anne mitchell louise stoney mn work group february 16, 2010
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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