Every day, millions of parents drop their children off at child care centers and home-based programs hoping their children will be safe and well cared for. To realize these hopes, many states have established systems to support improvements to child care programs and inform parents about their quality by establishing ratings.
Child care quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS), also known as quality improvement systems, or QIS, have received significant investments and efforts, but their promise hasn’t reached all families and providers. Across the country, there’s been growing concern about how these systems don’t focus enough on improvements, inadequately support parents, and contribute to greater inequities both in funding for programs and in whether families have access to high-quality programs.
As these concerns have spread, state child care and early education agencies have been working to ensure their QRIS meet their potential. One of these agencies, Georgia’s Department of Early Care and Learning (DECAL), undertook a comprehensive review of their quality rating system and asked us to gather insights from experts across the country on four questions: how to define the goals of their quality rating systems, how to build an equitable system, how to define the key components of a system focused on improvement, and how to better support parents. We spoke with 15 state and national experts across the country to get their perspectives on how states overall—not just Georgia— should approach these questions.
Despite their different perspectives, these experts generally agreed on several key points:
- Establish clear goals and allocate adequate resources. State systems should clearly articulate the quality improvement system’s goals and theory of change and ensure funding and other resources are adequate and appropriate to meet those goals.
- To create equitable systems, prioritize intentional funding and collaborative design. State QRIS can perpetuate inequities unless they are thoughtful about including an approach to funding that accounts for demographics, community needs, and availability of supports. Such an approach also includes families and providers in every step of design and implementation and an understanding that change takes time.
- Focus on growth and improvement rather than ratings and compliance. States shouldn’t hold providers accountable for meeting standards beyond health and safety that they don’t have the resources to achieve. Rather than withholding resources from providers who lack resources and supports to meet higher standards, states should design the system to help providers meet these higher standards and adopt appropriate measures to help guide improvement.
- Establish simplified standards focused on outcomes. 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.
- Allow multiple paths to achieving quality. Simplifying the system can promote equity if it allows for multiple paths to achieve quality and is adequately funded.
- Design standards and implementation with providers and families. Doing so will help ensure the perspectives of those who’ve been historically or are currently marginalized are fully represented.
- Allow for variation in implementation. 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.
- Ensure accountability metrics include measures at the state level. Accountability metrics should include steps to measure actions at the state system level to remove burdens from providers and directly link financing decisions at the state to the impact of those decisions. Accountability should also be based on whether the state system takes appropriate actions so providers have sufficient resources, supports, and time needed to achieve system goals.
Many respondents discussed how implementing these changes would be complex and take significant time and resources though a few asked whether it might be more impactful to use the significant funds invested in quality rating and improvement systems to invest directly in improving compensation and quality. Several respondents noted that these changes would take a radical change in thinking and the design of current systems, such as eliminating ratings as currently used, reorienting funding, changing the roles of state staff members and program administrators, and directly investing in the workforce. However, all agreed it was essential for states to take steps to better meet the needs of children and families and the providers who serve them.
As states grapple with limited resources in the child care system, quality improvement systems can be a mechanism to ensure families and providers statewide have access to supports and resources. A new approach focused on improvement and equity won’t be easy; it will take time, resources, substantial change in mindsets and state systems, and new partners. These systems will look very different from the rating systems currently in place. But in taking on these issues, states can create a system that works for everyone.
Tune in and subscribe today.
The Urban Institute podcast, Evidence in Action, inspires changemakers to lead with evidence and act with equity. Cohosted by Urban President Sarah Rosen Wartell and Executive Vice President Kimberlyn Leary, every episode features in-depth discussions with experts and leaders on topics ranging from how to advance equity, to designing innovative solutions that achieve community impact, to what it means to practice evidence-based leadership.