Minnesota Quality Information and Rating System Scaling

Report
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

similar documents