Transcript ECE Finance: Framing Our Discussion

QRIS Standards Learning Table
Session #3: Efficiency in Monitoring:
Streamlining Documentation
National Center on Child Care Quality Improvement
Introductions and Updates
• Introduce the state team (Name, title, agency)
AR DE KY MS NH NM OK TX
• Describe what your state team has been doing
with regard to revising your QRIS since our last
call?
• If a certain resource or idea has been
particularly helpful, tell us about that.
2
Key Point
Even a QRIS that appears simple
can become complex and
expensive to administer unless
steps are taken to streamline the
documentation procedures for
standards and sources of
evidence.
Sources of Evidence
For each standard you must:
• Clarify if/when documentation is required
Example: If you’ve already seen a source
of evidence in the past, do you need to
see it each year?
• Specify what documentation can be accepted
to verify compliance.
Efficiency Opportunity: Current
Assessment Tools as Source of Evidence
• Some Program/Classroom Assessment tools
measure the same content.
• Some Program/Classroom Assessment tools
measure criteria included in a state’s QRIS.
• Thus, a QRIS could use an Assessment tool –
such as ERS or PAS as the source of evidence.
Do the common tools measure the same concepts?
ECERS-R
FCCERS-R
CLASS
PAS
BAS





General Cognition
Social & Emotional
Development

Approaches to Learning

Heath/Physical Development




Business Practices
Family Involvement

Internal Communication

Leadership/Management
?






Efficiency Opportunity: Self-Report
• What standards are most appropriately
verified by self-report?
• What are effective procedures for validating
self-reporting?
• What documentation needs to be available for
review?
Efficiency Opportunity: Automation
• How can automation streamline the monitoring
process?
– Links to data-bases for licensing, registry, CACFP,
subsidy, accreditation
– Electronic scoring/reporting of ERS, CLASS, PAS/BAS
– Director portals or on-line applications (in real time)
that enable programs to upload evidence
– Provider-focused platforms that include downloadable
tools/templates to support compliance
Automation: Learning Table States
•
•
•
•
•
Links to Registry: AR, DE, NH (OK developing)
Links to Licensing: DE, KY, NM, OK, TX
Links to PreK Monitoring: NM
Links to HS Performance Review: AR, DE, OK
On-line Upload of Documentation: AR, NM
Case Study: Maine
Michel Lahti, PhD
University of Southern Maine
QUALITY FOR ME – THE BASICS
• Licensing compliance
• Membership in MRTQ Registry
• Online application based upon a self-evaluation
Once the on-line application is submitted, the
provider immediately receives feedback from the
Quality for ME system regarding the anticipated
Step level
• Portfolio of documentation (random)
• On-site Observations (random)
The General Approach
• Web-based application
• Linkage to licensing database and PD Registry
– Relieves burden for all applicants
– Improves data quality in QRS application
– Feedback loop also improves data quality in linked database
• Criteria cross-walked with Accreditation criteria
• Self-report on remaining items
– About 50 specific questions if no Accreditation
– Reduced to just 5-10 questions depending on Accreditation
• Immediate feedback on how to move to next step in
each area
• Individual and aggregate reports shared with R&R
centers to facilitate technical assistance
QRS Step in Each of Eight Areas:
• compliance history/licensing status
• learning environment/developmentally appropriate
practice
• program evaluation
• staffing and professional development
• administrative policies and procedures
• parent/family involvement
• family resources
• authentic assessment
Criteria for achieving steps cross-walked with standards for the
following:
• NAEYC Accreditation
• NAEYC Candidacy
• National Association of Family Child Care Providers Accreditation
• National After School Association Accreditation
• American Montessori Society Accreditation
• Head Start: Zero Non-compliance Issues at Last Review / All
Non-compliance Issues at Last Federal Review Resolved
Key Data Linkages
Quality Rating
System
Univ of Maine, Orono
program license #
self-reported data
calculated data
…
Program
Licensing
MeDHHS, Augusta
program license #
contact info
capacity
license status
license expiration
type of program
…
Maine Roads To Quality (Prof Dev Registry)
Univ of Southern Maine, Portland
provider ID
provider education
provider training record
license # of program where provider employed
…
Maine Roads To Quality (Prof Dev
Registry)
Univ of Southern Maine, Portland
program license #
accreditation
…
Improves Data Quality at
Linked Databases
Final Step rating of 3, a program would have to be on Step 3 or 4 across
all eight areas.
Immediate Feedback to Applicant
If you have any questions regarding how or why Step values are
determined, please contact Allyson Dean with the Quality for Maine
program.
Section Name
Steps
Compliance History/Licensing
Status
1
Learning
Environment/Developmentally
Appropriate Practice
2
Program Evaluation
1
Staffing and Professional
Development
1
Administrative Policies and
Procedures
4
Parent/Family Involvement
2
Community Resources
4
Child Observations
2
Overall the Program is at Step 1
Recommendations
Immediate Feedback to Applicant
Figure xx. Example of detailed automatic immediate feedback to provider on how to achieve
next steps in each area of QRS evaluation (abbreviated).
Recommendations
Compliance History / Licensing Status
Current step is #1.
In order to move to step #2:

Your facility must have no substantiated serious violations in the past year.
Learning Environment / Developmentally Appropriate Practice
Current step is #2.
In order to move to step #3:

At least 50% of lead teachers (per program site) working with children ages 3-5 must have completed
the training on implementing curriculum based on Maine’s Early Childhood Learning Guidelines.
Program Evaluation
Current step is #1.
In order to move to step #2:

Your program must provide an opportunity to identify strengths and weaknesses that is inclusive of
staff, families, and administrators

Staff must be given feedback regarding the yearly self assessment
and Professional
Development
(specificStaffing
recommendations
for
each of 8 areas)
Current step is #1.
In order to move to step #2:
Data Usage…
• Monitor Enrollments and Characteristics of
Programs
• ERS Scores – Focus on Areas of Strength and
Improvement
• Monitor Program Progress through Step Levels
• Monitor Supports to Programs
• Infrastructure for Evaluation Projects:
– Comparing QRIS to non-QRIS Sites
– Investigate QRIS Standards: Use of Child Level
Assessments
– Validation Study
Lessons Learned from Maine
• Intention is to Build a
System, an Infrastructure
to Help Align ECE
Programming
• System Operation
Requires Ongoing
Attention - Keep it Valid
and Reliable
• Develop Working
Partnerships with State
Program Administrators
and University Research
Staff
• Importance of
Translating Data from
QRIS Monitoring into
Information for
Decision-making
BENEFITS TO JOINING
QUALITY FOR ME…
• Ability to accept Child Care Subsidy and receive a
payment differential based upon Step Level
• Assistance in paying for Accreditation fees and
cohort supports (some facility improvement grants)
• On-site technical assistance
• Scholarships to pursue early childhood education
degrees
• Tax credits for parents and providers
Automation of QRIS Implementation
•
•
•
•
WELS (FL, NY)
MOSAIC (MI, CA)
BRANAGH (LA)
State - Developed Systems (AZ, ME, GA)
Web-Based Supports for Providers
The Raise Quality Tab on ECESharedResources.org:
• SharedSource PA,
• Child Care Tennessee,
• New Mexico Early Learning Alliance
• Oregon
Efficiency Opportunity:
Multi-Site Centers
• How is documentation streamlined for multisite centers?
• What information can be gathered from the
central office?
• What must be gathered at each site?
• What standards might be revised given a
multi-site management framework?
QRIS Administration with
Multi-Site Centers: State Examples
• New Mexico – Verify documentation at central
office
• Oklahoma – Head Start participation
• Georgia – Cohort structure
Verification: Effective and Efficient?
Standards Think Tank Participants thought the
most effective and efficient verification methods
were:
• Objective Third Party Observation/Assessment
• Electronic Link to Licensing, Registry or other
Official Database
• Self-Report with Verification of Random
Sample
Questions, Reflections, Comments?
Next Session - Homework
1. When you have revised your
state’s QRIS standards in the past,
what were the reasons for the
revision?
2. What data did you use to guide
your decision to revise the QRIS?
Thank You
National Center on Child Care Quality Improvement
NCCCQI does not endorse any non-Federal organization, publication, or resource.
Follow-up Contacts:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.qrisnetwork.org