UPK Alignment with QRIS
January 2012
0
UPK Policy Objectives Implemented in
FY11 and FY12

For FY11 and FY12, the following policy objectives were
implemented to begin alignment with UPK and QRIS:
1. For FY12, UPK programs were required to participate in QRIS by
June 1, 2011;
2. Programs shall use a portion of UPK funding to support progress
on QRIS for FY12;
3. An agreement to allow EEC staff to conduct on-site ECERS/FCCERS
reviews;
4. An agreement to provide staff information, including compensation
and education level, through EEC’s registry or other designated
mechanism; and
5. An agreement to provide child level data, with parent consent,
allowing children to be assigned a State Assigned Student
Identification (SASID) number.
1

UPK grantees were also notified that FY11 was a planning year
for the purpose of restructuring UPK in FY12 and beyond.

Subject to EEC Board approval, programs may be required to
be level 3 in QRIS by FY13.
Committee Feedback Regarding UPK
Alignment with QRIS
2

Over the past few months, various committees and
subcommittees convened to discuss ideas to align
UPK and QRIS and provided recommendations:
• The Planning and Evaluation Committee
convened on November 29, 2011 and
December 21, 2011.
• The K-12 & Higher Education Subcommittee
of the Advisory Board convened on
December 16, 2011.

The Full Advisory Council will address this issue at
the upcoming January 13, 2012 meeting.

The Committees generated 5 recommendations for
the Board to consider in the subsequent slides.
Recommendation #1: QRIS Level
3

Programs in UPK must be at least a level 3 in
QRIS.

Current UPK programs who do not satisfy level 3
in QRIS may be grandfathered in for one year.

Any program that attains level 3 in QRIS will be
considered a UPK program.
Recommendation #2: Access





4
Focus on “high needs children.”
Currently, Massachusetts defines “high needs
children” as those with sufficiently low household
incomes, those in need of special education
assistance, and other priority populations who
qualify for federal and/or state aid.
Massachusetts is moving toward a broader definition
of “high needs children.”
Programs will be required to conduct formative
assessments and screenings to identify “high needs
children.”
The documentation and assessment data will need to
be submitted to the EEC: in the past EEC has not
required programs to submit individual child
information.
Recommendation #3: Grant
Eligibility

To be eligible for a UPK grant, programs would have to
demonstrate they serve “high needs children” as
defined in the RTTT-ELC grant.
Programs would have to demonstrate that they serve
children with multiple risk factors that meet this broader
definition.
 This will include providing screening and/or formative
assessment scores for targeted group of children.

UPK programs must demonstrate movement toward
median salary for lead teachers.
 Program match is required.
 Grants will be competitive: potential grantees would
have to compete annually for funding.
 Programs will be required to demonstrate PreK-3
alignment with the school district in which they are
located.

5
Recommendation #4: Change the
Funding Formula
6

However, keep it as a grant to programs based
on revised numbers and criteria.

Formula based on the number or percentage of
high risk children the programs serve.

The amount is determined by 50% of the annual
full time subsidy rate per expansion child.

For current subsidy children, the add-on amount
will be less than 50% of the subsidy rate.
Recommendation #5: Use of Funds
7

Grants could be used to increase access to high
risk children, but spent on normal and expected
expenses when running an early childhood
program.

UPK funds should not be used to help programs
move up in QRIS because other funds will be used
for that.
Background Information
1. Review of UPK Policy Objectives Implemented in
FY11 and FY12
2. How UPK Compares to QRIS
3. Definition of “High Needs Children”
3. Materials on Preschool to Grade 3
8
Review of UPK Policy Objectives
Implemented in FY11 and FY12
9
UPK Funding Background






FY07: $4.6 million

Pilot implementation grants for Universal Pre-Kindergarten (UPK)
FY08: $7.1 million

Budget provided increase of $2.5M
FY09: $10.9 million (post 9c)

Budget initially provided an increase of $5M for UPK; reduced by $1.25M in
mid-year budget reductions
FY10: $8.0 million

Budget reduced funding by $2.9M

All grant awards were reduced by 37% from FY09
FY11: $7.5 million

Budget reduced funding by $500K

All grant awards were reduced by 5.23% to compensate for the cut in funding
FY12: $7.5 million

Grants are awarded for specific classrooms in a programs and have been
renewed yearly to date (with additional new grants being awarded in FY08
and FY09). A portion of each years funds were allocated to evaluation and
planning activities, as well as in FY07, FY08 and FY09 funding for Assessment
Planning grants to help programs move towards UPK eligibility).

Funding is determined by the number of children and portion of subsidized
children in each classroom, and operating hours and full or part-time/year
status.

10
Total classroom enrollment x $500 + total subsidized enrollment x $1500 =
total grant award [total is then prorated based on full or part-time/year
status]
UPK Grant Program Eligibility
Evolving to Align with QRIS
Criteria
FY07
FY08 FY10
FY11 and
FY12
EEC Licensed or License-Exempt



Use one of the EEC-selected assessment tools for at least
one year*



Use Early Childhood Program Standards For Three
and Four Year Olds and Guidelines for Preschool
Learning Experiences



Or
Used as
selection
priority
Have teacher/provider with BA in each UPK
classroom/setting
Have National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC) accreditation or New England Association
of Schools and Colleges or for family child care, National
Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC) accreditation or
a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential or higher
 **
Serve or willing to serve children receiving financial
assistance



Provide access to full-day full-year services



Participation in QRIS
11
 **

*The EEC-selected assessment tools include: Work Sampling, High Scope Child Observation Record (COR), Creative
Curriculum, Teaching Strategies GOLD and Ages and Stages (programs using Ages and Stages are transitioning to other
tools for the purpose of assessment).
**NEASC included in FY08 accreditation options; CDA or “higher” included in FY09 and forward as accreditation
alternatives for family child care.
UPK Grantee Overview
#
Program
Sites
# UPK
Classrooms/
Homes
# UPK
Children
# Cities/
Towns
FY12 UPK Current
Classroom Quality
Grantees
210
442
6,163
86
FY11 UPK Classroom
Quality Grantees
252
457
6193
107
277
464
6,400
97
293
481
6,600
97
216
311
5,700
94
130
192
3,000
60
Grant Program
FY10 UPK Classroom
Quality Grantees
(originally funded in
FY07, FY08 or FY09 and
renewed each year)
FY09 UPK Classroom
Quality Grantees
(originally funded in
FY07, FY08 and renewed
each year or new in FY09)
FY08 UPK Classroom
Quality Grantees
(originally funded in FY07
and renewed or new in
FY08)
FY07 UPK Classroom
Quality Grantees
12
UPK Studies on Classroom Quality:
Abt. Associates, Inc.

13
In the spring of 2009, EEC commissioned
Abt Associates, Inc. to conduct a study to:

(1) describe the quality of licensed and licenseexempt early childhood care and education
programs in the state that serve a majority of
subsidized children; and

(2) determine the extent to which these
programs are providing high quality learning
environments.
Abt Associates, Inc.’s Findings:
Quality of Preschool Programs
Emotional Support
• Average rating: 5.6 out of 7
Classroom Organization
• Average rating: 5.1 out of 7
Instructional Support
• Average rating: 2.6 out of 7
Overall quality across 3 domains
• 21% are high quality; 41% are average quality; 22%
are below-average quality; and 15% are low quality
Abt Associates, Inc.’s Findings:
Quality of Family Child Care
Emotional Support
• Average rating: 5.6 out of 7
Classroom Organization
• Average rating: 4.9 out of 7
Instructional Support
• Average rating: 1.8 out of 7
Overall quality across 3 domains
• 4% are high quality; 41% are average quality;
41% are below-average quality; 15% are low
quality
Abt Associates, Inc.’s Findings:
Differences in Quality of Care
Preschool programs
•
•
Instructional Support: significantly higher level
of quality in public school programs than either
Head Start programs or licensed child care
centers
No statistically significant differences by UPK
status
Family child care homes
•
No statistically significant differences by UPK
status
UPK Studies on Formative
Assessment: Oldham Innovative
Research

In the spring of 2010, EEC commissioned
Oldham Innovative Research to conduct a study
to:
(1) analyze the FY10 UPK child assessment data,
 (2) investigate what child assessment tools are
currently being used in Massachusetts, and
 (3) investigate how other states are utilizing their
child assessment data.


17
The study generated 9 recommendations that
are outlined on the next two slides.
* To see the full report, please go to the following website:
http://www.eec.state.ma.us/docs1/research_planning/20101103_upk_assessmen
t.pdf
Oldham Innovative Research’s
Recommendations




18
(1) Using web-based submissions as a way of
collecting data should be a requirement of UPK
grantees;
(2) EEC’s web-based licensees should indicate if
they are a UPK grantee and specify the program’s
UPK children;
(3) While UPK grantees should be allowed to assess
all of the children in their programs through the online license, they must delineate the children that
are enrolled in UPK;
(4) Increased and efficient communication with
family child care grantees that belong to a family
child care system needs to be systematically
planned in order to raise submission rates;
Oldham Innovative Research’s
Recommendations (cont…)





19
(5) Domain completion rates could be increased with
professional development;
(6) Professional development on how best to utilize the
web-based system of assessing children should be offered
annually;
(7) To determine specific professional development needs
for teachers as related to early childhood assessment,
EEC will need to depend on director interviews, teacher
interviews and/or focus groups or observation;
(8) Professional development coupled with technical
assistance should be a systemic part of offering UPK
grants and initiatives; and
(9) Provide professional development and technical
assistance to UPK grantees on how they can use their
aggregated child assessment data at the local level.
Sustainability/Program Drop Off

20
Various reasons for the drop in number
of programs participating in UPK:
 Program sites were closed;
 Accreditation for program revoked;
 Program failed to submit assessment
data; and
 Program not interested in continuing
with UPK.
How UPK Compares to QRIS
21
How UPK Compares to QRIS



22
UPK is based on six basic eligibility criteria:
 Licensed or license-exempt,
 Provides access to full-day full-year services,
 Serve or willing to serve children receiving financial assistance,
 NAEYC accredited for center-based and public school programs, and NAFCC
accredited or a CDA or higher for family child care,
 Uses the Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences,
 Uses one of the EEC approved assessment systems.
UPK funds allow programs to maintain and enhance quality criteria as they choose,
without defined measurable criteria to assess and improve quality.
QRIS offers a comprehensive way to assess, improve and communicate
quality to the field.
 Quality criteria is organized into standards and exceeds the scope of UPK
eligibility criteria. A few examples are:
 Curriculum and Learning: Assessment subcategory requires programs
implement developmental screening within 45 days of children’s
program entry, whereas only formative assessment is explicitly required
by UPK, and
 Workforce standards require that directors are not only trained in the
Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences, but also child
development and Strengthening Families protective factors.
 QRIS requires measurement of quality through environmental ratings by an
outside evaluator (ECERS, FCCERS, etc.)
UPK Eligibility Requirements Compared to
Level 3 QRIS

Below is a summary of how the UPK requirements align with the QRIS levels.







Many level 3 QRIS standards can be documented with accreditation, which is a
requirement of UPK,



23
Licensed or license-exempt
• Level 1
Provides access to full-day full-year services
• Not required in QRIS
Serve or willing to serve children receiving financial assistance
• Not required in QRIS
NAEYC accredited for center-based and public school programs, and NAFCC accredited or a CDA or
higher for family child care
• Accreditation may be used for documentation for select standards in levels 2 through 4
Uses the Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences,
• At level 3, programs are required to receive training on the Guidelines and at level 4 they are
required to align it with curricula, however UPK does not explicitly require either.
Uses one of the EEC approved assessment systems.
• QRIS does not require specific formative assessment tools, but states that at level 2
programs must receive professional development related to assessment, at level 3 the data
is used to set goals, and at level 4 to improve curriculum planning.
however some QRIS requires documentation in addition to accreditation for certain
standards, and
some standards cannot be met by accreditation at all.
A main difference between QRIS and accreditation is use of the environmental rating
scales (ERS tools).
Standards Beyond Which Accreditation Can be Used
to Document Meeting a Level 3 Standard
Category 1: Curriculum and Learning
Curriculum, Assessment and Diversity
1A.3.2 Staff has received formal professional development in the curriculum; using the MA Guidelines for
Preschool Learning Standards or Infant / Toddler Learning; documenting children’s progress; and
working with children from diverse languages and cultures and second language acquisition.
(documented with PQ Registry)
1A.3.4 Staff demonstrate language and literacy skills either in English or the child’s language that provide a
model for children. (documented with ERS tools)
Teacher Child Relationships and Interactions
1B.3.1 All staff engage children in meaningful conversations, use open-ended questions and provide
opportunities throughout the day to scaffold their language to support the development of more
complex receptive and expressive language, support children’s use of language to share ideas,
problem solve and have positive peer interactions. (documented with ERS tools and other QRIS
measurement tools)
1B.4.1 Staff utilize teaching strategies that ensure a positive classroom environment, engage children
in learning and promote critical thinking skills. (documented with ERS tools and other QRIS measurement
tools)
Category 2: Safe Healthy Indoor and Outdoor Environments
2A.3.2 Staff are trained in how to work with children with special diets, allergies and specialized feeding
issues. (documented with PQ Registry)
24
2A.3.3 Demonstrates healthy, safe and clean indoor and outdoor environments. (documented with ERS
tools)
Standards Beyond Which Accreditation Can be Used
to Document Meeting a Level 3 Standard
Category 3: Workforce Qualifications and Professional Development
Designated Program Administrator Qualifications and Professional Development
3A.3.1 Program administrator has at least a Bachelor’s degree. (as indicated in PQ Registry)
3A.3.2 Program administrator has at least 9 credit-bearing hours of specialized college-level course work
in administration, leadership, and management. (as indicated in PQ Registry)
3A.3.3 Program administrator has at least 24 credit-bearing hours of specialized college-level course
work in early childhood education, child development, elementary education, or early childhood special
education OR Documents that a plan is in place to meet the above qualifications within five years. (as
indicated in PQ Registry)
Program Staff Qualifications and Professional Development
3B.3.1 75 percent of classrooms have Educator(s) with a Bachelor’s degree or higher who work for the full
program day. (as indicated in PQ Registry)
Category 4: Family and Community Engagement
4A.3.2 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.
(documented with ERS tools)
4A.3.4 Program representative(s) participate in local community group work that is related to early
childhood, and the cultural groups served by the program and/or family support. (documented with
Program Administration Scale (PAS))
25
Standards Beyond Which Accreditation Can be Used
to Document Meeting a Level 3 Standard
Category 5: Leadership, Management and Administration
Leadership, Management and Administration
5A.3.1 Program tracks and monitors absences of individual children and contacts families when children are absent
more than 20% in a month.
5A.3.2 Program director, staff and family input is solicited on an annual basis through a survey to evaluate the
program. (documented with PAS)
5A.3.3 Results of the annual survey are used to develop a comprehensive written program improvement plan.
5A.3.4 Program has an annual review conducted of the accounting records by an independent party
who has accounting or bookkeeping expertise.
5A.3.5 Program tracks and monitors teacher turn over and has plan for addressing turn over.
Supervision
5B.3.1 Program uses at least 3 types of internal communication on a monthly basis to inform staff of
program activities, policies, etc.
5B.3.2 Staff receive at least one benefit (paid vacation time, sick time, health insurance, tuition/PD
reimbursement or retirement plan option). (documented with PAS)
5B.3.3 Staff are given feedback that give examples of best practice at least twice a month. (documented with PAS)
5B.3.4 The program has a system to support the career development of staff through a career ladder (e.g.,
regularly scheduled time to meet with a supervisor or mentor to monitor progress towards career goals).
(documented with PAS)
26
5B.3.5 Staff salary scales reflect the educational levels, experience and performance levels, as determined by the
annual evaluation of the staff members, and is comparable with the current wage level of others in the
community with the same levels of education. (documented by PAS)
Definition of “High Needs Children”
27
Broader Definition of “High Needs
Children”

28
Include children who have multiple risk factors linked to
poor school and life outcomes:
i.
Children and parents with special needs;
ii.
Children whose home language is not English;
iii.
Families and children involved with multiple
state agencies;
iv.
English language learners;
v.
Recent immigrants;
vi.
Children with parents who are deployed and are
not living on a military base;
vii. Low-income households; and
viii. Parents with less than a high school education;
ix.
Children who are homeless or move more than
once a year.
Broader Definition of “High Needs
Children” (cont…)

The state estimates that as many as 135,000
children from birth to age five face one or more
risk factors each day that could lead to toxic
stress, with as many as 20,000 (15%) facing
three or more risk factors that without
intervention are likely to lead to developmental
delays.*
*National Center for Children in Poverty. Young Child Risk Calculator.
Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/tools/risk/
29
P-3 Alignments:
Key Principles and Elements
30
Mission Statements Support Alignment
Department of Early Education and Care

provide the foundation that supports all children in their development
as lifelong learners and contributing members of the community,
and supports families in their essential work as parents and
caregivers.
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

strengthen the Commonwealth’s public education system so that every
student is prepared to succeed in postsecondary education, compete
in the global economy, and understand the rights and
responsibilities of American citizens, and in so doing, to close all
proficiency gaps.
Head Start
Improve Children’s school readiness outcomes and promote
changes that integrate children into a continuum of high-quality
early care and education spanning from birth to age eight.
31
Children Experiencing Multiple Risks in MA
32
Key Principles in the P-3 Alignment
1. Horizontal alignment
2. Vertical alignment
3. Temporal alignment
33
Principle 1: Horizontal Alignment
34

Horizontal
alignment

Vertical
alignment

Temporal
alignment
Horizontal alignment
is created by using
consistent learning
approaches within an
age range or grade.
Principle 2: Vertical Alignment



Horizontal
alignment
Vertical
alignment
Temporal
alignment
3rd grade
2nd
grade
1st grade
K
Pre-K
35
Vertical alignment
is created by using
consistent learning
approaches across
ages or grades.
Principle 3: Temporal Alignment

Horizontal
alignment

Vertical
alignment

36
Temporal
alignment
Temporal alignment
is created by using
consistent learning
approaches across a
child’s day.
Need to evaluate alignment on
several parameters
Balance: the degree to which the two
documents address the same domains
Depth: the degree to which the two
documents address the same specific skill
and knowledge within a domain
Difficulty: the degree to which the
expectations within the two documents
reflect a similar level of difficulty or age-level
37
Kagan, Scott-Little, Reid & Greenburg, 2007
Data from the Office Of Head
Start Summit, “On the Road to
School Readiness”
presented by Catherine Scott-Little
on February 15-17, 2011
Baltimore, MD
What does P-3 look like in
Massachusetts?
A coordinated and collaborative
approach
38
Instructional
Tools and
Practices
Mechanisms for
Cross-Sector
Alignment
Teacher Quality &
Capacity
Data and
Assessment
Cross Agency
Collaboration
on P-3
Transitions and
Pathways
(school and
Classroom)
Engaged Families
Administrators &
Leadership
Quality
39
Instructional
Environment