1. NC SSIP: 5 Things We’ve Learned Directors’ Update March 2015 ncimplementationscience.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/Recent+Presentations

2. How Should I Feel About This? The Anxiety Bell Curve

3. Results Driven Accountability #1: > SSIP

4. Update March 10, 2014 …this is our work… …this is the work… …this is your work… RDA INDICATOR 17 = State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)

5. 2017- 2020 Aug 2013 Dec 2013 May 2014 Apr 2015 Feb 2016 2011 2012 Jan 2013 Evolution of NCDPI RDA - continued NC begins RDA work & shares during OSEP visit Submit Phase I: Data & Infrastructure Analysis; SiMR Theory of Action EC Division staff analyzes regional data Inventory of Core, Supplemental, & Intensive Training/TA Collect feedback: What do LEAs need to know and be able to do to provide support for all students? EC Division identifies core elements Apr 2014 LEA Self- assessment draft; SSIP team forms SSIP/ Indicator 17 becomes part of SPP/APR Report ongoing evaluation & progress; revise SPP Submit multi-year plan addressing: Infrastructure development Supporting LEAs to implement EBPs Evaluation plan

6. Indicator Data Profile Compliance (Policy & Fiscal) Practice Profile Summary & Analysis Identify problems in Academics, Behavior, Engagement Improvement plans drive strategic ECD support & PD LEA Self- Assessment & Improvement Process DPI LEA with DPI TA Research-Based Instruction & Communication & Collaboration LEA with DPI TA LEA Improvement Plan Select from Package of Interventions Plan for implementation in an MTSS framework Identify outcome measures Evaluation Examine outcome and implementation data Implementation of Full Continuum of Support For Students AND Teachers Strategies/Interventions Fidelity Measures Data for monitoring implementation LEA with DPI TA Problem-Solving for Improvement IEP Development & Implementation

7. SSIP Data Analysis: Data Disaggregation, Infrastructure Analysis of Compliance Data Impact on Outcomes Strategic Vision Summary & Analysis Root Cause Is the Infrastructure we have the Infrastructure we need? Improvement plans drive strategic ECD support & PD ECD Self- Assessment & Improvement Process SSIP Phase I Collaboration Effective General Supervision SSIP Phase I & II Improvement Plan Determine Package of Interventions Plan for implementation in an MTSS framework Identify outcome measures Building ECD capacity Evaluation Examine outcome and implementation data Implementation of Customized Continuum of Support ECD Staff training & Support Strategies/Interventions Fidelity Measures Data for monitoring implementation SSIP Phase III LEA Capacity Customized Support SSIP Phase I SSIP Phase II & III

8. #2: We can only use the data we have; the graduation rate for SWD is improving but not quickly enough. But we can plan to have better, more accessible data in the future

9. 4-yr Cohort Graduation Rates + Linear Regression Forecast 2006 -18.3 2010 -16.6 2014 -19.4 2016 -21.5 2019 -23.2

10. 5-yr Cohort Graduation Rates + Survival Modeling Forecast 2007 -16.7 2010 -11.1 2014 -17.1 2016 -17.6 2019 -16.6

11. #3: We will not be able to significantly change Graduation rate by improving any ONE subgroup We’ll need strategies that will impact multiple subgroups

12. NC Data Considerations for 2012-13 Graduation Rate – Selected SWD Subgroups A. Subgroups of Students with Disabilities B. Subgroup’s Portion of Graduation Denominator C. # Graduated in Subgroup D. Subgroup Denominator E. Subgroup Graduation Rate F. # of SWD needed to get to 80% rate for subgroup G. Subgroup Graduation Rate if additional students in column F had graduated H. Percentage Point Impact on 2012-13 Graduation rate – 62.3% All/NC 100%70061125162.3%199580.0%+ 17.7 LEAs w/rates below 60% 43.7%2741*4915*55.8%118972.8%+ 10.5 AA Students 36.3%2427*4081*59.5%83769.7%+ 7.4 Separate Class 19.5%1047*2196*47.7%70968.6%+ 6.3 Separate Class plus Separate Environments 21.9%1107*2460*45.0%86169.9%+ 7.6 Students with ED 5.5%237*618*38.3%25764.6%+ 2.3 AA/SED/Sep & Res Settings 1.2%33*130*25.4%3862.6%+ 0.3 *2012-13 EC Exit Data Report based on event rates (1 year only) – 65.5% rather than the SPP/APR required 4-year cohort graduation rate shown in green 62.3%. The 65.5% includes an additional 200 students that graduated and 250 fewer students in the denominator for a difference of 450 students.

13. #4: It’s really hard to establish root cause at the state level LEAs will have to problem- solve based on their data

14. Lack of effective Leadership Lack of effective Instruction Academic Deficits Removal from instruction Lack of culturally responsive instruction/climate Behavioral Deficits Insufficient support (inc. wraparound) Excessive absences Lack of extracurricular and/or employment opportunities Lack of Engagement

15. #5: Current efforts must be strengthened and better integrated with agency activities Fidelity? Saturation? Time Implementing? Better Fit?

16. Academic Deficits Behavioral Deficits Lack of Engagement Problems Contributing to Lower SWD Graduation Rates Post-School Ready EI-12 transitions Transition Projects Increase Saturation Systems of Care PBIS & SEFEL Math/Reading Foundations Instructional Practices Effective Leadership Comprehensive Professional Development MTSS Team Structures Problem-Solving Implementation Improved Student Outcomes Improved SWD Graduation Rates Agency -wide Efforts ECD Specific Efforts

17. Theory of Action ECD provides tools and customized support for LEAs to address lower SWD graduation rate that promote: data-driven, effective problem-solving implementation of state-supported interventions known to be effective LEAs work with schools: to identify root cause for low SWD graduation rates in their LEA/school to determine which elements of the package of interventions they need to implement/strengthen With support from the ECD, LEAs: implement identified interventions with fidelity evaluate outcome data monitor and modify as needed Graduation rate for SWD increases, closing the gap in the overall state graduation rate IF THEN