Presentation on theme: "Theme by Richard Strauss…from 2001 A Space Odyssey, 1968: Also Sprach Zarathrustra State Systemic Improvement Plan : Challenge and Opportunity for the."— Presentation transcript:
Theme by Richard Strauss…from 2001 A Space Odyssey, 1968: Also Sprach Zarathrustra State Systemic Improvement Plan : Challenge and Opportunity for the 21Century: The New Alabama State Systemic Improvement Plan ADAPTED WITH PERMISSION FROM A PRESENTATION DEVELOPED BY THE SOUTHEAST REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTER SPRING CASE CONFERENCE FEBRUARY 2014
State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report Indicators In December 2005, Alabama submitted its first State Performance Plan (SPP) to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). In each succeeding year, we reported results and compliance data in the Annual Performance Report (APR) for each of twenty indicators as specified by OSEP.
Where We’ve Been… The emphasis from the Office of Special Education Programs has been upon procedural compliance. For the last several years, Alabama has been determined to: Meet the Requirements of the IDEA… BUT….
As Bob Dylan sang back in 1964: “The times, They Are A-Changin..’”
The current SPP period spanned the years from 2005- 2012. With the FFY 2012 APR submission in 2014, OSEP will implement a new process rooted in its Results Driven Accountability Process.
Results-Driven Accountability-- A new vision that focuses upon both compliance and results… With this new vision, comes greater expectations, greater accountability, and greater opportunity for all the students we teach.
Statutory Monitoring Focus (20 USC 616(a)(2)) Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities. In the past, the focus has been upon ensuring that States and LEAs meet IDEA program procedural requirements.
To facilitate the movement from the focus upon compliance to the focus upon Results-Driven Accountability, OSEP has set forth the blueprint for states to identify an improvement area: The new Indicator 17 or State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP).
For over 30 years, there has been a strong focus on regulatory compliance with the IDEA and Federal regulations for early intervention and special education As a result, compliance has improved, but results have not! The current environment is characterized by high levels of accountability for performance of all children and youth There are numerous initiatives that target improved results. Let’s build on these initiatives.
OSEP’s Proposed New SPP/APR: --Combines the SPP/APR --Includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) --Collects SPP/APR data through a web-based,on-line submission process (GRADS)
State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Indicator # 17 - State Systemic Improvement plan MEASUREMENT: The State’s SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement Plan, focused on improving results for students with disabilities, that includes the following components, as further defined below:
State Systemic Improvement plan Indicator # 17 - State Systemic Improvement plan Phase I (which the State must include with its 2015 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2013): a.Data Analysis; b.Identification of the Focus for Improvement; c.Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity; and d.Theory of Action.
State Systemic Improvement plan Indicator # 17 - State Systemic Improvement plan Phase II (which, in addition to the Phase 1 content outlined above, the State must include with its 2016 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2014): e.Infrastructure Development; f. Support for local educational agency Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices; and g.Evaluation Plan.
State Systemic Improvement plan Indicator # 17 - State Systemic Improvement plan Phase III (which, in addition to the Phase I and Phase II content outlined above), must include with its FFY 2015 APR submitted in 2017 the results of its ongoing evaluation of the strategies included in the SSIP, including the extent to which the State has implemented them, the extent to which the State has made progress toward and/or met the established goals, and any revisions the State has made in the SSIP in response to its evaluation.
Remember: We are building a new system. We’re building a dream also. Our dream is improved results for children and youth with disabilities. ….and we are building it in the air.
Data Analysis Broad Analysis Infrastructure Analysis Broad Analysis Focus for Improvement Theory of Action Data Analysis In-depth Analysis Related to Primary Concern Area Infrastructure Analysis In-depth Analysis Related to Primary Concern Area Phase I Components Data Analysis Broad Analysis
Use Data to Determine Progress Conduct a broad analysis of state data to determine progress or lack thereof toward the desired outcomes for children and youth with disabilities. This is accomplished by taking a BIG VIEW of our state data. This is the broad data analysis that OSEP is talking about. Data that we are already using for decision making. Not a root-cause analysis. That comes later. 18 SSIP Data Analysis Template- SERRC
Remember… In order to achieve the desired outcomes, the SSIP must be aligned with Alabama’s Plan 2020 including vision, mission, and goals. Strategic Plan VisionMissionGoals Informs SSIP
Our Vision Every Child a Graduate—Every Graduate Prepared for College/Work/Adulthood in the 21 st Century.
Begin with the End in Mind Our first step is to “vision” the desired outcomes for children and youth with disabilities. This gives us a “north star” for outcomes or desired results and allows you to plan with the “end” in mind. ‒ What’s your vision related to performance on assessment, secondary transition, and post-school outcomes? --What are other areas that should be considered? ‒ Instant poll 22.
Identify the Focus Area for Improvement The primary concern that we have identified in the previous activities becomes our focus area for improvement Within the focus area, we will need to identify improvement strategies and define the desired results The State must demonstrate how addressing this area of focus for improvement will build LEAs’ capacity to improve the identified result for students with disabilities. 23 Bac k Example: Improving Graduation Rate for Students with Disabilities
How well is the solution working? What is the Problem? Why is it happenin g? What shall we do about it? SSI P 24 We begin the process by defining the problem.
Identify Areas of High and Low Performance Use the observations from the quantitative data analysis and the stakeholder input to determine performance in key areas associated with improved outcomes for children and youth with disabilities (e.g. academic proficiency, graduation rate) What are the areas of high performance ? What are the areas of low performance ? 25
Determine the Cause of Low Performance Now is the time to determine why the poor performance is occurring. (Why are the desired outcomes not being achieved?) This will be accomplished through an: In-depth analysis of all data related to the primary area of concern. Analysis of state infrastructure to determine the impact of systemic issues on the improvement strategies. 26
How well is the solution working? What is the Problem? Why is it happening ? Why is it happening ? What shall we do about it? SSIP 27 Now that we know what the primary concern is Let’s determine why it is happening!
Conduct an In-depth Data Analysis In order to accomplish this in-depth analysis, we will need to: Disaggregate data into a variety of subgroups Examples: Students with disabilities/Students without disabilities Disability category Grade level Educational place Determine trends, gaps, outliers, etc. Obtain and analyze additional quantitative data, if needed 28
Conduct an In-depth Data Analysis Collect and analyze qualitative data related to the primary concern: Surveys Interviews Focus groups Other 29
Conduct an In-depth Infrastructure Analysis To complete the picture of why the problem is occurring, it will also be important to conduct an analysis of the state’s infrastructure to determine how systemic issues are impacting desired outcomes for children and youth with disabilities. 30
Conduct an Analysis of State Initiatives In order to determine how current initiatives are impacting the primary concern, it is necessary to conduct an analysis of the initiatives in the state. Include initiatives that are related to or have an impact on the primary concern area. Include initiatives in general education and other areas beyond special education. 31 SISEP State Initiative Inventory- SERRC
How well is the solution working? What is the Problem? Why is it happenin g? What shall we do about it? SSIP 32 Now that we know why it is happening! What shall we do about it?
Develop a Theory of Action A theory of action is at its core, a simple IF, THEN statement. It makes the connection between what you are doing and what you expect to happen. A theory of action focuses on how and why the program will produce the change, using “if-then” statements to generate a logical explanation and reveal strategies and assumptions about how resources and activities are used. If we do this Then this will happen.
Develop a Theory of Action 34 Improvement Strategy If we implement a statewide initiative that focuses on effective instructional practices Then students will improve performance on statewide reading assessment Includes changes in state system Build capacity of LEAs to implement initiative
Create a Logic Model Next we will develop a logic model that shows the relationship between the activities and the outcomes that Alabama expects to achieve over a multi-year period. A logic model visually depicts a program’s components so that planned activities align with desired outcomes. Logic models diagram identified problems, root causes and local conditions that facilitate concise and clear communication, planning and evaluation, and allow programs to critically analyze the progress they are making toward their goals. 35
EVALUATION: check and verify What do you want to know?How will you know it? Logic model in evaluation