51涩涩屋app

High-quality early learning experiences contribute to positive long-term outcomes for children. These include increased educational attainment, healthier lifestyles, and more successful careers (Hahn et al. 2016; Hong et al. 2019; Bustamante et al. 2022; CDC OPPE 2023). The goal of 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Quality Assessment and Accreditation is to help educators and other early learning professionals develop a shared understanding of and commitment to quality. It supports essential elements of a high-quality early learning experience: increased staff morale, greater staff retention, and a more positive, energetic professional atmosphere (Bloom 1996; Whitebook, Sakai, & Howes 2004; Grant, Jeon, & Buettner 2019). It also can help families recognize quality early learning programs, so they can feel comfortable knowing that their children are receiving a high-quality, research-based education that will prepare them for听future success.

For more than 40 years, 51涩涩屋app has accredited early childhood education programs through a multistep system that includes site visits and scrutiny of class and program portfolios. Now, the association is听re-envisioning听its early learning quality assessment and accreditation process, based on a commitment to continuous quality improvement, lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, and feedback from the field. This article traces the history of 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Accreditation, the impetus for change, and how we are using evidence to inform our approach to the new model, which will launch in March 2025 (see 鈥淩e-envisioning the 51涩涩屋app Quality Assessment and Accreditation System: A Brief Timeline of Recent Efforts鈥� at the end of this article).

A Brief History of 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Quality Assessment听and Accreditation

Forty years ago, 51涩涩屋app set out to create an early learning accreditation system to offer programs access to continuous quality improvement. This included the latest research on effective practices, training, technical assistance, and visibility on family-focused search engines. What began as an idea for a child care 鈥渃enter endorsement project鈥� in 1980 has evolved over time. The main goal for accreditation originally was to build consensus in defining quality in a fragmented and largely unregulated field. Highlights of how 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Accreditation has evolved and adapted historically in response to dynamic circumstances within the broader听field include

• reinventing the early learning accreditation system in 2006 in response to overwhelming demand and to set the groundwork for continuous cycles of听quality improvement.
• streamlining early learning accreditation content in 2018 to address issues of redundancy. This resulted in a 63 percent decrease in discrete听assessment criteria.

Currently, early learning programs seeking accreditation by 51涩涩屋app participate in a听four-step听process. After periods of self-study and听self-assessment听(steps 1 and 2), programs submit candidacy documentation (step 3) that, if approved, leads to an on-site observational visit (step 4). During the site visit, trained assessors look for program compliance with 51涩涩屋app鈥檚 Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation criteria through observational and written evidence. Evidence gathered during the site visit informs the accreditation decision of 鈥渁ccredit鈥� or 鈥渄efer.鈥� Programs receiving defer decisions are not awarded 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Accreditation; this decision implies that the program needs to complete additional quality improvement work before it can meet听accreditation standards.

51涩涩屋app is committed to continuous quality improvement. Early learning programs participating in the 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Accreditation process are expected to routinely examine what they do, how they do it, and to make changes over time toward higher quality practices. Likewise, 51涩涩屋app as an organization prioritizes ongoing self-reflection, revising, and refining its Early Learning Quality Assessment and Accreditation system to ensure that it supports positive outcomes for children, families, and early learning professionals. Through study and reflection, the association learned that the systems put in place in 2018 were not ideally equipped to support continuous quality improvement efforts. Information gaps and less than optimal internal support resulted in some erosion of trust in the system. As a result, 51涩涩屋app began to embark upon a comprehensive overhaul of processes, content, and technologies. However, in March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated halting all in-person accreditation site visits and 51涩涩屋app鈥檚 budding plans to address issues听of transparency.

Innovating During the Pandemic:听Provisional Accreditation

Born out of necessity as the world faced an unprecedented global health pandemic, the 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Accreditation team quickly worked to make changes in processes and decision making. This was a time when the early learning field grappled with previously unthinkable problems and pivoted to redefine what high-quality early learning settings and experiences looked and felt like. 51涩涩屋app quickly worked to develop a revised assessment process that would allow for the verification of high-quality early learning practices despite government-mandated travel restrictions and early learning program closures. Likewise, the 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Accreditation team acted nimbly and decisively to continue to offer reassurance that programs bearing the 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Accreditation seal could still be relied on as the distinguishing mark of high-quality听early learning.

Several options were explored in lieu of in-person observations, including the use of video recordings, remote observation via live streaming, and remote-controlled听robotic devices. Following pilot testing of remote observation via live streaming in two volunteer programs, 51涩涩屋app determined that it was not possible to conduct the class and program observations with fidelity in this manner. The cost and logistics of quickly acquiring and simultaneously deploying the necessary equipment across the country was the primary barrier in pursuing remote observations. As a result, 51涩涩屋app concluded that the best option under these extraordinary circumstances was to decouple the program and classroom portfolio assessment (steps 1 through 3) from the observational assessment (step 4). While the first could be conducted remotely with fidelity in a digital format, the observational assessment still needed to be conducted on-site by a trained and听reliable assessor.

This revised assessment and accreditation process allowed 51涩涩屋app to grant programs provisional accreditation status based on the review of program and classroom portfolios only. This was considered a first step, known as provisional part 1 (PV1). It came with the requirement that an on-site assessment of observational practices be completed when programs fully reopened and travel restrictions were lifted. This was considered the second step, or provisional part 2 (PV2). Programs that received provisional accreditation were asked to inform families and staff of the provisional nature of the听accreditation decision.

Revisiting Re-Envisioning

In the wake of the pandemic, 51涩涩屋app has resumed a focus on re-envisioning Early Learning Program Quality Assessment and Accreditation to ensure continuous quality improvement. This entails addressing known issues with capacity, agility, accessibility, equity, and transparency.听Toward this end, in 2022 51涩涩屋app embarked on a re-envisioning of its quality assessment and accreditation process to address anecdotal and survey evidence indicating that the system is too complex, complicated, and difficult to navigate. Early learning programs reported to 51涩涩屋app that while quality content is strong, the process is inaccessible and burdensome to many. Since then, 51涩涩屋app鈥檚 Applied Research and Early Learning Program teams have used a data-driven approach to analyze existing data and to gather input from diverse parties to evaluate the quality assessment content and processes through a mixed-method, intentional, and inclusive process. The goal of these efforts is to revise the 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Quality Assessment and Accreditation system so that听it is

• streamlined, collecting information from programs in an efficient and meaningful way that reduces redundancy and improves the measurement听of quality
• equitable, ensuring that quality assessment is inclusive so that more early learning programs have access听to accreditation
• innovative, linking quality assessment standards and items to the听latest research
• aligned, working to reduce the administrative burden for early learning programs and finding ways to connect 51涩涩屋app and other systems, such as state licensure, Quality Rating and Improvement Systems, and other national quality听assessment systems
• accessible, introducing multiple ways to engage and allowing for programs at all stages of quality improvement to showcase their strengths through a tiered system of quality assessment and accreditation (see 鈥�51涩涩屋app鈥檚 New Tiered Early Learning Quality Assessment and Accreditation System鈥�)

听

听

What Can We Learn from the Provisional听Accreditation Process?

Although born out of necessity in a time of crisis, the provisional accreditation process created something akin to a 鈥渘atural experiment鈥�: This provided an opportunity to learn more about the overall system and its individual components. It also offered useful insights to inform the goals of the听revision process.

Given the known existing challenges with 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Quality Assessment and Accreditation, the goals for the revision process, and 51涩涩屋app鈥檚 commitment to continuous learning and improvement, the Applied Research team undertook an evaluation of the provisional process. Their goal was to gather insights to inform the听re-envisioned听system and content. In particular, the team sought to disentangle what could be gleaned from the documentation of quality separate from a direct,听in-person听observation of quality. To optimize resources to support access to quality assessment, equity in quality assessment, and the system鈥檚 reach, the team sought to understand whether quality practice could be reliably and consistently assessed through documentation. Toward that end, the following research questions听were explored:

1. Could the assessment of documentary evidence (PV1) be decoupled from the on-site visit of observational evidence (PV2) without compromising the overall measurement of听quality practices?
2. What could be learned about programs that received provisional accreditation based on documentary evidence (PV1) but were unable to convert that provisional status into a full,听five-year听accreditation term due to failures during the observational site听visit (PV2)?

What Insights Came from听This Exploration?

During the provisional process, 1,032 unique accreditation decisions were made based only on program and classroom portfolio review (PV1). For this study, an initial stratified random sample of 282 programs that completed PV1 were selected. A final sample of 252 accreditation decisions where programs completed both the portfolio review (PV1) and the observation component (PV2) was selected for purposes of analysis to represent the larger population. (For more information on the sampling methodology, please email [email protected].) The sample size used balanced pragmatism and efficiency with sufficient power to detect a statistically significant relationship assuming a confidence level of 95 percent. The random sample was selected to ensure that the number of programs that achieved accreditation and the number deferred aligned with the overall accreditation rate of the population听of interest.

The sample included programs across 40 states, Washington, DC, and two foreign territories (see 鈥淧rovisional Part 1 Programs by Region鈥�). Geographically, the sample was representative of the population in alignment with the US Census Regions and Divisions. Attempts were also made to ensure that the sample reflected the larger population in terms of systemwide program portfolio use, which allows organizations that have a large number of related programs in the early learning accreditation system to streamline their program portfolios through a process of preapproved,听organization-wide听evidence.

To address the study鈥檚 two research questions, the Applied Research team relied upon a mixed-methods approach, combining both correlational statistical analyses and a deep qualitative review of the PV2 observation assessment materials for verification. First, they compared overall scores and pass rates from PV1 and PV2 to understand the strength and direction of the relationship between these two scores. Next, they closely examined the qualities of programs that passed PV1 but failed PV2. Assessors鈥� notes from observational site visits were used at this step and served a twofold purpose: to understand factors that led to failures in PV2 and to identify ways to enhance a system that may not require on-site observational assessment to issue听accreditation decisions.

These analyses revealed a strong, positive, statistically significant correlation between PV1 and PV2 overall scores. The vast majority of programs that passed PV1 based on documentary evidence went on to successfully convert their provisional accreditation into a full five-year term following an on-site observational visit (PV2). Three programs failed PV2 despite passing PV1. This was because they failed to meet a particular standard or item(s), or they failed to attain the minimum overall score necessary for passage. Six programs did not participate in PV2 because they had closed, voluntarily withdrawn, or had their provisionally granted accreditation revoked due to compliance issues with required听assessment items.

听

What Are the Implications of These Findings for Work听Moving Forward?

As 51涩涩屋app鈥檚 Early Learning Quality Assessment and Accreditation system undergoes a historic revisionary improvement, this analysis of provisional accreditation decisions supports the听following changes:

• Decoupling the portfolio assessment from the observation assessment and听re-envisioning听how documentary evidence is collected, organized, and evaluated. Nearly all provisionally accredited programs successfully converted their provisionally granted accreditation status into a full,听five-year听term following the on-site observational assessment. It is therefore feasible to pursue further exploration of issuing an accreditation decision based on portfolio evidence alone and relying on verification of practices on a random,听unannounced basis.
• Continuous quality assurance practices throughout the entire accreditation term, which would include random, unannounced visits. Three programs did not pass their on-site observational assessments after receiving provisional accreditation. Thus, as 51涩涩屋app explores and implements a new tiered quality assessment and accreditation system, it will be critical to evaluate the effectiveness of existing quality assurance and fidelity processes and procedures and consider novel ways to ensure that high-quality early learning practices are taking place on an听ongoing basis.

This analysis is one of many efforts 51涩涩屋app has initiated over the past year to determine how best to revise its Early Learning Program Quality Assessment and Accreditation system, but it is not without limitations. Programs deferred in PV1 did not receive a site visit during PV2. While this is 51涩涩屋app鈥檚 standard protocol, it is unknown how these programs might have performed observationally since no site visits were scheduled. In addition, because site visits are only conducted for programs that receive passing scores from portfolio reviews, assessors are not blind to a program鈥檚 provisional status. This could potentially introduce bias into their听observational assessments.

What听Is Next?

For 40 years, 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Accreditation was rooted in the idea that on-site observation is essential to accurately measure quality. The COVID-19 pandemic challenged us to think differently about this belief. Without that experience, we likely would never have considered a different possibility. The provisional accreditation process provided 51涩涩屋app with the data we needed to be innovative and to consider an accreditation process that provides the flexibility that programs desire without compromising the quality that 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program听Accreditation represents.

The data presented in this article have given 51涩涩屋app the ability to consider new possibilities for assessing quality in early learning programs that align with the goals of equity, accessibility, and simplicity鈥攖he factors that are driving our revisions. By rethinking the role of the on-site visit, 51涩涩屋app will be able to thoughtfully consider a fee structure that better meets the needs of programs. The updated model will also provide additional opportunities for states and other systems to engage more explicitly with 51涩涩屋app Early Learning Program Quality Assessment and Accreditation. This will provide a more aligned experience for early听learning programs.

Early learning programs that are interested in learning more about the changes to quality assessment and accreditation can access the information via 51涩涩屋app鈥檚 website at . As we move closer to the March 2025 launch date, additional resources will be available to support currently accredited programs as well as those new to quality assessment and accreditation. We hope that these changes will result in an increased interest in quality assessment and accreditation from programs across the country, which will in turn lead to greater levels of access to high-quality early learning for young children and听their families.

Photograph: 漏 Getty Images
Copyright 漏 2024 by the 51涩涩屋app. See Permissions and Reprints online at .

References

Bloom, P.J. 1996. 鈥淭he Quality of Work Life in Early Childhood Programs: Does Accreditation Make a Difference?鈥澨齀n听51涩涩屋app Accreditation: A Decade of Learning and the Years Ahead, eds. S. Bredekamp & B.A. Willer, 13鈥�24. Washington, DC: 51涩涩屋app.

Bustamante, A.S., E. Dearing, H.D. Zachrisson, & L. Vandell. 2022. 鈥淎dult Outcomes of Sustained High-Quality Early Child Care and Education: Do They Vary by Family Income?鈥澨�Child Development听93 (2): 502鈥�23.

CDC OPPE (Centers for Disease Control Office of Policy, Performance, and Evaluation). 2023. 鈥淓arly Childhood Education: Health Impact in 5 Years.鈥� .

Grant, A.A., L. Jeon, & C.K. Buettner. 2019. 鈥淩elating Early Childhood Teachers鈥� Working Conditions and Well-Being to Their Turnover Intentions.鈥澨�Educational Psychology听39 (3): 294鈥�312.

Hahn, R.A., W.S. Barnett, J.A. Knopf, B.I. Truman, R.L. Johnson, et al. 2016. 鈥淓arly Childhood Education to Promote Health Equity: A Community Guide Systematic Review.鈥澨�Journal of Public Health Management and Practice听22 (5): E1鈥�8.

Hong, S.L.S., T.J. Sabol, M.R. Burchinal, L. Tarullo, M. Zaslow, et al. 2019. 鈥淓CE Quality Indicators and Child Outcomes: Analyses of Six Large Child Care Studies.鈥澨�Early Childhood Research Quarterly听49 (4): 202鈥�17.

Whitebook, M., L.M. Sakai, & C. Howes. 2004. 鈥淚mproving and Sustaining Center Quality: The Role of 51涩涩屋app Accreditation and Staff Stability.鈥澨�Early Education and Development听15 (3): 305鈥�26.