1. 2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Using LEA-level Data Analytic Modules for Program Improvement: A State and Local Sandy Schmitz & Eric Dickson, DAC Kathe Shelby, Karen Kanotz & Sally Demmler, OEC Heidi Stickney, Loveland Schools Tuesday, August 2nd: 1:30-3:00 Part B Strand Session Identifier: 207

2. DAC Funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Department of Education Funding period is October 2007 through September 2012 Westat and Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center

3. Levels of State Technical Assistance Level 1/General TA – addresses data quality needs common to all or most education/Part C agencies and IDEA data users. Level 2/Individualized – addresses an individual or small group of education/Part C agencies’ unique data quality needs with varying duration and intensity. Level 3/Customized – addresses intensive, sustained work with the state and local agencies through detailed work plans.

4. Evolution of Level 3 TA Shift from compliance-oriented data problems at the state level to… Building state and local capacity for use of local data for program improvement This shift reflects OSEP’s priority for DAC’s work

5. A Model for Data Use Consist of three phases w/ several steps: Phase 1: Preparation – Identify relevant data Phase 2: Inquiry – Conduct data analysis – Test hypothesis Phase 3: Action – Plan for improvement – Evaluate progress 1. Identify relevant data 2. Conduct data analysis to generate hypothesis 3. Test Hypothesis to determine root cause 4. Plan for Improvement 5. Evaluate Progress Data Analytics

6. Selection by State Support Team 5 Review of Data from multiple districts in LRE and AYP in areas of Reading and Math

7. SEBRING LOCAL SCHOOLS AYP vs. LRE

8. Partners working with Sebring Local State Support Team Region 5 Special Education Consultants Mahoning County Educational Service Center Instructional Consultants

9. Sebring Local School Very small district with less than 800 students ADM 2 School Buildings B L Miller K-6 (SI year 2) McKinley High School 7-12 Only subgroup SWD Very close to subgroup in multi-racial FY10 reports 25.57% ADM identified as SWD FY 10 LRE 55.37% SEA target 49.40% (MET) FY10 Met AYP SWD and district in delay SI

10. Sebring Commitments/Plans Race to the Top OIP OEC Corrective Action Plan

11. Making Connections RTT, OIP, CCIP and DAC Very Small district with limited number of individuals to serve on the required teams Identified direction and vision of each plan developed to ensure fidelity to all processes Coordinate the plan requirements, actions and implementation into a sequential process

12. Loveland City Schools Background and History Northeast suburb of Cincinnati, OH Total Enrollment: 4,569 6 buildings Early Childhood Center (PreK-1) Primary School (1-2) Elementary School (3-4) Intermediate School (5-6) Middle School (7-8) High School (9-12) 13.27% Economic disadvantagement 10.75% Students identified with disabilities 92.76% White 7% of students served inside general education classroom less than 40% of the day Research based reading intervention programs in place Student Population Response to Intervention implemented PreK-12

13. Loveland City Schools 2008-2009 Did not make AYP for SWD for 3 rd grade reading and the Loveland Elementary Building entered into School Improvement Status 2009-2010 Participated in the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP) and developed district and building level action plans to in response to results from previous school year. Developed a Literacy Framework and began the search for core instructional materials Developed Instructional Content Coaches for reading and math Implemented a decision tree for reading intervention program selection, added reading intervention programs Implemented “Fidelity Checks” in general education and intervention classrooms Implemented AIMSweb as a universal screener and progress monitoring for reading at 3 rd and 4 th grades

14. Loveland City Schools 2009-2010 Loveland Elementary School Met AYP targets and moved to a “Delayed Status” for School Improvement 2010-2011 began working with the Data Accountability Center Pilot Model: Phase 1: Preparation Phase 2: Inquiry Phase 3: Action

15. Phase 1: Preparation Identify relevant data Ohio Achievement Assessment results AIMSweb probes Common Assessments Reading Intervention implementation IEP Reviews: goals, services, intervention program Teacher Schedules: amount of time supporting in general education and providing intervention RTI and Data meeting reviews Case load sizes and assignments Resource allocations

16. Phase 2: Inquiry Conduct Data Analysis-Test Hypothesis RTI program identified students who needed reading supports early and interventions started through Title 1 services immediately Reading intervention time decreased when a student was identified with a disability Intervention Specialists schedules did not allow for time to support students in core instruction

17. Phase 2: Inquiry Conduct Data Analysis-Test Hypothesis Intervention Specialists were duplicating efforts and group intervention programs throughout the day (sometimes teaching the same lessons 3 times a day for groups of 2-3 students) IEP reviews revealed teachers were inconsistent with the identified goals and services for students There was no common planning time between intervention specialists and general education teachers

18. Phase 3: Action Plan for Improvement Restructured the school day to provide a 45 minute block of reading intervention first thing in the morning. General education teachers were not permitted to teach core content during the intervention block, and were providing differentiated instructional activities in their classrooms.

19. Phase 3: Action Plan for Improvement Aligned student groups based on reading intervention programs and developed a schedule for intervention for groups up to 6 participants In some cases, students were served by an Intervention Specialist who was not the assigned case manager Trained paraprofessionals to implement the scripted reading intervention programs and had them alternate instructional groups on a weeky basis with Intervention Specialists

20. Phase 3: Action Plan for Improvement Intervention Specialists schedules were freed up significantly throughout the day, and the expectation was shared that they would spend this time supporting students in general education core content Weekly common planning times between general education teachers and intervention specialists had to be identified in new teacher schedules

21. Phase 3: Action Plan for Improvement Review IEP writing process with teachers Develop consistency with identifications of strengths and needs of students Develop consistency with reporting of services and supports to students Survey teachers and paraprofessionals regarding impact and impressions of the restructuring

22. Phase 3: Action Evaluate Progress (2010-2011 OAA) 3 rd Grade All Students: Reading: 91.2 Students with Disabilities: Loveland Elementary AYP SPP Safe Harbor Reading: 87.282.7 82.1 77.5 4 th Grade All Students: Reading: 94.0 Students with Disabilities: Loveland ElementaryAYP SPPSafe Harbor Reading: 80.681.0 81 77.5

23. Phase 3: Action Evaluate Progress (in fall 2011) Review IEP writing process with teachers Develop consistency with identifications of strengths and needs of students Develop consistency with reporting of services and supports to students

24. Staff Survey Results

27. Parent and Community Involvement

28. Questions?