Transcript Minnesota Quality Information and Rating System Scaling

Minnesota Quality Rating and
Improvement System Scaling Options:
Presentation to Early Childhood
Committee
Anne Mitchell
Louise Stoney
MN Work Group
February 16, 2010
Agenda

Goal & Process

Guiding Principles

3 QRIS Options

Financial Worksheets

Design Elements & Trade-offs

Existing Funding
Goal & Process

Goal: Provide Early Childhood Caucus with financial
models to be used to determine costs of implementing a
statewide QRIS

Process: National experts with QRIS and finance
knowledge, supported by local work group providing
Minnesota-specific information and context
Guiding Principles
1.
Outcome focus: Improve children’s school readiness.
2.
Empower parents
3.
Use the research
4.
Value cultural relevance
5.
Increase quality
6.
Link and leverage
7.
Dynamic and responsive
Design Elements & Trade-offs



Quality Assurance
Data System
Supports for Improvement




Incentives





Professional development for practitioners
Technical assistance for programs
Facility improvements
Program
Practitioners
Consumers/parents
Communications/marketing/outreach
Evaluation
3 QRIS Options
Option
Annual Cost – Full
Implementation
Parent Aware Statewide
$50.284 million
North Carolina
$60.580 million
Maine
$9.641 million
Option 1: Parent Aware Pilot Model


Quality assurance - annual onsite observations of every
program
Supports




Incentives


No professional development, facilities improvement, or
practitioner incentives within QRIS
Directive technical assistance
Average quality grants of $2,400/program
Pre-K Allowances
Explicit focus on school readiness
Option 1: Parent Aware Pilot Model

Pros







Focused on school readiness
Builds on pilot infrastructure and momentum
Programs receive quality improvement reports
Strong evaluation of outcomes
Parent-focused
Focus on supporting culturally-specific providers
Cons



Expensive quality assurance
Pre-K Allowances were not renewed
Not yet validated (in process)
Option 2: North Carolina Model


Quality assurance – streamlined standards
Supports




Incentives



Builds on the state’s very strong existing professional
development and technical assistance infrastructure
Responsive TA
Facilities improvement funds
Wage subsidies for providers
Tiered reimbursement linked to ratings
100% participation – linked to licensing
Option 2: North Carolina Model

Pros


Streamlines cost by embedding QRIS in overall ECE system
Cons


Licensing-based system would not automatically include
school-based programs in Minnesota
Significant shift from Parent Aware pilot model




Responsive technical assistance
Shared monitoring
Provider and practitioner funding linked to QRIS
Minnesota lacks North Carolina’s existing ECE resources for
technical assistance and professional development
Option 3: Maine Model


Quality assurance – provider-directed with desk
monitoring and online provider handbook
Supports




Responsive technical assistance through existing providers
Strong existing professional development system
Tax credits for facility improvements
Incentives

Quality bonuses to providers based on ratings
Option 3: Maine Model

Pros




Least expensive
Least arduous for providers
Like Parent Aware, QRIS is linked to professional development
registry
Cons


Embedded in state’s professional development system, which is
much stronger than what exists in Minnesota
Requires stronger evaluation component to validated
connection between ratings and school readiness
Next Steps