UPK Alignment with QRIS

1
UPK Alignment with QRIS

• January 2012

2
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
• For FY12, UPK programs were required to
  participate in QRIS by June 1, 2011
• Programs shall use a portion of UPK funding to
  support progress on QRIS for FY12
• An agreement to allow EEC staff to conduct
  on-site ECERS/FCCERS reviews
• An agreement to provide staff information,
  including compensation and education level,
  through EECs registry or other designated
  mechanism and
• An agreement to provide child level data, with
  parent consent, allowing children to be assigned
  a State Assigned Student Identification (SASID)
  number.
• 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.

3
Committee Feedback Regarding UPK Alignment with
QRIS

• 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.

4
Recommendation 1 QRIS Level

• 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.

5
Recommendation 2 Access

• 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.

6
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.

7
Recommendation 4 Change the Funding Formula

• 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.

8
Recommendation 5 Use of Funds

• 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.

9
Background Information

• 1. Review of UPK Policy Objectives Implemented
  in FY11 and FY12
• How UPK Compares to QRIS
• Definition of High Needs Children
• 3. Materials on Preschool to Grade 3

10
Review of UPK Policy Objectives Implemented in
FY11 and FY12
11
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.
• 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

12
UPK Grant Program EligibilityEvolving 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 ? ? ?
Have teacher/provider with BA in each UPK classroom/setting Or Used as selection priority
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 ?
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.
13
UPK Grantee Overview
14
UPK Studies on Classroom Quality Abt.
Associates, Inc.

• In the spring of 2009, EEC commissioned Abt
  Associates, Inc. to conduct a study to
• (1) describe the quality of licensed and
  license-exempt 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.

15
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

16
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

17
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

18
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.
• 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/docs
  1/research_planning/20101103_upk_assessment.pdf

19
Oldham Innovative Researchs Recommendations

• (1) Using web-based submissions as a way of
  collecting data should be a requirement of UPK
  grantees
• (2) EECs web-based licensees should indicate if
  they are a UPK grantee and specify the programs
  UPK children
• (3) While UPK grantees should be allowed to
  assess all of the children in their programs
  through the on-line 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

20
Oldham Innovative Researchs Recommendations
(cont)

• (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.

21
Sustainability/Program Drop Off

• 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.

22
How UPK Compares to QRIS
23
How UPK Compares to QRIS

• 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 childrens 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.)

24
UPK Eligibility Requirements Compared to Level 3
QRIS

• Below is a summary of how the UPK requirements
  align with the QRIS levels.
• 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.
• Many level 3 QRIS standards can be documented
  with accreditation, which is a requirement of
  UPK,
• 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).

25
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 childrens
  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 childs 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 childrens 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)
• 2A.3.3 Demonstrates healthy, safe and clean
  indoor and outdoor environments. (documented with
  ERS tools)

26
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
  Bachelors 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 Bachelors 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)

27
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)

28
Definition of High Needs Children
29
Broader Definition of High Needs Children

• Include children who have multiple risk factors
  linked to poor school and life outcomes
• Children and parents with special needs
• Children whose home language is not English
• Families and children involved with multiple
  state agencies
• English language learners
• Recent immigrants
• Children with parents who are deployed and are
  not living on a military base
• Low-income households and
• Parents with less than a high school education
• Children who are homeless or move more than once
  a year.

30
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/

31
P-3 AlignmentsKey Principles and Elements
32
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 Commonwealths 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 Childrens 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.

33
Children Experiencing Multiple Risks in MA
34
Key Principles in the P-3 Alignment

1. Horizontal alignment
2. Vertical alignment
3. Temporal alignment

35
Principle 1 Horizontal Alignment

• Horizontal alignment
• Vertical alignment
• Temporal alignment

• Horizontal alignment
• is created by using consistent learning
  approaches within an age range or grade.

Full-day kindergarten
36
Principle 2 Vertical Alignment

• Horizontal alignment
• Vertical alignment
• Temporal alignment

3rd grade

• Vertical alignment is created by using consistent
  learning approaches across ages or grades.

2nd grade
1st grade
K
Pre-K
37
Principle 3 Temporal Alignment

• Horizontal alignment
• Vertical alignment
• Temporal alignment

• Temporal alignment is created by using consistent
  learning approaches across a childs day.

38
Need to evaluate alignment onseveral 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

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
Kagan, Scott-Little, Reid Greenburg, 2007
39
What does P-3 look like in Massachusetts?

• A coordinated and collaborative approach

40
(No Transcript)