1. 2015 Leadership Conference “All In: Achieving Results Together”
Part B SIMR Time to Get Involved!
Sue Donovan, Rhode Island Parent Information Network
Kim Hartsell, Systems Improvement and Evaluation Services
Mary LaCorte, North Carolina Exceptional Children’s Assistance Center
J. David Sienko, Rhode Island Department of Elementary & Secondary Education

2. State Systemic Improvement Plan
Multi-year plan for improving results for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities and their families
“Comprehensive, ambitious, yet achievable”
Included in the state’s State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report
Part B- Indicator 17
Part C- Indicator 11
For the purposes of this presentation, the term “children” includes infants and toddlers (Part C) and children (Part B) with disabilities.

3. Proposed SSIP Activities
Year 1 - FFY 2013
Delivered by Apr 2015
Year 2 - FFY 2014
Delivered by April 2016
Years 3-6
FFY
Feb Feb 2020
Phase I
Analysis
Phase II
Development
Phase III
Evaluation and Implementation
Data Analysis;
Description of Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity;
State-identified Measureable Result;
Selection of 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 Overview
Briefly review SSIP process Phase 1-3
States have now completed Phase I SSIP activities and have either already initiated or are ready to implement Phase II. The focus of Phase II is on building State capacity to support LEAs/EIS programs and/or EIS providers with the implementation of evidence-based practices that will lead to measureable improvement in the State-identified result(s) for infants and toddlers/children with disabilities. Phase II builds on the data and infrastructure analyses, coherent improvement strategies, and the theory of action developed in Phase I. The plan developed in Phase II includes the activities, steps and resources required to implement the coherent improvement strategies, with attention to the research on implementation, timelines for implementation and measures needed to evaluate implementation and impact on the State-identified result(s) for infants and toddlers/children with disabilities. The multi- year plan must include 3 parts:
Infrastructure Development
Supports for EIS programs/LEAs in Implementing Evidence-based practices
Evaluation Plan
This plan is the basis for implementation and evaluation that occurs in Phase III.

4. Any Questions What excites you about OSEP’s new focus on results?
What kind of reaction have you heard from states re: OSEP’s new focus on results?

5. Why SSIP? Why Now?

6. Why SSIP? Why Now?
30 year focus on compliance in EI and special education has improved compliance
Have not seen as significant an improvement in outcomes
Early childhood outcomes
Performance on state assessments
Graduation rates

7. Why SSIP? Why Now? 2
Despite this focus on compliance, states are not seeing improved results for children and youth with disabilities:
Young children are not coming to Kindergarten prepared to learn
In many locations, a significant achievement gap exists between children with disabilities and their general education peers
Children are dropping out of school
Many children who do graduate with a regular education diploma are not college and career ready
Michael Yudin,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

8. Why SSIP? Why Now?
The focus has shifted to improving outcomes for all children and youth and accountability is intensifying at multiple levels

9. Why SSIP? Why Now?
The time is right!

10. Any Questions 2 What excites you about OSEP’s new focus on results?
What kind of reaction have you heard from states re: OSEP’s new focus on results?

11. Some Ideas to Consider
Data-based decision making drives the SSIP throughout each of the proposed Phases- from development through implementation and evaluation.

12. Some Ideas to Consider
Stakeholder input is essential throughout the entire process.
Interagency Coordinating Council
State Advisory Panel for Special Education
Parent centers
Educators & administrators
EI providers
Others

13. Leading By Convening Who cares about this issue?
What work is already underway separately?
What shared work could unite us?
How can we deepen our connections?
Resource:

14. Some Ideas to Consider 2
Development and implementation of the SSIP requires that state EIS and special education agency staff:
Strengthen existing partnerships with internal and external groups involved in the education of children and youth with disabilities
Build partnerships where they do not exist

15. Some Ideas to Consider
In order to achieve the desired outcomes, the SSIP must be aligned with the agency’s strategic plan including vision, mission, and goals.
Strategic Plan
Vision
Mission
Goals
SSIP
Informs

16. Some Ideas to Consider 3
The SSIP should be aligned to and integrated with other initiatives in the state.
Supports leveraging of resources. Greater influence.
Prevents duplication of efforts.
Builds momentum and capacity.
Improved results

17. Some Ideas to Consider 4
The SSIP cannot thrive in a vacuum! EIS/special education state agencies will not be successful if the SSIP is disconnected from the agency’s focus and work or unsupported by key stakeholders.

18. Implementation Science
Implementation science can support the selection, development and scale-up of improvement strategies included in the SSIP
“Implementation science is the systematic study of variables and conditions that lead to full and effective use of evidence-based programs and other effective innovations in typical human service settings.”
—Blase and Fixsen, 2010
National Implementation Research Network
For more information:

19. Putting It All Together

20. Any Questions 3 What excites you about OSEP’s new focus on results?
What kind of reaction have you heard from states re: OSEP’s new focus on results?

21. Reflections from Phase I

22. SIMR Part-C
Early Childhood Outcomes (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 Statements
Source: SSIP What We Learned From Phase I & Expectations for Phase II (Interactive Institute, Chicago, 2015)
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)

23. SIMR 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)

24. From OSEP Review of Phase I
It was not always clear how States analyzed their infrastructure in relation to the SIMR. In developing Phase II, think about the changes that States would need to make within their own infrastructure to support LEAs/EIS programs in implementing evidence-based practices.
Shared this AM in the OSEP presentation on “What We Learned”, content specific to infrastructure. 24

25. From OSEP Review of Phase I
States did not report data specific to their infrastructure. In developing Phase II, think about the changes that will need to be made within the State infrastructure and the type of data that is needed to enhance the infrastructure to support, improve, and sustain effective practice at the local level.
The ECTA System Framework self-assessment can serve as a data source to enhance and track improvement of infrastructure development. More on that shortly. 25

26. From OSEP Review of Phase I 2
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. 26

27. From OSEP Review of Phase I
Stakeholders were identified, but their involvement was not adequately described.
In Phase II, States should include how they will be intentionally and meaningfully including stakeholders in the development, implementation and evaluation of their plan.
Source: SSIP What We Learned From Phase I & Expectations for Phase II (Interactive Institute, Chicago, 2015) 27

28. Perspectives from Parent Training and Information Centers28

29. North Carolina The easy part…
Long history of Parent Center participation with NC DPI
Effective working relationships
Shared interests
Shared work
Mutual respect for our unique perspectives
Involved as stakeholders

30. NC PTI involvement in SSIP
Large Stakeholder Collaborative Meetings
Looked at the “state of EC” in NC
Provided feedback on initial conclusions by NC DPI Internal SSIP team
PTI membership
Established SSIP Team
Monthly meetings
Data review and discussion
Members from the large group
27 members – including NC PTI
Established SIMR
NC will increase the 5-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for students with disabilities

31. How did we select graduation as the SIMR?
Goal:
Improving outcomes for students with disabilities, not programs
Graduation or Achievement
No longitudinal data for achievement data due to assessment change in 2013l
Graduation is a NC priority:
for the State Board of Ed
included in the EC Division’s Strategic Plan
How did we select graduation as the SIMR?

32. The Hard Part Data is HUGE! NC has GREAT data folks Confusing at times
Interpreted differently
Moving target
Changes lanes without signaling
Not my native language!
NC has GREAT data folks

33. Parent Center Participation
Challenges
Opportunities
Time commitment
On occasion, sense of reaction vs. creation
Outside of spontaneous and “internal group” conversations
Outside the language curve
Share our data
Grow our data “literacy”
Create relationships
Cross agency participation
Practice and model the skills for collaboration that we share with parents on a daily basis

34. SSIP is a Work in Progress
Engage stakeholders
No risk environments
Invite questions
Even the tough ones!
Create opportunities for clarification
Maintain collective empowerment
everyone has access to same information, data, resources, etc.
Be transparent

35. Perspectives from Parent Training and Information Centers 2
Rhode Island 35

36. RI PTI involvement in SSIP Part B
Establish SSIP Team
Invite PTI & RISEAC membership
Identify key SEA staff
Discuss & determine the work
Stakeholder Input
Monthly meetings
Data review and discussion
5 members
Established SIMR
RI will increase math proficiency for students with disabilities

37. Phase II SSIP Improvement Plan
Phase I SSIP
Phase II SSIP Improvement Plan
Plan
Goals, Activities with timelines and resources
Align, leverage and partner
Expected outcomes and scaling up of evidenced based practices
Evaluation
Short and long term objectives
Collect and analyze data
Progress towards goals
Engage and Communicate with stakeholders
Theory of Action
Broad Data Analysis
Broad Infrastructure Assessment
Data Analysis
Infrastructure Assessment
Primary Concern(s)/Focus(es)
Specific Focus for Improvement including Measurable Child and/or Family Result
Getting Started/Preparation
Phase II SSIP Improvement Plan

38. Focus of Phase II: Plan
Build state capacity to support LEAs/EI programs/EI providers with the implementation of evidence-based practices that will lead to measurable improvement in the SIMR
Based on Phase I components, Phase II includes the activities, steps, and resources required to implement the coherent improvement strategies, with attention to the research on implementation, timelines for implementation, and measures needed to evaluate implementation and impact on the SIMR 38

39. Phase II: Plan Components
Infrastructure Development
Support for LEA/EI program/EI provider Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices
Evaluation
Per the OSEP Measurement Table. 39

40. OSEP Guidance and Review Tool Using the Tool
OSEP, States, Stakeholders, and Technical Assistance (TA) partners will engage in dialogue around components of the Phase II SSIP as they apply to the States improvement efforts focusing on the SEA’s capacity to support LEAs in implementing IDEA and improving outcomes for children and youth with disabilities;
OSEP will review the Plan that the States submit on April 1, as part of the FFY 2014 SPP/APR to ascertain the State’s progress in its improvement efforts; and
OSEP, States, Stakeholders and TA partners will determine technical assistance and support needs of States.
Introduce OSEP Guidance and Review Tool as the frame for the discussion on Phase 2
Slide contains the purpose and process for the use of the review 40

41. OSEP Review Criteria Regarding Stakeholders
Extent to which:
2(e) Relevant representatives supported the development of Phase I & are committed to support implementation of Phase II
2(f) Multiple internal & external stakeholders were involved in analyzing the infrastructure
3(d) Multiple internal and external stakeholders were involved in selecting the SIMR
4(c) Multiple internal and external stakeholders were engaged in identifying improvement activities
5(c) Multiple internal and external stakeholders were involved in developing the theory of action

42. Questions
Are there other “big ideas” that folks think are worth mentioning around the SSIP?