Quality Rating and Improvement System
(QRIS) Provisional Standards Study
EEC Board
Preliminary Recommendations
Overview
 Update Board on status and findings of QRIS Provisional
Standards Study
 Compare Massachusetts QRIS with other state’s QRIS
 Present key themes
 Present QRIS Provisional Standards Study recommendations
Study Update and Findings
 Analysis of alignment with Massachusetts licensing regulations
114 standards in QRIS are covered by licensing regulations
 Analysis of alignment with existing measures
Multiple standards are included in Environment Rating Scales (ITERS-R,
ECERS-R, FCCERS-R, SACERS), National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC), National Association for Family Child Care
(NAFCC), Head Start Performance Standards, Program Administration
Scale (PAS), Caregiver Interaction Scale (Arnett), After-School Program
Practices Tool (APT), Business Administration Scale (BAS), Classroom
Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), DEC Recommended Practices
 Analysis of research evidence base
412 peer reviewed journal articles and book chapters reviewed
Many MA QRIS standards lack specific evidence-base
 Comparison with other states
Each standard was compared with standards of 20 existing state QRIS
Study Update and Findings



Input from experts and stakeholders

Five regional forums have been held with stakeholder groups across the state; two additional
conference calls will be held for others interested in participating (November 10, 2010 at 7:00pm
and November 12, 2010 at 1:00pm)

EEC stakeholders agree that standards should be streamlined and should be evidence-based

Stakeholders recommend reorganizing standards to represent scaffolding
Review of existing regulations and research base suggests streamlining standards

Limited research exists on some measures

Many existing standards are covered by ERS, other tools or accreditation
Comparison with other states’ QRIS

Most other states use existing measures such as ERS to document standards

All but one other state take program-level approach to professional development standards

MA has substantially more standards than any other state including Pennsylvania
Example PA: Complicated QRIS
Example PA: Complicated QRIS
Example PA: Complicated QRIS
Example Illinois: Simple QRIS
Preliminary Recommendations
 Eliminate standards that are already required by the Massachusetts
licensing regulations
 Collapse standards when covered by ERS and other measures
 Reorganize standards to ensure scaffolding approach is presented
 Eliminate standards that:
a) do not include a strong research base
b) do not have a clear basis for documentation
c) are not aligned with existing standard measures
Preliminary Recommendations
 Review other states’ approaches and accreditation standards
regarding professional development at program level rather than
individual level
 Post proposed standards and obtain input from provider
community to ensure revised standards represent best practice
(not just research)
 Produce final streamlined standards to incorporate best practice,
EEC stakeholder feedback, and evidence
Key Outstanding Policy 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 (resolved
issue versus legal orders) and make a recommendation
 How long does a program keep a rating (if a key quality indicator changes for
the program (e.g. if accreditation is revoked, expires etc.) and if a program chooses,
can they apply more often (before their rating expires); do they have the opportunity
to update their information (if so, what is the process and how is this
communicated)
Recommendation for Discussion: Up to 2 years, then revisit the expectation to advance a level
 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
Key Outstanding Policy 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 assessments/self assessments
Recommendation for Discussion: program must have an assessment that was completed within a year
of QRIS application
 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: EEC to discuss with Planning and Evaluation Committee and
analyze potential resources and options to develop a recommendation.
Curriculum Proposed Changes
 Delete standards covered in licensing guidelines
 Collapse into two categories
 Curriculum, learning, diversity and assessment
 Teacher/child interaction
 Require ERS to demonstrate meeting most standards
Environment Proposed Changes
 Delete standards covered by licensing regulations
 Collapse into other categories as ERS are already included in
other categories
Family Involvement Proposed Changes
 Delete standards covered by regulations
 Streamline number of standards within each level
 Require ERS for Levels 3 and 4 as documentation of family
involvement
Leadership, Management and
Administration Proposed Changes
 Delete standards covered by licensing
 Merge Evaluation into Administration, Management and
Leadership
 Require PAS or accreditation for documentation
 Add collaboration to community involvement
 Allow programs to collaboration or reach out through existing
networks such as family child care networks, Head Start
partnerships, etc.
 Require programs to verify that networks offer collaborative
services
Environment Rating Scales
Program Quality Assessment Instrument
 Rates 43 (ECERS), 38 (FCCERS), 39 (ITERS), 49 (SACERS) areas of analysis
under the following 7 subscales:
ECERS
FCCERS
ITERS
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
Language and
reasoning
Listening and Talking
Listening and Talking
Supplementary Items (for
children with special needs)
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
 Ratings range from 1 to 7:
1
Inadequate
2
3
Minimal
4
5
Good
6
7
Excellent
Example Scaffolding Approach: Curriculum
Level 5: TBD
Level 4: Staff demonstrates completion of
professional development in curriculum,
screening tools, and formative assessment (as
demonstrated by registry)
Level 3: Staff include parental input in the
progress reports (ERS Score of 5)
Level 2: Materials reflect the language and
culture of the children in the classroom (ERS
Score of 3)
Level 1: Meets licensing standards
18
Example Scaffolding Approach: Environment
Level 5: TBD
Level 4: Environment is safe, stimulating and
sufficient for meetings with parents as
evidenced by ERS Score of 7
Level 3: Environment is safe and stimulating
as evidenced by ERS Score of 5
Level 2: Environment is safe and clean as
evidenced by ERS Score of 3
Level 1: Meets licensing standards
19
Example Scaffolding Approach: Family
Involvement
Level 5: TBD
Level 4: Parents participate on the Advisory
Board as evidenced by ERS Score of 7
Level 3: Families are encouraged to volunteer
in the program to assist in the classroom as
evidenced by ERS Score of 5
Level 2: Families are given opportunities to
meet with classroom staff as evidenced by
written document verifying such opportunities
Level 1: Meets licensing standards
20
Example Leadership, Management and
Administration
Level 5: TBD
Level 4: Program staff and advisory board are
involved in the development of the business plan and
it is reviewed periodically for updating (ITERS-R score
7 or ECERS-R score 7 or NAEYC)
Level 3:Program director, Staff and Family input is
solicited on an annual basis through a staff survey to
evaluate the program (PAS score of 5)
Level 2: Communication provided quarterly to
staff and families in their primary or preferred
language as evidenced by ERS of 3
Level 1: Licensing
21
Proposed Next Steps
 Proposed preliminary standards are posted to EEC website
 November 16th Planning and Evaluation Committee meeting: review
evidence and make recommendations to Board regarding professional
development standards (e.g. should standards be individually focused
or program level)
 Gather input from EEC stakeholders through surveys and interviews
 Revise preliminary standards based on stakeholder and EEC input
 Present key discussions and recommendations to key stakeholders and
Board at meeting at Wheelock College (November 30th)
 Present standards for discussion and vote at December Board meeting
 Launch revised standards in January 2011