1. Overview of Idaho’s State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Division of Special Education Dr. Charlie Silva State Director of Special Education 1

2. Presentation Goals 2 Provide a basic understanding of Phase I  SSIP Phase I components  State-identified Measurable Result  Next Steps

3. What is the SSIP? 3 A comprehensive, ambitious, yet achievable multiyear plan to improve outcomes for students with disabilities.

4. Why SSIP? Why Now?

5. Compliance Focus 5

6. Planning and Doing Identify coherent improvement strategies Develop action steps Develop Theory of Action Develop Plan for improvement Planning and Doing Identify coherent improvement strategies Develop action steps Develop Theory of Action Develop Plan for improvement Analysis and Focus Identify starting point Broad Data Analysis Broad Infrastructure Analysis Identify primary concern (potential SiMR) Analysis and Focus Identify starting point Broad Data Analysis Broad Infrastructure Analysis Identify primary concern (potential SiMR) Evaluation Evaluation of progress Adjust plan as needed Evaluation Evaluation of progress Adjust plan as needed How well is the solution working? What is the problem? What shall we do about it? 6 SSIP Phase I SSIP Phase I and II SSIP Phase III SSIP Phase I Investigate Conduct root cause analysis to identify contributing factors For each contributing factor, identify both barriers and leverage points for improvement Narrow and refine the SiMR Investigate Conduct root cause analysis to identify contributing factors For each contributing factor, identify both barriers and leverage points for improvement Narrow and refine the SiMR Why is it happening? SSIP

7. SSIP Phase I Components 7 Component 1: Data Analysis Component 2: Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement & Build Capacity Component 3: State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR) Component 4: Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies Component 5: Theory of Action

8. Component 1 - Data Analysis 8 Narrowing down the field IndicatorRecommendationRationale Indicator 1: Graduation Rates Potential Option Indicator 2: Dropout Rates Not a viable option Indicator cannot stand alone, per OSEP guidance Indicator 3: Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments Potential Option Indicator 5: Participation/Time in General Education Settings (LRE) Not a viable option Indicator may be used as a strategy, per OSEP guidance, but was not identified as a focal point. Indicator 6: Preschool Children in General Education Settings (Pre- School LRE) Not a viable option Indicator may be used as a strategy, per OSEP, but was not identified as a focal point. Indicator 7: Preschool Children with Improved Outcomes Potential optionNo state-funded preschool in Idaho

9. Component 1 - Data Analysis 9 Broad Stakeholder Groups o General Education Groups (Title I, School Improvement, etc.) o Parent and Advocacy Groups o Idaho Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) o Director Advisory Council (DAC)

10. Component 1 - Data Analysis Indicator 3 – Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessment “Which area do students with disabilities need to be most proficient in to be successful?” 10

11. Component 1 - Data Analysis Indicator 3 – Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessment NAEP 2012-2014 -- Grade 4 Reading All StudentsStudents with Disabilities Advanced: 7% 39% Advanced: 1% 7% Proficient: 26%Proficient: 6% Basic: 35% 60% Basic: 12% 93% Below Basic: 32%Below Basic: 81% NAEP 2012-2014 -- Grade 4 Math All StudentsStudents with Disabilities Advanced: 6% 39% Advanced: 3% 14% Proficient: 33%Proficient: 11% Basic: 43% 60% Basic: 33% 86% Below Basic: 17%Below Basic: 53% 11

12. Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 12 Address State system components including  Governance  Fiscal  Quality standards  Professional development  Data  Technical assistance, and  Accountability Broad Infrastructure Analysis GovernanceFiscal Quality Standards Professional Development Data Technical Assistance Monitoring and Accountability

13. Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 13 Governance o Governor o State Board of Education o Superintendent of Public Instruction o Local Education Agencies (LEA)s o Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) o Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Plan Fiscal o State Board of Education o Idaho Building Capacity (IBC) Project o Common Core Coaches o Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI)

14. Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 14 Quality Standards o Professional Standards Commission (PSC) o Idaho Common Core State Standards o Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) o Directors Advisory Committee (DAC) Professional Development o Common Core Coaches o Idaho Training Clearinghouse (ITC) Learning Community o SDE Special Education Division Trainings o SDE Webinar System for Professional Development Trainings

15. Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 15 Data o Idaho System for Education Excellence (ISEE) o Assessment Division Collection of Statewide testing data o Early Childhood Outcome (ECO)s o Special Education Division Data Reporting Coordinator Technical Assistance o Special Education Division’s Assistance o Idaho Training Clearinghouse (ITC) Learning Community o ESEA’s Assistance o SSOS Division School Improvement o Webinar System for TA to LEAs

16. Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 16 Accountability & Monitoring o ESEA Accountability System o Idaho Building Capacity Project o Idaho Reading Initiative: B-12 Literacy Plan o SEAP (Special Education Advisory Panel) o DAC (Directors Advisory Committee) o Special Education Division’s General Supervision and Monitoring o ESEA Division o SSOS Division School Improvement

17. SDE Internal Infrastructure Analysis GOVERNANCEFISCAL QUALITY STAND PROF. DEV. DATA TECH. ASSIST. ACCT. & MON. ISDE Division S/OW/TS/OW/TS/OW/TS/OW/TS/OW/TS/OW/TS/OW/T Assessment X X X X X X X X X X Certification X X X X X X X Content X X X X X X X X X X X ESEA X X X X X X X X X X X SSOS X X X X X X X X X XX X X X SE&PsR X X X X X X SPED X X X XX X X X X X X X X X S/O – Strengths and OpportunitiesW/T – Weaknesses and Threats

18. Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 18 Strengths o Comprehensive Literacy Plan Webinar system o Collaborative and Comprehensive Professional Development system o Functioning Accuracy Survey system o SDE Organizational

19. Component 2 – Infrastructure Analysis 19 Improvement Opportunities o Resources o Scheduling o Collaboration

20. Component 3 - SiMR 20 State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR) “An identified area, which when implemented or resolved, has the potential to generate the highest leverage for improving outcomes/results for children with disabilities.”

21. Idaho’s SiMR 21 Increase the percent of fourth grade students with disabilities in Idaho who will be proficient in literacy as measured on the state summative assessment, currently ISAT by Smarter Balance.

22. Component 4 Coherent Improvement Strategies 22 Root Causes o Ineffective PD, TA, and Coaching o Lack of Collaboration o Inconsistent Assessment o Lack of Involvement with Families and Community

23. Component 4 Coherent Improvement Strategies 23 Leverage points o Idaho Training Clearinghouse o Common Core State Standards ELA/Literacy o Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Plan o ESEA/SSOS/MTSS Collaborative Monitoring o State and Federal Assessments o Idaho Parents Unlimited (IPUL) o Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) o 21 st Century Classrooms Learning Centers o Parent Interviews and Surveys o Idaho Commission on Libraries

24. Component 4 Coherent Improvement Strategies 24 Strands of Action o Professional Development, Technical Assistance, & Coaching o Collaboration o Assessment Practices o Family & Community Involvement

25. Theory of Action Theory of Action Professional Development, Technical Assistance, Coaching If the SDE develops a statewide structure that supports the implementation of evidence-based literacy practices o Then the SDE will provide collaborative professional learning opportunities, technical assistance, and coaching to LEAs and schools regarding literacy o Then LEA and school educational staff will have standardized literacy resources and ongoing supports necessary to consistently and effectively implement and maintain evidence-based practices in literacy o Then evidence-based literacy practices will be implemented with fidelity and sustained over time to achieve an increase in literacy outcomes o Then there will be an Increase the percent of fourth-grade students with disabilities in Idaho who will be proficient in literacy as measured on the state summative assessment, currently ISAT by Smarter Balance. 25

26. Theory of Action Theory of Action Collaboration If the SDE builds collaboration across ISDE divisions and community agencies to offer professional learning opportunities on literacy for LEAs and schools o Then the SDE will leverage current department and community initiatives to streamline messages around effective literacy instruction o Then the SDE and community agencies will broaden and deepen their own understanding of each other’s literacy initiatives o Then SDE and community initiatives will be supported and implemented to best serve students o Then LEAs and schools will build collaboration vertically and horizontally, including all stakeholders, building their capacity to implement evidence- based literacy practices o Then there will be an Increase the percent of fourth-grade students with disabilities in Idaho who will be proficient in literacy as measured on the state summative assessment, currently ISAT by Smarter Balance. 26

27. Theory of Action Theory of Action Assessment Practices If the SDE develops a statewide balanced assessment system for formative, diagnostic, interim, and summative assessments o Then LEA and school educational staff will develop an understanding of the uses and purposes for formative, diagnostic, interim, and summative assessments o Then LEA and school educational staff will use appropriate data to make decisions regarding, programming, curriculum, and instruction o Then LEA and school educational staff will use accurate data to make daily instructional choices for students o Then there will be an Increase the percent of fourth-grade students with disabilities in Idaho who will be proficient in literacy as measured on the state summative assessment, currently ISAT by Smarter Balance. 27

28. Theory of Action Theory of Action Family & Community Involvement If the SDE facilitates LEAs’ capacity to engage families and their local community in early literacy practices o Then meaningful conversations will occur and the capacity of families and in their child’s literacy development will increase o Then the ISDE will increase support and resource availability for families and communities in regards to literacy o Then families and community stakeholders will understand the literacy standards and their role in developing literacy skills in their children o Then there will be an Increase the percent of fourth-grade students with disabilities in Idaho who will be proficient in literacy as measured on the state summative assessment, currently ISAT by Smarter Balance. 28

29. Why is it happening ? How well is the solution working? What is the problem? What shall we do about it? SSIP Next Steps - Phase II - Improvement Plan 29 Develop plan focusing on o Infrastructure development o Support for implementing evidence-based practices o Evaluation of implementation

30. Next Steps Phase III - Evaluation 30 Evaluate and Revise o Assess and report progress in implementing the SSIP o Justify, using data from the evaluation, the continued implementation of the SSIP without modifications o Provide a rationale for any revisions made How well is the solution working? What is the problem? Why is it happening ? What shall we do about it? SSIP

31. Questions and Discussion 31