anne mitchell louise stoney mn work group february 16, 2010

Minnesota Quality Rating and Improvement System Scaling

Options:Presentation to Early Childhood

CommitteeAnne 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 Principles1. 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

Professional development for practitioners Technical assistance for programs Facility improvements

Incentives Program Practitioners Consumers/parents

Communications/marketing/outreach Evaluation

3 QRIS Options

Option 1: Parent Aware Pilot Model Quality assurance - annual onsite

observations of every program Supports

No professional development, facilities improvement, or practitioner incentives within QRIS

Directive technical assistance Average quality grants of $2,400/program

Incentives 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

Builds on the state’s very strong existing professional development and technical assistance infrastructure

Responsive TA Facilities improvement funds

Incentives 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