Implementing with the End in Mind Outcomes-Oriented State and Local Partnerships

Agenda Setting the Stage School Level Implementation: Lessons Learned Teri Marx, National Center on Intensive Intervention School Level Implementation: Lessons Learned Kathy Tancrelle, Hopkins Hill Elementary School, Rhode Island State Level Perspective Emily Klein, Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) Connections and Perceptions Steve Goodman, Michigan Integrate Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MIBLSI)

Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) Setting the Stage

RDA: Vision All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best support states in improving results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and their families. Shift from Compliance to Results + Compliance Slide from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from OSEP RDA Website

State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Year 1—FFY 2013 Delivered by April 2015 Year 2—FFY 2014 Delivered by April 2016 Years 3–6—FFY 2015–18 Feb. 2017–Feb. 2020 Phase I Analysis Phase II Plan Phase III Evaluation Data analysis Infrastructure analysis State-identified measureable result Coherent improvement strategies Theory of action Multiyear plan addressing: Infrastructure development Support early intervening services program and local education agencies in implementing evidence- based practices Evaluation plan Reporting on progress including: Results of ongoing evaluation Extent of progress Revisions to the State Performance Plan Slide from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from OSEP RDA Website

State-identified Measurable Result(s) State-identified Measurable Result(s) (SiMR) A child-level (or family-level, for Part C) outcome Not a process or system result May be a single result or a cluster of related results Identified based on analysis of data

National Center on Intensive Intervention Setting the Stage

National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII)

NCII’s Mission is… …to build district and school capacity to support implementation of data-based individualization in reading, mathematics, and behavior for students with severe and persistent learning and behavioral needs.

10

Intensive intervention is designed to address severe and persistent learning or behavior difficulties. Intensive interventions should be— Driven by data Characterized by increased intensity (e.g., smaller group, expanded time) and individualization of academic instruction and/or behavioral supports WWW.INTENSIVEINTERVENTION.ORG

Students who Need Intensive Intervention Not meeting IEP goals Persistently low academic achievement High frequency/intensity behavior Nonresponsive to interventions delivered with fidelity

DBI: Integrating data-based decision-making across academics and social behavior

Essential Elements

School Level Implementation Lessons Learned

Suburban/Rural Community - Changing Population Five elementary schools; one middle; one high school (approximately 5.000 students) Three Title I Elementary schools - 2 school wide and 1 targeted Leadership New Superintendent hired July 1, 2016 Turnover in district administration - 3 Superintendents in 5 years, however Responsive to the needs of schools involved with NCII; Supportive Special Ed administration, as well Responsive but many changes from infrastructure to fonance to curriculum

Hopkins Hill Elementary Demographics 375 students, K–5, 3 of each grade 88% white; 1.5% ELL; 45% free/reduced lunch, and 14% special education (10/1/16) Schoolwide Title since SY 13/14 Staff and Leadership New principal in 2012/13 30 teachers/Support Staff of 6/ Several TAs Milestones Grade Level Common Intervention Block PARCC ELA 3 - 5, 56% - Exceeds district/state PARCC Math 3 - 5, 49% - Exceeds district/state Sp Education Math/ELA - Exceeds district/state Recent staff survey (Center for Leadership and Educational Equality - CLEE) 100% agreed or strongly agreed they use data and support student use of data to understand progress and needs. Special Ed 3 - 5 - 20% Math 15% ELA; District/State in single digits

Coventry Public Schools and NCII Brief History 2011/12 - Middle school administration and PDC personnel received grant 2012/13 - Principal became Assistant Superintendent; PDC to Elementary Two schools approached; after beginning training, the decision was made for one school to discontinue involvement in the initiative Original school continued and three others added within 5 years Hopkins Hill One of the two original schools Streamlined NCII work with current initiatives and reform agenda Relied on high level of school-based team support/training/ coaching to build capacity English Language Arts focus for initial intensive intervention Simultaneous examination of core curriculum strength and data collection/use Discontinuing was a mutual decision among NCII coaches, District Admin, Building Principal - lack of readiness, buy in HH - New Principal; learned warning status in reading; many practice changes/reforms under way - applying for schoolwide status; perfect opp; out of warning 13/14 18

Coventry Public Schools and NCII Hopkins Hill 2012/13 - 2015/16 School B 2012-2013  School C 2014/15 - 2015/16 Aligned NCII work with current initiatives School-based team support/NCII Coaches Initial academic (ELA) focus with system processes and data collection Behavior focus with system processes and data collection Initially willing, but lacked readiness School-based team unable to support After starting training, decision was made to discontinue involvement in the NCII initiative Academic Training Series in year 1 DBI Case Studies in year 2 NCII Coaching both years School based team/admin support School C School D Leveraging NCII content and Math Intervention work Check-ins/coaching/connections with school team and PDC Brought to school A as a pilot 2015/16

Keys to District Success Note DBI process in terms of Data Driven/Really helps to have a staff culture of student centered decision making and a forward momentum mindset

Systems for Sustainability Process: Efficient RtI/MTSS Meetings Content: Collection and Analysis of Academic and Behavioral Data Product: A sustainable intervention plan that Produces Results

Academics Process (NCII) Teachers contact team about a concern; chair meets with teachers to review data (Charts, graphs, goal line, aim line) and complete referral form Teacher comes to team; data/progress reviewed Parents Attend/Team follows script to GET TO PLAN Intervention plan and intensification discussed Layering behavior discussion Team Roles - Facilitator, Note Taker, Data Person, Parent Contact Follow Up Scheduled District Criteria - 2 Rounds Product - Plan Intervention Plan/Plan Intensification/ Layered Behavior Component Content Data Collection and Interpretation is part of initial process and used to monitor success of plan Note: Team meets every other week before school - 2 cases Team: 2 classroom teachers, social worker, reading specialist, principal, parent, others as needed Already had an intervention through Tier 1 and at least 1 Tier 2; usually the concern is prompted by insufficient progress

Behavior Process Teacher contacts team about a concern; chair meets with teacher to review SWIS data and/or set up data collection - (NCII ABC Chart or Learning Behavior Problem Checklist) and narrow focus Teacher comes to team where data is reviewed and discussed; team members have roles Target behavior identified and intervention plan/next steps discussed Chair sets up Functional Assessment Interview (NCII) with teacher; plan developed based on needs identified through interview; Teacher Toolkit provided (NCII materials) Regular review of data once plan is implemented to determine effectiveness Team develops New School Year Transition Plan; Day 1 Children; 6 Week Children Chairs meet one/one with receiving teacher Parent Phone call prior and Letter/Notification Product - Plan Tailored CICO chart - specific criteria of respectful, responsible, safe (Tier 2) In depth with reinforcements, script, behavior, actions by adults (NCII) (Tier 3) Content Data Collection and Interpretation is part of initial process and used to monitor success of plan Note: Team meets every other week before school to review building data and meet with teacher cases Team: Regular Ed/ Special Ed Teacher, Social Worker, Principal, Behavior Specialist, Others as needed Process

Progress Monitoring DBI (NCII) Intra - Individual Framework Four Point Rule Trendline Decision Rules Process Benchmark September, January, May Progress monitor weekly, bi-weekly, monthly depending on tool and intensity Data Review Plan * First 8 Weeks of Instruction, then… * Every 4 Weeks, CPT * Examine group efficacy at 6 - 8 week intervals * Every 12 Weeks, Larger Scale Data Review - Special Ed/Reading and Math Specialists The Right Tool STAR: District Benchmark - Progress Monitoring Monthly depending on grade/subject DIBELS: K - 5, Reading as prescribed MBSP: Monitoring Basic Skills Progress - Computation/Concepts and Application Investigating DIBELS math tools

Parent Involvement Academic Meetings - Parents Attend Initial conversation between classroom teacher and parent Invitation phone call by chair; follow up with letter; reminder call by chair Agenda and list of common terminology Follow up with parents not able to attend Regular intervention discussions/progress meetings with specialists, classroom teacher Behavior Meetings - Parents Do Not Attend...Yet Initial conversation/meeting follow up discussion between classroom teacher and parent Letter, CICO charts, Behavior Plans go home Intervention discussions/progress meetings with social worker, parent, classroom teacher

It’s not about “having time. It’s about making time. If it is important to you, you will find a way. If not, you’ll find an excuse.

State Level Perspective RDA: A Convergence of Opportunity Rhode Island’s Story

RDA in Rhode Island Phase I & II Process lead to the identification of math performance for African American and Hispanic students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) particularly in urban settings SiMR focused on improving performance on state assessment in math with targeted intervention utilizing a DBI approach within an MTSS framework Improving intensive and individualized instruction within a systematic framework of culturally and linguistically responsive supports for students with disabilities, particularly elementary Grades 3-5 Hispanic and Black children with specific learning disabilities in urban settings, will improve their performance on State assessments of math by 2% by 2018.

Rhode Island Approach to SSIP Implementation More students with LD approaching and reaching proficiency in math. SPDG, CEEDAR, SSIP Math, DBI, MTSS David

How Did We Get Here… Emerging experiences with training and technical assistance State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) Focused on MTSS Built on previous positive experience of PBIS and RTI Merged training activities into one system of professional learning and technical assistance Three year cohort model with in-school coaching in 11 Districts Deep involvement in 21 schools Partnership with our Parent Training and Information Center (PTIC) educating parents about MTSS

How Did We Get Here… NCII Provided intervention in 4 districts State contributed coaches (state staff and consultants) Two districts have remained fully participating LEA Changes in Adult Behavior and Practices LEA – initiated professional development Changes in LEA Culture and Practice

How Did We Get Here… Statewide Systems of Support Team Composed of project leads and higher education faculty Included Social Emotional Learning (SEL) connections and secondary math RTI Connecting the experience from the field with pre-service training

Comprehensive Needs Assessment Surveyed special education teachers, administrators, and related service personnel In the context of RDA, what are we doing that helps, what should we be doing more of, what can we stop? Results: Less emphasis on forms, procedures, compliance More focus on instructional & SEL intervention Moved away from “compliance-only” work

No New $$$ for RDA Collectively this requires difficult choices Shifted previous funds for technical assistance focused on forms, procedures, compliance to instructional level interventions New RFP to provide technical assistance to schools in math intervention utilizing: MTSS approach DBI tools and practices Empowering school leadership teams Training and coaching Over a period of years Additional opportunity to partner with CEEDAR Take the classroom experiences in the DBI Math Intervention initiative to influence pre-service training collaboration with recent program completers in schools

Lessons Learned Capitalizing on experience of previous training investments Converging of opportunities Keeping state level staff close to the school intervention work Having the courage to shift away from the fear of compliance toward the excitement of instructional intervention Support RDA with words AND resources Place trust in our LEA and PTIC partners Prepare for the retrofitting of the special education industry

Connections and Perceptions Implementing with the end in mind…

Improving outcomes for the students with greatest challenges is hard work… Supporting students Do the right things and do those things right Increased accountability forces us to increase our precision and our focus on the critical features that result in student success Challenges arise in both academics and behavior – we need to address both in an integrated manner

Improving outcomes for the students with greatest challenges is hard work… Supporting staff A team is key to planning, implementation, and improvement Effective Practices are necessary for student outcomes, Systems of support are essential for teacher effectiveness Alignment and integration with other initiatives

Self-Modifying System: Implementation efforts won’t be wrong for too long if you have a system in place that supports making decisions based on data

Questions?

NCII Disclaimer This presentation was produced under the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H326Q110005. Celia Rosenquist serves as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this website is intended or should be inferred.

Primary Contact: Teri Marx, PhD 202-403-5948 tmarx@air.org 1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW Washington, DC 20007 www.air.org