TEXAS RISING STAR REVISIONS (2016)

DISCUSSION PAPER

Background

TRS Grandfather Period

WD Letter 21-15,dated September 1, 2015, outlined the extension of the Texas Rising Star (TRS)implementation dates. On August 25, 2015, the Commission approved a six-month extension of the TRS implementation timeline, from September 1, 2015, through February 29, 2016, in order to allow existing TRS providers—providers certified as TRS under the former standards prior to March 1, 2015—more time to come into compliance with the new TRS standards.

Working Group Sessions

Throughoutfall 2015, the Texas Workforce Commission(TWC) hosted four public meetings on the subsidized Child Care Program. During the meetings, the majority of the comments received were regarding TRS; this prompted TWC to host two provider working group sessions to gather feedback and recommendations on TRS. Participants were selected based on their knowledge and experience as TRS providers and were tasked with reviewing each TRS category to make recommendations on measures that will be submitted to TWC for review and consideration.

The first provider working group session meeting was held on January 11, 2016,in Austin, and the second session was held on January 19, 2016,in Dallas. Additionally, a working group session for TRS assessor and mentor staff was held on January 26, 2016. Overall, feedback received stressed the need for additional training, the development of statewide templates, and clarification on TRS measures and processes. Staff recommendations reflect feedback received during various stakeholder meetings, such as the working group sessions held with providers, Board mentors, and assessors;the Board Child Care Network meetings; and four public meetings held in Dallas, Houston, McAllen, and Austin.

Revisions to TRS Measures and Guidelines

Category 1: Director and Staff Qualifications

Issue A: Remove Director Education: Career Lattice Level Measure

Currently, theDirector Education: Career Lattice Level measure requires the following:

The director assesses theireducation, experience and ongoing education to determine their career lattice level. Provider determines their current career lattice level, identifies how they want to progress to a higher career lattice level.

Comments received state that a director’s progress should be determined by the provider. The director can use the career lattice tool to show what career level he or she has attained; however, theTRS measure does not require that the director progress to a certain level on the lattice. Additionally, there are specific measures in Category 1 that assess the director’s education and experience.

Recommendation

Staff recommends removing the Director Education: Career Lattice Level measure. The director’s education and experience levels are included in other Category 1 measures.

Issue B: Amend Director Qualifications—Formal Education Scoring

Currently, scoring for Director Qualifications—Formal Education Scoring is as follows:

Score of 1: 5–9 years of experience as a directorin a TRS or currently recognized nationally accredited provider

Score of 2: 10–14 years of experience as a directorin a TRS or currently recognized nationally accredited provider

Score of 3: 15 or more years of experienceas a directorin a TRS or currently recognized nationally accredited provider

Comments received statethat the years of experience are set too high andthat experience as a director should not be limited to working in TRS or accredited facilities.

Recommendation

Staff recommends amending the Director Qualifications—Formal Education Scoring to include the following:

  • For a score of 3, align the director’s years of experience as cited in House Bill 4 and Texas Education Agency proposed rules. Please refer to the chart below for the recommended changes.
  • Add to the Technical Scoring Manual that a director meets a score of 3 if they have a nonexpiring license.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES
DIRECTOR FORMAL EDUCATION SCORING
Score of: / Current Measure: / Staff Recommendations:
1 / 5 to 9 years as a director in a TRS or currently recognized nationally accredited provider / over 2 years to up to 4 years of experience as a directorin a TRS or currently recognized nationally accredited provider
2 / 10 to 14 years as a director in a TRS or currently recognized nationally accredited provider / over 4 years to up to 8 years of experience as a directorin a TRS or currently recognized nationally accredited provider
3 / 15 or more years as a director in a TRS or currently recognized nationally accredited provider / over 8 years of experience as a directorin a TRS or currently recognized nationally accredited provider

Issue C: Amend Caregiver Qualifications Measure

The current TRS measure regarding staff qualifications is a point-based measure in which the points awarded for the facility is based on the percentage of the full-time caregiver staff (not counting the director) having at least one of the following qualifications:

  1. a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential;or
  2. a Certified Child Care Professional (CCP) credential;or
  3. successfully completed 12college credit hours in child development, early childhood education, or related field, and two years of full-time paid experience as a caregiver working with children in a licensed or registered facility; or
  4. two years of full-time paid experience working with children as a caregiver in a licensed or registered child care facility while presently working toward a CDA or a CCP credential; or
  5. successfully completed 192 training clock hours within the last fiveyears in child development, early childhood education, or related field, and two years of full-time paid experience as a caregiver working with children in a licensed or registered facility; or
  6. a bachelor’s or associate’s degree in early childhood development or related field.

Providers are scored using the following scoring rubric:

Scoring: Percentageof caregivers who meet at least one of the qualifications above:

1= Provider meets at least 30 percentof staff

2= Provider meets more than 50 percentbut less than 75 percentof staff

3= Provider meets 75 percentor better of staff

CAREGIVER QUALIFICATIONS SCORING
Score of: / Percentage of staff:
1 / Provider meets at least 30% of staff
2 / Provider meets more than 50% but less than 75% of staff
3 / Provider meets 75% or better of staff

The following comments were receivedregardingoptions C, D, E, and F:

  • Individuals can count when they are working toward a CDA in option D;however, in option C,no credit is given for an individual working toward a bachelor’s or associate’s degree.
  • The requirement in option E regarding 192 training clock hours within the last fiveyears in child development, early childhood education, or related field equates to 38.4 clock hours per year, whichis more than the 30 hours per year required in another TRS measure.
  • Option F limits degrees to early childhood development and related fields; thisexcludes caregivers who have degrees that pertain to the specialization of the program. For example, caregivers who have a medical-related degree who care for children with disabilities or caregivers who have a bilingual degree who work in bilingual programs.

Recommendation

Staff recommends:

  • amending Option C to include “working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree”;
  • amendingOption E to 150 training hours in the last five years to align with the 30 annual training hours in the TRS training measure;
  • amendingoption F to allow for degrees other than child development or early childhood education;
  • adding a new option to include ten years of full-time paid experience as a caregiver working in a nationally accredited or TRS facility; and
  • revising the Caregiver Qualifications Scoring chart to read as follows:

CAREGIVER QUALIFICATIONS SCORING
Score of: / Percentage of staff that meet at least one qualification:
1 / 30% of provider staff
2 / More than 50% but less than 75% of provider staff
3 / 75% or better of provider staff
CAREGIVER QUALIFICATIONS
Current Measure: / Staff Recommendations:
Option C. Have successfully completed 12college credit hours in child development, early childhood education, or related field, and two years of full-time paid experience as a caregiver working with children in a licensed or registered facility. / Option C. Working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree or have successfully completed 12college credit hours in child development, early childhood education, or related field, and two years of full-time paid experience as a caregiver working with children in a licensed or registered facility.
Option E. Have successfully completed 192 training clock hours within the last fiveyears in child development, early childhood education, or related field, and two years of full-time paid experience as a caregiver working with children in a licensed or registered facility. / Option E. Have successfully completed 150training clock hours within the last fiveyears in child development, early childhood education, or related field, and two years of full-time paid experience as a caregiver working with children in a licensed or registered facility.
Option F. Have a bachelor’s or associate’s degree in early childhood development or related field. / Option F. Have a bachelor’s or associate’s degree.
N/A / New Option: Ten years of full-time paid experience as a caregiver working in a nationally accredited or TRS facility.

Category 2: Child-Caregiver Interactions

Issue: Group Size as a Required Measure

Comments were received regarding group size and ratios, including the following:

  • Change group size to a point-based measureandremove the group size requirement;
  • Group size and ratio measures are not conducive to a provider’s business model and do not provide flexibility for group sizes; and
  • Measures are unrealistic based on the reimbursement amount the provider receives as an enhanced rate.

A wide range of revision suggestions were received, including the following:

  • Removeboth the measures for group size and ratios for TRS certification;
  • Amend the current group size and ratio measures; and
  • Model group size and ratio measures to reflect national accreditation, which has group size as a point-based measure.

Additionally, arecommendationwas received to change the determination of the classroom age to the specified age to align with Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) Child Care Licensing (CCL). Currently, the TRS Guidelines state that the classroom age is determined by the youngest child in the classroom.

DFPS CCL minimum standard §746.1603 addresses how the specified age of children is determined in each group.

§746.1603 How do I determine the specified age of the children in each group?

Identify the specified age of the children in each group using this formula:

1)List all of the children in the group in order of their ages from youngest to oldest. Children younger than 24 months should be listed by their age in months. Children two years and older are listed by their age in years.

2)Determine the total number of children in the group and divide this number by 2. If the result is not a whole number but is .5, such as 6.5, round up to the next number, which is 7. This will be the core number of the group.

3)Begin counting at the first or youngest child on your list and count down the list from youngest to oldest, until you reach the core number. The age of this child is the specified age of the children in this group.

Recommendation

Staff recommends:

  • changing group size to a point-based measureand removinggroup size as a required measure;
  • combining group size and staff ratiosso that the combined measures will become a one-point–based measure per age group; and
  • modifying the observation procedure to align with licensing and use the median age of the children when assessing the group size and ratio for a classroom.

Please see Attachment 1 for staff recommendations for group size and staff ratios.

Category 3: Curriculum

Issue A: Curriculum Scoring

Currently, the required elements of lesson plans:

  • follow a curriculum plan;
  • reference teaching manuals or curriculum plan page numbers;
  • contain activities that follow a scope and sequence; and
  • list learning objectives that help children meet specific developmental benchmarks.

Comments received from providers and assessor/mentor staff state that the curriculum section is difficult to score, as the Guidelines and the Technical Scoring Manual offer differing guidance in scoring curriculum-related measures. The lesson plan templates in the Technical Scoring Manual provide different examples of a lesson plan, but they do not clearly outline the required elements of a lesson plan.

Recommendation

Staff recommends developing a lesson plan checklist that providers and assessor/mentor staff can use to assist in evaluating a lesson plan to ensure the required elements are present.

Additionally, staff recommends revising current templates in the TRS Guidelines to highlight and clearly indicate each of the required elements.

Further, staff recommends providing clarification and guidance on the following:

  • developing a checklist for what is expected in the lesson plan and the daily schedulein the TRS Guidelines;
  • developing a checklist for what is needed in the lesson plan andamending measure descriptions to clearly state what the intended goal/objective should be;
  • amending the scoring process to allow providers to include site references and resources instead of specific page numbers on their lesson plans; and
  • acceptable activities, how to score activities, and what constitutes a curriculum.

Issue B: Including Technology in Curriculum

Currently, providers are assessed on how they incorporate technology into their curriculum. Specifically, the measure states:

Activities for the development of technology skills and knowledge are well described to support children’s use and understanding of different forms of technology. Examples of appropriate technology may include vocabulary, letter recognition, and math games on a computer or tablet, or exploration using a mouse.

Comments received state that some child care providers do not have technology intentionally and that having technology in the classroom goes against someproviders’ philosophy;e.g., some providers have eliminated screen time, as screen time limits active play.

Recommendation

Staff recommends amending the technology measure to allow for a Not/Applicable score if providers have clearly stated in their policy/parent handbook thatthe use of technology goes against center philosophy.

Category 4: Nutrition and Indoor/Outdoor Environment

Comments received for Category 4 consisted of general revisions to the TRS measures and Guidelines for clarity. See “Overall Measure Rewording.”

Category 5: Parent Education and Involvement

Issue A: Duplication of DFPS CCL Minimum Standards

Providers’comments state that some of the TRS measures duplicate DFPS Minimum Standards.

Recommendation

Staff recommendsthat TWC staff research and review DFPS Minimum Standards and amend any TRS measures that duplicate Minimum Standards.

Overall Measure Rewording

Comments received during the working group sessions stressed the need for measure rewording for clarity in the Guidelines. Some revisions will involve research and further review. See Attachment 2 for the chart with wording and revision recommendations.

Revisions to Process TRS Guidelines

Issue: TRS Prescreening Form

TRS Prescreening Form

The TRS Program Guidelines require assessors to fill out a TRS prescreening form prior to a TRS assessment and annually thereafter. Monitoring DFPS visits via the prescreening form entails viewing the TRS provider on the DFPS website and filling out the one-page form accordingly.

Currently, TRS providers are required to notify assessor/mentor staff any time DFPS CCL conducts a site visit. This includes any visits resulting from self-reported incidents, reported incidents, monitoring inspections, or assessments. Various incidents could result in multiple DFPS site visits in a short amount of time. If a provider reports all of these visits, assessor/mentor staff must review the DFPS report and fill out the TRS prescreening form. Providers commented that this is a burden to them, especially as DFPS visits can be viewed on the DFPS website. Boards and assessor/mentor staffexpressed concern that this requirement is not being followed by all TRS providers, either due to the additional reporting burden on providers, or due to licensing violations cited by DFPS that would affect the provider’s TRS certification.

As a result, assessor/mentor staffstated that there is a need for more frequent required monitorings of the TRS prescreening form and no requirement for the provider.

Recommendation

Staff recommends removing the requirement in the TRS Guidelines that providers report to assessor/mentor staff the results of DFPS monitoring visits. This removes the burden from the provider. This also removes the burden of assessor/mentor staff monitoring DFPS visits every time a provider sends a report. Staff also recommends thatthe TRS prescreening form be completedquarterly by assessor/mentor staff for all TRS providers, thus ensuring DFPS visits are monitored without the added burden of multiple reports.

Issue: Provider Entity Change

Currently, the TRS Guidelines address the process when a provider moves or changes ownership. The provider retains its TRS star level, but must be reassessed within three months of the change. The Guidelines do not address when a provider changes entity—moving from a Registered Child Care Home to a Licensed Child Care Home, or to a Licensed Child Care Center. Changing to a Licensed Home or Center reflects an improvement to the provider, as DFPS Minimum Standards are more stringent for those entities.

Recommendation

Staff recommends allowing the same process for entity changes as is in place for a location or ownership change. If a provider changes its entity designation, for example,from a Registered Home to a LicensedHome or Center, or a Licensed Home changes to a Licensed Center, it will retain its star level status and must be reassessed within three months of the entity change.

Issue: Caregiver Observation

Currently, TRS guidance requires assessors to observe only the lead caregiver in a classroom.This excludes any other primary caregivers (e.g., assistants or co-caregivers). Primary caregivers are caregivers who are in the classroom the majority of the time and have regular, consistent contact with the children. Providers and assessor/mentor staff commented that observing interactions from all primary caregivers would give a more accurate depiction of the climate of the classroom and the experiences of the child.

Recommendation

Staff recommends that assessors observe all primary caregivers in the classroom during an observation.