State Scaling-up Workgroup March 6, 2012

SWG Agenda 9:00 Welcome & Introductions   9:15 Review Agenda/TIPS Meeting Form 9:20 Purpose of the Scaling-Up Workgroup & Your Role 9:30 Meeting Foundations 9:45 Overview of Implementation Science 10:30 RtI, PBIS, and MTSS 10:40 Sub-Workgroups 11:20 Next Steps

State Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence-based Practices Center Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Rob Horner and George Sugai University of Oregon; University of Connecticut Barbara Sims and Michelle Duda © 2012 Karen A. Blase and Dean L. Fixsen

NC Scaling-up Workgroup Making It Happen: Using Active Implementation Frameworks to Improve Outcomes for Students NC Scaling-up Workgroup March 6, 2012 Amy Scrinzi, Dan Tetreault NC DPI Barbara Sims University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill © 2012 Karen A. Blase and Dean L. Fixsen

Implementation Gap GAP RESEARCH IMPLEMENTATION PRACTICE GAP Implementation is defined as a specified set of activities designed to put into practice an activity or program of known dimensions.

Why Focus on Implementation? Implementation Gap Why Focus on Implementation? RESEARCH IMPLEMENTATION PRACTICE GAP “Students cannot benefit from interventions they do not experience.”

Implementation Science “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is.” variously attributed to Jan La Van De Snepscheut or Albert Einstein or Yogi Berra

Formula for Success 0.97 X X = Effective outcomes 0.03 Effective intervention X Effective implementation = Effective outcomes 0.97 0.03 X SISEP 2012 10

Who’s Accountable for Learning? Student Practitioner System

Making It Happen Letting it happen Helping it happen Making it happen Recipients are accountable Helping it happen Making it happen Purposeful use of implementation practices and science Implementation system is accountable Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629. Based on Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004 12

“Making It Happen” To successfully implement and sustain evidence-based and evidence-informed interventions, we need to know: The WHAT - What is the intervention (e.g. effective instruction, effective assessment) The HOW - Effective implementation and sustainability frameworks (e.g. strategies to change and maintain behavior of adults) AND The WHO – Organized, expert implementation assistance

Active Implementation Frameworks Successful implementation on a useful scale requires. . . Active use of implementation core components “best practices”– “IMPLEMENTATION DRIVERS” Purposeful matching of critical implementation activities to the stage of the process – “STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION” Organized, expert assistance – “IMPLEMENTATION TEAMS” A focus on continuous, purposeful improvement – “IMPROVEMENT PROCESSES” (c) Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase, 2008 14

Improved outcomes for Students Performance Assessment (fidelity measurement) Coaching Systems Intervention Facilitative Administration Training Competency Drivers Organization Drivers Integrated & Compensatory Decision Support Data System Selection Leadership © Fixsen & Blase, 2008 15

Implementation Stages 2 - 4 Years Exploration Assess needs Examine innovations Examine Implementation Assess fit Installation Acquire resources Prepare organization Prepare implementation Prepare staff Initial Implementation Implementation drivers Manage change Data systems Improvement cycles Full Implementation Implementation drivers Implementation outcomes Innovation outcomes Standard practice (c) Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase, 2004

Implementation Teams Provide accountable structure to move intervention through stages of implementation Scope of the initiative determines the development of linked Implementation Teams and communication protocols Focus is on Ongoing “buy-in” and readiness Installing and sustaining the Implementation Drivers Fidelity & Outcomes Systems Alignment and Stage-based work Problem-solving and sustainability (c) Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase, 2004

Implementation Science Impl. Team NO Impl. Team 80%, 3 Yrs 14%, 17 Yrs Effective INTERVENTION Balas & Boren, 2000 Making it Happen Letting it Happen Helping it Happen Fixsen, Blase, Timbers, & Wolf, 2001 Balas & Boren, 2000

Linked Team Structures School-based Implementation Team District-based Regionally-based State-based “We tend to focus on snapshots of isolated parts of the system and wonder why our deepest problems never seem to get solved. (Senge, 1990)

Improvement Cycles PDSA Cycles Usability Testing Transformation Zones Practice-Policy Feedback Loops (c) Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase, 2004

Policy Practice Feedback Loops Expert Implementation Support Policy (Plan) Policy Practice Policy Enabled Practices (PEP) Practice Informed Policy (PIP) Structure Feedback Study - Act Procedure Practice (Do) FORM SUPPORTS FUNCTION (c) Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase, 2008 21

State Capacity Assessment Assess features and functions critical to statewide scaling Each item is important A guide for action planning A marker of baseline and progress An outcome of SISEP effectiveness SISEP 2012

Time frame of Assessment Period 1: September 2008 thru February 2009 Period 2: March 2009 thru August 2009 Period 3: September 2009 thru February 2010 Period 4: March 2010 thru August 2010 Period 5: September 2010 thru February 2011 Period 6: March 2011 thru August 2011 Period 7: September 2011 thru February 2012 in progress SISEP 2012

SMT Investment SMT Alignment RIT Functioning DLIT Functioning SISEP 2012

SMT Investment: Commitment Critical Elements A State Management Team (SMT) includes the Chief State School Officer (CSSO) and State department of education decision makers for general and special education and management A SMT is a group that can make significant decisions about guidance for the entire department and about resources (time, structures, funds) without leaving the room to consult a higher authority SMT meetings attended regularly by State implementation coordinators (e.g. State Transformation Specialists [STSs]) The STSs are included in discussions about implementation capacity building during SMT meetings as well as between meetings SMT monthly agenda includes sufficient time (typically one hour) to focus on implementation content (e.g. implementation functions; organization and system change methods) The STSs and others use the time to provide information about implementation, progress toward building implementation capacity, problems for the SMT to help resolve, and facilitators of implementation for the SMT to consider Total Score (Maximum Score = 6) SISEP 2012

SMT Investment SMT Alignment RIT Functioning DLIT Functioning SISEP 2012

For More Information Barbara Sims Dean L. Fixsen, Ph.D. 919-843-8751 barbara.sims@unc.edu Dean L. Fixsen, Ph.D. 919-966-3892 dean.fixsen@unc.edu Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/ www.scalingup.org www.implementationconference.org SISEP 2012 27

Implementation Science Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). Download all or part of the monograph at: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/resources/detail.cfm?resourceID=31   SISEP 2012 28

Responsiveness to Instruction (RtI) Consortium Research to Practice  Funded by Oak Foundation  Sept 2010 - August 2013  Grant funded in Sept of 2010 but we had begun meeting April/May of 2010

Purpose of Consortium  Collaboration among regional LEAs on successful district wide implementation of RtI Goals: Identify essential elements of the RtI model and effective practices; Identify mechanisms and structures to ensure fidelity to the RtI model and practices; Identify systems and structures to support sustainability from the district level to the individual classroom level; and Identify an evaluation process for RtI implementation 

Participating LEAs Original members include: Alamance-Burlington School System,  Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools,  Chatham County Schools,  Durham Public Schools,  Guilford County Schools,  Orange County Schools, and  Wake County Public School System Additional Members include: Cabarrus County Schools Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Johnston County Schools Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools  Positions representing these districts include: RtI Coordinators Directors of Elementary Ed Directors of Secondary Ed Directors of Literacy Student Support Team Coordinators PBIS Coordinators School Psychologists EC Literacy Directors  EC teachers Principals Recently - DPI regional consultants have joined us

Objectives and Outcomes Identification of the essential components/characteristics at each tier for effective RtI implementation. Identification of the “flexible” elements within each tier of the RtI process that can be loosely defined by each school implementing RtI. Activities: Guided literature discussions Attendance at RtI Summit 2011 Attendance at RtI Innovations 2011 Attendance at Professional Learning Communities & RtI     We meet monthly to accomplish our objectives. Different activities have included: review of the literature and selection of readings, attendance at various professional development activities. Through these activities, the group has engaged in rich discussions and through a process came to consensus on the essential components/characteristics of each tier 

Sub-Workgroups Communication Data, Evaluation, & Assessment Training, Coaching, & Technical Assistance

Next Steps Next Meeting: April 18, 9-12 Read chapters 1 and 2 Come to the next meeting with one “ah-ha” and one question. Meeting roles and norms Future meeting dates: May 29, 9:30-3:30 June 29, 9:30-3:30