for teaching children with special needs and diverse
languages
Meets Requirements of Level 4 PLUS
Accredited by a national organization
TBD
Registry
Review of the PDP
Current accreditation
certificate
TBD
Highlights: Measurement
13

Documentation of meeting the standards will be done through having a license in
good standing, document submission, use of the following tools, verification in the
workforce registry, and onsite monitoring using the ERS tools (ECERS, ITERS,
FCCERS, and SACCRS)

Tools selected to reduce self-report by programs and instead move to use of
common tools. Many of these tools are available free of charge and EEC will work
to make them available on its website. Tools now in the standards include:

Curriculum: Materials Checklist in the Early Childhood Program Standards or NAFCC (Level
2); Optional: CLASS (Center/School, Level 4)

Teacher Child Relationships: Self-assessment tool to monitor classroom climate such as
Arnett (Level 2); Arnett Scale completed by outside reviewer (Level 4)

Children with Diverse Languages: Self-assessment using the ECERS or ELLCO
(Center/School, Level 3); Use of the Pre-Las or other valid instruments to determine
child’s primary language (Level 4)

Outdoor: Use of a certified playground inspector (Center/School, Level 3)

Health and Safety: Use of the California Health Scale as a self-assessment (Center/School,
Level 3)

Family Involvement: Strengthening Families self-assessment tool (Level 2)

Leadership, Management and Administration: Optional: Program Administration Scale by
outside validator or NAEYC validation visit
Similarities between previous version and
current version of Standards
14

All 9 categories of standards in previous version have
been consolidated into current 5 categories of
standards

Licensing continues as the foundation at Level 1

Points criteria in previous Levels 2 & 3 informed
revision of standards. Intent of points criteria is
reflected in current standards

Current standards have a level that reflects the value
of national accreditation
Highlights: ERS tools

Many states have a strong role for the ERS tools in their
QRIS standards – 14 of 18 states include. Variations in way
included*:





MA Standards have a strong role for the ERS tools




Level 2 – use the tools for self assessment
Level 3 – score of 4.0 or higher, with no sub-score below 3.0, by
outside reliable administrator
Level 4 – score of 5.0 or higher in all areas by outside reliable
administrator
ERS vs. CLASS


15
ERS Scores are used to determine rating levels: 7 states
Program can earn rating points for ERS scores: 4 states
Program must be assessed with ERS, but does not tie particular
scores to ratings: 2 states
Self-assessment tool: 1 state
ERS is more broadly focused on the environment, whereas CLASS
focuses on instructional practice, teacher child interactions and
the content of the teacher's instruction in the classroom
Decided to use ERS tools as foundational building blocks and selfassessment tools, and introduce CLASS at higher levels and
through professional development
* From NCCIC presentation at the 2009 Smart Start conference http://www.smartstartnc.org/conference/2009/Handouts09/528.ppt
Highlights: National Accreditation
16

We heard concerns about:
 the reliability of national accreditation measuring
quality;
 the costs of pursuing national accreditation; and
 the lack of research studies that validate the value
of national accreditation

We also heard support for national accreditation
 Because it’s a national model
 The benefit of programs going through a
standardized process
 The state’s investment to date in national
accreditation

Revised the standards to:
 Have a Level 4 + for accreditation, because of
block system will still need to document evidence
of meeting earlier criteria
Highlights: Workforce Qualifications
17

We heard feedback about:
 The QRIS standards needed to lay out a pathway
for workforce qualifications
 The Workforce Taskforce made some preliminary
recommendations about a career lattice
 How would the career lattice and QRIS align?

Revised the standards to:
 Provide a pathway describing the workforce
qualifications for Directors, Teachers, Family Child
Care Providers, Assistants, and Consultants
Highlights: License-Exempt
programs
License exempt programs = public school preschool, some
Montessori and or religious elementary schools
18

We heard concerns about:
 Having different entry points into the QRIS for license
and license-exempt programs at Level 1
 Concerns about not having license-exempt programs
meet basic health and safety standards as codified in
licensing at Level 1

Revised the standards to:
 Rely on precedent in Income Eligible re-procurement
 License-Exempt programs will use the Center and
School-Based standards. They will have to demonstrate
they can meet licensing standards at Level 1.
Highlights: Strengthening Families
19

Massachusetts is a Strengthening Families Affiliate State.
Strengthening Families is a national parenting and family
strengthening program for high-risk families.

We heard feedback about:
 How could we incorporate the work Massachusetts was
doing as a state on Strengthening Families into the QRIS
standards?

Revised the standards to:
 Include the Strengthening Families framework as a
training topic for Directors, Teachers, Family Child Care
Providers and Assistants
 Added criteria that starting at Level 2, programs and
providers must use the Strengthening Families selfassessment tool
Public Comment
QRIS Moving Forward, CAYL 12/16/09
20

Concern: Missing national accreditation
Response: Created a Level 4+ for national
accreditation

Concern: Language in Environment section about
meeting ADA requirements
Response: Revised language to clarify “Program
meets ADA accessibility requirements that are readily
achievable”

Question – Did the education requirements in the
workforce section apply to all teachers?
Response: Yes, the intent is all teachers at a site or
meets NAEYC timeline (for Center-Based and Public
School)
Additional Public Comment:
Since the standards were posted in late December EEC has received
additional feedback:
21

Concern: Duplication of efforts for Head Start programs and programs
pursuing NAEYC because of the structure of the building blocks.
Programs would need to submit material to up to three systems.
Response: Common materials could be used to submit to each
system.

Concern: Some of the standards at each level seem impossible.
Response: These standards set forth a set of standards based on
research and best practice. Together need to figure out supports to
help programs achieve these standards.

Concern: If programs perceive they won’t get far up the levels, why
would they participate?
Response: Over time the state will increasingly focus its resources on
programs who can demonstrate quality. QRIS will be used as a way to
identify these programs. EEC recognizes, based on other other states’
experiences, that there will be a start-up period as programs get
involved in the QRIS and the supports to programs evolve.

Concern from the Advisory Team about not having sufficient time to
review the current standards before coming to the Board
Response: QRIS will be on the the Advisory Team agenda on 1/27/10
QRIS Pilot
22
QRIS Pilot – Spring 2010
23

Invite a selected group of programs to participate in
the pilot

Through the pilot EEC will test out the rating system
and the monitoring tools

EEC will work to develop fiscal incentives from ARRA
and other sources for FY2011 to encourage programs
to move up to the next level

Will continuously reflect on pilot, seeking ways to
improve in preparation for full implementation

Family and Consumer Engagement campaign will be
part of full implementation, not pilot, because need to
have enough programs involved
QRIS Pilot - Timeline

February – May 2010
Train reviewers to reliability on ERS tools
 Invite selected programs to submit documentation
for rating


June 2010


July – September 2010


EEC staff review documentation and determine
eligibility for ratings
Do onsite reviews, primarily for ERS ratings
Concurrently
Rebidding Professional Development
 Programs will continue to receive EEC funding, of
which a portion could become dependent on
completing the rating process
 Determine other sources to support program
quality

24
QRIS Pilot – Participants

25
Who should be invited to participate in the pilot?
 For consideration - state intends to align access to
program quality supports with having a QRIS rating.
Interested in ensuring that programs where state is
invested continue to have access to program quality
supports

Option 1: *Recommendation*
• Current UPK grantees
• Head Start programs, and
• Income eligible contract providers (center-based,
public school, family child care and school-age)

Option 2:
• Any interested program
• Set quotas for setting type
• During review process, prioritize programs where
state already invested
QRIS Pilot - Fiscal Incentives

In FY2011
 Seek additional funding to help with targeted program
improvements
For consideration: UPK and Head Start grants are grants the state
currently gives to a set of programs for quality improvement
activities

26

Option A) Award UPK and Head Start grants, encourage grantees
to participate in QRIS

Option B) Invite UPK and Head Start programs to be part of the
pilot. Award first half of grant. Receiving the second half of the
grant would be contingent on earning a rating and submission of
a plan for using the grant to improve rating
In FY2012 – If have additional funding consider distributing fiscal
incentives using a formula, such as:
QRIS Level
Level 1 = $
Level 2 = $$
Level 3 = $$$
Level 4 = $$$$
Level 5 = $$$$$
(A)
+
Total
Program
Subsidized
*
Enrollment
X
$$$
(B)
=
Total QRIS
Grant
(A+B)
Public Comment about the Pilot:
Since posting the QRIS Standards and talking about the potential QRIS
Pilot, EEC has received public feedback:
27

Feedback – An original guiding principle was not to do this until we
had money for new fiscal incentives and a program and practitioner
supports. There do not appear to be any new fiscal incentives or
sufficient program supports, why are you doing this now?
 Related feedback - Understanding that QRIS is a necessary
system component to be eligible for the Early Learning Challenge
Grant and we don’t want to jeopardize our chances for that
Response: In order to be competitive for the Early Learning
Challenge Grant, Massachusetts must move ahead with a QRIS.

For the pilot, what EEC is offering are not truly fiscal incentives. The
UPK and HS grants are already given to programs for a particular
purpose. What is the incentive for income eligible programs to
participate?
Response: EEC is interested in piloting with programs where the
state already has an investment for low-income children. EEC will
seek additional investments to build program quality.

I thought the QRIS was going to be voluntary? Making a program’s
grant contingent on participating in the QRIS does not seem
voluntary?
Response: Over time the state intends to align access to its quality
resources with participation in the QRIS.
Public Comment received:
28

Concern: It seems to be a conflict of interest to have the licensor also
be the QRIS rater/reviewer.
Response: This is to be worked through during the pilot. Suggestions
include: licensors would not review programs in their caseload;
Regional Provider/Educator and Family/Community Engagement
Specialists could be involved in reviews; in future, when funding
available could consider contracting out this function.

For the pilot, why these groups of programs? Will there be public
schools? Will there be independent family child care providers
Response: The recommended group of program represents a mix of
age types – I/T, PreK, and SACC, and setting types. A small number
of public schools and independent family child care providers are
included through UPK.

How will we have the resources to take this to scale? We want to
make sure that what we’re piloting is what we want to take to scale.
Response: Through the pilot we will learn a lot about the resources
needed to take this scale, in terms of:
 supports needed for programs to meet the standards,
 resources to award an accurate rating,
 fiscal incentives to participate in the QRIS.
QRIS Next Steps:
29

Pilot the QRIS this spring
 Pilot rating and monitoring process
 Ensure connection between PD
procurement and QRIS
 Complete workforce registry

There will be an opportunity after the
pilot to step back and consider any
necessary changes to the Standards or
Rating process, and continue developing
the QRIS through a continuous
improvement process
Questions for the Board’s
consideration:
30

Do you have any concerns about the standards,
or their evidence, as they are currently written?

Which programs should be invited to participate
in the pilot?

How should the UPK and Head Start grants be
integrated into the QRIS pilot?

Do you agree that the QRIS, as planned to be
piloted, will help programs to be involved in
continuous quality improvement?