Dial-in: Pass code: SPDG Directors’ Webinar Secrets for SSIP Success: Leveraging Lessons Learned from Implementation of the State Personnel Development Grants Facilitators: Jennifer Coffey, OSEP Project Officer John Lind, SIGnetwork Coordinator 1

Roll Call

*6 / #6

5 th Annual SPDG National Meeting October 14-15, 2014 FHI 360 Conference Center 1825 Connecticut Avenue NW 8 th Floor Washington, DC

Introductions 5 Julia Causey, Georgia Department of Education Jennifer Gonzales, Arkansas Department of Education Steve Goodman, Michigan Department of Education Kim Hartsell, Georgia SPDG

Secrets for SSIP Success: Leveraging Lessons Learned from Implementation of the State Personnel Development Grants JULIA CAUSEY, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION JENNIFER GONZALES, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STEVE GOODMAN, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION KIM HARTSELL, GEORGIA SPDG

Focus on the SPDGs Since 2007, state education agencies have been using funds from their OSEP-funded State Personnel Development Grants (SPDGs) to improve their state systems of professional development and technical assistance to support the dissemination and implementation of evidence- based practices designed to improve results for children and youth with disabilities.

Focus on the SPDGs SPDG personnel have capitalized on the use of the implementation frameworks and effective school improvement strategies: To support the implementation of evidence-based practice with fidelity and To scale up these practices to impact large groups of students.

Focus on the SPDGs Visit the Signetwork website at for: Tools and resources State activities Upcoming and past events

State Systemic Improvement Plan The State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) provides another opportunity for states to focus on improving results for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities and their families. This comprehensive, ambitious, yet achievable multi-year plan for improving results is included in the state’s State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report ◦Part B- Indicator 17 ◦Part C- Indicator 11

Year 1 - FFY 2013 Delivered by April Year 2 - FFY 2014 Delivered by April 2016 Years 3-6 FFY Feb Feb 2020 Phase I Analysis Phase II Plan Phase III Evaluation Data Analysis Identification of State- identified Measurable Result (SiMR)) Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity Coherent Improvement Strategies Theory of Action Infrastructure Development Support for EIS Program/LEA in Implementing Evidence- Based Practices Evaluation Plan Results of Ongoing Evaluation Extent of Progress Revisions to the SPP Proposed SSIP Activities by Phase 11

State-identified Measurable Result Part-C ECO-Social Emotional: 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(&4C), WA, WI, WV, WY ECO-Knowledge and Skills: AS, DC, GU, IL, ME, MN, MS, NE, NH, OK, PR, SD, TN, VI ECO-Behavior to Meet Needs: CNMI, CO, SC, VA ECO-All: LA, NM Family Outcomes-Develop and Learn: 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 Source: SSIP What We Learned From Phase I & Expectations for Phase II (Interactive Institute, Chicago, 2015)

State-identified Measurable Result Part-B Graduation: AL, DC, FL, GA, MN, MT, NC, ND, NJ, PA, RMI, VA, WV Reading/ELA: AR, AS, AZ, CNMI, CO, CT, DE, FSM, GU, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI, MS, NE, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, Palau, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA, WI, and WY Math: KY, MD, ME, PR, RI, UT, VT Math and ELA: CA, MO Early Childhood Outcomes: MA, NH Post-school Outcomes: AL, BIE Source: SSIP What We Learned From Phase I & Expectations for Phase II (Interactive Institute, Chicago, 2015)

Alignment of SPDGs and SSIPs In order for states to achieve their desired outcomes for children and youth with disabilities, it is important that initiatives are aligned in order to leverage resources, prevent duplication, and maximize results. (SIMR Alignment with SPDG goals and activities) State SPDG staff have spent many years improving their state systems of professional development and technical assistance. These systems can provide a strong foundation for the work that must be accomplished through the SSIP. In this webinar, we want to share some of the ways in which states are using lessons learned from SPDG implementation in supporting the development and implementing of their SSIPs.

Audience Poll Is the SIMR selected by your state consistent with improvement areas addressed in your state’s SPDG? Yes No

Audience Poll As the SPDG Director for your state, have you been actively involved in the development and implementation of your state’s SSIP? Yes No

Audience Poll Are your SPDG initiatives incorporated into the improvement strategies outlined in your state’s SSIP? Yes No

Georgia Student Success: Leveraging Lessons Learned from SPDG Implementation Julia Causey, SPDG Director, Division for Special Education Services and Supports, Georgia DOE

An Introduction to Georgia’s SPDGs The focus of the Georgia SPDG has been to improve graduation rates for students with disabilities through the grant’s primary activity, GraduateFIRST. Participating schools implemented the GraduateFIRST framework, a data-driven intervention framework to successfully address barriers to graduation for students with disabilities. In GraduateFIRST, school-based teams were trained to diagnose the causes of dropout and to develop and implement school specific improvement plans that address contributing causes through the implementation of evidence-based drop-out prevention, instructional, and behavioral strategies. Data from GraduateFIRST schools have shown an increase in graduation rates in targeted schools.

Lessons Learned from Georgia’s SPDGs Partnerships with the GaDOE Office of School Improvement, Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs) and Georgia Learning Resource System (GLRS) centers were critical to the implementation of SPDG activities. Fidelity of implementation of the well-defined innovation, the GraduateFIRST framework, led to improved outcomes in targeted schools. GraduateFIRST coaches were key to supporting implementation fidelity in targeted schools. Fidelity measures, GraduateFIRST Implementation Scales, were conducted in all schools.

Lessons Learned from Georgia’s SPDGs Implementation teams were essential. School teams guided the work in targeted schools. The State Design Team led the work at the state level.

Lessons Learned from Georgia’s SPDGs Implementation drivers matter. Competency drivers- Selection (Did we have the right staff on our teams?) Training (Were we offering high quality professional development on key topics based on data?) Coaching (Were we providing effective coaching to support fidelity of implementation?) Organizational drivers- Data Support System- Data-based decision making and evaluation at all levels of the state system were essential to the success of GraduateFIRST. Outcome Data- Targeted student data through GraduateFIRST and school, district, and state level achievement data from GaDOE and the Georgia Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) Process Data- Included data from professional development and technical assistance activities (e.g. Coaching Effectiveness Survey)

Introduction to Georgia’s SSIP Georgia’s SSIP focuses on improving graduation rate for students with disabilities. Marketed as Student Success: Imagine the Possibilities Provides support to 50 districts Leverages state, regional, district and school resources

Leveraging SPDG Lessons in the SSIP Partnerships Strengthened partnership with Office of School Improvement and aligned with their efforts to focus on District Effectiveness. SDE Regional Collaborative Team GLRS Regional Team to focus on targeted districts. Continued partnerships with Regional Educational Service Agencies and Georgia Learning Resource System centers. Student Success Coaches

Leveraging SPDG Lessons in the SSIP Cascading Teams with Established Feedback Loops Expanded to include linked teams at each level of the state system from schools to the GaDOE Formalized feedback loops to support communication across all levels Committed to the use of feedback loops to inform policy and practice

Leveraging SPDG Lessons in the SSIP Maintained laser focus on implementation drivers. Competency Drivers: Expanded number of State Success Coaches and provided funds for districts to recruit and hire District Success Coaches. Organizational Drivers: Expanded data sources used for decision making

Audience Poll In your SPDG, have you established cascading teams across various levels of the state system with clearly established feedback loops? Yes No

Increasing Capacity: Aligning and Coordinating Initiatives Jennifer Gonzales Arkansas Department of Education SPDG Director and SSIP Coordinator September 24, 2015

Importance of Aligning Initiatives to Leverage Resources and Sustainability

Importance of Partnerships Collaborative planning across multiple Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) Units Program Design Supported across ADE Units o Commitment to leverage resources o Support common professional development and implementation standards

Authentic Stakeholder Engagement How can we authentically engage stakeholders in the SSIP process? How can we develop meaningful partnerships that are: Ongoing Impactful Relevant Trusting We can not make sustainable progress in the SSIP …or any important issue without stakeholders. Authentic stakeholder engagement is the underlying strategy for all change.

Engaging a Variety of Perspectives Special Education State Advisory Council Units within the Department of Education State Education Associations Administrators Teachers Parents Community Leaders

Ensuring Relevant Participation The Core Team The core team consists of leaders from diverse groups who are committed to the success of the work. Key Participants and Advisors Key participants and advisors are groups that have responsibility for, or keen interest in, the issue. They represent key constituencies and have the authority and/or influence to help individuals make change. All of these leaders may not be able to become consistently active on the issue, but they must be knowledgeable about the work of the group. Extended Participants and Feedback Network Extended participants and feedback networks are individuals who are reached through the organizations and networks that are key participants/advisors. They represent individuals who work at the practice, family or individual level. These participants have connections to the issues and to the organizations that are active on the issue. They can be a bridge between ideas as formulated and ideas as practiced. Dissemination Networks Dissemination networks include participants from all the groups within the circles and all the other groups related to this issue. Leading by Convening: A Blueprint for Authentic Engagement 2015

How Initiatives and Partnerships will be Leveraged SSIP Improvement Strategies the SPDG will Support:  Create a special education professional development (PD) and technical assistance (TA) system that aligns with other ADE Units and is differentiated by LEA needs.  Restructure Arkansas’ Response-to-Intervention (RTI) module using evidence based PD to implement a tiered system of supports for behavior and academics.  As part of RTI, design and implement evidence based literacy PD and TA.  As part of RTI, design and implement evidence based behavior PD and TA.  As part of RTI, design and implement evidence based PD and TA that targets increasing the percent of students educated within the general education environment

Audience Poll In your SPDG, are you partnering with your SEA’s School Improvement Office to align technical assistance and professional development provided to school systems? Yes No

Contributing to Michigan’s SSIP in Supporting School Districts Steve Goodman, Director

Conceptual Framework for Improving Results for Children USED, OSEP (Spring 2014)

Goal of Michigan’s SSIP To provide local districts with clear, consistent expectations, aligned efforts, and coordinated and tiered improvement activities.

Goal Improved Student Outcomes Equitable Effective Sustainable Systems Functions Efficient Systems Qualities Leadership Management/Coordinati on Finance Compliance Technical Assistance and Professional Learning Scalable Evaluation Academic Instruction Social Behavior Practices Value added through the project by improving Systems Qualities

Contributions of work with SPDG Understanding of tiered systems of support through effective, research-based practices Effective professional development Development of local capacity to support staff to implement with fidelity Comprehensive evaluation for continuous improvement

Why a district model and not a school-based model? Schools do not always get to criteria for fidelity of implementation. Schools do not always maintain implementation efforts Supporting a school based participation model cannot be scaled and is not durable as district based

Intermediate Unit or Local District Leadership Implementation Team Leadership Implementation Support Visibility Priority Political Support Policy Systems Alignment Resource Allocation Coaching Training Technical Assistance Evaluation Unit of Support Schools School Leadership Implementation Management Importance Distribute Resources Unit Functions MTSS Practices PBIS Reading Unit of Implementation Implementation Feedback Coordinated Support

The role of the district is to standardize the process while the role of the school is to contextualize implementation

Use existing structures to scale up the work No new funding available, need to be creative with existing funding stream ◦ Re-allocate staff ◦ Organize around efficiencies to make room for the work It is not enough to just show an effect, we need to work toward effective impact that endures over time It is important to develop implementation capacity rather than dependency- investing in local capacity will allow us to go to scale Lessons Learned

Model Demonstration: Does it work in a specific setting with a specific population? Replications: Can it be reproduced in different settings with different populations? Replications: Can it be reproduced in different settings with different populations? Scale-Up: Increase “reach” of practice to critical mass of implementation Scale-Up: Increase “reach” of practice to critical mass of implementation Embed within existing work: Provide access as current practice Examine Feasibility/Efficacy of Practice Being Developed Modifying System for Standard Practice Invest heavily in resources to produce results Utilize typical/existing resources Moving from Model Demonstration to Standard Practice

Resource Allocation Implementation Timeframe Implementation Quality The number of schools/districts to be selected for involvement in your training plan will depend on the constant tension of three factors regarding implementation

Audience Poll In your SPDG, are you using the district as the point of entry for your SPDG-related improvement activities? Yes No

Discussion What strategies would you offer to your colleagues to enhance alignment of SPDGs and SSIPs? What supports to you need to support your work related to the SSIP?