Rhode Island State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Stakeholder Input November 6, 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
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.
Advertisements

Virginia - March 2014 (Content adapted from 2014 MSRRC Forum) Preparing for the State Systemic Improvement Plan.
Management Plans: A Roadmap to Successful Implementation
Early Childhood Special Education Part B, Section 619* Part C to B Transition by Three Jessica Brady, Noel Cole Michigan Department of Education Office.
Theme by Richard Strauss…from 2001 A Space Odyssey, 1968: Also Sprach Zarathrustra State Systemic Improvement Plan : Challenge and Opportunity for the.
AYP to AMO – 2012 ESEA Update January 20, 2013 Thank you to Nancy Katims- Edmonds School District for much of the content of this presentation Ben Gauyan.
Presented by Lawrence Dennis Education Consultant for the Office for Exceptional Children October 23, 2014 OCTA Fall Conference.
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.
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.
Sue Zake, Ph.D. Director of OEC
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Overview of Results Driven Accountability Assuring Compliance and Improving Results August.
Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education Significant Disproportionality and EIS versus Disproportionate Representation due to.
State Performance Plan Annual Performance Report SPP/APR State Systemic Improvement Plan SSIP / Indicator 17.
State Directors Conference Boise, ID, March 4, 2013 Cesar D’Agord Regional Resource Center Program WRRC – Western Region.
Office of Special Education Services Instructional Leaders Roundtable Oct. 16, 2014 John R. Payne, Director.
NC SSIP: 5 Things We’ve Learned Directors’ Update March 2015 ncimplementationscience.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/Recent+Presentations.
Next Generation IEPs.
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.
Overview of Idaho’s State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Division of Special Education Dr. Charlie Silva State Director of Special Education 1.
The Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems What Practitioners Need to Know about Measuring EI and ECSE Outcomes Kathleen Hebbeler, SRI International.
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013 Monitoring and Program Effectiveness.
Office for Exceptional Children Updates OAPSA February 6, 2015.
State Systemic Improvement Plan March 18,  All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best supports States in.
Overview of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Anne Lucas, WRRC/ECTA Ron Dughman, MPRRC Janey Henkel, MPRRC 2013 WRRC Leadership Forum October.
Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Results.
Engagement as Strategy: Leading by Convening in the SSIP Part 2 8 th Annual Capacity Building Institute May, 2014 Joanne Cashman, IDEA Partnership Mariola.
Using State Data to Inform Parent Center Work. Region 2 Parent Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) Conference Charleston, SC June 25, 2015 Presenter: Terry.
SSIP Implementation Support Visit Idaho State Department of Education September 23-24, 2014.
Welcome to the Regional SPR&I trainings Be sure to sign in Be sure to sign in You should have one school age OR EI/ECSE packet of handouts You.
Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS). 34 CFR § : An LEA may not use more than 15 percent of the amount the LEA receives under Part B of.
Assessment in Early Childhood Legislation. Legislation for Young Children The need for measurement strategies and tests to evaluate federal programs led.
Overview of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)
1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.
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.
Results Driven Accountability PRT System Support Grant Targeted Improvement Plan Cole Johnson, NDE.
An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.
State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR) Dana Corriveau Bureau of Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education ConnCASEOctober.
SSIP Process A Suggested Pathway, Timeline and Gantt Chart WRRC Regional Forum Eugene October 31 and November 1, 2013.
Texas State Performance Plan Data, Performance, Results TCASE Leadership Academy Fall 2008.
Focused Review of Improvement Indicators A Self-Assessment Process SPP Stakeholder Meeting December 16, 2009.
Georgia Parent Mentor Kickoff: Inform, Imagine, Inspire with Results-Driven Accountability Ruth Ryder DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
SHERRI YBARRA, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SUPPORTING SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS TO ACHIEVE.
KETTLE MORAINE (KM) SCHOOL DISTRICT: Ryan Meyer.
Spring 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 SPP/APR Update.
IDEA 1997 P.L The Facts. IEP Must explain how the child’s disability affects their ability to participate in the general education classroom Must.
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.
Collaboration through State Systemic Improvement Planning: Working together to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities Division for Early.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education State Performance Plan and Annual Performance.
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:
Time for Change: Examining Utah Data Relating to Student Performance
What is “Annual Determination?”
Appleton Area School District
Public School Monitoring Roadmap
Rorie Fitzpatrick & Dona Meinders, WestEd
Region 1 PTAC Regional Conference
Kristin Reedy, Co-Director June 24, 2016
OSEP Project Directors Meeting
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
SPR&I Regional Training
Early Childhood and Family Outcomes
Transition Outcomes Project Report Out Meeting
Christina Kasprzak Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013
Presentation transcript:

Rhode Island State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Stakeholder Input November 6, 2014

Results Driven Accountability (RDA) The Office of Special Education Education Programs (OSEP) is emphasizing a renewed focus on results, RDA. – Compliance is still included in SPP and important but increased emphasis on results. – Results MUST focus on improving outcomes for students with disabilities.

Major Components of RDA Component I: Annual Performance Report (APR) – Continue as in the past with the new SSIP - Indicator 17 Component II: State Status Determinations – Determinations under RDA will be based on States’ overall performance on a set of priority indicators (including compliance and result indicators). – States, in turn, make LEA determinations based on similar criteria. Component III: OSEP Oversight and technical assistance – Performance of States relative to other States and to national data will be determined using data on priority indicators (compliance and results), and will be used to determine the appropriate level of federal oversight and technical assistance.

The State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) is a comprehensive, multi-year plan that focuses on improving results for children with disabilities. The SSIP will be reported in the state’s SPP/APR (Indicator 17 for IDEA Part B) beginning with the SPP/APR due April 1, What is the State Systemic Improvement Plan?

Year 1 - FFY 2013 Delivered by April 2015 Year 2 - FFY 2014 Delivered by Feb 2016 Years 3-6 FFY Feb Feb 2020 Phase I Analysis Phase II Plan Phase III Evaluation Data Analysis Identification of the Focus for Improvement Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity Theory of Action Infrastructure Development Implementing Evidence- Based Practices Evaluation Plan Results of Ongoing Evaluation Extent of Progress Revisions to the SPP Proposed SSIP Activities by Phase

You Are Here State Team Training Data & Infrastructure Analysis State Team Review Stakeholder Input (Internal & External) Finalize Target – Submit Theory of Action (TOA) SSIP Phase I - Analysis

What is Data and Infrastructure Analysis? Detailed data analysis (related to a student performance area which is tied to a SPP student outcome measure) Development of strategies and infrastructure analysis (examination of State capacity to support LEA improvement, scale up, and sustain evidence– based practices to improve results for children)

Things to Keep in Mind Target needs to be narrow and focused Target needs to identify a high need area Target must be measurable Target needs to address one of the three State Performance measures Graduation Rate (Indicator 1) Student Performance on State Assessment (Indicator 3) Early Childhood Outcome (Indicator 7) State must have Infrastructure to address the target to Support improvement and Build capacity in LEA to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices

State-Identified Measurable Student Result Description of improvement strategies on which the State will focus, that will lead to a measurable child-based result. How the data analysis led to the identification of the area on which the State will focus. How addressing this area of focus for improvement will build LEA's capacity to improve the identified result for children and youth with disabilities.

Students with Disabilities Data Analysis – SPP/APR Proficiency gap for 4 th & 8 th grade children with disabilities on regular statewide assessments – READING = 40% gap in RI (tied with MA for second largest proficiency gap in the region) – MATH = 40% gap in RI (third largest gap in region) RI met the drop out rate target and narrowly missed the graduation rate target by 2.4 percentage points Indicator 3 ( ) - Missed proficiency targets in both reading and math for 3 rd, 4 th, and 5 th grades

Students with Disabilities Disaggregated Data Analysis Review of NECAP math and reading performance from the and school years for students in grades 3-5 with OHI, ED, SLD, SLI, or Autism. Race/ethnicity Accommodations/no accommodations Absence level LRE/placement

14% proficient 31% proficient 65% Grades 3-5 Higher incidence disabilities to allow for disaggregation ED

17% proficient 33% proficient Grades 3-5 Higher incidence disabilities to allow for disaggregation ED

49% of Students grades 3-5 with SLD had scale scores close to but just under a 2 or close to but just under a 3 during the administration of NECAP. Bottom of range for Proficiency Level of 3 PL = 2

Scale scores of students in Grades 3-5 with SLI or SLD show similar patterns for NECAP Reading. 46% scored close to but just under a 2 or a 3. 53% scored close to but just under a 2 or a 3.

Of the students scoring a 1 on NECAP Reading, what is their level of access to the Regular Class (RC)?

Almost half of the students in grades 3-5 with Learning Disabilities who are attending regular class at least 80% of the time are scoring a proficiency level of 1 on NECAP Reading. What was the distribution of scores for students with SLD attending the regular class at least 80% of the time?

Of the students scoring a 1 on NECAP Math, what is their level of access to the Regular Class (RC)?

Approximately two-thirds of the students in grades 3-5 with Learning Disabilities who were attending regular class at least 80% of the time are scoring a proficiency level of 1 on NECAP Reading. What was the distribution of scores for students with SLD attending the regular class at least 80% of the time?

19% of students with SLD are proficient without accommodations 17% of students with SLD are proficient with accommodations Almost 40% of students with OHI are proficient without accommodations <29% of students with OHI are proficient with accommodations

Gr. 3-5 Math NECAP 2014 and Absence Proficiency Days Absent 63% of the students with disabilities (AUT, ED, OHI, SLD, SLI) that scored a 1 or 2 on Math NECAP were absent 10 or fewer days. 78% of the students with disabilities (AUT, ED, OHI, SLD, SLI) that were absent 10 or fewer days scored a 1 or 2 on Math NECAP.

21 points 18 points

27 points

Based on the Data… Potential target could be: – Students with Significant Learning Disabilities & Speech & Language Impairments – African American & Hispanic – In Grades 4 & 5

Infrastructure Analysis in Theory Improved Student Results State & District Data Analysis Targeted Investments Targeted Interventions Changes in Adult Behavior & School Practices

Infrastructure Analysis Where are the resources to build capacity in LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices to improve results for children? – Conducted Infrastructure analysis including: High & Low Investments Connected to Target Area – Race to the Top initiatives – Current & Previous IDEA Part B investments – RIDE Strategic Plan – ESEA Waiver

Infrastructure Analysis Results High Influence Investments (tools in our tool belt) – Statewide Systems of Support Direct intervention in schools Partnered with higher education Coordinated statewide and across RIDE Social & Emotional Learning (SEL) – Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) State Personnel Development Grant through 2017 Currently in 12 schools (starting Fall 2014) Federal Grant and Part B funds Proven research based practice – National Center for Intensive Intervention (NCII) Targeted support in three districts Data driven decision-making Will end but lessons learned integrated into MTSS

Infrastructure Analysis Results High Influence Strategies OSCAS – Migration to CCSS Through measurable IEP development Through delivery of intensive interventions Through technology access High Influence Strategies RIDE – Instructional Support System (ISS) Longitudinal Data – ESEA Waiver Implementation in Priority & Focus schools – Implementation of CCSS

Based on the Infrastructure… Targeted Interventions in Schools through – Multi-Tiered Systems of Support – Coordinated with RIDEs efforts in: ESEA Transformation Common Core Implementation Data Use – Instructional Support System (ISS) – Growth measures

Data & Infrastructure Together… Performance of African American & Hispanic students in Grades 4 & 5 with SLD & SLI Targeted Interventions through MTSS Student Result Target

Questions & Thoughts