Illinois Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge ... · among state agencies overseeing early childhood services, the design and implementation of a research-based quality improvement

Illinois Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge Evaluation Report 2016 EDC, Inc. • Th e BUILD Initiative1

http://www.edc.org/

www.buildinitiative.org

Acknowledgments

We want to thank and acknowledge the BUILD Initiative for supporting the evaluation activities.

We are especially grateful to the hundreds of Illinois early care and education providers who participated in this study. We thank them for their perspectives and their work on behalf of Illinois’ children and families.

We also want to thank and acknowledge the following stakeholders who generously off ered their perspectives to the evaluation: Amanda Quesenberry Angela Fowler Andrea Palmer

Ann Kremer Leatha Asbury Abigail Sylvester

Barbara Payne Barbara Volpe Brenda Hill

Beth Knight Brenda Wilson Bryan Stokes

Carla Diez Carol S Morris Carie Bires

Chip Donohue Choua Houa Cristina Sánchez-López

Cindy Zumwalt Dan Harris Donna Emmonds

Donna Nylander Edna Navarro-Vidaurre Elliot Regenstein

Emily Ropars Gail Nelson Gail Nourse

Gerry Cobb H. Gates Heather Horsley

Jenna Chapman Jenny Metcalf Joanna Su

Joellyn Whitehead Jon Furr Joni Scritchlow

Kathy Stohr Karen Berman Karen McCarthy

Karen Zehnal Lauri Morrison-Frichtl Leah Pouw

Leonette Coates Linda Saterfi eld Margaret Burchinal

M. Lynn Burgett Marsha Hawley Marie Masterson

Rebecca Livengood Sandy De Leon Shauna Ejeh

Patricia Chamberlain S. Rhodes Sarah Sebert

Stephanie Bernoteit Teri Talan Th eresa Hawley

Tiff any Gholson Tom Layman Toni Porter

Trish Rooney William Holderfi eld

Th e many other stakeholders who participated in the evaluation who asked that their names not be listed.

Evaluation team: Diane Schilder Melissa Dahlin Meghan Broadstone Stephanie Curenton Sarah Kim

Evaluation support: Gerry Cobb, BUILD Initiative

Methodology advisors: Harriet Dichter, BUILD Initiative Eboni Howard, American Institutes for ResearchKaren Horsch, evaluation consultant Julia Coff man, Center for Innovation EvaluationJess Gropen, EDC

Reviewers: Susan Hibbard and Harriet Dichter, BUILD InitiativeEboni Howard, American Institutes for Research

Designer: Nada Spasev, Nada’s Graphics, LLC

Editor: Ruth Tombka, BUILD Initiative

ContentsIntroduction .........................................................................1

Evaluation Objectives and Questions ......................3Findings ................................................................................3

Budget Crisis and Political Changes Infl uenced Early Childhood Programs and Systems ............................................. 4RTT-ELC Activities Resulted in Desired Ouput Targets .............. 5Success on Short-term Outcomes................................................. 9Progress on Longer-term Outcomes ........................................... 16

Recommendations and Discussion .......................22

Appendix A. Data Tables ........................................23

Appendix B. Scope and Methodology .................24

Endnotes .....................................................................29

References ...................................................................31

Acronyms and TermsCLASS: Classroom Assessment Scoring System™CCAP: Child Care Assistance ProgramCCR&R: Child Care Resource and Referral AgencyCCDF: Child Care and Development FundCCDBG: Child Care and Development Block GrantDCFS: Department of Children and Family ServicesIDHS: Illinois Department of Human ServicesIDPH: Illinois Department of Public HealthECBG: Early Childhood Block GrantECE: Early Care and Education EPPI: Early Childhood Education Program Preparation Innovation grantExceleRate® Illinois: Th e name of the Illinois Quality Rating and Improvement System

Gateways to Opportunity: Illinois statewide professional development support system that includes Credentials, Professional Development Advisors, Great START, Gateways to Opportunity Registry, the Illinois Trainers Network, and Gateways to Opportunity Scholarship Program

IBHE: Illinois Board of Higher EducationICCB: Illinois Community College BoardIECAM: Illinois Early Childhood Asset MapIELDS: Illinois Early Learning and Development StandardsINCCRRA: Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies Innovation Zones: Local systems-building initiative designed to connect vital community information to state policy makers through feedback loops to improve outcomes for young children in Illinois and their families

ISBE: Illinois State Board of EducationHERO: Higher Education Resources OnlineKIDS: Kindergarten Individual Development SurveyLead Learn Excel: A program for early education leaders which helps them

support the everyday learning and improvement of their teachers. In addition to local training, leaders are given access to ongoing technical assistance, peer learning communities, and a full suite of digital tools and resources

OECD: Governor’s Offi ce of Early Childhood DevelopmentQRIS: Quality Rating and Improvement SystemPFA: Preschool for All—Illinois state-funded preschool program funding services for three- to fi ve-year-olds

Pre-K: Pre-Kindergarten—the generic term used to refer to early care and education for children from aged three to school entry

PDG: Preschool Development—Expansion GrantRTT-ELC: Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge

Suggested citation: Schilder, D. (2017). Illinois Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Evaluation: 2016 Evaluation Report. Boston, MA: BUILD Initiative.


The RTT-ELC program is

jointly administered by the

U.S. Departments of Education

(ED) and Health and Human

Services (DHHS). In their

applications to the RTT-ELC,

states developed proposals

that articulated specific

activities to improve early

learning by coordinating

existing programs; improving,

evaluating, and rating the

quality of early care and

education services; and

increasing access to high-

quality programs, particularly

for children with high need.

IntroductionIn late 2012, Illinois was awarded a federally funded Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grant to provide high-quality early learning opportunities to children with the highest need.1 Coordinated through the Illinois Governor’s Offi ce of Early Childhood Development (OECD), the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS), and the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) have worked together to improve the quality of all early care and education in the state with the support of RTT-ELC grant funds. Th e grant was designed to support state activities to strengthen early childhood systems through greater coordination among state agencies overseeing early childhood services, the design and implementation of a research-based quality improvement and rating system (QRIS) for early childhood programs, an enhanced professional development system for early care and education providers, aligned data systems, and family and community engagement supports.

Th e Illinois RTT-ELC grant application proposed a network of activities articulated by state- and community-level public and private early care and education (ECE) stakeholders. Figure 1, on the next page, illustrates the Th eory of Change that was described in the narrative of the Illinois RTT-ELC proposal. Th is graphic shows the logical associations among Inputs, Systems in Place Prior to RTT-ELC, RTT-ELC Activities, Outputs, and Short- and Longer-Term Outcomes. Th e graphic shows that the state used the inputs and existing systems to support a set of cohesive, research-informed activities that were designed to lead to specifi c outputs, as well as six shorter-term outcomes and seven longer-term outcomes. Th e RTT-ELC outcomes represent progress toward the goal of enhancing early learning outcomes for young children in Illinois.1

Th e Th eory of Change includes a number of assumptions based on existing research. Specifi cally, research suggests that the cohesive network of activities proposed in the RTT-ELC application would lead to more effi cient and eff ective services directed toward ECE providers to increase the number of children – especially children with high need – who enter kindergarten safe, healthy, eager to learn and ready to succeed.2

Illinois Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge


Figure 1. Illinois Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge Activities, Outputs and Outcomes

Inputs

Systems in Place Prior to RTT-ELC

RTT-ELC Activities

RTT-ELC Outputs

RTT-ELC Short-Term Outcomes

RTT-ELC Longer-Term Outcomes

(ExceleRate Illinois)

(IAT)

(faculty, courses, supports, & credentials)

*Illinois Department of Children and Families, Illinois Department of Human Services, and Illinois State Board of Education+Prior to RTT-ELC, Gateway to Opportunity consisted of Registry, 2 early childhood credentials, and early childhood scholarships

Goal: Increase the number of children – especially children with high needs – who enter kindergarten safe, healthy, eager to learn and ready to succeed


Evaluation Objectives and QuestionsTh e BUILD Initiative contracted with Education Development Center, Inc. to conduct an external evaluation of the nature of the initial perceived outcomes of the Illinois’ RTT-ELC. A team of evaluators, skilled in qualitative and quantitative evaluations of early childhood initiatives, performed data collection, analysis, and reporting activities between September and December 2016. Th e team members’ previous experience evaluating large-scale early care and education systems reform initiatives made them familiar with both the policy and contextual issues and the evaluation methodologies and approaches needed (see details about the methods in Appendix B).

Th e objectives of the evaluation are to provide Illinois stakeholders with (a) information about the nature and initial perceived outcomes of the RTT-ELC to inform the continued implementation of the initiative, and (b) to inform future directions for the state regarding early care and education policy and programming.

Th e logic model framed the refi nement of evaluation questions that were developed to address these objectives. Th e evaluation questions that guided the data collection and analysis, linked with the logic model, are as follows:

1) To date, have the RTT-ELC activities that Illinois proposed in its application been completed according to plan?

a) For example, did the state meet the benchmarks articulated in the proposal for RTT-ELC funding? Did the state accomplish all proposed activities?

b) What activities were perceived as most benefi cial by state stakeholders?

2) Has the RTT-ELC accomplished or made progress toward desired short-term outcomes?

3) Has the RTT-ELC accomplished or made progress toward desired longer-term outcomes?

4) What lessons were learned through the design and implementation of RTT-ELC as well as the implications for existing ECE policies, programs, and governance structures?

FindingsTh e fi ndings are organized into four sections.

1) Context. Th e report begins with a brief presentation of contextual information that was noted by a majority of stakeholders in interviews and emerged as a central theme in analyzing documents and budget data. Th e contextual information that is specifi c to activities and outcomes is presented in each associated section.

2) Activities and outputs. Th is section presents a brief high-level description of the proposed activities and describes the status of the RTT-ELC activities as of late 2016.

3) Short-term outcomes. In this section, qualitative themes and survey fi ndings related to short-term outcomes are presented.

4) Longer-term outcomes. Th e concluding section presents fi ndings related to longer-term outcomes.

Context: Factors Influencing outcomesIllinois stakeholders who designed the RTT-ELC proposal reported that they took into account the existing resources and systems and proposed building upon these to strengthen early childhood systems in Illinois. Stakeholders also reported that during the time of the RTT-ELC implementation, budget issues and political changes had an infl uence on early childhood programs, and thus aff ected implementation. Th is section briefl y describes these issues.

Inputs and Systems in Place Prior to Receipt of RTT-ELC

Prior to receipt of the RTT-ELC, as noted in the logic model, Illinois had a number of state-level resources in place and had some existing systems. Th e existing resources and conditions included:

• Governor and legislative support and actions. Prior to receipt of the RTT-ELC funds, the governor and legislature supported strong early childhood programs.

• Leadership, staffi ng, programming, as well as assistance and supports from three state agencies and the governor’s offi ce. Leaders from the three largest state agencies that administer early childhood programs supported the RTT-ELC application.


including Head Start and the state’s Preschool for All, as well as child care programs that did not participate in the state subsidy program.

• Workforce supports: Gateways to Opportunity. Prior to receipt of the RTT-ELC, Illinois had a voluntary registry that included data on child care providers throughout the state. Some of the state’s institutions of higher education also off ered three credentials (Early Childhood Educator, Infant and Toddler, and Director) for early childhood professionals. Illinois proposed using RTT-ELC federal funds to enhance the Gateways registry to develop additional credentials to meet the needs of the workforce, and to off er supports to early childhood educators to access workforce supports to increase credentials and degree attainment.

• Some federal funds to align separate early childhood data systems. Illinois had received a State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant but substantial gaps existed in the existing system with regard to early childhood data. Illinois proposed using federal RTT-ELC funds to align early childhood data with the existing longitudinal data systems work.

• Kindergarten entry assessment plans. Prior to receipt of the RTT-ELC, ISBE had planned to assess children’s kindergarten readiness. In 2010, the state of Illinois convened a Kindergarten Readiness Stakeholder Committee to examine the feasibility of adopting a uniform statewide kindergarten readiness process and began articulated goals and a process of developing a kindergarten readiness system in 2012. Th e state proposed that with the RTT-ELC, the state would have data to understand children’s school readiness, kindergarten teachers would have access to formative data to understand children’s progress, and parents would have access to results.4

Budget Issues and Political Changes that Affected Implementation During the RTT-ELC implementation, Illinois faced a budget crisis and elected a new governor. Both of these had the potential to aff ect implementation of RTT-ELC activities.

Illinois received RTT-ELC funds in late 2012 and began implementation of grant activities in 2013 with the aim of completing implementation in late 2016.5 Th e federal government required the governor to sign the application to demonstrate high-level support for the design and implementation of the RTT-ELC and also to commit to support for early childhood programs.

• Foundations, advocates, and private stakeholders funding and technical support. Foundations, advocates, private stakeholders, and state agency representatives serve on the Illinois Early Learning Council and were actively engaged in actions to strengthen early childhood systems prior to receipt of the RTT-ELC.

Higher education capacity (faculty, courses, supports, & credentials). According to the Illinois Board of Higher Education, Illinois off ered early childhood coursework and credentials at nine public universities on 12 campuses, 48 community colleges, 97 independent not-for-profi t colleges and universities, and 35 independent for-profi t institutions.2

• Regional and local community capacity to align early childhood systems. Illinois had pilot tested the Early Childhood Action Partnership initiative—a community collaboration eff ort—and proposed building on the lessons learned from this eff ort with RTT-ELC funds.2 Regional and community stakeholders were supportive of the RTT-ELC and were eager to align these eff orts to create greater coherence at the state and community levels.3

• ECE providers’ capacity and quality. Prior to receipt of RTT-ELC funds, Child Care, Head Start and pre-Kindergarten (pre-K) providers in Illinois had the capacity to provide early care and education (ECE) to children and families in the state. Th e RTT-ELC was designed to build on the existing provider capacity to enhance quality.

• Child & family and ECE program characteristics. Th e RTT-ELC was designed to build on assets of children, families and ECE programs to ensure all, especially the state’s most vulnerable, received high-quality early care and education.

• Agreed-upon early learning standards. Prior to receipt of the RTT-ELC, Illinois had published early learning standards that applied to child care, Head Start and pre-K providers. Illinois proposed ensuring the early learning standards were part of quality enhancement activities.

• Quality rating system for child care centers and homes. Illinois had created a quality rating system for child care providers, called Quality Counts. Quality Counts was implemented in fi scal year 2008 as a voluntary system available to child care centers as well as licensed and license-exempt family child care providers serving children whose families accessed child care subsidies, i.e. the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP). Illinois proposed to enhance this system with federal RTT-ELC funds to create a consensus defi nition of high quality across all programs,


been developed through a consensus process. For example, one key informant reported, “Th e fact that the grant required state agencies to engage in a greater collaborative stance was very helpful, especially when the state leadership changed. Th e federal grant really helped keep the focus on the unifi ed vision and gave the state agencies a sense of moving in the same direction despite changes in agency leadership.”

RTT-ELC Activities Resulted in Desired Ouput targets

Despite the changes in funding and political support, between 2013 and 2016, Illinois stakeholders successfully implemented the key activities that were proposed in the RTT-ELC grant application, with the support of federal funds.6 Th e state received $52.5 million in federal funds as well as technical assistance and support from the federal government.7 Since the receipt of the federal funds, Illinois has successfully engaged in activities to:

1. Create a unifi ed vision for early childhood education in Illinois. With support of the Illinois Early Learning Council, the Governor’s Offi ce of Early Childhood Development (OECD) facilitated the creation of an Inter-Agency Team (IAT) to oversee the implementation of RTT-ELC activities designed to create a unifi ed early childhood system. Th e state charged government agencies with overseeing a unifi ed implementation plan. Th e IAT includes administrators of early childhood programs housed in DHS, DCFS, and ISBE (see Table 1on next page).

In 2014, Illinois elected a new governor who was faced with a fi nancial crisis that began years prior. In turn, a budget impasse ensued and child care subsidy eligibility became more restrictive. Moreover, reductions in higher education budgets resulted in challenges for professional development providers.

To document stakeholders’ perceptions of how the changes in the funding situation and political context aff ected support for early care and education, the evaluation team asked early childhood stakeholders about their perceptions of the status of the state in 2012 and 2016. Despite reductions in child care subsidy funding, federal RTT-ELC funding supported quality initiatives and the state received a large federal grant to support preschool expansion.

Stakeholders reported that they perceived support for funding of programs to be about the same in 2016 as in 2012, taking into account reductions in child care spending but increases in Preschool for All—the state’s pre-K program—and the state’s receipt of the federally funded Preschool Development-Expansion Grant (PDG). Stakeholders reported that they believed political support to be slightly lower in 2016 than in 2012 but reported that support for funding of the early childhood system to be slightly higher. It is important to note that the federal RTT-ELC grant and the PDG grant required specifi c activities to build the quality of the early childhood system.

At the same time, state early education stakeholders reportedthat they believed the RTT-ELC had a positive infl uenceon funding for the early childhood systems in the state (seeFigure 2, below).

Th us, although the budget climate and political context in the state was in fl ux during the time of RTT-ELC implementation, stakeholders reported that the grant had a large and positive infl uence on early childhood systems in the state and even a positive infl uence on political support and funding for programs. Several state leaders reported that during a time of political transition, a large federally funded initiative (RTT-ELC) kept the focus on sustaining progress toward long-term goals that had


Table 1. Inter-Agency Team and Programs

Agency Programs

IDHS (Department of Human Services)

Child care subsidy program. Head Start State Collaboration Offi ce. Parents Too Soon and Healthy Families (home visiting). Early Intervention (Part C).

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS)

Child care licensing. Developmental and social-emotional screening of children birth to fi ve in care. Child welfare.

Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)

Early Childhood Block Grant authorizes:o Preschool for All for children three to fi ve. o Prevention Initiative supports services for children from birth through age three

through statuatory set aside.8

All of the parties worked together to identify and implement their vision—to ensure that children attending any type of early care and education program (e.g., family child care, center-based care, Head Start, and pre-K) would receive high-quality services that are seamless and accessible. To bring about this unifi ed vision, the state designed and implemented fi ve inter-related activities that collectively represent the vision listed in Table 2, below, and described as activities 2-6, below.

Table 2. Unified Vision, RTT-ELC Activities

RTT-ELC Funded Activities that Comprise the Unified Vision

ExceleRate® Illinois: Th e state’s quality rating and improvement system.

A professional development pathway: Competency-based credentials, professional development supports and coaching, grants, and the Gateways to Opportunities registry.

Early childhood data systems alignment activities: Actions to secure data-sharing agreements, link systems across state agencies, and create aligned data systems.

Kindergarten Individual Developmental Survey (KIDS): Th e state’s kindergarten entry assessment.

Community systems-building activities: Design and implementation of supports for community systems, including Innovation Zones.

Th us, the early childhood stakeholders from separate state agencies and intermediary organizations engage collectively in a network of activities to strengthen and streamline processes to improve the quality, effi ciency, and eff ectiveness of early childhood services in the state. Th rough the leadership and staffi ng of OECD, the ELC, and the IAT, the state successfully completed the activities of creating a unifi ed vision and implementing the network of activities that were articulated in the RTT-ELC proposal.

2. Conceptualize, implement, and enhance a new quality rating and improvement system (QRIS), called ExceleRate® Illinois. Th e state had proposed designing and implementing a QRIS that would engage child care, Head Start, and pre-K programs in advancing from “adequate to good” and from “good to great” quality that would go beyond the quality rating system that existed prior to receipt of RTT-ELC.9

Between 2013 and the present, OECD oversaw the design and implementation of a pilot research-based QRIS, called ExceleRate. ExceleRate provides a consensus defi nition of quality that applies to child care, Head Start and Preschool for All programs. (In contrast, prior to ExceleRate, child care, Head Start and pre-K used diff erent defi nitions of quality.) Moreover, ExeceleRate uses reliable and valid evidence of quality across all program types, and provides opportunities for quality improvements for programs at all levels of quality.

ExceleRate® Illinois has fi ve quality tiers as well as “Awards of Excellence” that are given only once a provider achieves the highest rating. Th ese awards are designed to recognize providers engaged in activities to best support the state’s highest-need


students. For example, among others, the state off ers Award of Excellence for inclusion, infants/toddlers, and linguistically and culturally appropriate practice. As such, the system is designed to support ongoing continuous quality improvement for all providers. RTT-ELC funded a range of quality improvement supports including but not limited to technical assistance as well as intensive training and professional development opportunities. For example, RTT-ELC funds supported an innovative initiative called Learn Lead Excel that off ers training, technical assistance, peer support, and coaching to teams (including school and center leaders) to strengthen leadership to support eff ective early care and education practices.10

3. Support a competency-based professional development pathway especially for programs serving children with high need.11 Th e state used RTT-ELC funds to support activities to align higher education courses and requirements and make it easier for early childhood professionals to attain credentials, to reduce the fee charged for obtaining credentials, to create three new credentials and to strengthen the existing registry.

Th e state used funds to support alignment of credentials and coursework among institutions of higher education.12 13 Th e RTT-ELC funds also supported the development of three new credentials: Family Support, Family Child Care, and Technical Assistance. Funds allowed the state to reduce the fees charged to professionals seeking credentials. Finally, as part of the unifi ed vision for early childhood, Illinois now requires credentials in order to receive a rating of quality in ExceleRate Illinois.14 Th us, the state engaged in activities to create both a smoother career pathway for early childhood credentials and incentives for early childhood providers to seek additional professional development, credentials, and degrees.

4. Create aligned data systems that position the state to answer important policy questions about the eff ectiveness and effi ciency of early childhood programs. Prior to receipt of the RTT-ELC grant, the state had separate systems to collect, analyze, and report data collected by child care, Head Start, and Preschool for All programs. Th e state had received a state longitudinal data system (SLDS) grant and had begun to work on a data system that would answer questions about the services individual children received and the eff ectiveness of the services, regardless of the state agency administering the program.

Th e RTT-ELC grant supported: the development of data-sharing agreements among state agencies and the state Head Start Association, the very detailed work of cross-walking the data elements in existing systems, the creation of common

variables with associated common values, and the work of external contractors charged with creating an information technology system that could aggregate the data. Th e RTT-ELC data workgroup focused initially on creating a system that would be able to track children across programs (child care, Head Start, and Preschool for All) and, later, to assess changes over time. Moreover, through RTT-ELC funds, the state has encouraged the regular collection and use of data to inform continuous quality improvements through ExceleRate, the Gateways to Opportunity Professional Development Registry, KIDS, and Innovation Zones.

5. Design and pilot test a system for understanding the school readiness of Illinois’ children as well as the best ways to support learning outcomes in kindergarten. Th e goal of the kindergarten readiness system, called the Kindergarten Individual Development Survey (KIDS), was to: identify gaps in school readiness, provide information to drive more eff ective classroom instruction, and support state and local data-driven decision-making on professional development and resource allocation.

Primarily using state dollars but with some support from RTT-ELC, the state designed, pilot tested, and refi ned KIDS as a developmentally appropriate and aligned assessment with the aim of providing information for teachers and administrators to better address children’s learning and developmental needs over time.

6. Support community systems-building through the design and implementation of Innovation Zones. Th e state designed a series of supports to build capacity of local communities to connect families to comprehensive services, most notably the design and implementation of Innovation Zones. Th ese local collaborations work together to determine why highest-need children are not enrolled and identify partnerships and strategies for enrolling these children in high-quality early learning services. In 2014, Illinois had implemented Innovation Zones in seven communities and implemented four additional Innovation Zones in 2015.15

Th rough work in the Innovation Zones, Illinois has focused on building community-based early childhood professionals’ skills and knowledge-base regarding how to best collaborate to achieve collective impact and, in turn, on sharing the lessons learned by community-based professionals with state policymakers. Since the Innovation Zones’ launch, the professionals working in communities have employed strategies to engage more families in accessing early childhood programs, to enhance the quality of early childhood education, and to change local practices based on data.


Reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, evaluations conducted by independent contractors, and internal documents produced by state agencies and sub-grantees provide evidence of successful implementation of proposed activities.16 Similar to all of the other states that received RTT-ELC grants, Illinois stakeholders reported some implementation challenges. And, as with a number of other RTT-ELC states, Illinois reported using RTT-ELC funds to engage in innovative strategies to address the challenges. A unique challenge faced by Illinois was an unprecedented budget crisis that led to instability in early childhood funding for CCAP while funding for Preschool for All increased. Th e decrease in CCAP funding, along with other challenges experienced by Illinois, and the promising strategies to addressing them are presented in Table 3, below.

Table 3. RTT-ELC Implementation Challenges and Promising Strategies by Illinois

Challenge Promising strategy

A state budget crisis resulted in decreases in children17 being served in subsidized child care programs for a period of time. In turn, this aff ected child care providers; they experienced declining enrollment and reductions in quality because of lower funding. Some reported going out of business as a result of the reductions in funding.

Illinois used RTT-ELC funds to create more effi cient and eff ective monitoring, data collection, and quality assurance systems. In addition, through the OECD and IAT, the state successfully accessed $80 million of federal Preschool Expansion and Development Grant funds to expand access to preschool for the neediest children in the state.

Lower than desired initial rates of participation in the QRIS among certain types of early care and education providers.

Illinois phased in the design and implementation of the QRIS by focusing initially on center- and school-based early care and education and application of lessons from the initial phase to family child care homes. Provider feedback led to review and refi nement of procedures to create more effi cient processes, along with expedited pathways for Head Start grantees and multiple national accreditations.

Focus on meeting credentialing targets while, at the same time, some credentials were being created and pathways were being enhanced.

Grants to consortia to develop new credentials to meet provider needs, align coursework, and create greater coherence in the professional development pathway for early care and education professionals.

Negotiation of data sharing agreements and allocating suffi cient state resources to early childhood data systems.

Public/private partnership engaged in overseeing the data-sharing work and supporting the ongoing negotiations necessary to create useful systems.

District and school administrator reluctance to adopt the kindergarten entry assessment because of concerns about the time it would take to administer as well as reluctance due to concern that the assessment data would be used inappropriately.

Pilot testing of KIDS that resulted in streamlined version of the system available to those facing more constraints while maintaining full system for districts interested in using it for formative purposes instead of existing report cards.

Need for eff ective strategies and policies to ensure children and families with high-need access high-quality services.

Supports for a range of community systems initiatives including the design and implementation of Innovation Zones. Th e initiatives support the use of a suite of tools and frameworks to assess community-level data, tailor strategies to address specifi c community needs, analyze data, and report lessons learned from communities back to other communities as well as state ECE leaders. Lessons learned inform strategies and policies in other communities and statewide.


Success on Short-term Outcomes

Th is section presents fi ndings related to the six short-term outcomes that are presented in the logic model, Figure 1. Th e short-term outcomes represent the outcomes articulated in the RTT-ELC proposal that the state aimed to achieve in the fi rst three years of the funding cycle. Th e state successfully achieved each of these short-term outcomes.

Outcome 1. Unified Early Childhood Framework Leads to Increased Capacity and Aligned Policies

Illinois met articulated benchmarks related to the unifi ed vision, according to the 2015 Performance Report to the U.S. Department of Education.18 Moreover, stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC funds infl uenced the state’s work toward aligning policies. Upon receipt of the RTT-ELC funding, Illinois engaged in a series of actions described in the activities section to create a unifi ed early childhood framework.

When asked about the infl uence of the RTT-ELC on the creation of a unifi ed framework, the capacity of OECD and the IAT to support the early childhood systems work, and the alignment of policies across early learning and development programs at the state level, stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC had a positive infl uence. Specifi cally, on a fi ve-point scale from 1=low-to 5=high, stakeholders reported that RTT-ELC had a positive infl uence on the creation of a unifi ed framework (4.3), the capacity of OECD and IAT (4.5), and alignment of policies (4.0) (see Figure 3, below).

Th e RTT-ELC funds and required activities have been used to enhance the capacity of the OECD and strengthen the IAT so that they could work together to address cross- systems issues. Collaboratively, the OECD and IAT designed and implemented ExceleRate, supported the enhancements of the cross-systems early childhood professional development pathway, facilitated the data-alignment activities, ensured that the KIDS was aligned with ExceleRate and supported through professional development activities, and ensured that Innovation Zone lessons were shared

across state early childhood agencies. In the words of one state-level early childhood stakeholder, “Th e unifi ed framework message is so important and should be the fi rst point. It connects over everything we are doing. It’s important in every single one of the pieces in the RTT[-ELC] data, Innovation Zones, ExceleRate, Gateways. . . etc. We need to carry this frame in every single piece of early childhood systems work. It is so important.”

Stakeholders were also asked to report their perceptions of the status of a unifi ed framework in 2012 (the year before the state received RTT-ELC) and in 2016. Figure 4, below, illustrates that in 2012, stakeholders perceived that each aspect of a unifi ed framework was relatively low (in the 2’s on a 5-point scale with 1=low and 5=high). In 2016, stakeholders perceived each was above a 3. Th us, while they noted that there is still progress to be made, growth was reported.

One state early childhood stakeholder reported that while the concept of a framework existed prior to receiving the grant, the RTT-ELC was critically important in moving the work forward. One state-level early childhood stakeholder reported, “Th e RTT-ELC gave funding to put meat on the bone. We were able to accomplish so much in a short time frame. Th e RTT-ELC helped us advance the work and it has made a huge diff erence. It would have taken us 10 times longer [to create aligned systems] if we didn’t have the funding.”

Th us, even though state stakeholders reported that funding for early childhood programs was stagnant during the grant period, stakeholders reported progress on a unifi ed framework. A number of concrete examples of the benefi ts of the unifi ed framework are presented in each subsequent section of the report, with specifi c examples in each section related to ExceleRate, a professional development pathway, the development of aligned data systems, the pilot testing and implementation of KIDS, and/or the design and implementation of Innovation Zones.19

Despite leadership and staff changes, a number of stakeholders reported that the OECD and IAT have been very important in sustaining cross-systems early childhood activities. Nearly all of the 42 stakeholders who were interviewed commented favorably


about the capacity of OECD and IAT. Several state stakeholders provided specifi c comments regarding the unifi ed framework. One state administrator reported, “Once we had OECD and the RTT-ELC, which they were responsible for directing, it was easier to get agencies to get on board with a common aligned framework. Prior to that, we had a lot of meetings but everyone was still committed to doing what they were required to by the dollars they oversee. Th e RTT-ELC moved it into reality. I still think that within a government environment, it is diffi cult to keep the framework together with partners who keep changing.”20

Since obtaining RTT-ELC funds, the OECD successfully garnered federal funding and technical assistance to support Early Head Start/Child Care partnerships, Preschool Development—Expansion Grant (PDG), and Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV). Ultimately, by leveraging this additional funding and these supports, several stakeholders reported that OECD has been positioned to continue to engage public and private partners to create a more cohesive early care and education system.

Outcome 2. ExceleRate Reflects Consensus Definition of High-Quality ECE

Despite some initial delays, according to the 2015 Performance Report to ED,18 Illinois achieved planned benchmarks regarding the design and implementation of a QRIS for child care centers, family child care providers, Head Start programs, and pre-K programs in schools and centers. State ECE stakeholders reported that child care, Head Start and Preschool for All are now part of a system that uses a common defi nition of quality. A focus group participant reported, “ExceleRate has been critical in mobilizing the early childhood community to work together across sectors. It’s given us the continuous quality improvement lens we need

and has brought quality into real focus. It has allowed us to defi ne high-quality instruction and given us intention regarding what is needed and how to message this to other child-serving sectors and families.” Other focus group paricipants concurred with this statement.

State ECE stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC funding and the requirements that the state implement the activities in the RTT-ELC proposal gave the state the resources, incentives,

and leadership authority to engage in activities to achieve a defi nition of quality for child care, Head Start

and Preschool for All providers. A number of individuals who were interviewed

reported that RTT-ELC helped the state realize the vision of supporting all providers move “from adequate to good” and “from good to great.” ExceleRate Illinois represents this consensus regarding high quality and the notion that continuous quality improvement activities can lead to enhancements in quality for

all providers.

On a 5-point scale with 1=low infl uence and 5=infl uence, state early childhood

stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC had a strong infl uence on the creation of a common

defi nition of high quality that is used across ECE programs (see Figure 5, below).

Several

stakeholders expressed

concern that after the RTT-ELC,

the OECD would lose capacity and the

system would revert to administrations

of separate programs in the absence of

leadership focusing on the efficiencies and

effectiveness that is created through cross-

agency work. One key informant reported,

“There must be more collaboration across

organizations. Things are getting better,

but I worry they will go right back to

the way they were once the

money is gone.”


Stakeholders reported that the common defi nition has been helpful in creating a more cohesive ECE system and that the RTT-ELC funds had a large impact on arriving at a shared defi nition of quality. Several key informants stated that a common defi nition of quality was important for bringing child care, Head Start and pre-K together as an early care and education system. One key informant reported, “I think we are poised to make real changes towards the unifi ed qualifi cations of the workforce. ExceleRate has made it possible - because we tied staff qualifi cations to ExceleRate and tied the supports to get there.” Another state agency leader reported, “We are all going to work on improving quality in a consistent and reliable way.”

Th e RTT-ELC funds were used to create a QRIS that was designed to engage all providers. Excelerate was designed to support ECE providers’ continuous quality improvements. As designed, CCR&R Quality Specialists and Infant/Toddler Specialists provided technical assistance to early care and education programs, including center-based and family child care programs. Moreover, early education leaders participating in the Lead Learn Excel initiative reported benefi ts. One key informant reported, “Lead Learn Excel has been critical in building instructional leadership and helping the state fi gure out how to best support teachers in a more systematic way.”

Figure 6, below, shows that on a fi ve-point scale of impact, on average, stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC has had a very large impact on the state’s ability to design and implement ExceleRate and on the design and implementation of Awards of Excellence.

State stakeholders expressed their conviction that the RTT-ELC has had a positive impact on the design and scaling up ExceleRate. State stakeholders also reported using lessons from the Head Start pilot and early implementation of ExceleRate with child care providers to refi ne the system. Several key informants reported that ExceleRate applied a continuous quality improvement approach to the design and implementation of the QRIS as well as to programs. Multiple stakeholders reported that as the system was being implemented, it was being modifi ed to work more eff ectively for all types of providers.

Moreover, a number of interviewees reported that ExceleRate raised the bar for all ECE providers in the state. For example, one state leader reported that the Quality Counts requirements were easier to meet but the combination of ExceleRate and the Gateways opportunities are “fantastic” in helping providers meet the higher quality standards. Multiple key informants reported benefi ts of the quality improvements at all levels and particularly noted benefi ts of the Awards of Excellence for Infant & Toddler Services, Family and Community Engagement, Inclusion of Children with Special Needs, and Linguistically and Culturally Appropriate Practice.21

In terms of actual numbers of ECE providers participating in ExceleRate, Illinois currently engages twice as many providers in the state’s QRIS than the next highest-serving RTT-ELC state of North Carolina and three times more providers than the fi ve lowest-serving states combined. Moreover, when examining the increase in the number of providers participating in RTT-ELC state’s QRIS, the increase in Illinois represents nearly 30 percent of the overall growth reported by all 20 RTT-ELC states.22 All licensed child care centers and family child care homes are, by defi nition, enrolled in the fi rst tier of the QRIS. Illinois’ goal is that half of all licensed child care centers have a rating above the lowest tier and that a quarter are at the highest tiers.

Outcome 3. Enhanced Capacity of ECE Professional Development System

Stakeholders in Illinois reported that the RTT-ELC has had a large and positive infl uence on the successful scale up of a cohesive professional development pathway for early care and education providers in Illinois. Moreover, the state met articulated professional development benchmarks, according to the 2015 Performance Report.18 As of 2016, approximately 84 percent of institutions of higher education in Illinois off er competency-based course work to early childhood professionals that can lead to a credential or degree and can be more easily transferred to other institutions.18

Numerous stakeholders reported that although the state registry for child care professionals called Gateways to Opportunities existed prior to receipt of the RTT-ELC, the grant provided a substantive infusion of resources and supports that resulted in a more robust registry that can now be used to assess the professional development attainment and needs of ECE professionals. In late 2012, DCFS implemented a rule requiring child care providers to participate in the Gateways registry.23 In 2013, the fi rst year of RTT-ELC implementation, the state reported that professional development records from 55,446 early care and education staff were in the Gateways Registry. As of October 2016, the number had increased to 80,227 active participants.24


Between 2013 and July 2016, RTT-ELC funds were used to off er a range of training and professional development opportunities to family child care providers and center-based providers, and created pathways for the trainings to apply toward credentials.25 An analysis of data trends from 2013 to 2016 reveals a sizable increase in the percentage and number of credentials awarded. For example, in 2013, 2,156 individuals had credentials and as of late 2016, a total of at least 16,294 individuals had attained credentials.26 Moreover, each year between 2013 and 2016, Illinois issued an increasing number of credentials (see Table 5, below).

Table 5. Number of Credentials Awarded

Credential 2013 2014 2015 2016* 2016 pending+

ECE credential 888 1,967 6,529 7,967 4,268

Infant/toddler credential 244 291 1,571 3,276 1,398

Director credential 66 171 700 1603 3,120

Family child care 47 236

Family specialist 171

*2016 numbers as of October 2016. +Pending are applications in the pipeline. Not all will be approved but represent interested in being credentialed. Source: INCCRRA, 2016.

Between 2013 and 2016, Illinois reported an eightfold (over 800%) increase in the number of early childhood credentials awarded, a sixfold (over 600%) increase in the number of director credentials awarded and a twelvefold (over 1200%) increase in the number of infant and toddler credentials awarded.27 In comparison, Washington state reported a 63% increase in certifi cates and credentials over the period of its RTT-ELC grant at a time when subsidy reimbursement payments were increasing and support services were stable.28

A majority of key informants who were interviewed reported that they perceived that RTT-ELC had a very large infl uence on the scale-up of a more coherent system of professional development and on increasing the number of early childhood staff who have completed courses and who have been awarded credentials. Survey respondents reported that the RTT-ELC had a strong infl uence on creating a more effi cient process of attaining competency-based credentials (4 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being the highest rating), and actual completion of credentials (4.1 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being the higest rating) (see Figure 7, below). Analysis of open-ended answers reveals that respondents gave slightly lower ratings to the infl uence of RTT-ELC on the alignment of coursework among Institutions of Higher Education (IHE’s) and competency-based professional development (PD) supports because they believed these built on eff orts that were in place previously.

In interviews, local leaders as well as key informants from state agencies, intermediary organizations, and higher education institutions reported that the RTT-ELC has had a positive infl uence on creating a more coherent professional development system. One state agency administrator reported, “Having everyone in Gateways, making it a licensing requirement, and having their [early


education providers’] education, credentials and training in Gateways helps us as licensing representatives. It helps us talk with providers about where they are in terms of quality, where they want to go, and how to get there.” A higher education administrator reported that over 80% of the higher education institutions voluntarily changed and aligned coursework. She stated, “Th e fact that over 80% have voluntarily changed their coursework speaks volumes.” She noted that the competency-based credentials were based on surveys of employers as well as best practice and evidence and that this approach could prove useful to other eff orts in the state to creating competency-based credentials.

Stakeholders reported that they perceived the current professional development pathway is more fully developed than it was three years ago (see Figure 8, below).

Survey respondents and interviewees reported that compared to 2013, there is greater alignment of coursework, more competency-based professional development supports and opportunities, more effi cient processes for teachers and administrators to obtain degrees, and progress in the number of teachers and administrators who have completed competency-based credentials.

Notably, a number of participants in the evaluation reported that they believe the early childhood professional development pathway has been improved through the Educator Preparation Program Innovation (EPPI) grant.29 Th ese perceptions were consistent with the fi ndings of an independent evaluation report of the EPPI grant.

Outcome 4. Progress in Building Aligned Data Systems

Th e RTT-ELC grant funds and requirements infl uenced the state to move forward with the development of aligned data systems. Although the state did not achieve articulated benchmarks regarding the development of aligned data systems,18 numerous stakeholders reported that RTT-ELC funds led to progress. Prior to receiving the RTT-ELC grant, the state had strong but separate early childhood data systems. As a result, policymakers could address questions about programs but could not address questions about children. In other words, DCFS could answer questions about child care licensing, IDHS could answer questions about child care subsidy, ISBE could answer questions about Preschool for All, and the Head Start Association could provide answers to questions about Head Start. Yet, state government was not able to answer simple questions about the total number of children who received ECE regardless of the funding stream. Nor could the state answer questions about the relationship between the quality of those services and child outcomes. While stakeholders acknowledge there were high expectations and that there is more work to do, important progress has been made.30 One key informant reported, “We have started to make good progress. Th e proposal was overly optimistic about an integrated data system. What has been accomplished may be a little less than what was hoped for and we have to hold ourselves accountable to that but it was a heavy lift.”

Several stakeholders reported an enhanced culture of looking to data to inform policy and practice thanks to RTT-ELC funding and the RTT-ELC funding and the data alignment work. For example, greater alignment between the Gateways Registry, DCFS, IDHS and INCCRRA reporting systems has led to targeted professional development opportunities. One state administrator reported that the system results in more effi cient and eff ective use of resources. Previously, the state would allocate dollars for professional development based on less precise information but now the state can respond to data that shows demonstrated need. Additional data alignment work supported the Innovation Zones’ use of data to tailor strategies to meet community needs (described in more

detail in the Community Systems Development section of the report). Moreover, the state developed and curated a research agenda which is now publicly posted on the OECD website.

Overall, stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC has had a moderate infl uence on the ability of the state to create more aligned data systems (see Figure 9, below).

Th e ratings regarding the infl uence of RTT-ELC on aligned data systems that are below 4 might be explained, in part, by the slow progress—which Illinois documented in annual reports to the U.S. Department of Education--and to the progress that remains to take place. Figure 10 shows that although stakeholders reported progress in the aligned data systems between 2012 and 2016, the average rating in terms of the level of development of aligned data systems is still low in 2016.

interview data also provided stakeholders’ explanations for the complicated process, the slow pace of building the system, and the work left to do. One interviewee reported, “We are now making sure we have all of the data sharing agreements in place. It is a diff erent world than it was. Th ere are more regulations and accountability issues that are now part of the system and so there are more hoops that all of the contractors working on the data systems have to jump through. Th ese are complicated times.”

At the same time, nearly all stakeholders reported that the work of aligned data systems requires a commitment from state agency leaders and many expressed concern that once the

RTT-ELC grant has concluded, state agencies might “return to silos.” In other words, stakeholders expressed concern that state agencies might return to a focus only on the programs each agency is responsible for administering rather than supporting important data systems that can address policy questions about overall effi ciency and eff ectiveness of the early childhood system. One interviewee reported, “Th e sense I get is that we are ahead of a lot of other states in terms of data systems work. It [aligned data systems] is a common priority. Th e Rauner Administration [the current governor] is for it. Quinn [the former governor] was for it. We are not where we ought to be. Th e [RTT-] ELC moved us forward. At the least, we will stay the course.”

Outcome 5. KIDS Pilot Test Used to Inform Full KIDS Implementation

Illinois originally planned to fully implement the KIDS in school year 2014-2015 but, instead, used the pilot test of KIDS to inform future full implementation. Illinois pilot tested KIDS during the 2012-2013 academic year and used the information from the pilot as well as stakeholder input to revise the system. Th e state currently plans to off er and support the use of KIDS as a comprehensive assessment that can be administered at three points in time and can include a comprehensive set of measures, if districts choose to use the full assessment. At the same time the state requires districts to administer a streamlined version of the system. Currently, the full implementation for the required streamlined system is planned for the fall for each kindergartner, beginning in 2017-2018. Th e state aims to produce data reports for each student, based on local instruction and assessment practices through the a rating system beginning in school year 2017-2018.31

Figure 11, below, shows that stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC had an infl uence on the design and pilot testing of KIDS, and a modest infl uence on the state’s ability to answer questions about students’ readiness and supports for teachers to use data. Th e overall infl uence of the RTT-ELC on each question about KIDS was between a 3.3 and a 4 on the 5-point Likert scale, with 1=low infl uence, 5=high infl uence.



Although multiple stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC helped keep a focus on a kindergarten entry assessment, many stakeholders reported that they believed Illinois would have implemented an entry assessment even in the absence of the grant. In the words of one state key informant, “ISBE was going there anyway and RTT-ELC gave them the funding and a timeline to get it done and the funding to enhance how to roll it out.” Several key informants reported that they believed in the absence of RTT-ELC funding, the system would not have been revised in a way that allows kindergarten teachers to use formative data and evidence-based strategies to support student learning.

Outcome 6. Stakeholders Report Benefits of Community Systems Development Activities

RTT-ELC funded a robust set of community systems activities including, but not limited to, the design and implementation of Innovation Zones. Illinois proposed to engage communities with the aim of ensuring children aged birth through fi ve, especially the most vulnerable children in the state, have increased access to high-quality early childhood education.

With RTT-ELC funding, Illinois developed a State Strategic Plan for Community Systems Development and designed and implemented Innovation Zones. State agency representatives, state leads from community systems initiatives, and representatives from the Illinois Early Learning Council have engaged in numerous eff orts to promote and support local community collaborations.18 Th ese collaborations develop “pipelines” that link children with high need to eff ective early childhood services, coordinate existing services, and serve as feedback loops between communities and state leaders to align systems and inform policy and eff ective implementation of programs.

Stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC grant had a strong and positive infl uence on the design and implementation of community systems development. When asked about the infl uence of the RTT-ELC on community systems development, many stakeholders reported it was strong. Figure 12 illustrates

the average rating of the infl uence that RTT-ELC has had to date designing and implementing specifi c strategies to engage families in communities and tailor services to meet the needs of the most vulnerable families.

Stakeholders reported that strategies created an expectation that all early childhood providers in communities would work together in constructive ways, use data to understand gaps in services, and ensure all children were served, thereby increasing the eff ectiveness of the services as well as the effi ciency of service delivery. Another key informant reported, “All of these stakeholders should be working together where there is no wrong door for access and the spectrum of services that is needed.” Another reported that through the community engagement strategies, communities learned lessons regarding active recruitment of the most vulnerable children in communities. Others reported specifi c benefi ts of the Innovation Zones. A state early childhood stakeholder noted:

I believe RTT-ELC confi rmed the importance of community collaborations and supports for strong community systems to achieving high outcomes for children and families. Th e Innovation Zone work set an important precedent for bringing organizations together, across sectors, to advance a common goal of supporting the needs of children and families. Th is work has had a critical impact on the vision for early learning funding moving forward. – ECE Leader


Illinois’ RTT-ELC proposal articulated longer-term outcomes toward which the state aimed to make substantial progress during the RTT-ELC funding period. In the fi rst three years of funding, the state has made progress toward each of the fi ve longer-term outcomes, and the state is poised to fully achieve these outcomes in the upcoming years.

Outcome 7. Changes in Capacity of Early Childhood System to Serve Children and Families with High-Need

According to the Performance Report to ED,18 Illinois met some but not all benchmarks related to providing high-quality early care and education to children and families with high-need. ExceleRate has four levels of quality: licensed, Bronze, Silver, and Gold and also off ers Gold-Rated programs opportunities to continue to enhance quality through Awards of Excellence. Th e state created targets for the number of ECE providers at each level of quality. In 2015, the state achieved 95% of the combined targets for achieving quality in the highest three tiers of quality. Th e state fell short of its target of serving children in state-funded pre-K and Head Start/Early Head Start but exceeded the articulated target for children participating in the state’s subsidy program that were in the highest-rated programs.

A majority of state ECE stakeholders reported they believe RTT-ELC has been successful in creating a system in Illinois that supports increased quality of early childhood programs.

Moreover, many early care and education programs reported increased access to quality supports (described in more detail in subsequent sections below). At the same time, child care providers serving low-income children and families experienced funding instability that many reported aff ected their ability to serve low-income children. Preschool for All and Head Start programs did not experience this instability but it did impact a portion of child care providers.

Even with the challenges associated with instability in state child care funding, Illinois reported a substantial increase in the percentage of low-income families being served in high-quality programs. In 2015, 20% of children in low-income families were participating in the highest-rated (Gold-Rated) early childhood programs, an increase of 6,371 children since 2014.32 As shown in Figure 13, below, stakeholders reported a perceived increase in access to high-quality early learning programs between 2012 and 2016, yet reported that access remained low in 2016.

Progress on Longer-term Outcomes


in the past three years (see Figure 14, below). Analysis of open-ended responses revealed that most providers who reported that their understanding was the same reported that they had a strong understanding three years ago.

A Silver-Rated family child care provider commented on the experiences and changes: “Participating in ExceleRate has given me the opportunity to assess and change areas in my program that may have been lacking quality. Funding assistance through ExceleRate has given me the opportunity to purchase items needed to increase the quality of care provided to families in my community.”

Some early care and education providers reported specifi c changes they have made that they attribute to ExceleRate. One Bronze-Rated family child care provider serving infants and toddlers reported using observation and documentation to plan lessons and provide parents with information. Another family child care provider reported enhancing family engagement activities. Others reported accessing a range of supports and services off ered by the state now that they are more aware of opportunities, an overall increase in quality of their program, and specifi c changes in classroom practices.34

Outcome 9. Benefits of Enhanced Professional Development Pathway Reported by Providers

To assess providers’ perspectives on the changes in access to professional development opportunities and any benefi ts of the RTT-ELC activities to create a more enhanced professional development pathway, the evaluation team administered a survey of licensed providers in Illinois. Providers were asked about changes in access to professional development and changes in practice compared to three years ago.

Sizable percentages of providers reported that since Illinois received RTT-ELC funding, access to professional development and credentials increased (see Figure 15, on next page).

Despite changes in child care funding and policies, currently 44 percent of Illinois’ child care centers and about 5 percent of family child care homes have moved above the licensed level of quality and are engaged in continuous quality improvement activities. Illinois had established a target of ensuring that at least 50 percent of licensed child care centers in the state participated in ExceleRate at a level above licensed.

Although the state has made substantial progress in enhancing the quality of ECE programs, it fell short of meeting targets, especially regarding ensuring the state’s highest-need children and families were served in the Gold-Rated programs. Th e state is particularly falling short of targets in moving family child care providers into the highest level of quality.33

To improve the quality of programs serving the highest-need children, some state stakeholders reported that the state could do more to engage license-exempt providers. In 2014, a policy for license-exempt centers was developed to engage these programs in ExceleRate. Several state stakeholders reported that there are opportunities for ExceleRate to more fully engage license-exempt programs. Th ey noted that the new federal law aff ecting child care (the Child Care and Development Block Grant that was reauthorized in 2015) gives an opportunity to modify ExceleRate to align with the new requirements and support higher quality in all settings. One state leader reported that the reauthorization of the child care legislation includes new requirements for states to monitor license-exempt programs and ensure they have participated in health and safety training. She suggested that the quality improvement supports off ered through ExceleRate could be used to ensure license-exempt programs meet the new requirements but stated that, “there is a price tag with it.”

Outcome 8. Benefits of ExceleRate Reported by Providers

To provide evidence about ECE providers’ perspectives regarding ExceleRate, the evaluation team for this study surveyed licensed early care and education providers who are in the ExceleRate database. A total of 320 providers responded to the survey.

A majority of ECE providers who have participated in ExceleRate reported benefi ts. In fact, although 25 percent reported that what they have accessed from ExceleRate has not yet been useful, 66 percent reported benefi ts from the training. One Bronze-Rated family child care provider reported, “My understanding [of ExceleRate and ECE quality] has helped me understand children and their families better.”

Moreover, a majority of providers reported that their understanding both of early childhood quality and the relationship between quality and child outcomes have improved


Providers reported substantial gains in access to credentials and coursework. One Silver-Rated family child care provider reported, “Professional development trainings are easier to come by since I helped to organize a local child care association in our area. I think that higher education access is better also with more and more programs being off ered online.” A Gold-Rated child care center director reported, “ We are totally immersed with developmental screenings and assessments. Because we have ‘buy in’ from all of our staff , we work together to make sure our center is focused on the child and what that child needs.”

However, some reported that they feel they should not pay for a credential and others stated they anticipate increases in credential fees once the RTT-ELC funds are no longer available. Moreover, one provider reported that she felt paying $35 for credentials was too much, given her low pay.

Th us, the majority of early care and education providers reported benefi ts from participation in the professional development opportunities off ered through RTT-ELC supports. However, some reported concerns that actual or perceived decreases in grant funds and associated increases in fees for credentials will occur.

Current estimates reveal that about 20 percent of early care and education professionals in the state have received a credential35 and many of them reported that the reduction in fees for credentials and

supports was key to making this possible. State and local

key informants, as well as some providers, expressed concern that if the fee increases, there will no longer be an incentive to

complete credentials.

Outcome 10. Increased Use of Data Reported but Questions About Child Outcomes Remain Unanswered

At the same time the state engaged in activities to create aligned data systems, with support from RTT-ELC funds, state stakeholders crafted key research questions related to early childhood that stakeholders believed would be important to answer through the state’s longitudinal data system. Stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC had a modest infl uence on the state’s ability to answer questions about child outcomes—as funds have been used to create a way to link some early childhood data to the state’s longitudinal data system, but many noted that the state has yet to conduct the research to address the questions (see Figure 16, below).

Stakeholders reported that the existing data systems could enable the state to answer questions about child outcomes in the future but that they require ongoing leadership support from each state agency as well as private organizations, commitment, and staffi ng. Numerous stakeholders reported that progress has been slow because it requires both political will and technical knowledge and support. One key informant reported that using data to address policy questions is the next focus. Th is state leader noted, “We are focused on using data to better understand how early childhood services are being delivered throughout the state. We have been having meetings with leadership to review the data and to consider how we address the fact that certain populations are signifi cantly overly represented in child care as opposed to pre-K. Th ere is less of an overlap in services than we considered. We are now in the process of getting the data into the Innovation Zones so we can see the allocation of early childhood services at the community level.”

Stakeholders reported that the systems can answer questions about effi ciency and eff ectiveness but the state must support ongoing maintenance of the systems. Th ey note that such work does not require a substantial infusion of funds. Numerous study participants reported that sustaining progress will require leadership across state agencies. Moreover, addressing specifi c research questions requires funding to support the research staff that would


analyze the data and produce reports. Th ose who have worked on the aligned data systems and stakeholders who have used the system to date, reported a strong interest in supporting these eff orts to position the state to answer questions about effi ciency, eff ectiveness and outcomes. Two study participants reported that policymakers want research-based answers to questions about government effi ciency but investing in data systems can be diffi cult “to sell to politicians.” Th ese study participants, as well as many who have used the data systems, reported that, nonetheless, they were hopeful that the work to support the data systems and associated research would be continued.

Outcome 11. State Positioned to Report School Readiness through KIDS

As of December 2015, 3,778 kindergarten teachers and 1,131 school administrators participated in the two-day training on KIDS implementation. An additional 1,288 school administrators participated in a half-day administrator training and 158 staff completed KIDS coach training. A total of 188 school districts (595 schools) used KIDS in Fall 2015 and completed the KIDS assessment on 16,854 kindergarten students. Th is represents approximately 12 percent of the state’s kindergarten population.

Several RTT-ELC stakeholders reported that data produced by the KIDS that will be administered to all children in school year 2016-2017 will give federal and state leaders a snapshot of Illinois children’s school readiness, early learning needs, and achievement gaps that need to be addressed.

Several state stakeholders reported that they believe the full system, including all indicators as well as the training and data collection at three points in time, provides a much more robust picture for school administrators, teachers and parents to support children’s learning. A number of interviewees reported that they understood political pressure and concerns from some districts led to the more streamlined requirements, but they were nonetheless pleased that the state allowed districts to use the more robust system if they chose to do so.

Several state- and district-level ECE stakeholders provided perspectives on the new, more streamlined, requirement as well as on the benefi ts of the more robust KIDS that is still available to districts. For example, one District Superintendent reported that instead of adding KIDS to the existing system, the kindergarten classrooms in her district are now relying on KIDS to: determine children’s baseline school readiness, tailor supports to children based on their levels of development in each domain, and communicate children’s development to parents. She stated that the teachers have benefi tted enormously from having data

on children’s development that can be used to better support their growth and development. Moreover, she stated that the parents in her district like the new report cards. She stated that, previously, the report card showed that kindergarteners were “failing,” which put parents on the defensive. In contrast, the way the new KIDS report cards are presented to parents gives teachers a chance to engage with parents about growth opportunities for their children. Another district superintendent echoed these comments, stating that KIDS has benefi tted the district, her kindergarten teachers, parents, and, ultimately, the children in her district. Others commented that they understood why the state created a more streamlined version for districts that were committed to their existing report cards but stated that the robust system can help kindergarten teachers engage in practices that best support children’s growth and development.

Outcome 12. Improvements from Lessons Learned through Community Systems-Building Activities

State ECE stakeholders, community members, and professional development providers reported that with RTT-ELC funding, the state has engaged in specifi c strategies to use lessons from communities to improve state policies and practices. Stakeholders reported specifi c lessons learned from community systems-building activities. Notably, several key informants reported that the focus on coordinated screenings and referrals for disabilities has led to improved outcomes at the community level. Others reported learning lessons about how to best serve the highest-need children and families. Moreover, at the state and community level, stakeholders reported using lessons from the community systems-building work to improve policies and practices.

Following are comments from community members about the outcomes of the systems-building work:

I know so much more about the community around us as a result of the Leadership Academy. Much of our community is on free and reduced lunch. . . [Th rough support from the Innovation Zones and Leadership Academy we got a grant to support] low-income families . . . and they are so engaged.

– Provider participating in an Innovation Zone

[After participating in our local Innovation Zones and obtaining an Inclusion Award of Excellence, we are now screening every child and getting services for those who need them. Screening every child felt like a huge task but when we got down to it, we saw it could be more manageable.

– Provider participating in multiple community-building initiatives


Following are comments about how state supports improved community policies and practices:

Many Innovation Zones had families involved in understanding the root causes of why the highest needs families were not accessing services. Families were immensely helpful in understanding barriers to services like problems with technology, language that was above reading level, problems with required documentation and paperwork, and things like that. Th is information was then used to improve the community outreach strategies and to inform state policies. For example, rather than fi nding out a year later that the eligibility forms were above reading level, we got feedback quickly and made changes right away in the community’s approach to determining eligibility. We also told the state agency that was administering the program right away so they could also make changes in the forms that were required by families participating in programs throughout the state. We also learned about better ways to reach out to families. For example, one community engaged parents as “ambassadors” to reach out to families with similar needs.

– Community stakeholder

A lot of the Head Start programs thought they were already serving high-need populations and were reluctant initially.We helped them look at the data to see who was in poverty, who was in deep poverty, how many teen moms there were and things like that. Th en they had to see who was getting services and where they were. It was unpacking the universe of data for folks in the community and helping them see that they weren’t serving the highest-need children and they had to fi gure out the best way to meet their needs.

– Local ECE stakeholder working in Innovation Zones

We go deep in to understand the why and then use evidence-based strategies and implementation science to follow the best practices. Th is helps us understand what obstacles get in the way and how communities can set themselves up for success. . . We helped them begin with a small test and fi gure out if it worked or didn’t. All the startup was a lot but once we got them up and running, the Innovation Zones are able to give us data about obstacles about what is working or not working around access and quality.

– State leader engaged in supporting Innovation Zones

Lessons learned from Innovation Zone work informed state policies and also helped the state obtain a federal Preschool Development-Expansion grant. One state higher education stakeholder reported, “We had a chance to pilot in some of the Innovation Zones. We used the lessons we learned there to inform how we implemented PDG.” Moreover, one key leader reported that if only one RTT-ELC-funded activity could be sustained, she would choose the community systems

initiatives. She stated that she had been in a position to learn from communities and make changes to policies in a way that was not possible before. She stated that she believed the strategies not only support the work of engaging the highest- need children and families, they provide an opportunity for state government to learn in “real time” and make policy changes that lead to much more effi cient and eff ective delivery of services.

A fi nal evaluation of the Innovation Zones is being conducted and the results will provide answers to the question about whether the model was eff ective in reaching desired goals. Th e evaluation will also document the lessons learned from the Innovation Zones. Several key informants reported that they believed the design, tools and materials, supports, and overall processes developed by the Innovation Zones provide a set of useful resources for communities throughout the state, for state leaders, and for other states.

Outcome 13. Early Childhood System is Positioned to Apply Lessons from RTT-ELC

Lessons learned from RTT-ELC have informed other activities that were not originally anticipated or planned. Many state stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC provided an opportunity for the state to learn from activities to create more effi cient and eff ective cross-systems structures that are designed to produce measurable outcomes. An analysis of the interview and focus group data yields the following lessons learned:

• State agency leadership and an entity to manage cross-sector activities are important for cross-systems activities to succeed. Numerous stakeholders reported that the governor and state agency leaders’ support of the RTT-ELC was critically important for Illinois to achieve

Moreover, one key

leader reported that if only

one RTT-ELC-funded activity could

be sustained, she would choose the

community systems initiatives. She stated

that she had been in a position to learn from

communities and make changes to policies in a

way that was not possible before. She stated that

she believed the strategies not only support the

work of engaging the highest-need children

and families, they provide an opportunity for

state government to learn in “real time”

and make policy changes that lead to

much more efficient and effective

delivery of services.


desired outcomes. Moreover, through OECD and the IAT, the state’s cross-sector leadership, management, and implementation teams worked specifi cally on the cross-sector activities, and these supports were essential to advancing the RTT-ELC activities. Stakeholders reported that the federal RTT-ELC grant is quite small in comparison to the ISBE, DCFS, and IDHS budgets but the dedicated funds that supported leadership and cross-sector staff were critically important for the early childhood systems work to succeed.

• A culture of continuous quality improvement is essential for supporting early care and education providers. Stakeholders reported RTT-ELC gave the state an opportunity to learn from each of the activities supported through the federal funds. Stakeholders reported learning lessons from the design and implementation of ExceleRate, the Awards of Excellence, the new Gateways credentials and supports, grants to higher education institutions working collaboratively, Lead Learn Excel, and Innovation Zones. Several stakeholders reported that RTT-ELC gave the state a chance to consider what was and was not working, to use data to examine whether their assumptions were true, to then use the data to make mid-course corrections and then to share the lessons across state agencies and communities. Nearly all of the individuals who were interviewed pointed out some challenges and later stated that the state learned from the experience and made changes in policies, procedures and practices based on the lessons learned.

• Competency-based professional development systems can provide a model for other content areas across the state. Numerous stakeholders reported that the design and implementation of the competency-based credentials,

along with the model of engaging higher education institutions to create more aligned course work, was a notable accomplishment. Moreover, stakeholders reported that as the state seeks opportunities to support competency-based professional development in domains beyond early childhood, leaders could adapt the activities and processes employed with the RTT-ELC funding.

• Investment in research and data systems is needed to be able to answer important policy questions about effi ciency, eff ectiveness and outcomes. Numerous stakeholders noted that they believed the original RTT-ELC application was too ambitious in the targets regarding building aligned data systems but noted that the systems are now available to answer questions about effi ciency and eff ectiveness. Several noted that a research agenda has been constructed and policymakers can answer several important questions about effi ciency and eff ectiveness. However, in the absence of leadership and dedicated funding for research staff with a focus on addressing questions about outcomes, concern was raised about progress moving forward.

• Structures and systems are needed to ensure lessons from communities inform state policies. Stakeholders reported that they had learned from Innovation Zones, and that by focusing on learning from families, communities, and providers, the RTT-ELC activities led to improvements in policy and practice at the community and state levels. Key informants reported that the specifi c structures, systems and supports provided by RTT-ELC were essential in achieving desired outcomes.

Recommendations and DiscussionIllinois has made substantial progress in building a strong early childhood system that supports quality early care and education through alignment of policies and practices at the state, institution, community, and provider levels. Stakeholders reported that state leadership and fi nancial support are needed to maintain early childhood systems developed with RTT-ELC funds. Alternatively, in the absence of leadership and funding, several stakeholders voiced concern that the effi cient and eff ective systems that have been built will stagnate or revert to less effi cient, less eff ective, and more fragmented services in the absence of strong state-leadership support.

Th e state has articulated a goal of increasing the number of children—especially those with highest need—who enter kindergarten safe, healthy, eager to learn, and ready to succeed. To achieve this goal, stakeholders recommended the state continue to demonstrate leadership and allocate existing resources to support systems that have been built with RTT-ELC funds. Th e leadership and resources should ensure that Illinois: a) continues to support a system that off ers high-quality early care and education for the state’s young children with highest need; b) supports quality enhancements to early care and education programs at all levels of quality; and c) ensures state and community leaders use the data systems and documented lessons learned from the RTT-ELC to improve policies, programs, and practices.

Th ree recommendations emerged from analysis of evaluation data:

• Recommendation 1. State leaders should continue to support cross-agency early childhood systems activities because the work leads to more effi cient and eff ective policies and programs, which ultimately could translate into improved child outcomes. Leadership that acknowledges the importance of the cross-agency work is needed, as is funding to support staff responsible for implementing cross-systems activities.

Rationale: Th e unifi ed framework that has resulted in changes in policies, programs, and practices is leading to more effi cient and eff ective early childhood services but substantial work remains to be completed. Stakeholders reported that the RTT-ELC has been infl uential in increasing the capacity of the Governor’s Offi ce of Early Childhood Development (OECD) and the Inter-Agency Team (IAT). Moreover, documentation exists to show that the OECD and interagency work has led to improvements in the state’s Quality Rating and Improvement System, a more coherent professional development system that has led to an increased number of providers who have credentials, the alignment of data systems, and cross-sector community engagement. Many voice concern that in the absence of leadership and allocated staffi ng, the system will revert to less effi cient, fragmented services.

• Recommendation 2. Dedicated funding is needed to support systems quality improvement activities that were initiated through federal grant dollars.

Rationale: Now that Illinois has data showing the need for quality improvement, it is important for the state to invest in enhancing quality, especially in the settings that serve the state’s most vulnerable, low-income children who, research has shown, benefi t the most from high-quality early learning. Moreover, research evidence shows that low-quality child care can undermine child learning and development whereas higher quality early care and education is important for children’s long-term learning outcomes.

• Recommendation 3. State leaders should support eff orts to align data and use the aligned data systems to address policy questions and support ongoing quality improvement eff orts.

Rationale: Illinois has made progress in aligning state-level data systems and is using data more eff ectively to target early care and education quality enhancements, support professional development that leads to credentials, and address community needs. Many voice concern that in the absence of federal funds for systems-building, state leaders will no longer focus on using data to improve policies and practices despite the access to data systems just built that have the capacity to address important questions.

22Illinois Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge Evaluation Report 2016 EDC, Inc. • Th e BUILD Initiative


Appendix A. Scope and MethodologyBetween September 2016 and December 2016, EDC engaged in a mixed-methods evaluation that used the logic model as the frame for instrument design, data collection, analysis, and reporting. Th e evaluation focused on the 2011 to 2016 timeframe. In 2011, the state developed the initial application and continued to carry out activities through 2016 with the aim of completing all RTT-ELC activities in 2017.

Th e evaluation team developed interview and focus-group protocols, surveys, and methods for evaluating the existing datasets. Th e stakeholder-interview and focus-group protocols included both open-ended items and Likert-scale questions designed to obtain information about the nature of the RTT-ELC activities and stakeholders’ attribution of impact of the RTT-ELC on short- and longer-term outcomes. Th e stakeholder survey included three matrix Likert-scale questions that had 26 sub-items and two open-ended questions. Th e provider interview protocols were designed to obtain data on the perceived impact of ExceleRate and associated RTT-ELC supports. Th e provider survey included 14 closed-ended questions and six open-ended questions to obtain perspectives on: changes that have occurred in the early childhood system in Illinois; the infl uence of ExceleRate and associated professional development opportunities on the quality of early education and care; and the impact of changes on the children and families being served.

Th e sample of state stakeholders chosen to participate in focus groups and interviews was selected based on a review of the RTT-ELC proposal. Key leaders with a role in the conceptualization and implementation of RTT-ELC activities at the state and community levels were invited to participate in the study. Th e sample of providers who completed surveys is based on a sample of respondents from the universe of ECE providers in the INCCRRA database, which includes approximately half of the unlicensed providers in the state as well as all providers who have participated in ExceleRate, the state’s QRIS. Th e evaluation team developed a web-based survey that was sent by INCCRRA to regional Resource & Referral agencies throughout the state. Details about the evaluation activities and sample are presented in Table A1, below.

Table A1. Data Collection Activities

Evaluation Activity Description Number

State Stakeholder

Interviews

Focus Groups

RTT-ELC committee members and sub-recipients that included both those responsible for conceptualizing the activities as well as those responsible for implementation.

State agency program directors and leaders from the Illinois Board of Education, the Department of Children & Family Services, Department of Human Services, and the Governor’s Offi ce of Early Childhood Development (OECD).

Community stakeholders.

Higher education leaders and faculty providing professional development and coursework through Gateways Opportunities, HERO and EPPI.

Foundation, advocacy, and state association stakeholders engaged in early childhood education services, programs and systems.

Providers and community leaders, including district superintendents, child care and preschool program administrators, and teachers.

42 interviewees

54 focus group

participants

SurveysState and community early childhood stakeholders.1 25

Providers.2 347

Secondary Analysis of Existing Data

ExceleRate, workforce data compiled, cleaned, and analyzed by INCCRRA KIDS data produced by ISBE.

Document Review RTT-ELC proposal, work plan, annual reports, budget documents, and fi nancial reports. Documents regarding ExceleRate and KIDS data from the state websites. Evaluation reports from independent policy, research and evaluation organizations.

1 Survey was sent to 54 state ECE stakeholders and 25 responded yielding a response rate of 42 percent response rate. 2 Survey was sent to 2054 providers and 347 responded yielding a response rate of 17%.


Th e lead evaluator worked with data analysts from INCCRRA to verify the accuracy, validity, and reliability of the data analyses that had been performed. Data that were compiled and reported to the federal government were verifi ed and updated information was provided to the EDC evaluation team.

Th e evaluation team analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data with the aim of describing the nature of the RTT-ELC activities and perceived impact of the RTT-ELC on desired short- and longer-term outcomes. Th e quantitative analyses included descriptive statistical analyses to determine frequencies and averages, as well as independent samples t-tests to determine whether diff erences between providers participating in ExceleRate at diff erent levels are statistically signifi cant. Th e qualitative methods were guided by Miles and Huberman’s framework of creating an initial coding schema, refi ning the codes after preliminary analysis, and exploring emerging themes and trends.36 Qualitative data were coded based on a schema that examined the relationship between actors (such as agency directors and providers), activities, outputs, and short- and longer-term perceived outcomes.

Appendix B. Data TablesTable B1. Survey Statements by Logic Model Outcome Area (Scale: 1 low–5 high) (N=25)

“Rate your perception of the infl uence of the RTT-ELC on the following:”

Logic Model Outcome Related Survey StatementsAverage (1=low,

5 =high)

1. Increased capacity of OECD and IAT as well as aligned ECE policies.

Th e capacity of the OECD and IAT to support the design and implementation of RTT-ELC activities.

4.5

Alignment of policies across early learning and development programs at the state level.

4.0

2. Increased agreement among providers about defi nition of high-quality ECE through participation in ExceleRate.

Shared agreement among child care, Head Start and pre-K providers in Illinois regarding what constitutes high-quality early learning and development.

4.1

Design and scale up of ExceleRate 4.6

Design and implementation of Awards of Excelence 4.7

3. Enhanced ECE professional development (PD) system in terms of: increased alignment of higher education courses, number of competency-based PD opportunities off ered, and number of providers completing courses and trainings.

Alignment in coursework among institutions of higher education. 3.9

Competency-based professional development supports (including coursework and coaching) for early learning and development teachers and leaders.

3.8

Competency-based credentials completed by early care and education teachers and administrators.

4.1

Effi cient processes for teachers and administrators to complete credentials and degrees.

4.0

4. Aligned and integrated data available. Data systems that can answer questions about children served by ECE programs collectively (not simply questions about a single program).

3.8

Data on effi ciency of ECE services in Illinois. 3.6


Logic Model Outcome Related Survey StatementsAverage (1=low,

5 =high)

5. Successful use of KIDS pilot data to inform full implementation.

Development and pilot testing of KIDS. 3.6

6. Demonstrated benefi ts of family and community engagement activities.

Family engagement activities and supports at the community and program level.

4.0

7. Increased capacity of early childhood system to provide high-quality services to children and families, especially those most in need.

Access to a high-quality ECE for children and families in Illinois. 4.0

Access to a high-quality ECE for children and families with complex needs.

3.9

8. Benefi ts of ExceleRate reported by providers.

See data in Table B3 (provider survey) below. See below

9. Benefi ts of enhanced professional development pathway reported by ECE providers.

Impact of professional development on program quality. 4.0

10. Data systems can address child outcome questions.

Ability to answer questions about outcomes of ECE programs on children in Illinois.

3.6

11. Successful implementation of KIDS throughout the state.

Ability to answer questions about the kindergarten readiness of Illinois children.

3.2

Supports for kindergarten teachers to use formative data and evidence-based strategies to support student learning.

3.3

12. Improvements in policies and practices at the state and local levels from lessons learned through Innovation Zones.

Innovation Zone design and implementation. 4.5

Ability for communities to off er seamless services that meet the needs of families.

3.9

13. Lessons learned inform Illinois policy. Progress toward achieving the vision that every child in Illinois begins kindergarten healthy, safe, eager to learn and ready to succeed.

4.2


Table B2. Changes in Illinois between 2012 and 2016

(Scale: 1 low support–5 high support) (N=347)

Logic Model Outcome Related Survey StatementsAverage

2012

Average

2016

1. Increased capacity of OECD and IAT as well as aligned ECE policies.

Th e capacity of the Offi ce of Early Childhood Development and Inter-Agency Team to support the design and implementation of RTT-ELC activities.

2.3 3.6

Alignment of policies across early learning and development programs at the state level. 2.2 3.3

2. Design and scale-up of QRIS. Shared agreement among child care, Head Start and pre-K providers in Illinois regarding what constitutes high-quality early learning and development.

2.6 3.7

Design and scale up of ExceleRate. 2.0 4.6

Design and implementation of Awards of Excellence.1.5 4.7

3. Enhanced ECE professional development (PD) system in terms of: increased alignment of higher education courses, number of competency-based PD opportunities off ered, and number of providers completing courses and trainings.

Alignment in coursework among institutions of higher education. 2.5 3.8

Competency-based professional development supports (including coursework and coaching) off ered to early learning and development teachers and leaders.

2.0 3.5

Competency-based credentials completed by early care and education teachers and administrators. 2.6 3.9

Effi cient processes for teachers and administrators to complete credentials and degrees. 2.8 3.9

4. Aligned and integrated data available.

Data systems that can answer questions about children served by early learning and development programs collectively (not simply questions about a single program). 1.4 2.7

Data on the outcomes of early learning and development programs on children in Illinois. 2.0 2.6

5. Successful use of KIDS pilot data to inform full implementation.

Development and pilot testing of KIDS.

1.5 2.9

6. Demonstrated benefi ts of family and community engagement activities.

Family engagement activities and supports at the community and program level. 2.2 3.5

7. Increased capacity of early childhood system to provide high-quality services to children and families, especially those most in need.

Access to a high-quality early learning services for children and families in Illinois. 2.4 3.2

Access to a high-quality early learning for children and families with complex needs. 2.2 3.1


Logic Model Outcome Related Survey StatementsAverage

2012

Average

2016

8. Benefi ts of ExceleRate reported by providers.

See data in Table B3 below (provider survey).See below

9. Benefi ts of enhanced professional development pathway reported by ECE providers.

Impact of professional development on program quality.

NA 3.6

10. Use of data systems informs policies and improves effi ciency.

Aligned data systems that can answer questions about the effi ciency of services for young children and families in Illinois. 1.4 2.2

11. Successful implementation of KIDS throughout the state.

Ability to answer questions about the kindergarten readiness of Illinois children. 1.4 2.1

Supports for kindergarten teachers to use formative data and evidence-based strategies to support student learning. 1.6 2.8

12. Improvements in policies and practices at the state and local levels from lessons learned through Innovation Zones.

Innovation Zone design and implementation.1.5 4.4

Ability for communities to off er seamless services that meet the needs of families. 1.8 2.8

13. Lessons learned inform Illinois policy.

Progress toward achieving the vision that every child in Illinois begins kindergarten healthy, safe, eager to learn and ready to succeed.

2.3 4.2


Table B3. Provider Survey

Survey StatementAverage (1=low,

5=high)

How has public funding for your early childhood program changed, compared to three years ago?

2.3

How has access to early childhood training and coursework in your local community changed, compared to three years ago? (Classes could be at a college or community college, online, or at your place of work.)

3.4

How has access to aff ordable credentials changed in the past three years? 3.4

How has your understanding of what quality early care and education looks like changed compared to three years ago? I have . . .

3.6

How has your understanding of child development changed compared to three years ago? I have . . .

3.7

Overall, how has your understanding about the relationship between the quality of early care/education and child outcomes changed compared to three years ago.

3.7

How has your program quality changed, compared to three years ago? 4.0

How has your confi dence providing quality early care and education changed, compared to three years ago?

3.9

How has your understanding of what ExceleRate is and what it takes to receive a Circle of Excellence changed, compared to when you fi rst learned about ExceleRate?

3.8

What was the impact of the training on your program quality? 3.6

Percent who

answered Yes

Does your program currently have an ExceleRate Circle of Quality? 85%

Have you or your staff taken any early childhood college courses in the past three years? 80%

Have you or your staff taken any ExceleRate trainings? 95%

Is your program accredited (e.g. NAEYC)? 26%

Did you previously participate in the Illinois Department of Human Services Quality Counts Quality Rating System?

78%

Are you in an Innovation Zone? 15%


Endnotes1 RTT-ELC defi nes high need as children who: are living in families with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level; have disabilities or

developmental delays; are English Language Learners; are homeless; are in foster care; and/or are migrant. 2 Source: U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Grantee abstract: Illinois. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/abstracts/ilabstract.pdf 3 Source: Su, J. Accove, A. M., & Pouw, L. (2016). Community systems overview [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/p20network/_pdfs/work-groups/b-3/Community%20Systems%20Overview%20for%20B-3%202016-06-09.pdf 4 KIDS was pilot tested during the 2012-2013 school year. Participating districts were geographically diverse and together represent the ethnic and

economic diversity of the state. Th e original KIDS instrument included 55 measures at three points in time with the aim of collecting data on all domains of early learning and development and using the data formatively to support appropriate classroom practice.

5 In late 2016, the state was granted an extension and now plans to complete all activities in 2017. 6 Th e state received an extension in 2016 and the fi nal activities will be concluded in 2017. Source: U.S. Departments of Education. (2016). Race to the

Top – Early Learning Challenge 2015 annual performance report: Illinois. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2015apr/ilapr2015.pdf 7 Source: U.S. Departments of Education. (2011). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge phase 2 project abstract. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/applications/illinois-abstract-2.pdf 8 Source: Illinois State Board of Education. (2016). Early Childhood Block Grant (ECBG) FY18 re-competition [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from: https://www.isbe.net/documents/ecbg-fy18-webinar-pres-160510.pdf9 End note: ExceleRate was designed to off er providers quality improvement activities and rates providers using 5 tiers: 1) licensed, 2) Bronze, 3) Silver,

4) Gold, and 5) Awards of Excellence. Only Gold programs are eligible to achieve an Award of Excellence As programs demonstrate enhanced quality (as measured using valid and reliable tools), they move up in tiers. Th e development and implementation of the QRIS required a systematic review and development of processes that took into account existing programs and requirements. Diff erent federal and state standards and monitoring requirements exist for child care, Head Start and Preschool for All programs. Moreover, some child care programs had been engaged in Quality Counts, which used a diff erent set of standards than ExceleRate. Th us, creating a unifi ed QRIS required a systematic review and revision of existing standards, the development of processes and pathways for programs that were required to meet diff erent federal and state standards, and the development of processes for programs meeting voluntary standards such as those articulated through accreditation.

As the state was designing the QRIS and developing the processes and procedures, the design and implementation was phased in to engage the early childhood community and learn from the experiences of those aff ected by the system. In 2013, Illinois developed the system for licensed child care centers, Preschool for All classrooms, and Head Start/Early Head Start programs. In 2014, the state developed standards for licensed family child care and group homes and created an expedited pathway for Head Start programs and license-exempt centers to participate in the QRIS. Currently OECD oversees the design, implementation and refi nements to the QRIS and works closely with ISBE, IDHS, DCFS and INCCRRA to implement the system.

10 In partnership with the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership at National Louis University, and in alignment with ExceleRate Illinois, the Ounce of Prevention used RTT-ELC funds to off er Lead Learn Excel to school and center leaders to support eff ective early childhood instruction. See more at: http://www.theounce.org/what-we-do/LLE/professional-development-LLE#sthash.g8jGxBot.dpuf

11 Th e federal government requires that the RTT-ELC defi ne high need as children living in families with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, who have disabilities or developmental delays, are English Language Learners, are homeless, are in foster care, and/or are migrant. Homeless estimates are based on the reported number of homeless 0-18 year olds. Based on the fi ve-year American Community Survey 2009-2013, for children age 5 not yet in kindergarten, 1/2 the number of 5-year-olds was used. Th is number will vary depending on the month of the year from 1/12 of 5-reconcile defi nition based on new eligibility. Bassuk, E. L., DeCandia, C.J., Beach, C.A., & Berman, F. (2014). America’s youngest outcasts: A report card on child homelessness. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/sites/default/fi les/downloads/report/Americas-Youngest-Outcasts-Child-Homelessness-Nov2014.pdf; University of Illinois. (2006). Th e Illinois Early Childhood Asset Map (IECAM). Retrieved from

http://iecam.illinois.edu12 Source: U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge 2013 annual performance report: Illinois. Retrieved from

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/annual-performance-reports/il2013apr.pdf13 Th ese grant funds were used to support the development of competency-based curricula that is consistent across institutions of higher education, create

agreements regarding transfer of coursework, and address logistical and practical barriers faced by early childhood providers seeking completion of credentials and degrees.

14 Programs rated in ExceleRate are required to demonstrate that a percentage of their teaching and administrative staff have attained a Gateways Credential.15 Th e Innovation Zones are in eleven diff erent communities in Illinois—Altgeld-Riverdale, Aurora, Austin Cicero, Elgin, Englewood, Greater East St.

Louis, North Lawndale, Pilsen & Little Village, Th ornton Township, and Williamson County. Each Innovation Zone, comprised of local non-profi ts, government agencies, early childhood programs, and more, has developed strategies to address the issues relevant to their community.

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/abstracts/ilabstract.pdf

https://www.isbe.net/documents/ecbg-fy18-webinar-pres-160510.pdf

http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Americas-Youngest-Outcasts-Child-Homelessness-Nov2014.pdf

http://iecam.illinois.edu

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/annual-performance-reports/il2013apr.pdf


16 Sources: Lichtenberger, E. J., Klostermann, B. K., & Duff y, D. Q. (2015). Th e Early Childhood Educator Preparation Innovation Grants: Lessons from initial implementation. Retrieved from: https://www.illinois.gov/gov/OECD/Documents/Early%20Childhood%20Report%20-%20Executive%20Summary%20(2015-2).pdf; U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge 2014 annual performance report: Illinois. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2014apr/ilapr2014.pdf; U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge year 2015 progress update. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2015apr/2015progressfi nal.pdf 17 Source: Illinois Action for Children. (2016). Strengthen young children’s learning. Retrieved from http://www.actforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FY17-ECBG-fact-sheet.pdf 18 Source: U.S. Departments of Education. (2016). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge year 2015 progress update. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2015apr/2015progressfi nal.pdf19 Examples of aligned policies are documented in OECD reports to the U.S. Department of Education including but not limited to: MOU’s among

state agencies to support data sharing, a template for statewide use with step-by-step instructions, and an inventory of screening and training resources, agreements to support more reliable and effi cient monitoring.

20 One individual reported that she preferred the old way of doing business. She stated that she felt it was easier to focus on her program and now she has to coordinate and often wonders, “What is in it for me?” She reported that her work is more complicated now that she has to work with others.

21 Source: INCCRRA, (n.d.) Awards of Excellence. Retrieved from http://www.excelerateillinoisproviders.com/overview2/awards-of-excellence. 22 Source: U.S. Departments of Education. (2016). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge year 2015 progress update. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2015apr/2015progressfi nal.pdf. Note: Illinois ECE requires providers that receive

child care subsidy payments to participate in the QRIS. Several other states require such participation but many do not. 23 In late 2012, the Department of Children and Families Services (DCFS), implemented an administrative rule change requiring all staff in licensed child

care facilities to establish a profi le in the Gateways Registry. With this change, the Registry saw an increase in participation from 32,402 to 56,503 members in 2013 and to 80,769 members by the end of 2014.

24 U.S. Departments of Education. (2014). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge 2013 annual performance report: Illinois. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/annual-performance-reports/il2013apr.pdf; INCCRRA. (2016 June). Race to the

Top – Early Learning Challenge: ExceleRate trainings by standard (licensed centers). Report for June 2016. Bloomington, IL: INCCRRA.25 Between July 2013 and October 2016, RTT-ELC funds were used to off er 1,927 in-peron trainings and a total of 13 training opportunities that are

available online. During that time, 31,385 participants completed the in person training and 47,806 completed the online training. Currently 189 training opportunities can be applied toward a credential. In 2014 the state off ered 97 trainings and 20 trainings in 2013. Source U.S. Departments of Education. (2016). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge year 2015 progress update. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2015apr/2015progressfi nal.pdf 26 Th e INCCRRA December 2016 report, provides details from 2013 and 2016 on the number of individuals with Early Childhood, Infant & Toddler,

and Director credentials but does not include the number of individuals who were awarded the new credentials. 27 According to INCCRRA (December 2016 report), in terms of actual numbers, there has also be a steady increase in the number of credentialed staff . 28 INCCRRA. (2016 October). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge: ExceleRate trainings by standard (licensed centers). Report for October 2016.

Bloomington, IL: INCCRRA.29 Lichtenberger, E. J., Klostermann, B. K., & Duff y, D. Q. (2015). Th e Early Childhood Educator Preparation Innovation Grants: Lessons from initial

implementation. Retrieved from: https://www.illinois.gov/gov/OECD/Documents/Early%20Childhood%20Report%20-%20Executive%20Summary%20(2015-2).pdf

30 As of fi scal year 2015 the Illinois Early Childhood Asset Map (IECAM) web site data now has data available about children being served through: Preschool for All, Prevention Initiative, Head Start, Early Head Start, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, licensed and license-exempt child care centers, and licensed family child care homes. IECAM also includes data: Child Care Assistance Program, IDHS home visiting programs, and IDHS early intervention. IECAM includes demographic data on population, poverty, language, and working family conditions. Data reports can be produced on the following geographic regions: state, county, township, municipality, ISBE regions, IDHS regions, zip codes and census bureau tracks, elementary and unit school districts, Illinois House and Senate districts, and federal congressional districts.

31 Data will not be required statewide until 2017-18, providing districts with additional time to plan and train teachers. Districts currently using KIDS may continue to do so.

32 U.S. Departments of Education. (2016). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge year 2015 progress update. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2015apr/2015progressfi nal.pdf 33 DHS Child Care Meeting (October 2016) Powerpoint Presentation. Note: Illinois reported that the main reason family child care providers are

meeting the target regarding the highest level in ExceleRate is that an analysis of accreditation requirements revealed alignment with the second-highest rating (Silver) and, therefore, more family child care providers are in the second-highest level than anticipated. Yet, several Illinois stakeholders who were interviewed reported that they believed family child care providers were skeptical about participating in the state’s QRIS during a time when they were experiencing instability in subsidy policy. Nonetheless, other RTT-ELC states also reported lower rates of participation of family child care providers in the highest levels of their state QRIS. For example, in Maryland, like Illinois, participation in the QRIS is required to be eligible for subsidy reimbursements. But, only about about 14 percent of providers who were participating were above the lowest level in the state’s QRIS. In Washington, about 15 percent of participating family child care providers are rated at levels above the entry level of participation.

https://www.illinois.gov/gov/OECD/Documents/Early%20Childhood%20Report%20-%20Executive%20Summary%20(2015-2).pdf

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2014apr/ilapr2014.pdf

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2015apr/2015progressfinal.pdf

http://www.actforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FY17-ECBG-fact-sheet.pdf






34 Several providers who did not report improvements reported that low compensation, competing expectations, and changes in the system led to confusion. A separate, large, rigorous study of ExceleRate is being conducted by a university that is examining the validity of the system and the relationship between ExceleRate quality levels and child outcomes. Th e fi ndings of that study will be released in upcoming months. ECE stakeholders in Illinois reported that they plan to use the fi ndings to inform refi nements to the system. Th e evaluation fi ndings will provide conclusive evidence regarding whether and to what degree ExceleRate yields desired benefi ts.

35 Th e fi gure is calculated based on an estimate of the number of early care and education providers who participate in the Gateways Registry and the percentage who have completed credentials. Although some individuals have multiple credentials, some professionals in the state are not partipating in the Registry.

36 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd edition). Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.; U.S. Departments of Education. (2014). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge 2013 annual performance report: Illinois. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/annual-performance-reports/il2013apr.pdf; U.S. Departments of Education. (2014). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge year 2 progress report. Retrieved from

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/rtt-aprreportfi nal112614.pdf

ReferencesBarnett, W.S., Goffi n, S.G., & Boller, K. (2015). Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS) as change agents [Special issue]. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 30 (Part B), 179–342. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.08.005Bassuk, E. L., DeCandia, C.J., Beach, C.A., & Berman, F. (2014). America’s youngest outcasts: A report card on child homelessness. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/sites/default/fi les/downloads/report/Americas-Youngest-Outcasts-Child-Homelessness-Nov2014.pdfBelsha, K. (2016, April 8). Using ‘innovation’ to get more children into early learning programs. Catalyst Chicago. Retrieved from http://catalyst-chicago.org/2016/04/using-innovation-to-get-more-children-into-early-learning-programs/Th e Civic Federation. (2015). State of Illinois FY2016 budget roadmap: State of Illinois budget overview, projections and recommendations for the Governor

and the Illinois General Assembly. Retrieved from http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/sites/default/fi les/article/fi le-attachments/REPORT-FY2016%20Illinois%20Roadmap.pdf

Demma, R. (2010). Building ready states: A governor’s guide to supporting a comprehensive, high-quality early childhood state system. Retrieved from: http://www.nga.org/fi les/live/sites/NGA/fi les/pdf/1010GOVSGUIDEEARLYCHILD.PDFDurana, A. (2016, October 6). How child care providers are paying for a state’s budget crisis. New America Weekly. Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/edition-137/how-child-care-providers-are-paying-states-budget-crisis/Early Learning Challenge Technical Assistance. (2015, September). Spotlight on ECLTA, 20. Retrieved from: http://aemcorp.createsend1.com/t/ViewEmail/i/CC302845A03D9F3DFowler, S., Th omas, D., Jones, A., & Dorsey, E. (2015). Report 1- Supporting the Illinois Innovation Zones for improving early learning and development

services for children from priority populations: Preliminary fi ndings and recommendations. Retrieved from: http://ecap.crc.illinois.edu/pubs/innovation-zones/iz-report1.pdfTh e Governor’s Offi ce of Early Childhood Development. (2015). Illinois Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge sub recipients and projects- Quarter

3-2015. IL: Th e Governor’s Offi ce of Early Childhood Development.Illinois Action for Children. (2015). Report on children from priority populations served by Innovation Zones during round 1 of data collection (January 2015)

Based on aggregated data. Retrieved from http://ecap.crc.uiuc.edu/pubs/innovation-zones/iz-prioritypop.pdfIllinois Action for Children. (2016). Strengthen young children’s learning. Retrieved from http://www.actforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FY17-ECBG-fact-sheet.pdfIllinois Board of Higher Education. (n.d.). Colleges and universities description. Retrieved from http://ibhe.org/Colleges%20and%20Universities/default.htm Illinois Department of Human Services. (2016). Child care meeting [PowerPoint slides]. IL: Illinois Department of Human Services. Illinois Governor’s Offi ce of Early Childhood Development. (2012). RTT-Early Learning Challenge Round 2! [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://www.illinois.gov/gov/OECD/Documents/Early%20Learning%20Challenge/RTT%20ELC2%20Update.pdf Illinois Legislative Reference Bureau. (20 ILCS 3933/) Illinois Early Learning Council Act. P.A. 93-380 (eff . 7-24-03) & 94-124, (eff . 1-1-06). Retrieved

from: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2445&ChapterID=5&Print=TrueIllinois State Board of Education. (2016). Early Childhood Block Grant (ECBG) FY18 re-competition [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from: http://www.isbe.net/earlychi/ppt/ecbg-fy18-webinar-pres-160510.pdfIllinois State Board of Education. (2016). Th e Illinois School Readiness Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.net/earlychi/pdf/KIDS-IL-School-Readiness-Initiative.pdfINCCRRA. (2016 June). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge: excelerate trainings by standard (licensed centers): Report for June 2016. Bloomington,

IL: INCCRRA.INCCRRA. (2016 October). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge: ExceleRate trainings by standard (licensed centers): Report for October 2016.

Bloomington, IL: INCCRRA.

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/rtt-aprreportfinal112614.pdf

http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Americas-Youngest-Outcasts-Child-Homelessness-Nov2014.pdf

http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/sites/default/files/article/file-attachments/REPORT-FY2016%20Illinois%20Roadmap.pdf

http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1010GOVSGUIDEEARLYCHILD.PDF

http://www.isbe.net/earlychi/ppt/ecbg-fy18-webinar-pres-160510.pdf

http://www.isbe.net/earlychi/pdf/KIDS-IL-School-Readiness-Initiative.pdf

INCCRRA. (2016 December). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge: Number of staff by type of credential awarded. Bloomington, IL: INCCRRA.Kellogg, W. W. (2004). Logic model development guide. Retrieved from https://www.wkkf.org/~/media/pdfs/logicmodel.pdfKremer, A., & Hyde, K. (2016). SY 2016 end of year report. Springfi eld, IL: Early Childhood Division, Illinois State Board of Education. Lichtenberger, E. J., Klostermann, B. K., & Duff y, D. Q. (2015). Th e Early Childhood Educator Preparation Innovation Grants: Lessons from initial

implementation.Retrieved from https://www.illinois.gov/gov/OECD/Documents/Early%20Childhood%20Report%20-%20Executive%20Summary%20(2015-2).pdf

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd edition). Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Ounce of Prevention Fund (2016). Lead Learn Excel. Chicago, IL: Retrieved from: http://www.theounce.org/what-we-do/LLE/professional-development-LLEOunce of Prevention Fund National Policy Team. (2016). Semi-annual state policy update: August 2016. Chicago, IL: Retrieved from: http://www.theounce.org/Ounce-NPT-State-Policy-Mini-Update-August-2016.pdfQuesenberry, A. (2015). External evaluation report- Award of Excellence for Inclusion of Children with Special Needs: ExceleRate Illinois. Retrieved from

http://www.aoeinclusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/A-of-E-Evaluation-Report-fi nal.pdfQuesenberry, A. (2016). External evaluation report- cohorts 2 and 3 (Addendum to the December, 2015 Evaluation Report)- Award of Excellence for Inclusion

of Children with Special Needs: ExceleRate Illinois. IL: the Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities.Su, J. Accove, A. M., & Pouw, L. (2016). Community systems overview [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/p20network/_pdfs/work-groups/b-3/Community%20Systems%20Overview%20for%20B-3%202016-06-09.pdfTh omas, D. V., Cesarone, B., & Fowler, S. A. (2014). Innovation Zones baseline data report. Retrieved from http://ecap.crc.illinois.edu/pubs/innovation-zones/iz-baseline.pdfU.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Grantee abstract: Illinois. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/abstracts/ilabstract.pdfU.S. Department of Education. (2014). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge 2013 annual performance report: Illinois. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/annual-performance-reports/il2013apr.pdfU.S. Department of Education. (2014). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge year 2 progress report. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/rtt-aprreportfi nal112614.pdfU.S. Department of Education. (2015). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge 2014 annual performance report: Illinois. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2014apr/ilapr2014.pdfU.S. Department of Education. (2016). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge 2015 annual performance report: Illinois. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2015apr/ilapr2015.pdfU.S. Department of Education. (2016). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge year 2015 progress update. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2015apr/2015progressfi nal.pdfU.S. Department of Education. (2016). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge awards. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/awards.htmlU.S. Department of Education. (2012). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge Application for Phase 2 Funding. Retrieved from https://www.illinois.gov/gov/OECD/Documents/Early%20Learning%20Challenge/RTT-ELC%20II%20Application.pdfU.S. Departments of Education. (2012). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge phase 2 project abstract. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/applications/illinois-abstract-2.pdfUniversity of Illinois. (2006). Th e Illinois Early Childhood Asset Map (IECAM). Retrieved from http://iecam.illinois.edu/about/whatwedo.htmlYoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M., Espinosa, L., Gormley, W. T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K., Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.

(2013). Investing in our future: Th e evidence base on preschool education. Retrieved from http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/fi les/Evidence%20Base%20on%20Preschool%20Education%20FINAL.pdf


https://www.wkkf.org/~/media/pdfs/logicmodel.pdf


http://www.theounce.org/Ounce-NPT-State-Policy-Mini-Update-August-2016.pdf

http://www.aoeinclusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/A-of-E-Evaluation-Report-final.pdf

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/rtt-aprreportfinal112614.pdf


http://iecam.illinois.edu/about/whatwedo.html

http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Base%20on%20Preschool%20Education%20FINAL.pdf

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/applications/illinois-abstract-2.pdf

With support from the BUILD Initiative ©2017