1. Beyond Collaboration for Collaboration’s Sake
2015 Leadership Conference
“All In: Achieving Results Together”
Beyond Collaboration for Collaboration’s Sake
Working Together to Build Capacity to Progress toward SIMR Goals
Sarah Arden, National Center for Systemic Improvement
Teri Marx and Rebecca Zumeta Edmonds, National Center on Intensive Intervention
David Sienko, Rhode Island Department of Education

2. Agenda Center Introductions
National Center on Systemic Improvement (NCSI)
State Systemic Improvement Plan Development
National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII)
State and Center Collaboration
Rhode Island: Collaboration around SIMR Goals
Resources
Discussion
Teri and Emily

3. National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI)

4. The NCSI Charge
Provide states with technical assistance (TA) to build capacity around improved outcomes for children with disabilities  
Play a major role in helping states achieve a national vision of Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) for special education and early intervention programs 

5. Results-Driven Accountability: 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

6. Objectives for State and Local Agencies
Increase the capacity to develop and evaluate State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs) while meaningfully engaging stakeholders in the process
Increase knowledge, selection, and utilization of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and ensure sustainable implementation
Improve infrastructure and coordination for scaling-up effective strategies, meaningful engagement of stakeholders, resource mapping and allocation, and instructional collaboration
Increase the capacity of state education agencies and lead agencies to effectively utilize technical assistance resources funded by the Department of Education

7. 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

8. 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

9. Where are States Focusing? Part B SiMRs

10. Turn and Talk What knowledge do you have about NCSI?
What is the focus of your State’s SiMR?

11. NCSI Areas of Focus Data Use
Knowing what data to look at…accessing those data…root cause analysis to make sense of the data
Knowledge Utilization
Selecting coherent/aligned evidence-based practices…implementing them with fidelity…scaling up and sustaining them
Systems Change
Infrastructure considerations…resource mapping and alignment…policies that support the goals
Communication & Collaboration
Problem solving and planning with diverse stakeholders, in the right settings, at the right time…and working together for implementation to achieve results

12. Why is progressing toward your SiMR important?
Meeting SiMR goals will require a focus on improving instruction and intervention.
States will be in need of support on how to provide intensive intervention for the kids who need it the most, including:
Evidence-based intervention strategies
Overcoming implementation barriers
Making connections to other state, district, and school initiatives

13. NCSI State Support
One way NCSI is providing State support is through Cross State Learning Collaboratives
These collaboratives are intended to provide States with face to face opportunities to convene and problem solve around:
Continuous Improvement
Implementation of Evidence Based Practices
Infrastructure Development
Data Analysis
Other Priority areas and Phase II SSIP development

14. National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII)

15. 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.

16. What is intensive intervention?
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
Read slide to highlight distinguishing characteristics of intensive intervention.

17. Why Intensive Intervention?
Too many students, especially those with disabilities, lack basic skills for reading and math or have serious discipline problems in school

18. Who needs Intensive Intervention?
Students with disabilities who are not making adequate progress in their current instructional program
Students who present with very low academic achievement and/or high-intensity or high-frequency behavior problems (typically those with disabilities)
Students in a tiered intervention system who have not responded to secondary intervention programs delivered with fidelity
Note for second bullet:
The decision to move a student directly to an intensive intervention should be made on an individual and case-by-case basis. In most cases, data should be collected over time to help demonstrate that the student’s low achievement/behavior challenges are both significant AND persistent.

19. What is NCII’s Approach to Intensive Intervention?
Data-Based Individualization (DBI): A systematic method for using data to determine when and how to provide more intensive intervention:
Origins in data-based program modification/experimental teaching were first developed at the University of Minnesota (Deno & Mirkin, 1977).
It is a process, not a single intervention program or strategy.
It is not a one-time fix, but an ongoing process comprising intervention and assessment adjusted over time.

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

21. Turn and Talk
Prior to this presentation, had you heard about NCII or had you utilized any NCII resources?
What comes to mind when you think about “intensive intervention?”

22. NCII’s Technical Assistance
Intensive Technical Assistance in 4 States:
Michigan (7 elementary schools)
Minnesota (2 elementary schools)
Missouri (5 elementary and 1 middle school)
Rhode Island (5 elementary and 1 middle school)

23. Supporting Students through Intensive Intervention
Now that we have identified the challenges facing students with disabilities, and shown that positive outcomes are possible, we would like to introduce data-based individualization, NCII’s approach to intensive intervention.
Supporting Students through Intensive Intervention

24. NCII and SiMR Goals
Theory of Action and Plan for Improvements in SSIP Phase I and II:
SiMRs /Strategies specifying intensive intervention, multi-tiered intervention structures, and data-based decision making
These plans allowed for collaboration opportunities to occur between NCSI, NCII, and States:
NCSI: Selecting coherent/aligned evidence-based practices, implementing them with fidelity and scaling up and sustaining
NCII: Designing and delivering intensive intervention for students with the most persistent academic and/or behavioral needs

25. Delivering Intensive Intervention: High-Performing Sites
Intensive intervention is embedded within a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) such as Response to Intervention (RTI) or positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS).
Progress monitoring data collected to determine response to intervention.
Challenges remain:
Unclear distinction between secondary (Tier 2) and intensive (tertiary/Tier 3) interventions
Intensity of intervention defined more often in “quantitative” ways than in “qualitative” ways
Use of progress monitoring data more clearly defined and well established in reading than in mathematics or behavior
Data-based individualization helps to address these challenges.

26. Key Lessons: Intensive Intervention
Staff commitment
Student plans
Student meetings
Valid, reliable data
Inclusion of students with disabilities

27. Staff Commitment Key Element Flexibility Within Implementation
Commitment of:
Principal
Intervention staff
Special educators
Specific intervention staff involved including staff who work with students with intensive needs in the area(s) of concern. (e.g., reading specialists, social workers) 
Review required/ necessary versus negotiable elements on handout.

28. Student Plans Flexibility Within Implementation Key Element
Student plans are developed and reflect:
Accurate and timely student data
Goal(s) for the intervention based on valid, reliable assessment tools
Timeline for executing and revisiting the intervention plan
Content area(s)
Number of student plans
Grade level(s)
Review required/ necessary versus negotiable elements on handout.

29. Student Meetings Key Element Flexibility Within Implementation
Student meetings are data driven.
There is a regularly scheduled time to meet.
Meetings are structured to maximize efficiency and focused problem solving
Frequency
Schedule
Team members  
Review required/ necessary versus negotiable elements on handout.

30. Progress Monitoring Key Element Flexibility Within Implementation
Valid, reliable progress monitoring tools are used.
Data are graphed.
Data are collected at regular intervals.
Choice of tool
Use of progress-monitoring data at other tiers
Review required/ necessary versus negotiable elements on handout.

31. Students With Disabilities
Key Element
Flexibility Within Implementation
Students with disabilities must have access to intensive intervention.
Who delivers intervention for students with disabilities
Inclusion of students with and without IEPs
Review required/ necessary versus negotiable elements on handout.

32. NCII and NCSI Collaboration
Led by WestEd
Partners:
AIR
NASDSE
SRI
CCSO
Parent Center Network
Meadows Center for Prevention Educational Risk (evaluator)
Learn more at: NCSI Website

33. Turn and Talk
Was there anything surprising about the “Key Lessons” shared?
If not, why do you think schools and districts continue to struggle with MTSS implementation?

34. State Collaboration: Rhode Island

35. NCII and RI
The Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) applied for intensive TA supports.
“In-Kind” contributions from RIDE include coaches from the State Department, the Northern Rhode Island Collaborative (NRIC), the RI Technical Assistance Project (RITAP), and SPDG - MTSS
Two districts receiving intensive TA from NCII.
Currently working closely with two districts who have continued to refine their implementation of DBI across school sites. One district has expanded to 3 additional schools since receiving support from NCII.
Currently moving into Year 5 of the NCII grant-funding cycle, so the focus is building State and District capacity.
2 BW, 3-4 Coventry

36. NCII Scale-Up: Stakeholder Involvement
Focus group with practitioners in the State who are implementing intensive interventions to prepare for scaling-up.
Rhode Island Parent Information Network (RIPIN) hosted the focus group, and the Director of the RIPIN participated.
Interviews with special education leaders and their representatives in urban districts.

37. Focus Group Questions
What’s the most effective method to share new knowledge in your school/district/area? (e.g., regional trainings, summer summit, on-line materials/on-line COP, embedded TA, “train-the-trainer”)
Are there specific types of training/process that are better for certain topics?
What kind of (progress monitoring) data do you have that drives intensive instruction for students with disabilities (academic and behavior)?
Who are individuals with the knowledge about interventions and data-based decision making?
Teri and Emily

38. Focus Group Questions (Cont.)
How do they demonstrate that knowledge?
How do schools/interdisciplinary teams support students with disabilities and intensive needs when there are barriers at Tier 1 and Tier 2?
How are data being used to intensify supports for students?
How do you access that data?
What are your tools/personnel/resources to intensify the instruction?
Teri and Emily

39. Summarized Focus Group Results
Urban interviews – in one, Tier 3 is mostly special ed, robust in reading, little/no behavior; in the other, Tier 2 is all program driven and little individualized Tier 3 happens, math, reading, behavior especially at elementary and middle; both very strong on needing in district coaching assistance to move DBI forward
See handout.

40. Rhode Island’s Phase I of SSIP
Data Analysis – identified the SiMR
Infrastructural Analysis – identified intensive intervention as one improvement strategy
Stakeholder Involvement – gained insight from a broad constituency

41. SSIP Stakeholder Involvement
The SSIP Core Team sought feedback from multiple groups in RI bringing data and infrastructure to each session and returning with new areas to examine in the data based on group feedback:
IDEA Staff
OSCAS Staff (Title I, Title III, IDEA, 21st Century, Safe & Healthy Schools)
MTSS Implementation Team
RI Systems of Supports Team (includes additional RIDE offices such as Transformation, Multiple Pathways, Instruction/Assessment)
RISEAC
Special Education Directors
Curriculum Directors
General comment opportunity online

42. RIDE Presentation Including Data Analysis
Rhode Island SiMR
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.
RIDE Presentation Including Data Analysis

43. How did NCII assist RI in SSIP Phase I?
Extensive data analysis showed a number of students with disabilities making little to no academic progress despite access to general education usually 80% or more of the day.
Observed clear evidence of this in the NCII schools.
In the initial meetings State Planning Team (RRC/NCSI), the interventions provided through NCII emerged as a major infrastructure tool for addressing the SiMR

44. In addition to NCII… SPDG – MTSS CCSS Rollout
Created alignment of PBIS and RTI – unified system
Aligned MTSS with NCII tools and training – DBI
CCSS Rollout
Assistive Technology – Feature Matching
Blended learning
State assessment
Development of State Data System
Instructional Support System (RTTT)

45. Moving into Phase II
Utilize the results from the initial focus group and interviews to support with identifying specific ways to build capacity.
Sustainable practices to ensure intensive intervention doesn’t lose traction.
Evaluation Planning
Tools and Resources from NCSI and NCII

46. Rhode Island Approach to SSIP Implementation
Improved Student Results
State & District Data Analysis
Targeted Investments
Targeted Interventions
Changes in Adult Behavior & School Practices

47. Planning for Implementation
Sustainable practices in NCII pilot districts
LEA Changes in Adult Behavior and Practices
LEA-initiated professional development
Changes in LEA culture and practices
Rethinking Internal Capacity
Scripts for teams to follow in the event of leadership/staff turnover occurs
Building relationships with higher education to support teacher/leader training

48. Planning for Implementation
Leveraging NCII to Support with RDA/SSIP Implementation
In Phase II, next year, RIDE will be refining improvement strategies on which the State will focus, that will lead to a measurable child-based result in Indicator 17.
Infrastructure analysis helped identify key areas of work that connect to improving outcomes for students with disabilities on state assessments.
Coordination with the NCSI and the IDEA Data Center (IDC)
Initial cross-Center call with RIDE’s Special Education Director
Phase II supports from NCSI and IDC including access to evaluation tools
SPDG Multi-Tiered System of Supports
Engaging more schools especially urban districts
Teri and Emily

49. Continued Support RIDE to work closely with the “In Kind” Partners
Capitalize on work with State-level MTSS implementation
Coaches have already begun incorporating DBI
Several SPDG trainers for MTSS work are cross-trained in DBI
Continued collaboration with RIPIN
Co-development of parent/family resources
Moving forward with Limited Funds
Use NCII as much as possible in Year 5
RIDE - perhaps releasing an RFP related to coaching in DBI when funds become available

50. Initial Thinking on Next Steps related to SSIP & NCII (draft)
Community of Practice with NCII Districts and a special education cohort that has been working with RIDE personnel on common core and intensive intervention
Create a tutorial on DBI requirements for Special Education and Curriculum Directors
Create a set of interactive online modules to supplement coaching and technical assistance efforts
Reach out to the urban districts to have current NCII district personnel share implementation strategies
Statewide Conference to generate interest in DBI

51. Questions for RI?

52. NCII Resources

54. NCII Website Link to Webinars
Center Webinars
Hour long webinars
Variety of subjects
Have students participate live or watch archived webinar
Use content from slides
Have students develop questions and submit
Have students suggest future webinar topics
Archived Webinars
An Introduction to Intensive Intervention
Intensifying Interventions for Struggling Students through Data Based Individualization in Academics
Providing Intensive Intervention using Data-based Individualization in Behavior
Support Systems for Intensive Behaviors: Conducting a School-wide Needs Assessment
Using Academic Progress Monitoring for Individualized Instructional Planning
Monitoring Student Progress for Behavioral Interventions
Selecting Evidence-Based Tools for Implementing Intensive Intervention
Using Secondary Interventions to Set the Foundation for Effective Intensive Intervention
Brining Families to the Table: Family Engagement for Struggling Students
NCII Website Link to Webinars

55. NCII Website Link to Ask the Expert Videos
Short video clips (2-8 minutes)
Presented by experts in the field
Embed in coursework
Have students develop questions and submit
NCII Website Link to Ask the Expert Videos

56. DBI Framework Document
This document lays out the Center’s approach to DBI
Includes description of each step in the DBI process
Provides Case Study Examples
Academic
Behavior
NCII Website Link to the DBI Framework Document

57. Lessons Learned From the Field
Exploratory study
5 districts selected for high performance
Describes findings and lessons learned
Planning
Implementation
Sustaining
NCII Website Link to Lessons Learned from the Field Document

58. NCII Website Link to DBI Training Series
Series includes 9 modules.
Each module contains slides with speaker notes
Include parts of training module in courses
Review agenda to see what pieces might work in your classes
Use handouts and coaching guides
NCII Website Link to DBI Training Series

59. Tools Charts Academic Progress Monitoring Academic Interventions
Behavior Progress Monitoring
Behavior Interventions (Coming Soon)
Selecting evidence-based programs
Understanding technical rigor
Analyzing data

60. Connect to NCII
Sign up on our website to receive our newsletter and announcements
Follow us on YouTube and Twitter
YouTube Channel: National Center on Intensive Intervention
Twitter

61. NCSI Resources

62. NCSI Website

63. Upcoming Activities: News & Events
Targeted TA
Cross State Learning Collaboratives
Thought Leader Forums
Measuring and reporting growth for students with disabilities
Defining levels of evidence regarding ‘Evidence-Based Practices’

64. Cross State Learning Collaboratives
Opportunity for States to meet virtually and face to face to as part of sustained, targeted TA
Available to every state to support the ongoing development and implementation of the SSIP and other priority areas

65. Learning Collaboratives: Focus Area Q & A
Opportunity for States to help shape priorities of the collaborative in focus areas (i.e., mathematics, literacy, graduation)
Provides important roll out dates, details about financial support, and participant roles

66. Additional Activities
Tools to support SSIP Phase II efforts
Analysis of States’ Phase I SSIP submissions
Support for resubmission of SSIPs that need refinement
Tool to aid in development & submission of State Equity Plans, relative to recruitment and retention of special educators
Exemplars for school turnaround that intentionally addresses special education systems at the school level

67. Contact & More Information
Download the NCSI flyer for more information on the center and resources
Ask the NSCI:
Sign up to receive monthly newsletter
Follow NCSI on

68. Discussion
How might the processes/structures/theories introduced in this session add value to your State’s implementation of Indicator 17?
How might your State incorporate NCSI and NCII resources to support achievement of your SiMR?
What additional resources do you wish were available?

69. 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 polices 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.