All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best support States in improving results for infants, toddlers, children and.

Slides:



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

Theme by Richard Strauss…from 2001 A Space Odyssey, 1968: Also Sprach Zarathrustra State Systemic Improvement Plan : Challenge and Opportunity for the.
State Systemic Improvement Plan: Preparing, Planning, and Staying Informed Presentation to Louisiana ICC July 10, 2013.
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 Improving Learning for Children with Disabilities.
Sue Zake, Ph.D. Director of OEC
Office of Special Education & Early Intervention Services Webinar—General Information Training will begin in a moment; all phone lines are currently muted.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Overview of Results Driven Accountability Assuring Compliance and Improving Results August.
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.
Indicator 4A & 4B Rates of Suspension & Expulsion Revised Methodology Identification of Significant Discrepancy DE-PBS Cadre December 1, 2011.
NC SSIP: Top 5 Things We’ve Learned Mid-South Meeting January 7-8, 2015.
TIP Webinar Targeted Improvement Planning. ILCD EDN Guidance Document First document to review in preparation for your TIP development. The questions.
4 th Annual SPDG National Meeting: Day 2 Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D. OSEP Project Director and SPDG Program Lead John Lind Director, SIGnetwork.
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.
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013 Monitoring and Program Effectiveness.
Academy for New Special Education Leadership 2015.
State Systemic Improvement Plan March 18,  All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best supports States in.
Office of Special Education Programs US Department of Education.
State Performance Plan: A Two-Way Street Ruth Ryder Larry Wexler Division of Monitoring and State Improvement Planning.
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.
Presentation to SAC June 3, 2015 Ruth Littlefield.
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.
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)
Significant Changes to the Monitoring Process  Self-assessment by school districts.  Greater involvement of parents and other stakeholders.  Improved.
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.
STATE MONITORING VISIT Montgomery County Schools Week of April 18, 2016.
National Consortium On Deaf-Blindness Families Technical Assistance Information Services and Dissemination Personnel Training State Projects.
RESULTS-DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Ann Moore, State Director Office of Special Education (OSE) January 2013.
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.
RPTAC Region 4 Conference: Results-Driven Accountability Gregg Corr, Ed.D. Director Division of Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Office of Special.
Results Driven Accountability The Ins, Outs and What We Know JENNIFER S. MAUSKAPF, ESQ. BONNIE L. GRAHAM, ESQ.
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Overview of the OSEP Continuous Improvement.
Georgia Parent Mentor Kickoff: Inform, Imagine, Inspire with Results-Driven Accountability Ruth Ryder DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
Early Childhood Transition Part C Indicator C-8 & Part B Indicator B-12 Analysis and Summary Report of All States’ Annual Performance Reports.
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career Dan Schreier, Gregg Corr, Jill Harris, Ken Kienas, Kate Moran,
SHERRI YBARRA, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SUPPORTING SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS TO ACHIEVE.
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.
State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Office of Special Education January 20, 2016.
WHAT A GREAT IDEA!! Focusing on Results and Using IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) Part D Investments to Support Improved Outcomes for.
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:
OSEP-Funded TA and Data Centers David Guardino, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs General Supervision: Developing an Effective System Implications for States.
Infrastructure Analysis: Part C Christina Kasprzak, ECTA, DaSy Verna Thompson, Early Development and Learning Resources, Delaware Joicey Hurth, NERRC and.
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
Wisconsin Personnel Development System Grant Click on the speaker to listen to each slide. You may wish to follow along in your WPDM Guide.
Kristin Reedy, Co-Director June 24, 2016
OSEP Project Directors Meeting
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
Monitoring Child Outcomes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Using Data for Program Improvement
Using Data for Program Improvement
Christina Kasprzak Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013
Using Data to Build LEA Capacity to Improve Outcomes
Presentation transcript:

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. OSEP – Results -Driven Accountability Primary Monitoring Focus (20 USC 616(a)(2)) is Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities versus ensuring that States meet IDEA program procedural requirements. R DA 1

Collaboration Technical Assistance Accountability Leadership OSEP – R DA Strands of Action 2

R ESULTS -D RIVEN A CCOUNTABILITY Services include the distribution of resources with or without a direct request for the info. Support provided to multiple sites based on common needs in a few specific areas. Support provided to select sites. Services are a negotiated set of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. 3

SPP/APR measures compliance and results Determinations reflect performance for results and compliance Differentiated monitoring and technical assistance that supports improvement OSEP – R DA 4

A comprehensive, multi-year plan, moving from individual indicator improvement activities to broad strategies focused on improving results for students with an IEP. New OSEP Proposed Indicator FFY 2013 to FFY 2018 Comprehensive, ambitious yet achievable plan A “significant piece of work” Will be used in determinations SSIP State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) 5

SSIP : Phase 1 (submitted in Feb. 2015) D ATA A NALYSIS I DENTIFICATION OF THE F OCUS FOR I MPROVEMENT I NFRASTRUCTURE TO S UPPORT I MPROVEMENT & B UILD C APACITY To determine the areas for improvement ➲ Report analysis methodology, data quality issues, additional data needs ➲ Identify compliance issues that are barriers to achieving improved student results Theory of Action (IF-THEN…) 6

D ATA A NALYSIS I DENTIFICATION OF THE F OCUS FOR I MPROVEMENT I NFRASTRUCTURE TO S UPPORT I MPROVEMENT & B UILD C APACITY SSIP : Phase 1 (submitted in Feb. 2015) Identification of the Focus for Improvement ➲ Describe strategies that will lead to a measureable student-based result ➲ Demonstrate how strategies will build LEA capacity to improve student results Theory of Action (IF-THEN…) 7

D ATA A NALYSIS I DENTIFICATION OF THE F OCUS FOR I MPROVEMENT I NFRASTRUCTURE TO S UPPORT I MPROVEMENT & B UILD C APACITY Theory of Action (IF-THEN…) SSIP : Phase 1 (submitted in Feb. 2015) Describe within the State System regarding: ➲ Decision-making process ➲ Representatives that must be involved in planning for systematic improvements 8

D ATA A NALYSIS I DENTIFICATION OF THE F OCUS FOR I MPROVEMENT I NFRASTRUCTURE TO S UPPORT I MPROVEMENT & B UILD C APACITY Theory of Action (IF-THEN…) SSIP : Phase 1 (submitted in Feb. 2015) ➲ State analyzed capacity of its current system to implement & sustain evidence-based practices (state & district level) ➲ Strengths, weaknesses, & coordination of governance, fiscal, quality standards, PD, data, TA & accountability ➲ A nalysis of any initiatives in the State which may impact SWIs 9

D ATA A NALYSIS I DENTIFICATION OF THE F OCUS FOR I MPROVEMENT I NFRASTRUCTURE TO S UPPORT I MPROVEMENT & B UILD C APACITY Theory of Action (IF-THEN…) SSIP : Phase 1 (submitted in Feb. 2015) Based on the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for SWI ➲ Describe the strategies & outcomes that will need to be met to achieve the identified results ➲ Describe the changes in the State System, districts, & schools and provider practices that must occur to achieve the identified results 10

I NFRASTRUCTURE D EVELOPMENT S UPPORT FOR LEA I MPLEMENTATION OF E VIDENCE - B ASED P RACTICES E VALUATION P LAN SSIP : Phase 2 (submitted in Feb. 2016) 11

I NFRASTRUCTURE D EVELOPMENT S UPPORT FOR LEA I MPLEMENTATION OF E VIDENCE - B ASED P RACTICES E VALUATION P LAN SSIP : Phase 2 (submitted in Feb. 2016) 12

I NFRASTRUCTURE D EVELOPMENT S UPPORT FOR LEA I MPLEMENTATION OF E VIDENCE - B ASED P RACTICES E VALUATION P LAN SSIP : Phase 2 (submitted in Feb. 2016) 13

SSIP : Phase 3 (submitted in Feb. 2017) R ESULTS OF O NGOING E VALUATION R EVISIONS TO SPP 14

R ESULTS OF O NGOING E VALUATION R EVISIONS TO SPP SSIP : Phase 3 (submitted in Feb. 2017) 15

F UTURE : P ROVIDE I NPUT D URING A LL P HASES How does it affect me? T ODAY : S UGGEST A REAS FOR A NALYSIS 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

A Responsive, Durable System… 24

Draft Action Timelines 25