August 2014 Developing a Framework to Build High Quality Part C and Section 619 Systems

Purpose: to guide states in evaluating their current Part C/619 system, identifying areas for improvement, and providing direction on how to develop a more effective, efficient Part C and Section 619 system that requires, supports, and encourages implementation of effective practices. Audience: the key audience is state Part C and state Section 619 coordinators and staff, with acknowledgement that other key staff and leadership in a state will need to be involved. System Framework: Purpose and Audience 2

Iterative validation process: the framework is being developed through an iterative process among national and state experts in the field. Partner states: the framework is being developed iteratively with 6 states (DE, ID, MN, NJ, PA, WV), so that it reflects (and is applicable to) the diversity of state systems (e.g. Lead Agency, eligibility criteria). Technical Work Group (TWG): the Center has a technical work group (TWG) with experts in the field to advise the Center by providing early input on the elements, and later review and give input on drafts, as well as contribute resources available to support states on various elements. System Framework: Process and Partners 3

Broader Input ReviseRevise State Testing ReviseRevise Review / Input DraftDraft State Examples LiteratureLiterature Review of the existing literature Discussions with partner states about what’s working or not working in their states and what ‘quality’ means in relation to each component Draft of components, subcomponents, quality indicators and elements of quality Review of drafts and input from: partner states, TWG, ECTA staff, others Revisions to drafts based on input Re-send revised drafts and have partner states ‘test’ through application Revisions to drafts again Share more broadly to get input Iterative Validation Process 4

Delaware Lisa Crim, Part C Coordinator, Birth to Three Early Intervention System Verna Thompson, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator, Delaware Idaho Christy Cronheim, Part C Coordinator Shannon Dunstan, Early Childhood Coordinator (Section 619 Preschool) Pennsylvania Jim Coyle, Kim Koteles & Mary Anketell, Office of Child Development and Early Learning. Bureau of Early Intervention Services Minnesota Kara Hall Tempel, Part C Coordinator, Lisa Backer, Early Childhood Special Education Supervisor (Section 619 Preschool) New Jersey Terry Harrison, Part C Coordinator Barbara Tkach, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator West Virginia Pam Roush, Part C Coordinator, West Virginia Ginger Huffman, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator Partner States 5

Mary Beth Bruder, Director, Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC), University of CT Lori Connors-Tadros, Project Director, Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO), National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University Barbara Gebbard and Jodi Whiteman, Center for Training Services and Special Projects, ZERO TO THREE Maureen Greer, Executive Director, Infant Toddler Coordinator Association (ITCA) Vivian James, 619 Preschool Coordinator, Office of Early Learning, NC Department of Public Instruction Grace Kelley, Program Specialist, South East Regional Resource Center (SERRC) Jana Martella, Co-Director, Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO), Education Development Center, Inc. Robin McWilliam, Director of the Center for Child and Family Research, Siskin Children’s Institute Cindy Oser, Director of Infant-Early Childhood Mental Health Strategy, ZERO TO THREE Ann Reale, Principal, ICF International and ELC TA Collaboration Lead, ELC TA Program Rachel Schumacher, Early Childhood Policy Consultant, R. Schumacher Consulting Technical Work Group Members 6

The framework and corresponding self-assessment are designed to be: Evidence based Useful to Part C and Section 619 programs, including resources and exemplars Responsive to the variation that exists across states; designed in a way that recognizes that states can reach quality in different ways Related to critical areas of Part C and Section 619 Consistent with IDEA requirements Consistent with recommended early childhood practices (e.g. DEC, DAP) Consistent with best practices from implementation science Inclusive of resources and exemplars to illustrate ways state can meet quality System Framework: Assumptions/Parameters 7

What does a state need to put into place in order to encourage, support, require local implementation of effective practices? ECTA Center System Framework 8

9

Engaging stakeholders, including families Establishing/revising policies Promoting collaboration Using data for improvement Communicating effectively Family Leadership & Support Coordinating/Integrating across early childhood Cross cutting themes 10

Products: components and subcomponents of an effective service delivery system (e.g. governance, finance, personnel) quality indicators scaled to measure the extent to which a component is in place and of high quality corresponding self- assessment for states to self- assess (and plan for improvement) with resources related to the components of the system framework System Framework 11

Additionally: Self-assessment scale Resources and examples General progression: In place Of high quality Used Reviewed/Revise d Across EC Component #1 –Subcomponent #1 Quality Indicator #1 –Element of Quality #1 –Element of Quality #2 –Etc. Quality Indicator #2 –Element of Quality #1 –Element of Quality #2 –Etc. Component #2 –Subcomponent #1 Quality Indicator #1 –Element of Quality #1 –Element of Quality #2 –Element of Quality #3 Etc. Structure/Format of Each Component 12

As of August 2014, online posting of: Introduction Governance Finance Accountability & Quality Improvement Coming Soon… Quality Standards Data Systems Personnel/Workforce 13

Note: Coordinating with other TA Centers and partners in the field on these aspects as well as components. Self-assessment Resources and Examples Glossary of terms Other Aspects of the Framework 14

1.To get a snapshot of the state’s current status and guide next steps for improvement. 2.To help direct a state’s quality improvement efforts for their C/619 system. 3.The numeric quantitative self-assessment score will allow the state to later show progress. 4.Meant to be a thoughtful process; rich conversation about the system and evidences is the most important part. 5.Encourage states to think about why they want to use the framework and self-assessment before they get started. Self-Assessment - Purpose 15

Specific as possible to make it useful Providing the best resources examples (focus on quality, not quantity) State examples when possible We will likely identify places where resources and examples are needed Identifying Resources and Examples 16

DaSy Early Childhood Personnel Center Early Childhood Systems Work Group Coordinating content, resources, format/structure, etc. Coordinating with others 17

All components drafted and posted online by the September 2014 Glossary and self-assessment will be posted Fall/Winter 2014 Corresponding resources will be added over the next year and ongoing Framework content is part of ongoing ECTA TA services and will be supporting states with self- assessment and improvement planning Timelines 18

Look for updates via the web site: Thank you! 19