Si lver St Sta · licensed childcare centers in Southern Nevada notifying them of the pilot project. If centers were interested in being selected for participation, they were asked

Si

QuImPi

Yea07.3

RepNevSchoUniv

ilveualitymprovilotP

arThre31.12

ortCreate

adaInstituoolofComversityofN

rStyRatvemeProjec

eeFinal

edby:

uteforChmmunityHNevadaLa

tatetingentSct

lEvalua

hildren’sRHealthScieasVegas

Sta

System

ationR

Researchanences

ars:

m

Report

ndPolicy

ThisrepacontracNICRPStTaraPhebInterimEAmandaHSeniorReDawnDaResearchAboutthTheNevaorganizatcenterindedicateddevelopmof childrewebsiteaNevadaInSchoolof4505S.MLasVegasPhone:(7Email:tarWeb:httpNICRPwandconc

ortwasprectwiththeS

taffContribu

bus,M.A.ExecutiveDir

Haboush,M.AesearchAsso

vidson,PhDhAnalyst

heNevadaInada InstitutetionwhoseptheSchoolod to condumentofpolicenand theirathttp://nic.

nstituteforCfCommunityMarylandPars,NV89154‐702)895‐104ra.phebus@up://nic.unlv.

wouldliketocernedparen

paredbythStateofNeva

utors:

rector

A.ociate

nstituteforCe forChildreprimarygoalofCommunitucting acadeies,practicesr families. F.unlv.edu.

Children’sReyHealthScienrkway,Box4‐303040unlv.eduedu

extendaspntsthatpar

heNevadaInadaOfficeo

Children’sRn’sResearchistoadvanctyHealthSciemic and cs,andprograormore info

esearchandPnces,UNLV53030

ecialthankyrticipatedin

nstituteforCofEarlyCare

ResearchandhandPolicycethewell‐bencesatthecommunity‐bamswhichseormationab

Policy

youtothewtheevaluat

Children’sReandEducat

dPolicy(NICRP) is

beingofchildUniversityobased reseaervetoenhaoutNICRP,p

workgroup,tionbyprov

Researchantion.

anot‐for‐prdreninNevaofNevadaLaarch that hancethehealplease conta

childcarecevidingtheirf

dPolicythr

ofit, non‐parda.AsaresasVegas,NIChelps guidelthandwell‐act usor visi

enterdirectofeedback.

rough

rtisanearchCRPise thebeingit our

ors

TableofContents

IntroductionandBackground............................................................................................................................................................................4

EvaluationPlan........................................................................................................................................................................................................5

Findings.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

1.CenterDirectorPre‐Survey.......................................................................................................................................................................7

Methodology....................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Findings.............................................................................................................................................................................................................7

SummaryandConclusions.......................................................................................................................................................................10

2.EnvironmentRatingScores.....................................................................................................................................................................11

Methodology..................................................................................................................................................................................................11

Findings...........................................................................................................................................................................................................12


3.QualityIndicators–StarRatings...........................................................................................................................................................16

Methodology..................................................................................................................................................................................................16

Findings...........................................................................................................................................................................................................18


4.CenterDirectorInterviews......................................................................................................................................................................26

Methodology..................................................................................................................................................................................................26

Findings...........................................................................................................................................................................................................26

SummaryandConclusion.........................................................................................................................................................................30

5.FinalSummaryandRecommendations..............................................................................................................................................30

AppendixA:QRISModelforYear4Implementation.............................................................................................................................33

SilverStateStarsQualityRatingImprovementSystem:YearThreeEvaluationReport4|P a g e

IntroductionandBackgroundQualityRatingImprovementSystems(QRIS)arebeingdevelopedacrossthecountrytoimprovethequality of early childhood education centers. These systems have been developed to provide amoreobjectivewaytoassessquality inacenterprovidingchildcare. Currently, thereareQualityRatingImprovementSystems(QRIS)in26statesorlocaljurisdictionsintheUnitedStatesandtheremaining25statesareintheprocessofdevelopingaQRIS.Eachofthesesystemsvariesslightlyinits requirements andprotocols, but all have the goal of improving thequality of early childhoodeducation. The pilot project in the state of Nevada, which started in 2010, is the first QRIS inNevada and has been working to test and refine the program processes before moving to fullimplementation.TobegintheprocessofimplementingaQRIS,expertsinearlychildhoodeducationinNevadawereassembled to form a QRIS Workgroup. This workgroup created the Silver State Stars QRIS,includingthestructureofthesystem(a5‐starratingsystem),thequalityindicatorsusedtocreatethestarrating,andtheprocessfortechnicalassistanceandgrantfundingforqualityimprovementsincenters.In the Spring of 2009, the QRIS Workgroup, along with the Nevada Office of Early Care andEducation, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension (UNCE), and the Nevada Institute forChildren’sResearchandPolicy(NICRP),implementedtheSilverStateStarsQRISPilotProject.Thispilotprojectwasdesignedtoimplementtheprogramin24centers,overthetwoyearperiodfrom2009to2011, toevaluatetheutilityof thestarratingsystemandprocessesdesignedto improvecenterquality.Afterworkingwiththefirst2yearsofcenters,changesweremadetotheprogramandimprovementsmadetotheassociatedprocessesandanadditionalsixcenterswerechosentopilottherevisedprogramfromJuly2011toJune2012.SelectionofParticipatingCentersForthethirdandfinalyearofthepilot,centerswereselectedusingthesamemethodsusedtoselecttheinitial24centers.TheNevadaOfficeofEarlyCareandEducationsentpostcardstoalllicensedchildcarecentersinSouthernNevadanotifyingthemofthepilotproject.Ifcenterswereinterestedinbeingselectedforparticipation,theywereaskedtomailbackthepostcardandincludethecenterdirector’scontactinformationandtwobasicpiecesofdemographicinformation:(1)theownershiptypeofthecenter(non‐profit,privatelyowned,orcorporatelyowned)and(2)thesizeofthecenter.ThesevariableswerechosenassamplingcriteriaforthepilotbecauseeachcouldhaveanimpactintheuseoftheQRISmodelascreatedforthepilotproject.Thisyear28centersrespondedandsixcenterswereselectedforparticipation.AfterNICRPselected the centers for thisyearof theproject, theNevadaOfficeofEarlyCareandEducationcontactedeachofthesixcenterstoverifytheywerestillavailabletoparticipateinthepilot.Somecenterseitherdidnotrespondtothiscallornolongerwishedtoparticipateinthepilotforavarietyofreasons,includingownershipchanges,directorchanges,andtimingoftheproject.Ifa centerwas contacted and then chose not to participate a replacement centerwas selected byNICRP using the same selection process that was used for the original sample (see EvaluationReportsforYears1and2forfullmethodology).


EvaluationPlanIn this final year of the pilot projectNICRPworkedwith theOffice of Early Care andEducation,University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, and the contracted consultant for the environmentratingassessmenttodocumentandsolicitfeedbackonnewlydeveloptools,formsandprocessestohelp improve the QRIS for Nevada. In order to complete this task NICRP used three differentmethods:(1)feedbackfromparticipatingcenterdirectors(attwopointsintime),(2)independentassessmentsofqualityusingtheEarlyChildhoodEnvironmentRatingScale‐Revised(ECERS‐R)orInfantToddlerEnvironmentRatingScale‐Revised(ITERS‐R),and(3)preliminarystarratingsusingtheSilverStateStarscriteria.Finally,NICRPalsodocumented the changesmade to theprogramas a result of theearlierpilotyears.IneachofthepreviousannualreportNICRPmaderecommendationsforimprovementbasedonthefindingsoftheevaluation(seepage6).Thesechangesarediscussedthroughoutthereporttounderstandhowtheearlieryearsof theevaluationmayhave impactedtheYear threecenters.Findings from all of the evaluation components are discussed in separate sections, includingspecific methodology for each. At the conclusion of the report, overall recommendations forprogramimprovementarelistedandexplained.


ChangestotheProgramforYearThreePilotCentersAfter twoyearsof thepilotprogram, theOfficeofEarlyCareandEducationalongwith theQRISworkgroupandothers identifiednecessarychanges to theprocessesused to improve thesystemforcentersinNevada.InthepreviousreportsseveralrecommendationsweremadeandthetablebelowoutlineshoweachoftheserecommendationswasaddressedinYearThreeofthepilot.

RecommendationfromYears1and2 ChangesMade inYearThree1 Creationofa“Pre‐QRIS”programtohelpgetcenterstoalevelwheretheycouldsuccessfullyparticipateinQRIS.

ByYearThree oftheprogram,allparticipatingcenterswereprovidedwithathreehourorientationmeetingalongwith6hourtrainingabouttheEnvironmentRatingScales.Duringfullimplementationoftheprogram,centerscanapplytoreceivecoachingwhichwillbebasedonneedandtheabilitytomeetbenchmarksforsuccess.

2 Expandtheamountoftimefortechnicalassistance Inthisyearofthepilot“technicalassistance”wasreferredtoascoachinginanefforttoempowercenterstomakethechangesontheirownwithguidancefromthecoach.Afterimplementation,theQRISsystemwillbedesignedtoallowcenterstoapplyforcoachingandtheamountoftimethecenterworkswiththecoachwillbedeterminedbasedonbenchmarksasopposedtoapre‐determinedtimeframe.

3 Furtherdevelopwrittenprogramguidelinesandprotocolsthatcanbeusedasareferenceforbothparticipatingcenters,andstaffconducingassessmentsorprovidingtechnicalassistance.

Inthethirdyearofthepilot,centersreceived morewrittendocumentationandprocessesforcenterparticipation,andstarratingsweremoreformalized.Aninstructionalhandbookandawebsitehasbeendevelopedforfullimplementationoftheprogram

4 Providetrainingonhowtointroducenewmaterialsintotheclassroom.

ThroughoutthepilotUNCEprovidedtrainingonavarietyoftopics,andcoachesworkedwithcenterstafftoensureappropriateintroductionofnewmaterialsintotheclassroom.

5 Completeafullreviewofqualityindicators,withineachofthequalitystandards,especiallythosewithin“HealthandSafety.”

Theworkgroupmettoreviewthequalityindictorsattheconclusionofthesecondyearoftheproject.Someelementswerereviewedforredundancyandremovedandotherswereaddedintheirplace.

6 Ensurethatimplementationofthisprogramonawiderscaleincludeseducationforthepubliconhowtheratingsaredeterminedandwhattheymeanintermsofquality.

Priortoyearthreethisrecommendationhadnotbeenactedupon.However,whentheprogramisimplementedinJuly2012theQRISwebsitedoescontaininformationaboutwhatthedifferentstarratingsmean.QRISalsohasplanstodoadditionalmarketingactivitiestohelpparentsandcenterstaffbetterunderstandtheprogram.

1.Cente

MethodoAgaininYorientatiotheirpartunderstaDirectorswerethen

FindingsCenter dusefulnesindicatedFigure1.

Figure 1.childcarethatdirecdirectors

Silve

erDirector

ologyYearThreeoonmeetingtticipation.Shndtheirknoswereemailenanalyzeda

sirectors werss to parentdthattheyfe

.1

.2 and FigurecentersandctorsfeltaQalsofeltaQ

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

rStateStarsQ

Pre‐Survey

ofthepilot,ceofamiliarizehortlyaftertwledgeabouedalinktothndtheresult

re asked abos, and usefultaQRISwas

QRISNecYesNoTotal

re 1.3 illustrdparentsthaQRISwouldbRISwouldbe

Yes

85.2%

Do

QualityRating

F

y

entersselectethemselvesthismeetingutQRISasweheon‐linesutsarelistedb

out their feeulness to chisnecessary(

cessary

rate center datusechildcbeuseful foreusefulforp

N

%

youthink

Improvement

indings

tedforparticwiththeprodirectorsweellasanyofturveyandaskbelow.

elings regardildcare cente(Figure1.1).

Year3(n=6)

83.3%(n=5)16.7%(n=1)

100%

director’s feecarecentersrcenters,whparentsaswe

o

14.8%

aQRISisn

tSystem:Year

cipationinthogramaswelereemailedatheirconcernkedtocompl

ding a QRISers. Nearly

All(n=27)

85.2%(n=14.8%(n

100%

elings regardrespectivelyhileFigure1ell.

necessary?

Year3(

AllThre

ThreeEvalua7

heprogramwllastheprocashortelectrnspriortopaleteitwithin

with regardall (85.2%)

)

=23)=4)

%

ding the utily.Figure1.21.3showstha

(n=6)

eeYearsCombine

tionReport7|P a g e

wereaskedtocessandtimeronicsurveyarticipatinginoneweek.

d to its nece center dire

lity of a QRIclearlyillustatthemajor

ed(n=27)

oattendaneframesforytobetterinthepilot.Responses

essity,ectors

IS fortratesrityof

Figure1.

Figure1.

Next,diremajorityforthebeparticipawithout“Thesechastherea

Silve

.1

.3

ectorswerereportedtheenefitoftheting to “seeincurring anhildrendeserasontoparti

rStateStarsQ

QRISUtilitCenters

VeryUseSomewhNotUsefTotal

QRISUtilityVeryUseSomewhaNotUsefuTotal

asked todeeywerepartchildrenthrwherewe any costs. Onrvethebest”cipateinthe

Ve

6

Utitl

Ye

VeryUseful

33.3%

66.7%

Ye

QualityRating

tyfor

efulhatUsefulful

yforParentsfulatUsefulul

scribewhy tticipatingintroughreceiviare lacking”ne director e”.Onlytwocprogram.

eryUseful

66.7%63.0%

lityofQRIS

ear3(n=6) A

Somew

66.%

UtilityofQ

ear3(n=6) A

Improvement

Year3(n=6)

66.7%(n=33.3%(n=0.0%(n=0100%

Year3(n=6)

33.3%(n66.7%(n0.0%(n=100%

theysignedthepilotbecingtechnicaland havingexpressed hecenterdirect

Somewha

33.3%

SforChildca

AllThreeYearsCo

whatUseful

7%

29.6%

QRISforPa

AllThreeYearsCo

tSystem:Year

A(n=

=4) 63.0%=2) 37.0%0) 0.0%

100

3)

A(n=

n=2) 66.7%n=4) 29.6%=0) 3.7%% 10

on tobeapcausetheywlassistance.someone ouer interest itorsexplicitl

atUseful

%37.0%

areCenter

ombined(n=27)

NotUsef

0.0% 3

arents

ombined(n=27)

ThreeEvalua8

ll27)

(n=17)(n=10)(n=0)0%

All=27)

%(n=18)%(n=8)%(n=1)00%

partof thispwantedtoimpOthersstateutside their cin improvinylistedtheg

s

ful

3.7%

tionReport8|P a g e

pilotproject.provetheircedthattheycenter evalug quality stgrantfundin

. Thecenterwere

uate itating,gand

AQRISisandthepof centerthat “stademonstrFigure1.

Directorsquestionlimitedbintoonestar ratinviewpoinfollow‐upbarriersw

Silve

sintendedtoprovisionofirdirectors tharting a QRratedinFigu

.4

QRISwiStronAgreeNeithDisagStronTotal

s were alsowas left op

bya list. Moof threespeng scale, (2)ntsofthoseipinterviewawhenpartici

NeitherAgree

Str

Starti

rStateStarsQ

improvethenformationthat completeRIS in ourure1.4below

llImproveQnglyAgreeeherAgreenorDgreenglyDisagreel

asked aboupen‐ended sostof thedirecificcategor the time innvolvedinthandaddresswpatinginthe

0

eorDisagree

Agree

ronglyAgree

ingaQRISi

Ye

QualityRating

equalityofctoparentssoed this survecommunity

w.

ualityinSout

Disagree

ut any conceo that directrectorsreporries. These involved withheproject.Twhethertheeprogram.

.0% 10.0%

inourComSouth

ear3(n‐6) A

Improvement

childcarethrotheymaydieyeither agrwill impro

thernNV

erns they hators could lirted that theincluded: (1)h participatiThisinformatseprelimina

20.0% 30.0%

mmunitywihernNevad

AllThreeYearsCo

tSystem:Year

oughtheproifferentiatebreed (44.4%ove childcar

Year3(n=6)

33.3%(n=2)66.7%(n=4)0.0%(n=0)0.0%(n=0)0.0%(n=0)100%

ad in particist any poteneyhadconce) thecenter’ng in the prtionwasusearyconcerns

% 40.0% 50

llImproveda

ombined(n=27)

ThreeEvalua9

ovisionoftecbetweencent)or stronglyre in South

All(n=27)

40.7%(n=44.4%(n=14.8%(n=0.0%(n=0.0%(n=100%

cipating in thntial concererns,with th’sability toroject, and (edtodesignactuallyturn

0.0% 60.0%

Childcare

tionReport9|P a g e

chnicalassisters.Themay agreed (40ern Nevada

)

=11)=12)=4)=0)=0)

he project.ns withouthemajority fscorewello(3) the impaquestionsfonedintoissu

70.0%

in

tancejority0.7%)a”, as

Thisbeingfallingon theact ofortheuesor

Directorschildcare“somewhFigure1.

Finally,dprovide tcenters rUnitedWSummarThissurvexperiencimproveincreasehavesomtake, theusing exiinterview

Silve

swere thenecenters.Fighatfamiliar”w

.5

directorswertechnical assreported thaWayHighScop

ryandConclveyhelpedtoces early inquality in ththeknowled

meconcernsrviewpointsisting star rawwiththedir

0.0%

50.0%

VFam

How

rStateStarsQ

askedhow fgure1.5illustwithQRISpr

FamiliaritywVeryFamiSomewhatUnfamiliarVeryUnfamTotal

realsoaskedsistance andat they werepeandtheot

lusionsodescribeththe QRIS prheir center adgeof theirregardingpaheldby thosating criteriarectors,discu

erymiliar

SomewFamil

wFamiliar

QualityRating

familiar theytratesthatthriortopartic

withQRISliartFamiliarrmiliar

dwhetherthd/or consulte also particithercenterr

eparticipatirocess. It seas well as tostaff. Priorarticipation.se involveda. These issussedinSect

whatliar

Unfamilia

areyouwiS

Improvement

ywerewithhemajority(ipatinginth

Year(n=6

0.0%(33.3%(33.3%(33.3%(

100

heywerecuration servicipating in anreportedSho

ngcentersaneems thatmo receive exto staring thTheseincludin theprojesueswere altion4.

ar VeryUnfamiliar

thQualityystems?

tSystem:Year

QualityRati(40.7percenepilotprojec

r36) (n

n=0) 11.1(n=2) 40.7%(n=2) 25.9(n=2) 22.2% 1

rrentlypartices. Two ofnother progtsforTotsan

ndidentifycost directorsxpert traininghepilot, somdedtheamoct and theirll addressed

RatingImp

ThreeEvalua10

ing Improvemnt)ofallcentct.

Alln=27)

%(n=3)%(n=11)9%(n=7)%(n=6)100%

cipatinginof the six (33gram – one dndColorMe

centerdirects participateg and technmeof the cenountoftimetcenter’s abiin the follow

provement

Year3(n=6)

AllThreeYears

tionReport0|P a g e

mentSystemterdirectors

therprojects3.3%) Year Tdirector repHealthy.

tors’concerned in this pinical assistannterdirectortheprojectwility to scorew‐up face‐to

t

sCombined(n=2

ms forwere

sthatThreeorted

nsandlot tonce torsdidwouldewello‐face

7)


2.EnvironmentRatingScores MethodologyToassessthequalityofachildcarecenterrelatedtoobservationsofwhatachildmayexperienceina given day, two nationally recognized environment rating scales were used in the pilot, theECERS‐RandtheITERS‐R.Thesescaleshavebeentestedforreliabilityandvalidityandarewidelyacceptedinthefieldasgoodmeasuresofchildcarequality.Theseassessmentswerecompletedattwopointsintimebyanindependentconsultant.Theconsultantreceivedtraininginadministeringtheassessmentprior to thestartof thepilotproject. The firstassessmentwascompletedat thestartoftheprojectbeforeanytechnicalassistanceorgrantfundingwereprovidedtocenters,andthesecondassessmentwascompletedafterthesixmonthsoftechnicalassistanceandgrantfundshad been spent. The consultant conducting the reviews generated reports for each center andclassroomassessed. At the conclusionof thepost‐assessment, a reportwas submitted toNICRPwiththecenter’soverallscore,theoverallscoreontheECERS‐RandITERS‐R,andthechangefrompre‐assessmenttopost‐assessmentoneachoftheprimaryelementsofthescales.ThesescoreswereenteredintoPASW18,adatabaseforstatisticalanalysis,andcomparisonsarepresentedinthefindingssectionbelow.YearThreecenters’scoresarecomparedregardingoverallscorechangesfromthefirstassessmenttothesecondassessment,aswellasscoresoneachofthesubscales from the first and secondassessments.Comparisons to earlier yearsof theproject areprovidedasappropriate.


FindingsFigure2.1displaysthepre‐andpost‐assistancescoresforeachcenterontheenvironmentratingscales. These scoreswere provided toNICRP by the consultant completing the assessments. Acenter’s pre‐assistance or post‐assistance overall score is the average of each classroom’sECERS‐R/ITERS‐R ratingwithin a center. In Year Three of the pilot itwas determined that the“Parents and Staff” subscale of the ECERS‐R/ITERS‐R would not be used to calculate a center’soverall score. Both the rater conducting the assessments and program staff agreed that thissubscale was often difficult to measure accurately during observations and many otherprofessionalsusingthisassessmenttoolexcludethissubscale,soitwaseliminatedforYearThreeofthepilotproject.ScoresforcentersinYears1and2havebeenrecalculatedandarepresentedinFigure2.1below.Thisfigureillustratesthereweretwocentersinthefirstyear,twointhesecondyear,andoneinthethirdyearwhoseoverallERSscore,afterreceivingthetechnicalassistanceandgrantfunding,waslowerthanwhenthecenterbeganthepilotproject.Centerswithadecreaseinscoreforpretopostassessmentarehighlightedinredandthosecenterswiththehighestincreaseinscorefrompretopostarehighlightedingreen. Figure2.1EnvironmentRatingScoresPreandPostAssistance

Year1(Avg.Change0.47)

Year2(Avg.Change0.60)

Year3*(Avg.Change0.59)

Center PreTest

PostTest

Change Center PreTest

PostTest

Change Center PreTest

PostTest

Change

1 2.42 3.46 1.04 13 3.70 3.44 ‐0.26 25 2.78 3.05 0.272 3.81 3.80 ‐0.02 14 3.15 3.82 0.66 26 2.49 3.31 0.823 2.98 3.76 0.78 15 2.90 3.48 0.58 27 2.76 2.47 ‐0.294 3.85 3.90 0.05 16 2.38 1.98 ‐0.39 28 2.54 3.75 1.215 3.08 3.23 .015 17 2.96 3.18 0.22 29 3.71 4.67 0.966 2.82 2.77 ‐0.05 18 3.89 4.76 0.87 7 2.97 3.69 0.72 19 2.11 2.55 0.44 8 2.97 3.49 0.52 20 3.44 4.67 1.23 9 4.29 4.54 0.25 21 3.83 4.02 0.19 10 3.31 4.28 0.96 22 3.63 4.91 1.29 11 3.29 4.44 1.15 23 3.15 4.23 1.08 12 2.65 2.68 0.03 24 2.14 3.46 1.32

*NOTE:While6centersenrolledinYear3ofthepilot,onecenterdroppedoutoftheprogramanddidnotreceivetheirfinalEnvironmentRatingScoreandisthereforenotincludedintheseresults.

Figure2.2displaysaveragescorechanges,basedonafive‐pointscale,thatall29centersreceived,withYears1and2groupedtogetherandYearThreecenterstogether. Figure2.2showsthatthegreatest improvements in scores for centers in the first two years of the project were in itemsrelated to “Activities”, with an average increase of 1.07 points, while for Year three centers thegreatestincreasewasin“ProgramStructure”.For centers in the first two years of the pilot in the section “Interactions” therewas actually anoverall decrease in scoresof ‐0.19points, however forYearThree centers therewas an averageincreaseof0.91pointsinthissection. Thismaybebecauseascentersinthefirsttwopilotyearsworkedtomake improvements in theircenters inotherareas, the focuson interactionsbetweenteachersandstudentsand teachersandparentswere lacking inpostassessments.However, thisseemstohavebeenaddressedwiththecentersinthethirdyearofthepilot.

Figure2.

Figure 2.centers. the firstdecreasethat saw“Activitiepoints inpointsonthirdyeathisremascores.

Figure2.

C

C

ScoreChange

‐1.00

‐0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

ECERECERECERECERECERECER

Silve

.2

3 representTheredline2 years of thinscoresfor

w the greatees”,withana the third yenaverageforar(‐0.2pointainsand imp

.3

ChangeYears1‐2

ChangeYear3

‐0.40‐0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.40

0.53

0.36

Avera

RS‐R–SpaceRS‐R–PersonRS‐R–LanguRS‐R–ActivitRS‐R–InteraRS‐R–Progra

rStateStarsQ

s the averageinthefigurhe pilot, andreachelemest improvemaverage increar. The assrcentersinthts). Whileinportantarea

Interactions

2 ‐0.19

0.91

‐0.19

0.91

A

0.18

0.82

ageChange(Yea

andFurnishnalCareRouageReasonintiesction(s)amStructure

QualityRating

ge change inreindicatestd each pointentforcenterment withineaseof1.18essment arehefirsttwoynthismostrof focus for

SpaceandFurnishing

P

R

0.55

0.73

0.550.73

AverageSco(Years1

8

0.62

0.7

einECERS‐ars1&2n=

Years1&

ingtinesng

e

Improvement

n each assesstheaveraget on the bluersparticipatiearly childpoints inthea of “Interayearsandasrecentyeartrcoachesas

PersonalCare

Routines

LanReas

0.23 0

0.75 0

0.23

0.75

oreChanges1‐2n=24,Y

1.18

1

RElements24,Year3n

2 Year3

Year...1‐.

tSystem:Year

sment areachangeforEe line represinginthethidhood classrhe first twoyction(s)” actslightlysmallthedecreasetheyworkw

guagesoning

Activi

0.68 1.07

0.88 0.76

0.680.88

sforallCenYear3n=5)

1.32

‐0.2

sforAllCen=5)

3

rs1&2.53.18.621.18‐.45.12

ThreeEvalua13

for the ECEECERS‐Rscosents the aveirdyearofthrooms in allyearsandantually saw alerdecreaseinthiscategwithcenters

itesProgramStructur

7 0.32

6 1.18

1.07

0

0.76

1

nters)

‐0.45

enters

Year.36.82.71.32‐.201.39

tionReport3|P a g e

RS‐R, over aoresforcenteerage increahepilot.Thel 29 centersn increase indecrease offorcentersigorywassmto improve

mre

ECERS‐ROverallChange

0.41

0.61

0.320.4

1.18

0.6

0.12

1.39

3

29

all 29ersinase oreareas wasn1.32f 0.45inthemaller,their

ITERS‐ROverallChange

0.61

0.47

410.61610.47


Figure2.4representstheaveragechangeineachassessmentareafortheITERS‐Rforallcenters.TheredlineinthefigureindicatestheaverageoverallchangeinITERS‐Rscoresoverall23centersthat were assessed using the ITERS‐R (some centers did not have classrooms with infants andtoddlersandthereforethisscalewasnotusedinthosecenters).Eachpointonthebluelineistheaverage increase ordecrease in scores for each element inYearsOne andTwo, and the red lineindicatesthesechangesinscoresforYearThreecenters.Onaverage,centersinthefirsttwoyearssaw an increase in all elements of the ITERS‐R; the smallest change was in “Personal CareRoutines”, and thegreatest increasewas seen in “Activities”. However, in the third year centerssawadecreasein“PersonalCareRoutines”and“Interactions”. Figure2.4

Figure2.5representsthechangesinoverallenvironmentratingscoresforeachofthe29centers.Whencentersweresolicitedtoparticipate inthepilot, theywereaskedto indicatetheirsizeandownershiptypetoensureadiversesampleofcenterswasincludedinthepilot.Thosecenterswith120 children or fewerwere classified as “small,”while thosewithmore than 120 childrenwerecategorizedas“large.”Thetableorganizescentersbytheiryearofparticipationandsmallcentersare highlighted in orange, large centers in blue. In addition information on average changes inscoresforeachyearbysizearepresentedinthetableandthengraphicallydisplayedinfigure2.6below.

0.56

0.29

0.79

1.13

0.18

0.70

0.25

‐0.09

‐1

0.93

‐1.44

1.03

‐2.00

‐1.50

‐1.00

‐0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

AverageChangeinITERS‐RElementsforAllCenters(Years1&2n=19,Year3n=4)

Years1&2 Year3

Years1&2 Year3ITERS‐R–SpaceandFurnishing .56 .25ITERS‐R–PersonalCareRoutines .29 ‐.09ITERS‐R–LanguageReasoning .79 ‐1.0ITERS‐R–Activities 1.13 .93ITERS‐R–Interaction(s) .18 ‐1.44ITERS‐R–ProgramStructure .70 1.03


Figure2.5ChangesinOverallCenterERSScore Size PreERS PostERS Change

Year1AverageChange:Overall=0.47

SmallCenters=0.41LargeCenters=0.39

Center1 Small 2.42 3.46 1.04

Center2 Small 3.81 3.8 ‐0.02

Center3 Small 2.98 3.76 0.78

Center4 Large 3.85 3.9 0.05

Center5 Large 3.08 3.23 0.15

Center6 Large 2.82 2.77 ‐0.05

Center7 Large 2.97 3.69 0.72

Center8 Large 2.97 3.49 0.52

Center9 Small 4.29 4.54 0.25

Center10 Large 3.31 4.28 0.96

Center11 Large 3.29 4.44 1.15

Center12 Large 2.65 2.68 0.03


SmallCenters=0.56LargeCenters=0.55

Center13 Large 3.7 3.44 ‐0.26

Center14 Large 3.15 3.82 0.66

Center15 Small 2.9 3.48 0.58

Center16 Small 2.38 1.98 ‐0.39

Center17 Large 2.96 3.18 0.22

Center18 Small 3.89 4.76 0.87

Center19 Large 2.11 2.55 0.44

Center20 Small 3.44 4.67 1.23

Center21 Large 3.83 4.02 0.19Center22 Large 3.63 4.91 1.29Center23 Small 3.15 4.23 1.08Center24 Large 2.14 3.46 1.32


SmallCenters=0.82LargeCenters=N/A

Center25 Small 2.78 3.05 0.27Center26 Small 2.49 3.31 0.82Center27 Large 2.76 2.47 ‐0.29Center28 Small 2.54 3.75 1.21Center29 Small 3.71 4.67 0.96

OverallChange SmallCenters LargeCentersAllCenters 0.50 0.67 0.42

Figure2.6belowdemonstrates thatonaverageweseean increase incenterscoresregardlessofsize,andallcentersshowedgreaterimprovementinthelateryearsofthepilot.

Figure2.

NOTE:InYeanaverage

SummarThemajotechnicalseethattarecompthe finaldirectors

3.QualitMethodoParticipaof theirexplainedthenaskecouldmeThis infoscaleofothis“pre‐for theovwerearecould poratingonpilottherwithinthReasons‐ Asses‐ Asses‐ Tood‐ Tood‐ Uncle

Silve

.6

earThreeofthescoreforlarge

ryandConclorityofpartiassistance;theamountoparedwiththyear of the,aswellasin

tyIndicato

ologytingpilotceninitial meetid each indicaedtoreviewet,thoseitco

rmationwasonetofivest‐assessment.verall evaluaesultofthecssibly meet,nly took intorewerechanedifferentq

forCriteriassedaspartossedaspartodifficultforcedifficultforreearwording

0

0.5

1

0.4

rStateStarsQ

epilotprojectthcenterscouldno

lusionsicipatingcenhowever, thofchangeinhefinalyear.pilot, includncreasedexp

ors–StarRa

ntersweregings with Uator and thewallquality iouldpossibly

sused to asstars. Centers.” Rather,pration,andhecenterdirector could noaccount the

ngesmadetoualityareas.

aChanges(eofchildcareoftheEnviroenterstodoceviewerstov

AllCenters

70.6 0.59

Average(Y

Y

QualityRating

herewasonlyonotbecalculated

nterssawaneamountofscoreshasi.Thischangding additioperienceand

atings

giventhequaUNCE staff. e criteria necindicatorsanymeet,andt

sess each ceswerenotare‐assessmenelp to informors’reviewoot meet thee indicators totheQRISMThechange

editsorremlicensingregonmentRatincumentverify

Sm

0.410.5

ChangeinYear1n=12,Y

Year1 Year

Improvement

nelargecentertdinYearThree.

increase infchange forincreasedovgeislikelydunal informattrainingfor

alityindicatoUNCE staffcessary tomndmarkthothosethatitc

enter’s Silveraskedtoprovntratingswm improvemofindicatorscriteria forthatcouldcuodel,includiestothemod

oval)gulationsngScales

allCenters

0.560.81

0.6

ERSScoreear2n=12,Ye

r2 Year3

tSystem:Year

thatcompletedp

theirenviroeachcenterverallwhentuetothechation and instheratercon

orscreatedbcreated a Q

meet an indicose indicatorcouldnotme

r State Starsvidedocumeereusedasentsmadewsandtheirfeeach indicaurrentlybemingtheadditdelforYearT

Large

0.390.

66

byCenterear3n=5)

AllYears

ThreeEvalua16

participationan

onmentratinvaried. Addthefirsttwoangesthatwstruction fornductingthe

bytheQRISWQuality Indiccator. Centersonthe formeet.

QRIS star rentationforoneofthebwithin theceeedbackonwator. The premet. In thetionanddeleThreeareout

eCenters

.55

0

0.42

Size

tionReport6|P a g e

ndtherefore

ngscore,afteditionally,wyearsofthe

wereintroducr center stafeseassessme

Workgroupacators Former directorsmthat thec

rating, basedtheindicatorbaselinemeaenter.Therawhethertheye‐assessmentthirdyearoetionofindictlinedbelow

er thewecanepilotcedinff andnts.

atonem thatwerecenter

d on arsforasuresatingsymet,t starof thiscatorsw.


EditedCriteria RemovedCriteria

RequiredCriteria:Centerhascurrentchildcarelicense

RequiredCriteria:CentermeetsNAEYCstandardsforgroupsizesandratios

Alladministratorsand(50%,60%,70%or80%)ofallteachingstaffmembershavewrittenNevadaRegistryprofessionaldevelopmentplanscompleted

Alladministratorsandteachingstaffhavetwoclockhoursonthetopic“culturalcompetencies”receivedinthepasttwoyears(willbeaddedtosection2,Administration&StaffDevelopment)

Alladministratorsand(50%,60%,70%or80%)ofallteachingstaffmembershavetwoclockhoursonthetopicof“earlychildhoodmentalhealth”receivedinthepasttwoyears

OtherCriteria:Centerprovidesageandindividuallyappropriateclassroommaterialsandactivitiestopreparechildrenfortransitions

CenterhasaminimumaverageERSscoreof3.5,withnoclassroomscoreunder3.0 Centerhasawrittenstatementoncurriculum

CenterhasaminimumaverageERSscoreof4.5,withnoclassroomscoreunder4.0

Centerhasawrittenstatementonchildevaluationandreferralprocess

CenterhasaminimumaverageERSscoreof5.0,withnoclassroomscoreunder4.5

Centerhasawrittenstatementforthepurposeofon‐goingchildassessment

AddedCriteriaDocumentationofmodificationsandreasonableaccommodationsmadeforchildrenwithspecialneeds

RequiredCriteria: CentermeetsADAaccessibilityrequirementsCenteriscurrentlyregisteredwiththeChildCareSubsidyProgram

Centerhasanadvancedplanforemergencypreparednessaddressingspecificdisasters

Alladministratorsandteachingstaffhaveanadditional4hoursoftrainingforadministratorsandteachingstaffinhealth,safety,ornutritionreceivedinthepasttwoyears

Centerhasdocumentationindicatesthatthebuildinghasbeenassessedforlead,radon,radiation,asbestos,fiberglass,oranyotherhazardsfromfriablematerial

Additionalfirst‐aidkitsarelocatedineachclassroom,ontheplaygroundandinallvehiclesusedtotransportchildren

Childrenwithteeth,brushorareassistedinbrushing,atleastonceduringtheday

Staffmembersparticipateinculturaleventsdesignedforchildrenandtheirfamilies

Centerdisplayssamplesofchildren’sworkatchildleveltoinclude:writingsample,processart,photosofchildandfamilyactivity.

IncludedintheSilverStateStarsQRIScriteriausedforYearThreeofthepilot,therearefourqualitystandardsusedascriteriatoassignastarratingtoeachcenter. Undereachofthesefourqualitystandardsthereareseveralcriteria.Thenumberofcriteriapossibleandnumberrequiredforeachlevel ineachquality standard forYears1and2, aswell asYearThree, ispresented inTable3.1below.


Table3.1QualityStandardsandNumberofPossibleIndicators

NOTE:InYearThreeforacentertoreceive5starstheymustbeNAEYCAccreditedandwerenotrequiredtosubmitabinder,thereforeatthe5starleveltherearenorequirednumberofcriteria.Attheendofeachsixmonthtechnicalassistanceperiod,eachofthecenterdirectorshadcreatedaportfolio–intheformofabinder–toprovidedocumentationforfulfillmentofeachofthequalityindicatorsthatcenterhadselected.TheOfficeofEarlyCareandEducation,andtheconsultantwhocompleted the environment rating assessments, reviewed each binder andmade determinationsaboutacenter’s finalSilverStateStarQRISrating. InYearThreeof thepilot,only thosecenterswhowerenotNAEYCaccreditedwererequiredtosubmitabinder, toprovidedocumentationforeach of the indicators. For those centers thatwereNAEYC accredited they only had to providedocumentationthattheymeettheprimaryqualificationsrequiredundereachstarlevel.Thereforethere were four binders submitted from the five Year Three centers, as one center was NAEYCaccredited.The review of binders resulted in tracking the number of centers that “attempted” each of theindicators,aswellasthenumberofindicatorsthatwere“accepted.”Centerscouldchoosewhichofthe indicatorswithineachqualitystandardtheywantedtoattempt,andprovideddocumentationfor each indicator they felt they could meet. Reviewers decided whether or not the submitteddocumentation was sufficient to fulfill a particular requirement, and if so, “accepted” thedocumentation. If documentationwasnot sufficient, the indicatorwasnot accepted anddidnotcounttowardacenter’stotalnumberofindicatorswithinaqualitystandard.

FindingsFigure 3.1 displays the proportion of accepted indicators within each quality standard for YearThreecentersaswellas thecombinedaveragepercent forbothYearOneandYearTwocenters.Dataisonlypresentedforthosecentersthatcreatedanapplicationportfolio(binder).ThereweresomecentersthatdidnotcompletethisprocessinYearsOneandTwo,andinYearThreeoneofthecenterswasnotrequiredtocompleteabinder,asthepolicywaschangedtonotrequireabinderifthecenterwasNAEYCaccredited.Asdemonstratedbelow,forthemostpartcentersinYearThreeofthepilothadagreaterproportionofacceptedcriteriaineachofthecategorieswiththeexceptionof“AdministrationandStaffDevelopment.Thisislikelyaresultofthegreaterdetailofinstructionsas to what to include in the binder, as well as refined criteria for acceptance of specificdocumentation.

QualityStandard

Years1&2 Year3

Years1&2 Year3

Years1&2 Year3

Years1&2 Year3

Count % % Count % % Count % %PoliciesandProcedures 15 24 4 27% 17% 8 53% 33% 12 80% 50%AdministrationandStaffDevelopment 21 23 4 19% 17% 8 38% 35% 12 57% 52%HealthandSafety 15 22 4 27% 18% 8 53% 36% 12 80% 55%FamilyandCommunityPartners 15 20 4 27% 20% 8 53% 40% 12 80% 60%

#Requiredfor4Stars#ofPossibleIndicators #Requiredfor2Stars #Requiredfor3Stars

Figure3.

Table3.2submittethresholdleast foureachcateTable3.2

QualityIPolicyanAdministHealthanFamilyanThroughothe policsubmittinstarratinFigure3.

*NOTE: Tsubmitdoc

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

Avg.

1Star*

2Stars

3Stars

4Stars

5Stars

Silve

.1

2belowillustd a binder. dsineachofrcriteria inegory,andto

2AverageNforYearT

IndicatorCandProceduretrationandSndSafetyndCommuni

outthepilotcy was channgaportfoliongsassigned

.3

Thosecenterstcumentationo

%

%

%

%

%

PoliciProce

59.4

%ofacceptedin

0

*

s

s

s

s

rStateStarsQ

tratestheavThis informthestarratineachcategorreceivefour

NumberofAThreeCenter

ategoryeStaffDevelop

ityPartners

projectstaffged to allowo(binder),onbyyearofth

thatdidnotsuofallrequired

iesandedures

AdSt

4%76.7%

Avera

ndicatorsineachs

2

StarR(Year1=

QualityRating

veragenumbmation is impngcategoriery.Toreceivrstars,acent

AcceptedCrirs(n=4)

AvAc

ment

fhaverevieww NAEYC acnlyonecentehepilotislist

ubmitaportfocriteriawerea

dministrationtaffDevelopm

48.2%40.

geNumber(Years1&2

standard‐Years

4

RatingsbyY=12,Year2

Improvement

erofaccepteportant tonos.Foracentvethreestartermustmee

iteriainEac

erageNumbcceptedCrit

11.58.57.759

wedatotaloccredited cenerwasawardtedbelowin

olio(binder)bassigneda1S

andment

Health

41..5%

rofAccepte2n=23,Year

1&2 Av

6 8

YearofPilo=12,Year3

tSystem:Year

edcriteriafootebecausetertoreceivers,acenternet12criteria

chQualityIn

berofteria

#Rfor

of29centersnters to appdedmorethFigure3.3.

butwerenotNStarrating.

andSafety

.2%51.7%

edIndicator3n=4)

vg.%ofaccepted

8 10

ot=5)

ThreeEvalua19

ortheYearTcentersmusetwostars,tneedsat leasaineachcate

ndicatorCat

Requiredr2Stars

#f

4444

stoassignaply for a staantwostars

NAEYCaccredi

FamilyanCommunitPartners

59.8% 6

ors

indicatorsineac

0

Year

Year

Year

tionReport9|P a g e

Threecentersstmeetminitheymustmsteightcriteegory.

tegory

#Requiredfor3Stars

8888

starrating.ar rating wis.Thebreako

ited,orwhod

ndtys

0.0%

hstandard‐Year

r3

r2

r1

sthatimumeetatria in

#Requirefor4Stars

12121212

Afterthoutoutof

didnot

r3

eds


InYearThreeofthepilottherewerechangesmadetothecriteriaineachofthequalitystandards.Thesechangesaredetailedonpage17ofthisreport.Thechangesincludedtheaddition,deletion,andmodificationofseveralcriteria. Inadditionthereweremorecriteriaavailableundereachofthequality standards toprovidemoreoptionsundereach standard (seepage18 for a listof thenumberpossibleineachstandard).Inanalyzingeachcenter’sbinder,reviewersrecordedthetotalnumberof centers that attemptedeachof the criteria, thenumberof criteria thatwereacceptedthroughrelateddocumentation,andthenumberthatwerenotaccepted.Thefollowingtables(3.4through3.7)areorganizedbyqualitystandard.ThesetablesdisplaythenumberofcenterswithinYearThree,thatattemptedeachcriterion,aswellasthenumberofinstanceswhendocumentationwas accepted, versus not accepted, within each of the Quality Improvement standards. Againpleasenotethatalthough5centersparticipatedinYearThreeofthepilotproject,onlyfourcenterswererequiredtosubmitdocumentationunderthesequalitystandards.Additionally, percentages were calculated that represent the proportion of those centers thatattempted tomeeteachcriteria, aswellas theproportionof instanceswhendocumentationwasaccepted, versus not accepted. The criteriawithin each standardwith the lowest proportion ofattempts (less than 50%) are highlighted in pink, and the criteriawith the lowest proportion ofaccepteddocumentation(lessthan50%)arehighlightedinblue.Table3.4displaysinformationaboutthecriteriaunderthe“PoliciesandProcedures”standardforboth years of the project. In Year Three there were three criteria that none of the centersattemptedtodocument,includingaccreditation(1A),acompensationplanthatprovidesforannualpayincreases(1H),andtheprovisionofannualwrittenperformanceevaluationsforstaff.ThefinalmodelwithallindicatorsforYearFourImplementationcanbefoundinAppendixA.

Table3.4QualityStandard1:PoliciesandProcedures

1

Attempted(Totaloutof4Centersthatsubmittedbinders) Accepted

NotAccepted PoliciesandProcedures

# % # % # %

1A 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A Accreditation:Centerisaccreditedbyanapprovedaccreditingbody

1B 4 100% 3 75% 1 25%Assessment:On‐goingchildassessmentincludesatleastoneinformalmethodsuchasobservations,portfolios,orteachers’anecdotalrecords

1C 4 100% 4 100% 0 0%Assessment:On‐goingchildassessmentincludesatleastoneformalmethodsuchaschecklists,screeningtools,orassessmenttools

1D 4 100% 4 100% 0 0% Curriculum:Classroomshaveweeklyormonthlycurriculumplanningcalendars

1E 3 75% 2 67% 1 33% Curriculum:Classroomshavewrittenlessonplansforteacher‐directedactivities

1F 1 25% 0 0% 1 100%Curriculum:Classroomshavewrittenlessonplansforteacher‐directedactivitiesthatincludeadaptationsforchildrenwithspecialneeds

1G 1 25% 1 100% 0 0% Curriculum:PreschoollessonplansalignwithNevadaPre‐KStandards

1H 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A Employee:Centerhasacompensationplanthatprovidesforannualpayincreases(i.ecostofliving)

1I 3 75% 3 100% 0 0% Employee:Centerhasacompensationplanthatprovidesforincreasesbasedonmerit,education,orperformance

1J 4 100% 1 25% 4 100% Employee:Medicalinsuranceisavailabletostaffmembers

1K 4 100% 4 100% 0 0% Employee:Benefits(otherthanmedicalinsurance)areprovidedtostaffmembers

1L 4 100% 4 100% 0 0% Employee:Centerhasawrittenemployeehandbookwithasignaturepage

1M 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% Employee:Centerreimbursesprofessionaldevelopmentexpensesincurredbyteachingstaff

1N 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A Employee:Supervisorprovidesteachingstaffwithanannualwrittenperformanceevaluation

1O 1 25% 1 100% 0 0%Inclusion:Centerhasadocumentationsysteminplacetosupportcollaborationwithspecialistworkingwithidentifiedchildren

1P 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% Policies:Centerhasawrittenphysicalactivitystatement

1Q 1 25% 1 100% 0 0% Program:Centerholdsmonthlystaffmeetings

1R 1 25% 1 100% 0 0% Inclusion:Centerhasawrittenstatementontheinclusionofchildrenwithspecialneeds

1S 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% Inclusion:Centerobtains(withparentalconsent)anIFSP/IEPforeachchildenrolledwithadiagnoseddisability

1Ta 2 50% 2 100% 0 0%Inclusion:Centercollaborateswithoutsideagencyandfamilybeforeadministrativewithdrawalofanychildwithmedical/behavioralissues

1Tb 2 50% 2 100% 0 0%Policies: Centerhasawrittenpolicyforproceduresonreportingchildabuse&neglectincludedintheirparenthandbook

1U 3 75% 2 67% 1 25% Policies:Centerhasawrittenhealthstatement

1V 1 25% 1 100% 0 0% Program:Centerhasadocumentedproceduretoreceivestafffeedbackonprogramquality

1W 1 25% 1 100% 0 0% Program:Stafffeedbackonprogramqualityisusedtodevelopawrittenplanforprogramimprovement

Table3.5representsinformationaboutthe“AdministrationandStaffDevelopment”qualitystandardforYearThree.Withinthisstandard,foryearthree,thereare23criteriaavailable.InYearThree,ninecriteriahad50%orfewercentersthatattemptedtomeetthecriteria(highlightedinpink),andinsixofthoseninecriterianocentersattemptedtomeetthem.ThefinalmodelwithallindicatorsforYearFourImplementationcanbefoundinAppendixA.

Table3.5QualityStandard2:AdministrationandStaffDevelopment

2

Attempted(Totaloutof4Centersthatsubmittedbinders) Accepted

NotAccepted AdministrationandStaffDevelopment

2A 2 50% 1 50% 1 25% Director:Directorhasaminimumof21creditsinmanagementorbusinessrelatedcourses

2B 4 100% 4 100% 0 0% Director:Directorisacurrentmemberofanationalearlychildhoodprofessionalorganization

2C 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Director:Directorparticipatesonanearlychildhoodcommittee

2D 4 100% 3 75% 1 25% Director:DirectorhascompletedanapprovedEnvironmentRatingScale(ERS)training

2E 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% Director:DirectorhascompletedanapprovedProgramAdministrationScale(PAS)training

2F 3 75% 3 100% 0 0% Program:CenterhasadocumentedactionplanbasedontheirERSscores

2G 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Program:CenterhasadocumentedimprovementplanbasedonthePASscore

2H 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Program:CenterisacurrentT.E.A.C.H.EarlyChildhoodNevadasite

2I 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Program:Centeroffersquarterlystaffdevelopmentactivities

2J 1 25% 1 100% 0 0% Staff:Minimumplacementonthecareerladderis2.1for75%ofteachingstaff

2K 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Staff:Minimumplacementonthecareerladderis4.1for50%ofteachingstaff

2L 1 25% 1 100% 0 0%Staff:Workenvironmentforstaffincludesaplaceforadultstotakeabreakfromchildren,anadult‐sizedbathroom,andasecureplaceforstafftosecuretheirbelongings

2M 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% Staff:Workenvironmentforstaffincludesaplaceforadultsthatisanadministrativeareaforplanning,separatefromchildren’sareas

2N 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% Staff:Supervisorcompletesobservationsofteachingstaffatleastthreetimesayear

2O 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% Staff:Supervisorprovidesteachingstaffwithwrittenfeedbackbasedonobservationsofteacher’sperformance

2P 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Staff:50%ofteachingstaffarecurrentmembersofanationalearlychildhoodprofessionalorganization

2Q 1 25% 1 100% 0 0%StaffDevelopment:Centerhasawrittenpolicythatteachingstaffcompleteaminimumoffiveadditionalhoursofannualtrainingabovelicensingrequirements

2R 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% StaffDevelopment:Alladministratorshavetwoclockhoursonthetopic“earlychildhoodmentalhealth”receivedinthepasttwoyears

2S 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% StaffDevelopment:Alladministratorshavetwoclockhoursonthetopic“inclusion”receivedinthepasttwoyears

2T 2 50% 1 50% 1 50% StaffDevelopment:Alladministratorshavetwoclockhoursonthetopic“culturalcompetencies”receivedinthepasttwoyears

2U 4 100% 3 75% 1 25%StaffDevelopment:50%ofallteachingstaffhavetwoclockhoursonthetopic“earlychildhoodmentalhealth”receivedinthepasttwoyears

2V 4 100% 2 50% 2 50% StaffDevelopment:50%ofallteachingstaffhavetwoclockhoursonthetopic“inclusion”receivedinthepasttwoyears

2W 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% StaffDevelopment:50%ofallteachingstaffhavetwoclockhoursonthetopic“culturalcompetencies”receivedinthepasttwoyears

Table3.6,below,containsinformationregardingthe“HealthandSafety”qualitystandardforYearThree.Thisstandardhas22criteriaavailableandthetableshowsthenumberofcentersthatattemptedeachofthecriterion,aswellasthenumberofinstanceswherethedocumentationwasaccepted.

Table3.6QualityStandard3:HealthandSafety

3

Attempted(Totaloutof4Centersthatsubmittedbinders) Accepted NotAccepted HealthandSafety

3A 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% EmergencyPreparedness:Centerhasanemergencypreparednesskit

3B 1 25% 1 100% 0 0%EmergencyPreparedness:Alladministratorshaveadvancedtrainingforemergencymedicalresponsetothreateningincidents

3C 3 75% 3 100% 0 0%EmergencyPreparedness:50%ofallteachingstaffhaveadvancedtrainingforemergencymedicalresponsetothreateningincidents

3D 4 100% 4 100% 0 0% Health:HealthandSafetyAssessmentiscompletedbyachildcarehealthconsultant

3E 4 100% 4 100% 0 0% Health:ChildRecordReviewiscompletedbyachildcarehealthconsultant

3F 1 25% 1 100% 0 0% Health:Centerhasindividualizedhealthplansforchildrenwithmedicalconcerns

3G 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A Health:Centerprovidescareforsickchildreninaseparatelocation,supervisedbyanurse

3H 2 50% 2 100% 0 0%Health:Staffplanandimplement dailydevelopmentallyappropriatephysicalactivitiesforallchildren

3I 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%Health:Centerhasadocumentedimprovementplanbasedonanutritionandphysicalactivityself‐assessmentchecklist

3J 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% MentalHealth:TheASQ:SEisusedtoscreenchildren’ssocial‐emotionaldevelopment

3K 2 50% 2 100% 0 0%MentalHealth:Childreninneedofdevelopmentalservicesarereferredtotheappropriateagency

3L 1 25% 1 100% 0 0%MentalHealth:Childreninneedofmentalhealthservicesarereferredtotheappropriateagency

3M 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A MentalHealth:Centerhasabehaviorsupportteam

3N 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/AMentalHealth:CenterhasadocumentedimprovementplanbasedontheInventoryofPracticesforPromotingSocialEmotionalCompetence

3O 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A MentalHealth:CenterisademositefortheNevadaTACSEIProject

3P 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A Nutrition:Menusareevaluatedbyanutritionist

3Q 1 25% 1 100% 0 0% Nutrition:CenterisaChildandAdultCareFoodProgram(CACFP)sponsoredsite

3R 1 25% 0 0% 1 25% Nutrition:Centersupportsbreastfeedingbyofferingadesignatedlocation

3S 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A OralHealth:Infant’steethandgumsarewipedwithadisposabletissueaftereachfeeding

3T 3 75% 3 100% 0 0% OralHealth:Preschoolchildrenreceiveannualoralhealtheducation

3U 4 100% 4 100% 0 0%Playground:PlaygroundSafetyAssessmentiscompletedbycertifiedplaygroundsafetyinspector

3V 3 75% 3 100% 0 0% Sanitation:Allclassroomshaveacleaningandsanitationscheduleposted

InYearThree,thereweretwelvecriteriawherelessthan50%ofcentersattemptedtomeetthecriteria(highlightedinpink),howeverforallcriteria,ifitwasattempteditwasacceptedatleast50%ofthetime.

Table3.7QualityStandard4:FamilyandCommunityPartners

4

Attempted(Totaloutof4Centersthatsubmittedbinders) Accepted NotAccepted FamilyandCommunityPartners

4A 4 100% 2 50% 2 50% Community:Centercollaborateswithacommunityagency

4B 4 100% 4 100% 0 0% Families:Familiesareencouragedtotourcenterbeforeenrollingchild

4C 3 75% 3 100% 0 0%Families: Centercompilesandprovideswrittenprograminformationforfamiliesintheirhomelanguage

4D 3 75% 2 67% 1 33% Families:Materialsfromcommunityagenciesareavailableforfamiliesatthecenter

4E 3 75% 2 67% 1 33% Families:Breastfeedingmaterialsandinformationareavailableforfamiliesatthecenter

4F 4 100% 4 100% 0 0% Families:Programdistributesanewslettertofamiliesatleastquarterly

4G 3 75% 2 67% 1 33% Families:Centerhasacommunicationformfamiliescanusetocommunicatewithteachers

4H 3 75% 3 100% 0 0% Families:Parentteacherconferencesarescheduledonanasneededbasis

4I 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% Families:Parentteacherconferencesarescheduledonaregularbasis

4J 2 50% 2 100% 0 0%Families:Awrittenprocedureisinplacetohelpfamiliestransitionchildrentothenextclassroom,otherprograms,orschool

4K 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% Families:Centerhasadocumentedproceduretoreceivefamilyfeedbackonprogramquality

4L 1 25% 1 100% 0 0% Families:Families’feedbackisusedtodevelopawrittenplanforprogramimprovement

4M 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% Families:Centerhasawrittenplanforparentinvolvement

4N 2 50% 2 100% 0 0% Families:Centeroffersfamilyinvolvementactivitiesataminimumoffourtimesperyear

4O 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/AFamilies:Centeroffersclassesortrainingopportunitiesspecificallyforparentsataminimumoffourtimesperyear

4P 1 25% 1 100% 0 0%Families: Centeroffersanannualclassortrainingopportunityprovidedbyanoutsideagencyforparents

4Q 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/AFamilies:Centeroffersanannualclassortrainingopportunityfocusedonhealth,physicalactivity,ornutritionforparents

4R 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A Families:Centerhasanadvisoryorgoverningboardwhichincludesatleastoneparent

4S 0 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A Families:Centerhasaparentboardadvisoryorassociation

4T 1 25% 1 100% 0 0% Inclusion:StaffisavailabletoattendIEP/IFSPmeetingswithfamilyandserviceproviders

Table3.7abovedisplaysthe20availablecriteriaunderthe“FamilyandCommunityPartners”qualitystandard,aswellasthenumberofcentersthatattemptedtomeeteachofthecriteriainYearThree.Withinthe20criteria,therearetwocriteriathatonlyonecenterattempted(4Land4P)andtherewerefourcriteriathatnocentersattempted

.

SilverStateStarsQualityRatingImprovementSystem:FINALEvaluationReport25|P a g e

SummaryandConclusionsBinderssubmittedforreviewinthefirsttwoyearsofthepilotvariedwidelyintheircompositionandlevelofcompleteness.Thereareseveralcriteriawithineachofthequalitystandardsthat,afterdiscussionbythecommittee,wererevisedorremovedforYearThreeCenters.Giventhesenew standards it appears that a greater proportion of centerswho attempt a criterion are accepted. This is likely a result ofmore detailedinstruction for centersas towhat to submitasdocumentation. The final setof requiredcriteriaaswell as criteriawithin eachof thequalitystandardsforimplementationoftheprogramcanbeenfoundinAppendixA.Inaddition,inthefirsttwoyearsofthepilot,reviewersidentifiedareaswhereclarificationmaybenecessarytocreatemorestringentguidelinesandprotocolsfordocumentationthatwillbeacceptedtomeetthecriteriaineachofthestandards.Forthethirdyearofthepilot,centerswereprovidedwithbindertabstoorganizetheirportfoliosaswellasworksheetstohelpdemonstraterequiredcriteria.


4.CenterDirectorInterviewsMethodologyCenter directors that participated in the third year of Quality Rating Improvement System pilotprojectwereinterviewedregardingtheirexperiencesduringtheproject.Therewereatotaloffivecentersthatparticipated inthisyearof thepilot. Threeof thosedirectorswere interviewed,onesubmittedcommentsinwriting,andthefifthdirectorwasnotabletobeinterviewedpriortothecompletion of this report. During these interviews, directors were asked for their feedback toidentify areas in the process that are working well, and those that may need improvement.Interview questions were based on information provided from the online survey the centerdirectorscompletedpriortobeginningthepilot.Eachinterviewlastedapproximatelyonehourandall interviewswere recorded and later transcribed, to ensure accuracy. Director responseswerethen analyzed by identifying main themes within each interview, followed by grouping similarresponses, across all interviews, for each theme. The overarching themes are presented in thefindingssectionbelow.FindingsOrientationCenterdirectorswereaskedtoprovidefeedbackregardingtheorientationtheyattendedpriortostartingtheirparticipationwithQRIS.Allfourdirectorswhowereinterviewedindicatedthattheyliked the orientation process and found it very informative. While directors reported that theorientationdidnotmakethem“100%prepared”forparticipationmanyindicatedthattheythoughtitwasagoodexperience.Somerespondentsreportedthattheorientationwasalotofinformationwith one director stating, “I think it was a bit of an overload, but being an overload, it causesexcitement too.” One center offered the suggestion of creating a timelinewith benchmarks thatcenters can see at the orientation, for example, “within the first 30 days this should beaccomplished, within the first 60 days this should be accomplished…then we would be betterequippedtoknowwhatwasgoingonandnotfeellikewe’reflyingbytheseatofourpants.”ConcernsbeforeBeginningtheProgramRight after orientation was completed, center directors were asked to complete a short onlinesurvey to better understand their level of familiarity with QRIS, ECERS‐R‐R/ITERS‐R, and theirconcernsgoingintotheprogram. Afewofthoseconcernswereconsistentthroughoutthesepre‐surveys,sodirectorswereaskedaboutthemaftertheyhadcompletedtheirparticipationtoseeifthey ended up being a problem or a concern for them during participation. There were threeprimaryconcernsthatdirectorswereaskedaboutinthefollowupinterview.

ScoringThefirstwasregardingtheircenter’sabilitytoscorewellusingtheexistingcriteria. Allfourdirectorsreportedsomelevelofconcernregardingscoringandassessment,oftenstatingthattheywantedtoscorewellandreceiveahighrating. Somedirectorsspokespecificallyaboutcriteria in theEnvironmentRating Scales, indicating that there are some things they simply“can’t fix” like problems with the physical building, or major renovations includingmodificationstofurniture.Anotherdirectorstillfeltthattherewassomerepetitioninexistingcriteriaunderthequalitystandardsandthoughtthatshouldbefurtherreviewedandrefined.


TimeSomedirectors expressed concern about the amount of time theywouldneed to commit tocomplete this program. After participation, all four center directors acknowledged thatparticipationwasalotofworkandalargetimecommitmentforthedirectoraswellastheirstaff.Onedirectorsaid,“Itwasprettytimeconsuming–tocomeupwithwhatwedid–butIthinkitwasnecessaryanditwasworthit.”Anotherdirectorreported,“Idon’tthinkwehadaclearviewofhow timeconsuming itwouldbe.” Somedirectorsofferedsuggestions tohelpstreamlinetheprocessandmakeitlesstedious.Onedirectorsuggestedmakingtheportfoliobindersubmissionanelectronicprocess,wherecenterswoulduploadall thedocumentationratherthatprintandincludeinapaperbinder.

BiasintheRatingProcessDuringthepre‐surveysomedirectorsindicatedthattheywereconcernedthattheviewpointsofthoseinvolvedintheprojectwouldbiastheratingsystemsusedtoassessthecenters. Ofthe fourdirectors interviewedonlyoneexpressedconcern in thisarea,citing that therewassomeconfusionaboutacceptablecriteria,andconflictingadvicegivenduringthepilotbythesameperson.Allotherdirectorsindicatedthateveryonewasveryprofessionalandobjectiveintheirassessments.

EnvironmentRatingProcessDirectors were asked to talk a little about the process of scheduling and participating in theenvironment rating assessment for the QRIS. All four directors reported that the timing andscheduling of these assessmentswaspleasant and that the raterworkedwith their schedules toensure these were done at a convenient time. However, there were also some suggestionsregarding this process that were also expressed in earlier years of the pilot and could not bechangedgiventhenatureoftheERSassessmentprocess.Somedirectorswouldhavelikedtohavebeengiven feedback immediatelyafter theassessmentwascompleted,orbeenable todirect theratertoseeitemsthatmaynothavebeenreadilyvisibleatthetimeoftheassessment.Inaddition,somedirectorsreportedthattheyexpectedtheratertospendmoretimeobservingtheclassroomforafulldaysothatallactivitiescouldbeobserved.

TechnicalAssistanceorCoachingDuringtheinterviewdirectorswereaskedtotalkabouttheirexperiencewiththeCoachesfromtheUniversity of Nevada Cooperative Extension. First, directors were asked about the process ofreceivingtheirERSscores.AllfourdirectorsfeltthatthereviewoftheERSscores(bothbeforeandaftercoaching)washelpful,howeveronecenter indicated thatonly thereviewof theERSscorestheyreceivedbeforecoachingwashelpful stating, “The first reviewwas informative,but the lastandfinalresultswerenotgoneoververywellatall.”

AvailabilityandAdviceofCoachesDirectorswerealsoaskedabouttheavailabilityofthecoachingstaff,aswellaswhetherornottheyfeltthecoacheswereknowledgeableaboutearlychildhoodeducation.Allofthedirectorsreportedthatthecoacheswereveryknowledgeable,andansweredalloftheirquestionsinatimelyfashion,reporting,“Anytimeyourequestedorcalledthemoremailedthemoranything,theywere very helpful – theywere great!” Another director noted that the coachingwas agreatstrengthoftheprogram,andanotherdescribedthecoachesas“phenomenal.”Threeof


the four respondents reported that they were active participants in their center’simprovementplanandthattheycreatedtheirplanincollaborationwiththeircoach.However,one director reported that she felt at first the improvement plan was “dictated to her”.However shedid say that after discussionwith the coach itwas amuchmore collaborativeprocess.

A few of the directors did have some suggestions to improve this process. Some directorsreported feeling rushed at the end of the process, and did not feel that some of the goalsremainedconsistentthroughoutthesixmonthperiod,onedirectorshared,“Wesawalotmorehandsoninthebeginning,thenthroughthemiddlepartofitnotasmuch.Andthenattheend–thelasttwoweeks‐itwaslike‘ohwegottageteverythingdone.Itwaslikeifwewouldhavestayed a little more consistent with the coaching, you know, and the coaches would havefocusedon a couple of rooms rather than focusingon all the rooms…So I think ifwewouldhavehadabettergameplangoingintoit,sittingdownandgoingroombyroom,ratherthanthebuildingasawhole,weprobablywouldhavebeenmoresuccessful.”

GrantFundingFinally, inthissectionoftheinterviewdirectorswereaskedaboutthegrantfundingandtheprocess to obtain funds and purchase supplies. Two of the directors liked the processindicating that the processwas fast and itwas easy to be reimbursed,while the other twodirectorshad some suggestions for improvement. Onedirector reported that itwouldhavebeenbettertohavemoretimetomakeselectionsforpurchasesstating,“Youhadtogetthelistturnedinbeforeyouevenknewwhatyourlistneededtobe.Sothatpartwasveryfrustratingfor us.” Both of these directors indicated concern over the restrictions on vendors forpurchaseswas frustrating. Onedirectorsaid, “therefusal toworkwithcertainvendorswasnotright.Itforcedmetoputoutmoneywedidn’thave,andthenwait.”Oneofthesedirectorssuggestedgroupingtheapproveditemslistintocategoriesofwhichindicatorstheitemswouldhelp to improve. This change would help ensure that directors know they are purchasingmaterialsthatwillactuallyhelpimprovetheirscore.

OverallExperiencewithQRISChallengestoParticipationThemajority of the challengesdiscussedbyYearThreedirectorswere regarding the creationofportfolio binders or other aspects of the assignment of a star rating. One director felt that the“binderwasveryrepetitive”,anothersaidthattheyhadadifficulttimeunderstandingthe“why”ofthingsrequiredinthebinder. Thisdirectorstated,“Agoodexamplewouldbeourcurriculum.Inthatbinderwehadtore‐doeverything.Ourcurriculumhasalltherequirements–itsprintedout‐butyetthatwasn’tacceptableandwecouldn’tunderstandwhy.”Thisdirectorsuggestedthattherebemoreofa feedback loopprocesswhereby if itemsarenotacceptedthenareasonorrationalewouldbeprovided to the center so that theyunderstandwhat theyneed tododifferently. Thisdirector also suggested having a coach sitwith them to assist and answer questionswhile theycreated their portfolio (binder), noting that there should also be more flexibility built into theprocess. She expressed concern that if all of the elements of certain criteria are there, then theformattingshouldbeflexible,“…ifminehastheactivityincludedbutonmineitsnumberoneandyouwantitasnumberthree,whyisminewrong?”Threeofthefourdirectorsdidalsonotethatthe


additional worksheets and binder tabs created were useful for them in creating and organizingtheirportfolios.Theremainingdirectorfeltthatonlyoneofthebindertabswerehelpful,andthatit would be easier if the binders were electronic and allowed for on‐line organization andsubmission.WouldyouParticipateAgainifAsked?Threeofthedirectorsthatwereinterviewedindicatedthatgiventhechancetheywouldparticipatein the pilot again, but onewas not sure. This director reported thatwhile she did gain a lot ofknowledge from participating in the project, she was concerned that their feedback would notimpact theprogram itselfbecause itwasrolledout soquicklyafter theycompletedparticipationciting,“Whenwewenttothatmeetingandweregoingoverthechangesthatweremade,Idon’tfeelthatmanychangesweremadeandsomeofthemwouldhavebeenbeneficial.Idothinkitwasgoodforus–IwouldsaythatIdefinitelyhaveabetterunderstandinggoingintothis–weknowwhattoexpect.”BenefitstoParticipationDirectorswereaskedaboutthegreatestbenefitstoparticipationinthepilotprojectandallfourofthemdescribedwhattheysawasthebenefits.Alldirectorsnotedthatitwasabenefittolearnnewways to improvequality for thechildren in their centers. Twodirectorscited thematerials theyreceivedasthegreatestbenefit,asthisallowedthemtoimprovetheexperienceforthechildrenintheircenterand itgot their teachersmotivatedandexcitedtomake improvements to thecenter.Theother twodirectors focusedon theadditionalknowledgegained throughout theprocessandthevalueofanoutsideperspectiveonwaystoimproveasgreatestbenefitstoparticipation.SuggestionsforImprovementAlldirectorswereaskediftheyhadanysuggestionsforwaystoimprovetheprogramasitrollsoutinthecomingyear.Theirsuggestionsaredetailedinthelistbelow.

Ensurethatattheorientation,directorsunderstandthetimecommitmenttheyaremakingtotheprogramsothattheywill followthroughwithparticipation. Perhapsdirectorsthatparticipatedinthepilotcouldattendandtalkabouthowmuchtimeitreallytakestofullyparticipateintheprogram.Or,adetailedtimelinecouldbereviewedsothatdirectorscansee when deadlines are to ensure they have the time to complete them according toschedule.

Ensurethatthetimelineforthecenterislogicalandallowsforallstepstobecompletedinsequence. The assessments should be complete and the improvement plan developedbefore any materials are ordered to ensure that the materials really will go towardimprovingscores.

Make sure communication about requirements, deadlines, etc. are disseminated to allpartiesinvolvedandthatmessagesareconsistentsothatdirectorsarenotbeingpulledinmultipledirections.

Continue to review required criteria for thedifferent star ratings. Onedirectordoes notagree that accreditation should be required for the highest star levels, and also does notagreethatthecenterdirectorsshouldhavetohaveabachelor’sdegreetobeatthehigheststarlevels.


Increase theavailabilityofopportunities for continuingeducationand training classesonthe Environment Rating Scales. Multiple classes need to be offered at different times(includingSaturdays)sothatstaffhavetheopportunitytocompletethem.

IsaStarRatingSystemUsefulforNevadaAfterparticipatinginthepilotandcompletingthefullprocess–directorshaveauniqueperspectiveontheutilityofastarratingsysteminNevada.Directorswereaskedwhetherornottheyfeltitwasuseful. The majority of Year Three center directors indicated that although they may havereservationsaboutsomeoftheprocessesorcriteriawithinthestarratings–theydoseetheutilityof theprogramas awhole. Onedirector specified that shedidnot think that thebenefitsof theprogramwouldbeseenforanotherfivetotenyearsstating,“I’mcertainlygladwehaveastandard.I’mgladthatwe’reallononepage,evenifIdon’tagreewithalloftherequirements.”Shefeltthatitwilltaketimeforcenterstocomeonboardwiththeprogramandwemaynotseeimprovementsinoutcomesoverallimmediately.Another director noted that she didn’t feel that this rating reflects “100%of the quality” in thatcenter,notingthat“biggercentersmayhaveanadvantagebecausetheyhavemoreresourcesfromtheir staff, or administration. Theymayhave one central office that can take care of all of theircenters at the same time, but smaller centersmay have a tough time.” This same director alsoindicatedthatwhilethesystemmaynotbeperfect,theythinkitisgoodtohaveasysteminplace,citing,“Ithinkit’sgood.Betterthannothing,becauseifwedon’tdothiskindofthing,thenwe’renevergoingtogotothenextstep.Soeventhoughwe’reconcernedwithhowtoimprove,ifwe’renotstartingapilotprogrampeoplewon’tcare.Ibelievealotofpeople,theyreallydon’tcare.Wehavetodoit.”

SummaryandConclusionOverall directors were positive about the program as a whole but continue to havereservationsaboutsomeoftherequiredcriteria.DirectorsprovidedvaluablefeedbackforimprovementinthesystemandsomeoftheirsuggestionshavealreadybeenincorporatedintothefinalQRISmodelforNevada.5.FinalSummaryandRecommendations

DatawerecollectedfrommultipledifferentsourcesduringthethreeyearsofthisQRISpilotproject.Thesedataprovideinsightintotheparticularareasofsuccess,aswellasthoseareasthatrequiredadditionalclarificationormodification.OverallthecentersinthisfinalyearofthepilotperformedbetterthancentersinpreviousyearswithagreateraverageincreaseinERSscoresinyearstwoandthreeofthepilot(seepage15),aswellasagreaterproportionofacceptedcriteriaundereachofthequalityindicators.Thisdemonstratesthatthechangesmadetotheprogramhelpedcenterstosucceed.Inthefeedbackfromparticipatingcenterdirectorswesawthatthechangesmadewereuseful,asmanyfelt theorientationpreparedthemforparticipationandfoundthetoolscreatedtoassist increatingtheapplicationbindertobeuseful.However,manyoftheconcernsdiscussedbydirectorsweresimilartowhatwesawinthefirsttwoyearsofthepilot.Directorsarestillconcernedaboutthe requirements for center directors in terms of education levels, and there is still contentionabouttherequirementforaccreditationatthefivestarlevel.


AsaresultoftheexperiencesandfeedbackfromallwhoparticipatedinthethreeyearpilotprojectseveralchangesweremadetothemodelitselfaswellastheproceduresforparticipatinginQRIS.Thesechangesareoutlinedbelow.YearFourImplementationChangesThe Silver State Stars Quality Rating Improvement System was rolled out in Southern NevadastartingonJuly1,2012.Asapartofthisprogramalllicensedchildcarecenterswerenotifiedabouttheprogramandthatuntiltheyenrolltoberatedtheywouldbeassignedastarratingofone. Intheimplementationyearcenterscanapplyforcoachingandgrantfundstomakeimprovementsorthey can choose tomove directly into the assessment phase and apply for their star rating. Inadditiontheprogramhasincorporateda feedbackloopintotheprocesswhereonceabinderhasbeen reviewed and a star assigned, if criteria are not accepted centers have 30 days to askquestionstounderstandwhythecriteriawerenotacceptedorprovideadditionaldocumentationso that it can be accepted. A programmanual has been developed to help centers navigate theprogram,aswellasinstructionsandinformationsheetsthathavebeenpostedontheQRISwebsite,http://nvsilverstatestars.org/.Required criteria for each star level were also modified to allow for NECPA (National EarlyChildhoodProgramAccreditation)accreditationinadditiontoNAEYC(NationalAssociationfortheEducationofYoungChildren) accreditation at the five star level. Themodelwas also revised toallowforarangeofacceptableERSscoresateachofthestarratinglevelsratherthanrequiringonecutoffpointforeachstarratinglevel.ThefullprogramimplementationmodelcanbereviewedinAppendixAofthisreport.


RecommendationsforFutureConsiderationUponreviewingallparticipatingYearThreecenterresults,thereareseveralrecommendationsforfutureconsideration.Thesearelistedbelow.1. CreateaReferenceGuideorManualforAcceptableDocumentationinBinders

Directors reported that there were times when they were provided conflicting informationaboutwhatwouldbeacceptabledocumentationforcertaincriteria.Itmaybehelpfultocreatemoredetailedguidelinesusingexamples so that there is a reference that all participants canuse.

2. TimelineandBenchmarksforProgramCompletionSome directors indicated that they would have benefitted from having a specific timelinecreatedfortheirparticipationtorefertoduringtheprogram,butalsotoplaninadvanceoftheprogram. The timelinewouldnot only documentwhat the director needed to complete, butwouldalsoprovideascheduleforcoachinganddeadlinesforcompletionoftheportfoliobinder.

3. Considermovingtheportfoliobinderprocesson‐lineTwoofthecenterdirectorsinthisfinalyearofthepilotsuggestedmovingtheportfoliobinderprocess online so that documentation could be uploaded into a central system rather thanhavingtoprintallmaterials,andtaketimetoorganizeabinder.

4. UsetheOrientationtoExplaintheRationaleforRequiredCriteriaIt seems that throughout the three year pilot there have been some consistent points ofcontention fordirectorsregardingtherequiredcriteria. Oneof themwastherequirementofNAEYC accreditation to become a five star center, an the other has been the educationrequirementsforcenterdirectorsatthehigherstarlevels.Itmaybebeneficialtoexplainsomeof theevidenceused tosupport thesedecisionsat theorientationso thatcentersunderstandthoseconstraintsastheyentertheprogram.

5. ProgramEvaluationAstheprogrammovesfromapilotprojecttoaprogramitwillbeimportanttocontinuetotrackand document the processes associated with the program. Information about how manycenters participate, apply for coaching and grant funds, and complete the program will beimportant for program planning and budgeting, but will also let program administratorsunderstand how the program is being utilized by the community. In addition, it will beimportantastheprogramcontinuestostarttoexaminetherelationshipsbetweenoutcomesforchildren, and the star ratingof their child care center to reallyunderstand if this system isagoodmeasureofquality,andwhatthatmeansforchildreninNevada.Thiswillrequireamorein depth outcome evaluation to test the correlation between star ratings and outcomes forchildren.


AppendixA:QRISModelforYear4Implementation

Silver State Stars Quality Rating Improvement System (QRIS)

APPLYING FOR A STAR RATING Step 1: Program administrator (center director and/or owner) attends an initial QRIS orientation. Please visit the Nevada Registry website for orientation dates and locations – Hwww.nevadaregistry.org Step 2: A QRIS Specialist is assigned to the program. Step 3: Program administrator completes an initial QRIS documentation checklist. Program receives technical assistance from QRIS Specialist on procedures, by phone or e-mail, if needed. Step 4: Program administrator attends three hour Environment Rating Scale (ERS) overview training Please visit the Nevada Registry website for training dates and locations – Hwww.nevadaregistry.org Step 5: (Optional) Program administrator applies to the QRIS Coaching program through the Children’s Cabinet – see next section. Step 6: Program administrator completes an application and submits with the program documentation binder to the Office of Early Care and Education. A QRIS Rater contacts program administrator to schedule an ERS Assessment. If a No is given to any documentation submitted in the binder, program administrator will be given two weeks to submit corrected documentation. Step 7: A rating is assigned and the program is notified by mail. Program administrator has 30 calendar days to notify the Office of Early Care and Education in writing to provide detailed justification (including reference to a specific indicator or score) if he or she has an objection or disagree with rating.

Page 1 of 9 For more information visit: www.nvsilverstatestars.org July 1, 2012

Applying for Coaching and Grant Funds Programs seeking additional quality improvement assistance can apply for a QRIS Coach through the Children’s Cabinet. Coaching information will be given at both the QRIS Orientation and ERS overview training. Step 1: Program administrator (center director and/or owner) attends an initial QRIS orientation. Please visit the Nevada Registry website for orientation dates and locations – Hwww.nevadaregistry.org Step 2: Program administrator attends three hour Environment Rating Scale (ERS) overview training Please visit the Nevada Registry website for training dates and locations – Hwww.nevadaregistry.org Step 3: Program administrator completes coaching request form and submits to the Children’s Cabinet. Step 4: A QRIS Coach is assigned to the program. Step 5: A QRIS Rater contacts program to schedule a pre-ERS assessment. Step 6: Program administrator and QRIS coach develops a program improvement plan based on the scores of the pre-ERS assessment. Programs may receive assistance for a maximum of 18 months, awarded in six month increments. After each six months, programs will be assessed on their progress made. Step 7: Program administrator may apply for a program improvement grant. The amount of the grant will be based on the licensing capacity of each program. Grant funds are for classroom materials only and must align with the pre-ERS assessment results. Step 8: Follow Steps 6 and 7 from above to proceed with QRIS rating.


SILVER STATE STARS QRIS REQUIRED CRITERIA

Center has current child

care license Silver State Stars QRIS is a voluntary program open to licensed child care centers in Southern Nevada. Centers at Star Level 1 have successfully met child care licensing standards. Centers at Star Level 1 have either chosen not to participate in Silver State Stars QRIS or are in the process of achieving a higher star level. Centers that choose to participate in Silver State Stars QRIS demonstrate and document quality indicators above licensing regulations. It should be understood advancing from Star Level 1 to subsequent levels is an accomplishment that takes a significant amount of time and effort.


care license Center is currently

registered with the Child Care Subsidy Program

All administrators and 50%

of all teaching staff members have written Nevada Registry professional development plans

25% of classrooms meet

QRIS group sizes

25% of classrooms meet QRIS ratios







QRIS group sizes

50% of classrooms meet QRIS ratios

Center has a minimum

average ERS score of 3.50-3.99, with no classroom score under 3.00

Director has a minimum

placement on the career ladder of 3.1






75% of classrooms meet QRIS group sizes


QRIS ratios Center has a minimum









100% of classrooms meet QRIS group sizes


QRIS ratios Center has a minimum




Lead teachers meet QRIS

staff qualifications.

Centers must meet a minimum of

four (4) Quality Indicators from each of the four categories listed

below on pages 5-9.

Centers must meet a minimum of eight (8) Quality Indicators from each of the four categories listed

below on pages 5-9.

Centers must meet a minimum of

twelve (12) Quality Indicators from each of the four categories

listed below on pages 5-9.

NAEYC and NECPA Accredited Centers

(Note: accredited centers must

meet required criteria, but do not have to provide additional

documentation for the Quality Indicators listed below.)


QUALITY INDICATORS There are four categories of quality indicators:

1. Policies & Procedures 2. Administration & Staff Development 3. Health & Safety 4. Family & Community Partners

ENVIRONMENT RATING SCALES (ERS) Each center will be assessed using the following ERS tools:

Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scales, Revised Edition (ITERS-R) Early Childhood Environment Rating Scales, Revised Edition (ECERS-R)

An overall ERS score for each center will be determined based on the scores averaged from 50% of the classrooms for each age group. Classrooms selected for assessment will be based on a random draw. Note: Subscale 7- Parents and Staff will not be used as part of the assessment for this project. SILVER STATE STARS QRIS RATING A center’s star rating will be based on a combination of meeting the required criteria which includes the ERS scores and the number of quality indicators met.


QUALITY INDICATORS

1. Policies & Procedures □ Center is accredited by

an approved accrediting body

□ Center has a compensation plan that provides for annual pay increases (i.e. cost of living raises)

□ Center has a compensation plan that provides for increases based on merit, education, or performance

□ Medical insurance is available to staff members

□ Benefits (other than medical insurance) are provided to staff members

□ Center has a written employee handbook with a signature page

□ Center reimburses professional development expenses incurred by teaching staff

□ Center holds monthly staff meetings

□ Center has a documented procedure to receive staff feedback on program quality

□ Staff feedback on program quality is used to develop a written plan for program improvement

□ Supervisor provides teaching staff with an annual written performance evaluation

□ Classrooms have weekly or monthly curriculum planning calendars

□ Classrooms have written lesson plans for teacher-directed activities

□ Classrooms have written lesson plans for teacher-directed activities that include adaptations for children with special needs

□ Preschool lesson plans align with Nevada Pre-k Standards

□ On-going child assessment includes at least one informal method such as observations, portfolios, or teachers’ anecdotal records

□ On-going child assessment includes at least one formal method such as checklists, screening tools, or assessment tools

□ Center has a documentation system in place to support collaboration with specialist working with identified children

□ Center has a written statement on the inclusion of children with special needs

□ Center obtains (with parental consent) an IFSP/IEP for each child enrolled with a diagnosed disability

□ Center collaborates with outside agency and family before administrative withdrawal of any child with medical/behavioral issues

□ Center has a written policy for procedures on reporting child abuse & neglect included in their parent handbook

□ Center has a written health statement included in their parent handbook

□ Center has a written physical activity statement in their parent handbook

□


2. Administration & Staff Development □ Minimum placement on

the career ladder is 2.1 for 75% of teaching staff

□ Minimum placement on the career ladder is 4.1 for 50% of teaching staff

□ Work environment for staff includes a place for adults to take a break from children, an adult-sized bathroom, and a secure place for staff to secure their belongings

□ Work environment for staff includes a place for adults that is an administrative area for planning, separate from children’s areas

□ Director is a current member of a national early childhood professional organization

□ 50% of teaching staff are current members of a national early childhood professional organization

□ Supervisor completes observations of teaching staff at least three times a year

□ Supervisor provides teaching staff with written feedback based on observations of teacher’s performance

□ Director has a minimum of 21 credits in management or business related courses

□ Director participates on an early childhood committee

□ Center offers quarterly staff development activities

□ Center has a documented action plan based on their ERS scores

□ Director has taken Program Administration Scale (PAS) training

□ Center has a documented improvement plan based on the PAS score

□ Center is a T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood Nevada site

□ Center requires teachers receive a minimum of five additional hours of annual training above licensing requirements

□ All administrators have two clock hours on the topic “early childhood mental health” received in the past two years

□ All administrators have two clock hours on the topic “inclusion” received in the past two years

□ All administrators have two clock hours on the topic “cultural competencies” received in the past two years

□ 50% of all teaching staff have two clock hours on the topic “early childhood mental health” received in the past two years

□ 50% of all teaching staff have two clock hours on the topic “inclusion” received in the past two years

□ 50% of all teaching staff have two clock hours on the topic “cultural competencies” received in the past two years

□ 50% of all teaching staff have two clock hours on the topic “Environment Rating Scales” received in the past two year

□ □


3. Health & Safety

□ Health and Safety Assessment is completed by a child care health consultant

□ Child Record Review is completed by a child care health consultant

□ Center is a registered Web IZ provider

□ Menus are evaluated by a nutritionist

□ Center is a Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) sponsored site

□ Center supports breastfeeding by offering a designated location

□ All classrooms have a cleaning and sanitation schedule posted

□ Staff plan and implement daily developmental appropriate physical activities for all children

□ Center has a documented improvement plan based on a nutrition and physical activity self-assessment checklist

□ Center provides care for sick children in a separate location, supervised by a nurse

□ Center has individualized health plans for children with medical concerns

□ Center has an emergency preparedness kit

□ All administrators have advanced training for emergency medical response to threatening incidents

□ 50% of all teaching staff have advanced training for emergency medical response to threatening incident

□ The ASQ:SE is used to screen children’s social-emotional development

□ Children in need of developmental services are referred to the appropriate agency

□ Children in need of mental health services are referred to the appropriate agency

□ Center has a behavior support team

□ Center has a documented improvement plan based on the Inventory of Practices for Promoting Social Emotional Competence

□ Center is a Nevada TACSEI Project demo site

□ Infant’s teeth and gums are wiped with a disposable tissue after each feeding

□ Preschool children receive annual oral health education

□ Children up to two-years-old are served whole milk

□ Children two-years-old and older are served skim or 1% milk

□


4. Family & Community Partners □ Families are

encouraged to tour center before enrolling child

□ Parent teacher conferences are scheduled on a regular basis

□ Parent teacher conferences are scheduled on an as needed basis

□ A written procedure is in place to help families transition children to the next classroom, other programs, or school

□ Staff is available to attend IEP/IFSP meetings with family and service providers

□ Center has a documented procedure to receive family feedback on program quality

□ Families’ feedback is used to develop a written plan for program improvement

□ Center has a written plan for family involvement

□ Center offers quarterly family involvement activities

□ Center offers quarterly classes or training opportunities for parents

□ Center offers an annual class or training opportunity provided by an outside agency for parents

□ Center offers annual class or training opportunity focused on health, physical activity, or nutrition for parents

□ Center collaborates with a community agency

□ Materials from community agencies are available for families at the center

□ Breastfeeding materials and information are available for families at the center

□ Center has an advisory or governing board which includes at least one parent

□ Center has a parent advisory board or association

□ Program distributes a quarterly newsletter to families

□ Center compiles and provides written program information for families in their home language

□ Center has a communication form families can use to communicate with teachers



INCENTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION

1 2 3 4 5

Coaching Children’s Cabinet Children’s Cabinet Children’s Cabinet Accreditation

Facilitation Project Accreditation

Facilitation Project

One-time Initial Grant ($4,000-$8,500)

Children’s Cabinet Based on licensing

capacity


capacity


capacity

Office of Early Care & Education

Based on licensing capacity

Office of Early Care & Education

Based on licensing capacity

Advancement Bonus at Renewal

$250 $500 $1000

Tiered Reimbursement

6% 9% 12%

Please direct any questions, comments, and/or concerns to Patti Oya DWSS, Office of Early Care and Education 628 Belrose Street Las Vegas, NV 89107 702-486-1432 702-486-1488 (fax) [email protected]

Documents

Si lver St Sta · licensed childcare centers in Southern Nevada notifying them of the pilot project. If centers were interested in being selected for participation, they were asked