Overview of Idaho’s State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Division of Special Education Dr. Charlie Silva State Director of Special Education 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Virginia - March 2014 (Content adapted from 2014 MSRRC Forum) Preparing for the State Systemic Improvement Plan.
Advertisements

STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION/ CENTRAL CALIFORNIA MIGRANT HEAD START CHILD OUTCOMES SYSTEM CHILD OUTCOMES SYSTEMS Training Plan * Outcomes Awareness.
State Systemic Improvement Plan: Preparing, Planning, and Staying Informed Presentation to Louisiana ICC July 10, 2013.
Campus Staffing Changes Positions to be deleted from CNA/CIP  Title I, Title II, SCE  Academic Deans (211)  Administrative Assistants.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Overview of Results Driven Accountability Assuring Compliance and Improving Results August.
State Performance Plan Annual Performance Report SPP/APR State Systemic Improvement Plan SSIP / Indicator 17.
Statewide Expectations Presenter: Christine Spear Alabama Department of Education.
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements.
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY SSIP Implementation Support Activity 1 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
Results-Driven Accountability OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 1.
Designing and Implementing An Effective Schoolwide Program
What is the Parent Involvement Plan (PIP)? Why do we have a Parent Involvement Plan (PIP)? (PIP) PARENT INVOLVEMENT PLAN 1.
1 Supporting Striving Readers & Writers: A Systemic Approach United States Department of Education Public Input Meeting - November 19, 2010 Dorothy S.
1 EEC Board Policy and Research Committee October 2, 2013 State Advisory Council (SAC) Sustainability for Early Childhood Systems Building.
9/2/20151 Ohio Family and Children First An overview of OFCF structure, membership, and responsibilities.
Proficiency Delivery Plan Strategies Curriculum, Assessment & Alignment Continuous Instructional Improvement System ( CIITS) New Accountability Model KY.
Overview of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Anne Lucas, WRRC/ECTA Ron Dughman, MPRRC Janey Henkel, MPRRC 2013 WRRC Leadership Forum October.
Chase Bolds, M.Ed, Part C Coordinator, Babies Can’t Wait program Georgia’s Family Outcomes Indicator # 4 A Systems Approach Presentation to OSEP ECO/NECTAC.
Presentation to SAC June 3, 2015 Ruth Littlefield.
“Current systems support current practices, which yield current outcomes. Revised systems are needed to support new practices to generate improved outcomes.”
Using State Data to Inform Parent Center Work. Region 2 Parent Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) Conference Charleston, SC June 25, 2015 Presenter: Terry.
Time for Change: Examining Data Relating to Student Performance and Implementing a Plan to Improve Student Outcomes Glenna Gallo Director of Special Education.
Maryland’s Journey— Focus Schools Where We’ve Been, Where We Are, and Where We’re Going Presented by: Maria E. Lamb, Director Nola Cromer, Specialist Program.
SSIP Implementation Support Visit Idaho State Department of Education September 23-24, 2014.
Office of Special Education Updates School Improvement Conference June 25, Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional.
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Participation of the State Advisory Panel and State Interagency.
Overview of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents Annual Conference Patty.
SSIP Process A Suggested Pathway, Timeline and Gantt Chart WRRC Regional Forum Eugene October 31 and November 1, 2013.
I DAHO S TATEWIDE S YSTEM OF S UPPORT (SSOS) NNSSIL Webinar – Addressing the Needs of All Students through School Improvement September 12, 2012 Steve.
Rob Horner OSEP Center on PBIS Jon Potter Oregon RTI David Putnam Oregon RTI.
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Overview of the OSEP Continuous Improvement.
The Michigan Statewide System of Support for Title I Schools.
Georgia Parent Mentor Kickoff: Inform, Imagine, Inspire with Results-Driven Accountability Ruth Ryder DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
ESEA FOR LEAs Cycle 6 Monitoring Arizona Department of Education Revised October 2015.
SHERRI YBARRA, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SUPPORTING SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS TO ACHIEVE.
Rowland Unified School District District Local Education Agency (LEA)Plan Update Principals Meeting November 16, 2015.
Interrelationships: Plans + Funding = Student Proficiency Ingham ISD Curriculum Director’s Meeting November 4, 2015.
1 Early Childhood Assessment and Accountability: Creating a Meaningful System.
An Update of One Aspect of Monitoring, Support and Technical Assistance Available Through the State Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education.
National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center Connecting TA for Part B Indicators 1, 2, 13, & 14: Working Together to Support States OSEP Project.
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.
Office of Service Quality
State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Office of Special Education January 20, 2016.
“ Let us not be content to wait and see what will happen, but give us the determination to make the right things happen”- Horace Mann 2014 MCAS Overview.
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:
INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS Heather Ouzts, NC DPI Parent Liaison Beverly Roberts, ECAC NC SIP Project Coordinator.
Where’s Your Focus What we FOCUS on is what IMPROVES 2.
Specific Learning Disability Criteria Implementation Update Richard Henderson Idaho State Department of Education Division of Federal Programs Division.
The Day in the Life of OFPSI staff By: Dr. Shawnrell Blackwell Director of Federal Programs & School Improvement (OFPSI) Petersburg City Public Schools.
Statewide System of Support For High Priority Schools Office of School Improvement.
OSEP-Funded TA and Data Centers David Guardino, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
Infrastructure Analysis: Part C Christina Kasprzak, ECTA, DaSy Verna Thompson, Early Development and Learning Resources, Delaware Joicey Hurth, NERRC and.
NYSED Policy Update Pat Geary Statewide RSE-TASC Meeting May 2013.
Time for Change: Examining Utah Data Relating to Student Performance
Getting Results through Systemic Approaches
Phyllis Lynch, PhD Director, Instruction, Assessment and Curriculum
NC State Improvement Project
Using Formative Assessment
Kristin Reedy, Co-Director June 24, 2016
OSEP Project Directors Meeting
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
Leveraging Evaluation Data: Leading Data-Informed Discussions to Guide SSIP Decisionmaking Welcome Mission of IDC- we provide technical assistance to build.
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements
Christina Kasprzak Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute
Student Success: Imagine the Possibilities
Presentation transcript:

Overview of Idaho’s State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Division of Special Education Dr. Charlie Silva State Director of Special Education 1

Presentation Goals 2 Provide a basic understanding of Phase I  SSIP Phase I components  State-identified Measurable Result  Next Steps

What is the SSIP? 3 A comprehensive, ambitious, yet achievable multiyear plan to improve outcomes for students with disabilities.

Why SSIP? Why Now?

Compliance Focus 5

Planning and Doing Identify coherent improvement strategies Develop action steps Develop Theory of Action Develop Plan for improvement Planning and Doing Identify coherent improvement strategies Develop action steps Develop Theory of Action Develop Plan for improvement Analysis and Focus Identify starting point Broad Data Analysis Broad Infrastructure Analysis Identify primary concern (potential SiMR) Analysis and Focus Identify starting point Broad Data Analysis Broad Infrastructure Analysis Identify primary concern (potential SiMR) Evaluation Evaluation of progress Adjust plan as needed Evaluation Evaluation of progress Adjust plan as needed How well is the solution working? What is the problem? What shall we do about it? 6 SSIP Phase I SSIP Phase I and II SSIP Phase III SSIP Phase I Investigate Conduct root cause analysis to identify contributing factors For each contributing factor, identify both barriers and leverage points for improvement Narrow and refine the SiMR Investigate Conduct root cause analysis to identify contributing factors For each contributing factor, identify both barriers and leverage points for improvement Narrow and refine the SiMR Why is it happening? SSIP

SSIP Phase I Components 7 Component 1: Data Analysis Component 2: Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement & Build Capacity Component 3: State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR) Component 4: Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies Component 5: Theory of Action

Component 1 - Data Analysis 8 Narrowing down the field IndicatorRecommendationRationale Indicator 1: Graduation Rates Potential Option Indicator 2: Dropout Rates Not a viable option Indicator cannot stand alone, per OSEP guidance Indicator 3: Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments Potential Option Indicator 5: Participation/Time in General Education Settings (LRE) Not a viable option Indicator may be used as a strategy, per OSEP guidance, but was not identified as a focal point. Indicator 6: Preschool Children in General Education Settings (Pre- School LRE) Not a viable option Indicator may be used as a strategy, per OSEP, but was not identified as a focal point. Indicator 7: Preschool Children with Improved Outcomes Potential optionNo state-funded preschool in Idaho

Component 1 - Data Analysis 9 Broad Stakeholder Groups o General Education Groups (Title I, School Improvement, etc.) o Parent and Advocacy Groups o Idaho Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) o Director Advisory Council (DAC)

Component 1 - Data Analysis Indicator 3 – Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessment “Which area do students with disabilities need to be most proficient in to be successful?” 10

Component 1 - Data Analysis Indicator 3 – Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessment NAEP Grade 4 Reading All StudentsStudents with Disabilities Advanced: 7% 39% Advanced: 1% 7% Proficient: 26%Proficient: 6% Basic: 35% 60% Basic: 12% 93% Below Basic: 32%Below Basic: 81% NAEP Grade 4 Math All StudentsStudents with Disabilities Advanced: 6% 39% Advanced: 3% 14% Proficient: 33%Proficient: 11% Basic: 43% 60% Basic: 33% 86% Below Basic: 17%Below Basic: 53% 11

Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 12 Address State system components including  Governance  Fiscal  Quality standards  Professional development  Data  Technical assistance, and  Accountability Broad Infrastructure Analysis GovernanceFiscal Quality Standards Professional Development Data Technical Assistance Monitoring and Accountability

Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 13 Governance o Governor o State Board of Education o Superintendent of Public Instruction o Local Education Agencies (LEA)s o Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) o Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Plan Fiscal o State Board of Education o Idaho Building Capacity (IBC) Project o Common Core Coaches o Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI)

Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 14 Quality Standards o Professional Standards Commission (PSC) o Idaho Common Core State Standards o Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) o Directors Advisory Committee (DAC) Professional Development o Common Core Coaches o Idaho Training Clearinghouse (ITC) Learning Community o SDE Special Education Division Trainings o SDE Webinar System for Professional Development Trainings

Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 15 Data o Idaho System for Education Excellence (ISEE) o Assessment Division Collection of Statewide testing data o Early Childhood Outcome (ECO)s o Special Education Division Data Reporting Coordinator Technical Assistance o Special Education Division’s Assistance o Idaho Training Clearinghouse (ITC) Learning Community o ESEA’s Assistance o SSOS Division School Improvement o Webinar System for TA to LEAs

Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 16 Accountability & Monitoring o ESEA Accountability System o Idaho Building Capacity Project o Idaho Reading Initiative: B-12 Literacy Plan o SEAP (Special Education Advisory Panel) o DAC (Directors Advisory Committee) o Special Education Division’s General Supervision and Monitoring o ESEA Division o SSOS Division School Improvement

SDE Internal Infrastructure Analysis GOVERNANCEFISCAL QUALITY STAND PROF. DEV. DATA TECH. ASSIST. ACCT. & MON. ISDE Division S/OW/TS/OW/TS/OW/TS/OW/TS/OW/TS/OW/TS/OW/T Assessment X X X X X X X X X X Certification X X X X X X X Content X X X X X X X X X X X ESEA X X X X X X X X X X X SSOS X X X X X X X X X XX X X X SE&PsR X X X X X X SPED X X X XX X X X X X X X X X S/O – Strengths and OpportunitiesW/T – Weaknesses and Threats

Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 18 Strengths o Comprehensive Literacy Plan Webinar system o Collaborative and Comprehensive Professional Development system o Functioning Accuracy Survey system o SDE Organizational

Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 19 Improvement Opportunities o Resources o Scheduling o Collaboration

Component 3 - SiMR 20 State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR) “An identified area, which when implemented or resolved, has the potential to generate the highest leverage for improving outcomes/results for children with disabilities.”

Idaho’s SiMR 21 Increase the percent of fourth grade students with disabilities in Idaho who will be proficient in literacy as measured on the state summative assessment, currently ISAT by Smarter Balance.

Component 4 Coherent Improvement Strategies 22 Root Causes o Ineffective PD, TA, and Coaching o Lack of Collaboration o Inconsistent Assessment o Lack of Involvement with Families and Community

Component 4 Coherent Improvement Strategies 23 Leverage points o Idaho Training Clearinghouse o Common Core State Standards ELA/Literacy o Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Plan o ESEA/SSOS/MTSS Collaborative Monitoring o State and Federal Assessments o Idaho Parents Unlimited (IPUL) o Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) o 21 st Century Classrooms Learning Centers o Parent Interviews and Surveys o Idaho Commission on Libraries

Component 4 Coherent Improvement Strategies 24 Strands of Action o Professional Development, Technical Assistance, & Coaching o Collaboration o Assessment Practices o Family & Community Involvement

Theory of Action Theory of Action Professional Development, Technical Assistance, Coaching If the SDE develops a statewide structure that supports the implementation of evidence-based literacy practices o Then the SDE will provide collaborative professional learning opportunities, technical assistance, and coaching to LEAs and schools regarding literacy o Then LEA and school educational staff will have standardized literacy resources and ongoing supports necessary to consistently and effectively implement and maintain evidence-based practices in literacy o Then evidence-based literacy practices will be implemented with fidelity and sustained over time to achieve an increase in literacy outcomes o Then there will be an Increase the percent of fourth-grade students with disabilities in Idaho who will be proficient in literacy as measured on the state summative assessment, currently ISAT by Smarter Balance. 25

Theory of Action Theory of Action Collaboration If the SDE builds collaboration across ISDE divisions and community agencies to offer professional learning opportunities on literacy for LEAs and schools o Then the SDE will leverage current department and community initiatives to streamline messages around effective literacy instruction o Then the SDE and community agencies will broaden and deepen their own understanding of each other’s literacy initiatives o Then SDE and community initiatives will be supported and implemented to best serve students o Then LEAs and schools will build collaboration vertically and horizontally, including all stakeholders, building their capacity to implement evidence- based literacy practices o Then there will be an Increase the percent of fourth-grade students with disabilities in Idaho who will be proficient in literacy as measured on the state summative assessment, currently ISAT by Smarter Balance. 26

Theory of Action Theory of Action Assessment Practices If the SDE develops a statewide balanced assessment system for formative, diagnostic, interim, and summative assessments o Then LEA and school educational staff will develop an understanding of the uses and purposes for formative, diagnostic, interim, and summative assessments o Then LEA and school educational staff will use appropriate data to make decisions regarding, programming, curriculum, and instruction o Then LEA and school educational staff will use accurate data to make daily instructional choices for students o Then there will be an Increase the percent of fourth-grade students with disabilities in Idaho who will be proficient in literacy as measured on the state summative assessment, currently ISAT by Smarter Balance. 27

Theory of Action Theory of Action Family & Community Involvement If the SDE facilitates LEAs’ capacity to engage families and their local community in early literacy practices o Then meaningful conversations will occur and the capacity of families and in their child’s literacy development will increase o Then the ISDE will increase support and resource availability for families and communities in regards to literacy o Then families and community stakeholders will understand the literacy standards and their role in developing literacy skills in their children o Then there will be an Increase the percent of fourth-grade students with disabilities in Idaho who will be proficient in literacy as measured on the state summative assessment, currently ISAT by Smarter Balance. 28

Why is it happening ? How well is the solution working? What is the problem? What shall we do about it? SSIP Next Steps - Phase II - Improvement Plan 29 Develop plan focusing on o Infrastructure development o Support for implementing evidence-based practices o Evaluation of implementation

Next Steps Phase III - Evaluation 30 Evaluate and Revise o Assess and report progress in implementing the SSIP o Justify, using data from the evaluation, the continued implementation of the SSIP without modifications o Provide a rationale for any revisions made How well is the solution working? What is the problem? Why is it happening ? What shall we do about it? SSIP

Questions and Discussion 31