developing a framework to build high quality part c and section 619 systems
Post on 07-Feb-2016
36 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Developing a Framework to Build High Quality Part C and Section 619
Systems
December 2013
What we’ll cover:
• Purpose and Audience• Process and Partners• Assumptions/
Parameters• Content and structure• Draft Governance and
Finance Components• Input/Discussion
System Framework: Purpose and Audience
Purpose: to guide states in evaluating their current Part C/619 system, identifying areas for improvement, and providing direction on how to develop a more effective, efficient Part C and Section 619 system that requires, supports, and encourages implementation of effective practices.
Audience: the key audience is state Part C and state Section 619 coordinators and staff, with acknowledgement that other key staff and leadership in a state will need to be involved.
System Framework: Process and Partners
• Iterative validation process: the framework is being developed through an iterative process among national and state experts in the field.
• Partner states: the framework is being developed iteratively with 6 states (DE, ID, MN, NJ, PA, WV), so that it reflects (and is applicable to) the diversity of state systems (e.g. Lead Agency, eligibility criteria).
• Technical Work Group (TWG): the Center has a technical work group (TWG) with experts in the field to advise the Center by providing early input on the elements, and later review and give input on drafts, as well as contribute resources available to support states on various elements.
Iterative Validation Process
• Review of the existing literature• Discussions with partner states about what’s
working or not working in their states (related to various components); what it means to be ‘quality’
• Draft of components, subcomponents, quality indicators and elements of quality
• Review of drafts and input from: partner states, TWG, ECTA staff, others
• Revisions to drafts based on input• Re-send revised drafts and have partner
states ‘test’ through application• Revisions to drafts again• Share more broadly to get input
Literature
Draft
State Examples
Review/Input
Revise
State Testing
Revise
Broader Input
Partner StatesDelawareLisa Crim, Part C Coordinator, Birth to Three Early Intervention SystemVerna Thompson, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator, Delaware IdahoChristy Cronheim, Part C CoordinatorShannon Dunstan, Early Childhood Coordinator (Section 619 Preschool) PennsylvaniaJim Coyle, Kim Koteles & Mary Anketell, Office of Child Development and Early Learning. Bureau of Early Intervention Services MinnesotaKara Hall Tempel, Part C Coordinator, Lisa Backer, Early Childhood Special Education Supervisor (Section 619 Preschool) New Jersey Terry Harrison, Part C CoordinatorBarbara Tkach, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator West VirginiaPam Roush, Part C Coordinator, West VirginiaGinger Huffman, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator
Technical Work Group Members
7
Mary Beth Bruder, Director, Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC), University of CT
Lori Connors-Tadros, Project Director, Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes,National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University
Barbara Gebhard, Assistant Director of Public Policy, ZERO TO THREE
Maureen Greer, Executive Director, Infant Toddler Coordinator Association (ITCA)
Vivian James, 619 Preschool Coordinator, Office of Early Learning, NC Department of Public Instruction
Grace Kelley, Program Specialist, South East Regional Resource Center (SERRC)
Jana Martella, Co-Director, Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO), Education Development Center, Inc.
Robin McWilliam, Director of the Center for Child and Family Research, Siskin Children’s Institute
Cindy Oser, Director of Infant-Early Childhood Mental Health Strategy, ZERO TO THREE
Anne Reale, Principal, ICF International and ELC TA Collaboration Lead, ELC TA Program
Rachel Schumacher, Early Childhood Policy Consultant, R. Schumacher Consulting
System Framework: Assumptions/Parameters
The resulting framework and corresponding self-assessment will be:• Evidence based• Useful to Part C and Section 619 programs, including resources and
exemplars• Responsive to the variation that exists across states; designed in a way
that recognizes that states can reach quality in different ways• Related to critical areas of Part C and Section 619• Consistent with IDEA requirements• Consistent with recommended early childhood practices (e.g. DEC,
DAP)• Consistent with best practices from implementation science• Inclusive of resources and exemplars to illustrate ways state can meet
quality
Purpose of ECTA System Framework
result
Governance
Funding/ Finance
Personnel/ Workforce
Data System
Monitoring and Accountability
Quality Standards
Implementation of effective practices
Good outcomes for children with disabilities and their families
What does a state need to put into place in order to encourage, support, require local implementation of effective practices?
ECTA System Framework
Governance: Vision, Mission, Purpose
Legal FoundationsAdministrative InfrastructuresLeadership and Performance
Management
Funding/ FinanceFiscal Data
Strategic Finance Planning Process/Forecasting
ProcurementResource Allocation, Use of
Funds and DisbursementMonitoring and Accountability
of Funds and Resources
Personnel/ Workforce: professional development,
personnel standards, competencies, licensure, credentialing, TA systems
Data System: System for collecting, analyzing
and using data for decision-making, coordinated data for accountability and decision-
making, linked data
Monitoring and Accountability:
Monitoring plans and processes, continuous improvement, systems
evaluation
Quality Standards:Program standards that support
effective practices, ELGs, ELSs
Governance
Funding/ Finance
Personnel/ Workforce
Data System
Monitoring and Accountability
Quality Standards
Cross cutting themes
Using data for improvement
Communicating effectively
Promoting collaboration
Engaging stakeholders, including families
Establishing/revising policies
Family Leadership & Support
Coordinating/Integrating across EC
ECTA System Framework
To be considered in
every component
System Framework• Products:
– components and subcomponents of an effective service delivery system (e.g. funding/finance, personnel and TA, governance structure)
– quality indicators scaled to measure the extent to which a component is in place and of high quality
– corresponding self-assessment for states to self-assess (and plan for improvement)
– with resources related to the components of the system framework
12
Structure/Format of Each Component
13
• Component #1– Subcomponent #1
• Quality Indicator #1– Element of Quality #1– Element of Quality #2– Etc.
• Quality Indicator #2– Element of Quality #1– Element of Quality #2– Etc.
• Component #2– Subcomponent #1
• Quality Indicator #1– Element of Quality #1– Element of Quality #2– Element of Quality #3
• Etc.
General progression:In placeOf high qualityUsedReviewed/RevisedAcross EC
Additionally:
• Self-assessment scale• Resources and
examples
Benefits of Participating in the Process
e.g. How Delaware has benefitted from being a partner state...
• Provided time to engage in valuable discussions related to components of quality
• Learned more about what other states are doing to improve quality and promote systematic programming
• Promoted discussion of quality indicators and alignment with Delaware’s QRIS quality
• Collected resources from national experts on variety of topics
• Promoted reflection on Delaware’s strengths and needs for support
14
Drafts: Governance and Finance
15
http://ectacenter.org/sysframe
Discussion
– How might the System Framework be helpful to states?
– Comments/discussion around key content included in the framework so far? e.g.• collaboration across early childhood• importance of ‘using data’ in all
components• other?
Recap of Work Review of systems literature to identify overall components Initial Webinars with TWG & Partner States Monthly calls and email exchanges with partner states Individual email exchanges and phone calls with some
individual TWG members (resources, discussions) Review of literature drafting of
governance component Partner state review, feedback
and ‘testing’ of governance TWG review and feedback of
governance
17
Recap of Work Incorporated input to revise governance component Review of literature and drafting of finance component Partner states, TWG, and additional
experts feedback on finance Incorporated input to revise finance
component Wider sharing of the System
Framework: – Data/Outcomes Conference– Web site– Webinar
18
Next Steps:Additional Components:• Currently working on Personnel/Workforce component• Starting literature review for Quality Standards and
Monitoring and Accountability components• Collaborating with DaSy on Data Systems component
All Components:• Designing a self-assessment • Identifying resources and examples• Coordinating with ECSWG• Considering SSIP• Developing a glossary of terms
Look for updates via the web site: http://ectacenter.org/sysframe
20
top related