RPTAC Region 4 Conference: Results-Driven Accountability Gregg Corr, Ed.D. Director Division of Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education 1

OSEP has revised its accountability system to shift the balance from a system focused primarily on compliance to one that puts more emphasis on results. RDA – Shifting the Balance 2

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Purposes Ensure that children with disabilities have a free appropriate public education and their rights are protected Assist States and localities Ensure educators and parents have the necessary tools Assess and ensure effectiveness 3

Statutory Monitoring Focus Primary Monitoring Focus  Improving education results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities and  Ensuring that States meet the IDEA requirements In the past, our focus was on ensuring that States meet IDEA program procedural requirements 4

“For too long we’ve been a compliance-driven bureaucracy when it comes to educating students with disabilities,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “We have to expect the very best from our students – and tell the truth about student performance – so that we can give all students the supports and services they need. The best way to do that is by focusing on results,” Duncan said. 5 Why now?

Trend in National Average Percent of Timely Transition of Students with Disabilities 6

Trend in National Average Percent of Timely Evaluations of Students with Disabilities 7

Comparison of Outcomes for Students with Disabilities 8

What we focus on is what improves. 9

What is the Vision for RDA? 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. 10

Core Principles Principle 1: Partnership with stakeholders. Principle 2: Transparent and understandable to educators and families. Principle 3: Drives improved results Principle 4: Protects children and families Principle 5: Differentiated incentives and supports to States Principle 6: Encourages States to target resources and reduces burden Principle 7: Responsive to needs 11

OSEP Theory of Action 12 Vision: All infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities will achieve improved educational results and functional outcomes. : All infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities will receive individualized services in natural settings. Strands of ActionIf OSEPThen … provides guidance in a timely and responsive manner..communicates its vision effectively … States will have the information they need to align their activities to OSEP’s vision …States will promote higher expectations for CWD …States, LEAs and EIS providers will have higher expectations for CWD, will access resources to provide effective interventions and services to infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities …All infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities will receive individualized services in natural settings and demonstrate improved educational results and functional outcomes … engages strategically with other ED programs, Federal agencies, States, grantees and outside organizations … OSEP will more effectively leverage resources to improve services for CWD OSEP will increase the reach and impact of its work … provides differentiated resources and evidence-based information …supports the development of effective personnel that support CWD … States have increased capacity to support LEAs and EIS providers to deliver effective interventions …the number of effective personnel will increase … holds States and grantees accountable for clearly identified, measureable results …engages States in planning, assessment and evaluation … States put systems in place that lead to improved results for CWD and protect the rights of children and families Technical Assistance Accountability Leadership Collaboration

What are the Components of RDA? State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) measures results and compliance and includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan Determinations reflect State performance on results, as well as compliance Differentiated monitoring and support focuses on improvement in all States, but especially low performing States 13

Determinations OSEP must annually determine if a State “Meets Requirements,” “Needs Assistance,” or “Needs Intervention.” States must also make determinations of their LEAs Previously, OSEP only considered compliance in making State determinations. Beginning with its 2014 determinations, OSEP considered results and compliance as factors in making State Determinations under Section 616(d) 14

15 Determinations 2014: Compliance Only

Determinations 2014: Results and Compliance 16

Determinations 2007 to

State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report New 6 year SPPs (Indicators 1-16) were submitted on February 1, 2015 A new indicator in the SPPs (Indicator 17) is the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), an ambitious yet achievable, multi-year plan focused on improving results for student with disabilities was submitted on April 1, 2015 Next SPP is due February 1, 2016 and SSIP is due April 1,

19 Year 1— FFY 2013 Delivered by Apr 2015 Year 2— FFY 2014 Delivered by Apr 2016 Years 3-6— FFY Feb 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. Multi-year plan addressing: Infrastructure Development; Support EIS Program/LEA in Implementing Evidence-Based Practices; Evaluation Plan. Reporting on Progress including: Results of Ongoing Evaluation; Extent of Progress. Revisions to the SPP. SSIP Activities by Phase

Three Components: A plan to: Improve State Infrastructure Support Local Implementation of Evidence- Based Practices Evaluate SSIP Implementation Phase II SSIP 20

Building State capacity to support LEAs/EIS programs in implementing evidence-based practices that will lead to measurable improvement in the SIMR Builds on Data and infrastructure analyses Coherent improvement strategies Theory of Action Focus of Phase II 21

Improve State infrastructure to better support local programs to implement and scale up evidence-based practices to improve performance as measured by the SIMR Align and leverage current State improvement efforts Infrastructure Development 22

Identify who is responsible for changes to infrastructure Resources needed Expected outcomes Timelines Involvement of other State offices and agencies Infrastructure Development 23

How the State will support local implementation of evidence based practices to improve results Steps and activities to implement coherent improvement strategies How identified barriers will be addressed Responsibility for implementation Implementation with fidelity Resources needed Measuring expected outcomes Timelines Support for Local Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices 24

Short and long term objectives to measure SSIP implementation and impact on improving results Methods for collecting and analyzing data used to evaluate SSIP implementation and outcomes How State will use evaluation results to examine effectiveness of implementation, progress in achieving results and need for SSIP modifications Stakeholder involvement (including dissemination) Evaluation 25

Where are We Now and What Have We Learned? 26

State-Identified Measureable Result – Part C What are States working on? ECO-Social Emotional: 30 AK, AL, AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, MA, MD, MI, MO, MT, NJ, NC, ND, NV, OH, RI, SC, TX, UT, VT(also C4C ), WA, WI, WV, WY ECO-Knowledge and Skills: 14 AS, DC, GU, IL, ME, MN, MS, NE, NH, OK, PR, SD, TN, VI ECO-Behavior to Meet Needs: 4 CNMI, CO, SC, VA ECO-All: 2 LA, NM Family Outcomes-Develop and Learn: 3 AR, IA, KY Other: C3 A&B–OR, PA; C4B-CT; C4 All-NY Variations: ECO Summary Statement 1 or 2 or 1 and 2 27

State-Identified Measureable Result – Part B What are States working on? Graduation: 13 AK, DC, FL, GA, MN, MT, NC, ND, NJ, PA, RMI, VA, WV Reading/ELA: 34 AR, AS, AZ, CNMI, CO, CT, DE, FSM, GU, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI, MS, NE, NV, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, Palau, SC, SD, TN, TX, VI, WA, WI, WY Math: 7 KY, MD, ME, PR, RI, UT, VT Reading and Math: 2 CA, MO Early Childhood Outcomes: 2 MA, NH Post-school Outcomes: 2 AL, BIE 28

Variations within SIMRs Child level variations Disability category Race/ethnicity Gender English learner Poverty status Grades/ages Variations in scope Statewide versus focusing on a subset of districts or programs within the State 29

States analyzed data from a variety of sources, including data collected outside of Parts C and B States identified concerns with data quality and additional data that they would like to collect What We Learned 30

States provided a lot of descriptive information on their infrastructure but did not report data specific to their infrastructure. It was not always clear how States analyzed their infrastructure in relation to the SIMR Changes that States would need to make within their own infrastructure to support LEAs/EIS programs in implementing evidence-based practices were not always included What We Learned 31

While States described other initiatives within the State, it was not always clear how the State would build off of these to meet the SIMR In developing Phase II, consider how aligning with other initiatives can maximize impact, maintain momentum, and support sustainability What We Learned 32

What We Learned Stakeholders were identified, but their involvement was not adequately described In Phase II, we want to see how States will be intentionally and meaningfully including stakeholders in the development, implementation and evaluation of their plan 33

Differentiated Monitoring and Support SSIP Implementation Support Activities, including on site visits and desk support All States will get TA on SSIP development and general TA from OSEP-funded TA Centers Targeted and intensive TA based on determinations and SSIP Connecting our work with other programs that support work in the reform areas including increasing high quality early learning opportunities, implementing college and career ready standards, and turning around the lowest performing schools 34

What type of stakeholder? Consultant - Involved, but not responsible and not necessarily able to influence outside of consultation boundaries. Limited two-way engagement within limits of responsibility. Participant - Part of the team, engaged in delivering tasks or with responsibility for a particular area/activity. Two-way engagement within the limits of responsibility. Partner - Shared accountability and responsibility. Two-way engagement and joint learning, decision making and actions. 35

Are you getting invited? To be a participant or partner you need to… Do your homework Review and understand the SSIP Phase I and especially the SIMR Review and understand the data Know what you bring to the conversation Bring your data, especially as it relates to the SIMR Train families and others related to SIMR The role can you play in implementing the plan Offer constructive input 36

Resources and Tools You can find resources and tools from OSEP and from our TA centers on GRADS

Questions? Thank you!! 38