1. Implementing with the End in Mind
Outcomes-Oriented State and Local Partnerships

2. Agenda Setting the Stage School Level Implementation: Lessons Learned
Teri Marx, National Center on Intensive Intervention
School Level Implementation: Lessons Learned
Kathy Tancrelle, Hopkins Hill Elementary School, Rhode Island
State Level Perspective
Emily Klein, Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE)
Connections and Perceptions
Steve Goodman, Michigan Integrate Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MIBLSI)

3. Results-Driven Accountability (RDA)
Setting the Stage

4. RDA: Vision
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. Shift from Compliance to Results + Compliance
Slide from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from OSEP RDA Website

5. State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)
Year 1—FFY 2013
Delivered by April 2015
Year 2—FFY 2014
Delivered by April 2016
Years 3–6—FFY 2015–18
Feb. 2017–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
Multiyear plan addressing:
Infrastructure development
Support early intervening services program and local education agencies in implementing evidence- based practices
Evaluation plan
Reporting on progress including:
Results of ongoing evaluation
Extent of progress
Revisions to the State Performance Plan
Slide from: OSEP Slides to Explain Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Retrieved from OSEP RDA Website

6. State-identified Measurable Result(s)
State-identified Measurable Result(s) (SiMR)
A child-level (or family-level, for Part C) outcome
Not a process or system result
May be a single result or a cluster of related results
Identified based on analysis of data

7. National Center on Intensive Intervention
Setting the Stage

8. National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII)

9. NCII’s Mission is…
…to build district and school capacity to support implementation of data-based individualization in reading, mathematics, and behavior for students with severe and persistent learning and behavioral needs.

10. 10

11. Intensive intervention is designed to address severe and persistent learning or behavior difficulties. Intensive interventions should be—
Driven by data
Characterized by increased intensity (e.g., smaller group, expanded time) and individualization of academic instruction and/or behavioral supports

12. Students who Need Intensive Intervention
Not meeting IEP goals
Persistently low academic achievement
High frequency/intensity behavior
Nonresponsive to interventions delivered with fidelity

13. DBI: Integrating data-based decision-making across academics and social behavior

14. Essential Elements

15. School Level Implementation
Lessons Learned

16. Suburban/Rural Community - Changing Population
Five elementary schools; one middle; one high school (approximately students)
Three Title I Elementary schools - 2 school wide and 1 targeted
Leadership
New Superintendent hired July 1, 2016
Turnover in district administration - 3 Superintendents in 5 years, however
Responsive to the needs of schools involved with NCII; Supportive Special Ed administration, as well
Responsive but many changes from infrastructure to fonance to curriculum

17. Hopkins Hill Elementary
Demographics
375 students, K–5, 3 of each grade
88% white; 1.5% ELL; 45% free/reduced lunch, and 14% special education (10/1/16)
Schoolwide Title since SY 13/14
Staff and Leadership
New principal in 2012/13
30 teachers/Support Staff of 6/ Several TAs
Milestones
Grade Level Common Intervention Block
PARCC ELA 3 - 5, 56% - Exceeds district/state
PARCC Math 3 - 5, 49% - Exceeds district/state
Sp Education Math/ELA - Exceeds district/state
Recent staff survey (Center for Leadership and Educational Equality - CLEE) 100% agreed or strongly agreed they use data and support student use of data to understand progress and needs.
Special Ed % Math 15% ELA; District/State in single digits

18. Coventry Public Schools and NCII
Brief History
2011/12 - Middle school administration and PDC personnel received grant
2012/13 - Principal became Assistant Superintendent; PDC to Elementary
Two schools approached; after beginning training, the decision was made for one school to discontinue involvement in the initiative
Original school continued and three others added within 5 years
Hopkins Hill
One of the two original schools
Streamlined NCII work with current initiatives and reform agenda
Relied on high level of school-based team support/training/ coaching to build capacity
English Language Arts focus for initial intensive intervention
Simultaneous examination of core curriculum strength and data collection/use
Discontinuing was a mutual decision among NCII coaches, District Admin, Building Principal - lack of readiness, buy in
HH - New Principal; learned warning status in reading; many practice changes/reforms under way - applying for schoolwide status; perfect opp; out of warning 13/14 18

19. Coventry Public Schools and NCII
Hopkins Hill
2012/ /16
School B
 School C
2014/ /16
Aligned NCII work with current initiatives
School-based team support/NCII Coaches
Initial academic (ELA) focus with system processes and data collection
Behavior focus with system processes and data collection
Initially willing, but lacked readiness
School-based team unable to support
After starting training, decision was made to discontinue involvement in the NCII initiative
Academic Training Series in year 1
DBI Case Studies in year 2
NCII Coaching both years
School based team/admin support
School C
School D
Leveraging NCII content and Math Intervention work
Check-ins/coaching/connections with school team and PDC
Brought to school A as a pilot 2015/16

20. Keys to District Success
Note DBI process in terms of Data Driven/Really helps to have a staff culture of student centered decision making and a forward momentum mindset

21. Systems for Sustainability
Process: Efficient RtI/MTSS Meetings
Content: Collection and Analysis of Academic and
Behavioral Data
Product: A sustainable intervention plan that
Produces Results

22. Academics Process (NCII)
Teachers contact team about a concern; chair meets with teachers to review data (Charts, graphs, goal line, aim line) and complete referral form
Teacher comes to team; data/progress reviewed
Parents Attend/Team follows script to GET TO PLAN
Intervention plan and intensification discussed
Layering behavior discussion
Team Roles - Facilitator, Note Taker, Data Person, Parent Contact
Follow Up Scheduled
District Criteria - 2 Rounds
Product - Plan
Intervention Plan/Plan Intensification/ Layered Behavior Component
Content
Data Collection and Interpretation is part of initial process and used to monitor success of plan
Note:
Team meets every other week before school - 2 cases
Team: 2 classroom teachers, social worker, reading specialist, principal, parent, others as needed
Already had an intervention through Tier 1 and at least 1 Tier 2; usually the concern is prompted by insufficient progress

23. Behavior
Process
Teacher contacts team about a concern; chair meets with teacher to review SWIS data and/or set up data collection - (NCII ABC Chart or Learning Behavior Problem Checklist) and narrow focus
Teacher comes to team where data is reviewed and discussed; team members have roles
Target behavior identified and intervention plan/next steps discussed
Chair sets up Functional Assessment Interview (NCII) with teacher; plan developed based on needs identified through interview; Teacher Toolkit provided (NCII materials)
Regular review of data once plan is implemented to determine effectiveness
Team develops New School Year Transition Plan; Day 1 Children; 6 Week Children
Chairs meet one/one with receiving teacher
Parent Phone call prior and Letter/Notification
Product - Plan
Tailored CICO chart - specific criteria of respectful, responsible, safe (Tier 2)
In depth with reinforcements, script, behavior, actions by adults (NCII) (Tier 3)
Content
Data Collection and Interpretation is part of initial process and used to monitor success of plan
Note: Team meets every other week before school to review building data and meet with teacher cases
Team: Regular Ed/ Special Ed Teacher, Social Worker, Principal, Behavior Specialist, Others as needed
Process

24. Progress Monitoring DBI (NCII) Intra - Individual Framework
Four Point Rule
Trendline Decision Rules
Process
Benchmark September, January, May
Progress monitor weekly, bi-weekly, monthly depending on tool and intensity
Data Review Plan
* First 8 Weeks of Instruction, then…
* Every 4 Weeks, CPT
* Examine group efficacy at week intervals
* Every 12 Weeks, Larger Scale Data Review - Special Ed/Reading and Math Specialists
The Right Tool
STAR: District Benchmark - Progress Monitoring Monthly depending on grade/subject
DIBELS: K - 5, Reading as prescribed
MBSP: Monitoring Basic Skills Progress - Computation/Concepts and Application
Investigating DIBELS math tools

26. Parent Involvement Academic Meetings - Parents Attend
Initial conversation between classroom teacher and parent
Invitation phone call by chair; follow up with letter; reminder call by chair
Agenda and list of common terminology
Follow up with parents not able to attend
Regular intervention discussions/progress meetings with specialists, classroom teacher
Behavior Meetings - Parents Do Not Attend...Yet
Initial conversation/meeting follow up discussion between classroom teacher and parent
Letter, CICO charts, Behavior Plans go home
Intervention discussions/progress meetings with social worker, parent, classroom teacher

27. It’s not about “having time. It’s about making time.
If it is important to you, you will find a way. If not, you’ll find an excuse.

28. State Level Perspective
RDA: A Convergence of Opportunity
Rhode Island’s Story

29. RDA in Rhode Island Phase I & II
Process lead to the identification of math performance for African American and Hispanic students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) particularly in urban settings
SiMR focused on improving performance on state assessment in math with targeted intervention utilizing a DBI approach within an MTSS framework
Improving intensive and individualized instruction within a systematic framework of culturally and linguistically responsive supports for students with disabilities, particularly elementary Grades 3-5 Hispanic and Black children with specific learning disabilities in urban settings, will improve their performance on State assessments of math by 2% by 2018.

30. Rhode Island Approach to SSIP Implementation
More students with LD approaching and reaching proficiency in math.
SPDG, CEEDAR, SSIP
Math, DBI, MTSS
David

31. How Did We Get Here…
Emerging experiences with training and technical assistance
State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG)
Focused on MTSS
Built on previous positive experience of PBIS and RTI
Merged training activities into one system of professional learning and technical assistance
Three year cohort model with in-school coaching in 11 Districts
Deep involvement in 21 schools
Partnership with our Parent Training
and Information Center (PTIC)
educating parents about MTSS

32. How Did We Get Here… NCII Provided intervention in 4 districts
State contributed coaches (state staff and consultants)
Two districts have remained fully participating
LEA Changes in Adult Behavior and Practices
LEA – initiated professional development
Changes in LEA
Culture and Practice

33. How Did We Get Here… Statewide Systems of Support Team
Composed of project leads and higher education faculty
Included Social Emotional Learning (SEL) connections and secondary math RTI
Connecting the experience from the field with pre-service training

34. Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Surveyed special education teachers, administrators, and related service personnel
In the context of RDA, what are we doing that helps, what should we be doing more of, what can we stop?
Results:
Less emphasis on forms, procedures, compliance
More focus on instructional & SEL intervention
Moved away from “compliance-only” work

35. No New $$$ for RDA Collectively this requires difficult choices
Shifted previous funds for technical assistance focused on forms, procedures, compliance to instructional level interventions
New RFP to provide technical assistance to schools in math intervention utilizing:
MTSS approach
DBI tools and practices
Empowering school leadership teams
Training and coaching
Over a period of years
Additional opportunity to partner with CEEDAR
Take the classroom experiences in the DBI Math Intervention initiative to influence pre-service training collaboration with recent program completers in schools

36. Lessons Learned
Capitalizing on experience of previous training investments
Converging of opportunities
Keeping state level staff close to the school intervention work
Having the courage to shift away from the fear of compliance toward the excitement of instructional intervention
Support RDA with words AND resources
Place trust in our LEA and PTIC partners
Prepare for the retrofitting of the special education industry

37. Connections and Perceptions
Implementing with the end in mind…

38. Improving outcomes for the students with greatest challenges is hard work…
Supporting students
Do the right things and do those things right
Increased accountability forces us to increase our precision and our focus on the critical features that result in student success
Challenges arise in both academics and behavior – we need to address both in an integrated manner

39. Improving outcomes for the students with greatest challenges is hard work…
Supporting staff
A team is key to planning, implementation, and improvement
Effective Practices are necessary for student outcomes, Systems of support are essential for teacher effectiveness
Alignment and integration with other initiatives

40. Self-Modifying System:
Implementation efforts won’t be wrong for too long if you have a system in place that supports making decisions based on data

41. Questions?

42. NCII Disclaimer
This presentation was produced under the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H326Q Celia Rosenquist serves as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this website is intended or should be inferred.

43. Primary Contact: Teri Marx, PhD
1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW
Washington, DC 20007