Across the country, states are examining their quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS, also known as quality improvement systems, or QIS), which rate and support improvements to child care programs. Some states are considering ways they can support greater equity within their systems, strengthen the focus on improvement, and better support parents. The Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning (DECAL) asked us to gather information on these topics from a small group of experts to inform DECAL’s considerations. We asked experts to discuss how QRIS could be improved in each of these areas based on their knowledge of research and state systems.

This brief presents our findings from our conversations with the experts, describing insights about how quality rating and improvement systems can be improved to best accomplish these goals. Despite choosing respondents to provide diverse perspectives on these issues, we found many areas of agreement.

The respondents to our interviews agreed that there are critical questions facing the QRIS field. There was widespread agreement that to advance these systems, it is essential to establish realistic goals, prioritize equity, and move toward an improvement-focused system. Many respondents discussed how these changes were complex and will take significant time and resources, though a few asked whether it might be more impactful to simply use the significant funds invested in quality rating and improvement systems to invest directly in improving compensation and quality. Several respondents noted that a new approach to QRIS would take a radical change in thinking and the design of current systems, such as eliminating ratings as currently used, reorienting funding, changing the role of state staff members and program administrators, and directly investing in the workforce. No one suggested that changes would be easy, but all agreed that it was essential for states to take steps to better meet the needs of children and families and the providers that serve them.

Here are our key takeaways:

• State systems should clearly articulate the quality improvement system’s goals and theory of change and ensure that funding and other resources are adequate and appropriate to meet those goals.
• Equity comes from an intentional approach to funding, the inclusion of families and providers in every step of design and implementation, and an understanding that change takes time; yet because these critical pieces are not in place, many quality rating and improvement systems seem to perpetuate inequities in the system.
• States should move toward systems focused on growth and improvement, including measurement to support these goals, and away from a framework focused on using measurement to support ratings and compliance. States should not hold providers accountable for meeting standards beyond health and safety that they do not have the resources to achieve. Rather than withholding resources from providers who are unequipped to meet higher standards, states should use resources to help providers meet these higher standards.
• States should consider creating simplified standards that outline the desired outcome, such as high-quality teacher-child interactions or environments that support children’s developmental needs. These standards should work for all providers, regardless of setting, and acknowledge that implementation may look different based on the specific needs of each provider and the communities they serve.
• Simplifying the system can promote equity if it allows for multiple paths to achieve quality and is adequately funded.
• Standards and implementation strategies should be designed with providers and families to ensure that the perspectives of those who have been historically or are currently marginalized are fully represented.
• Implementation will look different across all programs and providers, as implementation resources and supports are customized to their individual needs based on observation, self-assessment, formal assessment, and other measures and metrics.
• Accountability metrics should measure actions at the state system level and should be based on whether the state system takes appropriate actions so that providers have sufficient resources, supports, and time to support their ability to reach system goals.

Respondents agreed that although taking these steps is complex and challenging, it is important to recognize and address the challenges endemic to many quality rating systems, given the significant resources being invested. Given the scarce public resources available to support child care, it is essential that quality improvement resources be carefully designed to ensure that all children have access to well-funded programs that provide the nurturing, healthy, and developmentally appropriate care they deserve.