Theme by Richard Strauss…from 2001 A Space Odyssey, 1968: Also Sprach Zarathrustra State Systemic Improvement Plan : Challenge and Opportunity for the.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Understanding Student Learning Objectives (S.L.O.s)
Advertisements

1 IDEA 2004 SPP Indicators Related to Transition: How We Collect the Data & What We Have Learned Ginger Blalock Summer Transition Meeting June 11, 2007.
Updates in IDEA NCLB is the symbol of the paradigm shift to a new mission of universal high achievement From: All children will have universal access.
Using outcomes data for program improvement Kathy Hebbeler and Cornelia Taylor Early Childhood Outcome Center, SRI International.
Virginia - March 2014 (Content adapted from 2014 MSRRC Forum) Preparing for the State Systemic Improvement Plan.
Management Plans: A Roadmap to Successful Implementation
A Roadmap to Successful Implementation Management Plans.
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL SERVICES PROJECTIONS PREPARED BY KIM CULKIN, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL SERVICES MARCH 2013.
A Multi-Year Improvement System and Schedule
The Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems Improving Data, Improving Outcomes Conference, September 2014 Digging into “Data Use” Using the DaSy Framework.
Georgia Department of Education Division for Special Education Services Deborah Gay, Director.
1 Phase III: Planning Action Developing Improvement Plans.
High Quality Child Outcomes Data in Early Childhood: More Important than Ever Kathleen Hebbeler, SRI International Christina Kasprzak, Frank Porter Graham.
State Systemic Improvement Plan: Preparing, Planning, and Staying Informed Presentation to Louisiana ICC July 10, 2013.
STATE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SSIP) : CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY THE NEW ALABAMA STATE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN ALABAMA MEGA CONFERENCE.
Rhode Island State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Stakeholder Input November 6, 2014.
SPP/APR/SSIP/SiMR Welcome to More Acronyms. Who is here? Introductions – who are you HERE? Your name cards are color coded by which group you represent.
1 What Counts: Measuring the Benefits of Early Intervention in Hawai’i Beppie Shapiro Teresa Vast Center for Disability Studies University of Hawai`i With.
Data, Now What? Skills for Analyzing and Interpreting Data
Local Control and Accountability Plan: Performance Based Budgeting California Association of School Business Officials.
Campus Improvement Plans
1 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt Transition.
Sue Zake, Ph.D. Director of OEC
Researchers as Partners with State Part C and Preschool Special Education Agencies in Collecting Data on Child Outcomes Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI International.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Overview of Results Driven Accountability Assuring Compliance and Improving Results August.
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements.
NC SSIP: 5 Things We’ve Learned Directors’ Update March 2015 ncimplementationscience.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/Recent+Presentations.
NC SSIP: Top 5 Things We’ve Learned Mid-South Meeting January 7-8, 2015.
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY SSIP Implementation Support Activity 1 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
Results-Driven Accountability OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 1.
Schoolwide Planning, Part III: Strategic Action Planning
Overview of Idaho’s State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Division of Special Education Dr. Charlie Silva State Director of Special Education 1.
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013 Monitoring and Program Effectiveness.
How to Develop a Project Evaluation Plan Pat Gonzalez Office of Special Education Programs
Strategic Planning Board Update February 27, 2012 Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only.
Iowa Educational Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired (IESBVI)Conference October 8 th and 9 th, 2012 WELCOME!
Overview of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Anne Lucas, WRRC/ECTA Ron Dughman, MPRRC Janey Henkel, MPRRC 2013 WRRC Leadership Forum October.
Engagement as Strategy: Leading by Convening in the SSIP Part 2 8 th Annual Capacity Building Institute May, 2014 Joanne Cashman, IDEA Partnership Mariola.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction State Performance Plan (SPP) & Annual Performance Report.
Using State Data to Inform Parent Center Work. Region 2 Parent Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) Conference Charleston, SC June 25, 2015 Presenter: Terry.
OSEP National Early Childhood Conference December 2007.
SSIP Implementation Support Visit Idaho State Department of Education September 23-24, 2014.
Overview of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)
SHAME FEAR I AM NOT SEEN ACCESS I AM SEEN SYSTEMS CHANGE I AM A SPECIAL CITIZEN ACCOUNTABILITY and BUILD CAPACITY I BELONG AND MEANINGFUL LIFE EFFECTIVENESS.
National Consortium On Deaf-Blindness Families Technical Assistance Information Services and Dissemination Personnel Training State Projects.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center1 Using Data for Program Improvement Christina Kasprzak, NECTAC/ECO Ann Bailey, NCRRC July 2010.
Results Driven Accountability PRT System Support Grant Targeted Improvement Plan Cole Johnson, NDE.
An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.
SSIP Process A Suggested Pathway, Timeline and Gantt Chart WRRC Regional Forum Eugene October 31 and November 1, 2013.
Why Do State and Federal Programs Require a Needs Assessment?
SHERRI YBARRA, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SUPPORTING SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS TO ACHIEVE.
Project Design Jennifer Coffey OSEP May 4,
TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction State of California Annual Performance Report Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
Connecticut Part C State Performance Plan Indicator 11 State Systemic Improvement Plan Phase II.
State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Office of Special Education January 20, 2016.
Nancy T. Johnson, Ed.D. Exceptional Children Division, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Data Analyses for Indicator 17/
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education State Performance Plan and Annual Performance.
O S E P Office of Special Education Programs United States Department of Education Aligning the State Performance Plan, Improvement Strategies, and Professional.
Arizona State Systemic Improvement Plan Update State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report  All indicators are still significant and will be.
LEA Self-Assessment LEASA: Presentations:
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs General Supervision: Developing an Effective System Implications for States.
Rorie Fitzpatrick & Dona Meinders, WestEd
Zelphine Smith-Dixon, State Director of Special Education
Kristin Reedy, Co-Director June 24, 2016
Part C State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report:
OSEP Project Directors Meeting
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
Using Data for Program Improvement
Using Data for Program Improvement
Researchers as Partners with State Part C and Preschool Special Education Agencies in Collecting Data on Child Outcomes Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI International.
Presentation transcript:

Theme by Richard Strauss…from 2001 A Space Odyssey, 1968: Also Sprach Zarathrustra State Systemic Improvement Plan : Challenge and Opportunity for the 21Century: The New Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan ADAPTED WITH PERMISSION FROM A PRESENTATION DEVELOPED BY THE SOUTHEAST REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTER SPRING CASE CONFERENCE FEBRUARY 2014

State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report Indicators  In December 2005, Alabama submitted its first State Performance Plan (SPP) to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). In each succeeding year, we reported results and compliance data in the Annual Performance Report (APR) for each of twenty indicators as specified by OSEP.

Where We’ve Been…  The emphasis from the Office of Special Education Programs has been upon procedural compliance. For the last several years, Alabama has been determined to:  Meet the Requirements of the IDEA…  BUT….

As Bob Dylan sang back in 1964: “The times, They Are A-Changin..’”

The current SPP period spanned the years from With the FFY 2012 APR submission in 2014, OSEP will implement a new process rooted in its Results Driven Accountability Process.

Results-Driven Accountability-- A new vision that focuses upon both compliance and results… With this new vision, comes greater expectations, greater accountability, and greater opportunity for all the students we teach.

Statutory Monitoring Focus (20 USC 616(a)(2)) Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities. In the past, the focus has been upon ensuring that States and LEAs meet IDEA program procedural requirements.

To facilitate the movement from the focus upon compliance to the focus upon Results-Driven Accountability, OSEP has set forth the blueprint for states to identify an improvement area: The new Indicator 17 or State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP).

Why SSIP? Why Now? 9

 For over 30 years, there has been a strong focus on regulatory compliance with the IDEA and Federal regulations for early intervention and special education  As a result, compliance has improved, but results have not!  The current environment is characterized by high levels of accountability for performance of all children and youth  There are numerous initiatives that target improved results.  Let’s build on these initiatives.

OSEP’s Proposed New SPP/APR: --Combines the SPP/APR --Includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) --Collects SPP/APR data through a web-based,on-line submission process (GRADS)

State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Indicator # 17 - State Systemic Improvement plan MEASUREMENT: The State’s SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement Plan, focused on improving results for students with disabilities, that includes the following components, as further defined below:

State Systemic Improvement plan Indicator # 17 - State Systemic Improvement plan Phase I (which the State must include with its 2015 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2013): a.Data Analysis; b.Identification of the Focus for Improvement; c.Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity; and d.Theory of Action.

State Systemic Improvement plan Indicator # 17 - State Systemic Improvement plan Phase II (which, in addition to the Phase 1 content outlined above, the State must include with its 2016 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2014): e.Infrastructure Development; f. Support for local educational agency Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices; and g.Evaluation Plan.

State Systemic Improvement plan Indicator # 17 - State Systemic Improvement plan Phase III (which, in addition to the Phase I and Phase II content outlined above), must include with its FFY 2015 APR submitted in 2017 the results of its ongoing evaluation of the strategies included in the SSIP, including the extent to which the State has implemented them, the extent to which the State has made progress toward and/or met the established goals, and any revisions the State has made in the SSIP in response to its evaluation.

Remember: We are building a new system. We’re building a dream also. Our dream is improved results for children and youth with disabilities. ….and we are building it in the air.

Data Analysis Broad Analysis Infrastructure Analysis Broad Analysis Focus for Improvement Theory of Action Data Analysis In-depth Analysis Related to Primary Concern Area Infrastructure Analysis In-depth Analysis Related to Primary Concern Area Phase I Components Data Analysis Broad Analysis

Use Data to Determine Progress  Conduct a broad analysis of state data to determine progress or lack thereof toward the desired outcomes for children and youth with disabilities.  This is accomplished by taking a BIG VIEW of our state data. This is the broad data analysis that OSEP is talking about.  Data that we are already using for decision making.  Not a root-cause analysis. That comes later. 18 SSIP Data Analysis Template- SERRC

Partnerships are the Key to Success! 19

Remember…  In order to achieve the desired outcomes, the SSIP must be aligned with Alabama’s Plan 2020 including vision, mission, and goals. Strategic Plan VisionMissionGoals Informs SSIP

Our Vision  Every Child a Graduate—Every Graduate Prepared  for College/Work/Adulthood in the 21 st Century.

Begin with the End in Mind  Our first step is to “vision” the desired outcomes for children and youth with disabilities. This gives us a “north star” for outcomes or desired results and allows you to plan with the “end” in mind. ‒ What’s your vision related to performance on assessment, secondary transition, and post-school outcomes? --What are other areas that should be considered? ‒ Instant poll 22.

Identify the Focus Area for Improvement  The primary concern that we have identified in the previous activities becomes our focus area for improvement  Within the focus area, we will need to identify improvement strategies and define the desired results The State must demonstrate how addressing this area of focus for improvement will build LEAs’ capacity to improve the identified result for students with disabilities. 23 Bac k Example: Improving Graduation Rate for Students with Disabilities

How well is the solution working? What is the Problem? Why is it happenin g? What shall we do about it? SSI P 24 We begin the process by defining the problem.

Identify Areas of High and Low Performance Use the observations from the quantitative data analysis and the stakeholder input to determine performance in key areas associated with improved outcomes for children and youth with disabilities (e.g. academic proficiency, graduation rate)  What are the areas of high performance ?  What are the areas of low performance ? 25

Determine the Cause of Low Performance  Now is the time to determine why the poor performance is occurring. (Why are the desired outcomes not being achieved?)  This will be accomplished through an:  In-depth analysis of all data related to the primary area of concern.  Analysis of state infrastructure to determine the impact of systemic issues on the improvement strategies. 26

How well is the solution working? What is the Problem? Why is it happening ? Why is it happening ? What shall we do about it? SSIP 27 Now that we know what the primary concern is Let’s determine why it is happening!

Conduct an In-depth Data Analysis  In order to accomplish this in-depth analysis, we will need to:  Disaggregate data into a variety of subgroups  Examples: Students with disabilities/Students without disabilities Disability category Grade level Educational place  Determine trends, gaps, outliers, etc.  Obtain and analyze additional quantitative data, if needed 28

Conduct an In-depth Data Analysis  Collect and analyze qualitative data related to the primary concern:  Surveys  Interviews  Focus groups  Other 29

Conduct an In-depth Infrastructure Analysis  To complete the picture of why the problem is occurring, it will also be important to conduct an analysis of the state’s infrastructure to determine how systemic issues are impacting desired outcomes for children and youth with disabilities. 30

Conduct an Analysis of State Initiatives  In order to determine how current initiatives are impacting the primary concern, it is necessary to conduct an analysis of the initiatives in the state.  Include initiatives that are related to or have an impact on the primary concern area.  Include initiatives in general education and other areas beyond special education. 31 SISEP State Initiative Inventory- SERRC

How well is the solution working? What is the Problem? Why is it happenin g? What shall we do about it? SSIP 32 Now that we know why it is happening! What shall we do about it?

Develop a Theory of Action  A theory of action is at its core, a simple IF, THEN statement. It makes the connection between what you are doing and what you expect to happen.  A theory of action focuses on how and why the program will produce the change, using “if-then” statements to generate a logical explanation and reveal strategies and assumptions about how resources and activities are used. If we do this Then this will happen.

Develop a Theory of Action 34 Improvement Strategy If we implement a statewide initiative that focuses on effective instructional practices Then students will improve performance on statewide reading assessment Includes changes in state system Build capacity of LEAs to implement initiative

Create a Logic Model  Next we will develop a logic model that shows the relationship between the activities and the outcomes that Alabama expects to achieve over a multi-year period.  A logic model visually depicts a program’s components so that planned activities align with desired outcomes.  Logic models diagram identified problems, root causes and local conditions that facilitate concise and clear communication, planning and evaluation, and allow programs to critically analyze the progress they are making toward their goals. 35

EVALUATION: check and verify What do you want to know?How will you know it? Logic model in evaluation

Our Legacy, Our Time…

Thanks to the Southeast Regional Resource Center for providing information, resources, and support in development of Alabama’s SSIP Presentation.