Scaling Up Improved Education Dean L. Fixsen, Ph.D. & Karen A. Blase, Ph.D. University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Rob Horner, Ph.D. University of Oregon George Sugai, Ph.D. University of Connecticut OR Special Education Directors Meeting 2010

SISEP Center State Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence-based Practices (SISEP) Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase National Implementation Research Network, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Rob Horner University of Oregon George Sugai University of Connecticut

In 2008  State of Oregon participated in a process to select States to create an infrastructure for implementation of innovations statewide.  1 of 36 interested States  1 of 16 applicant States  1 of 6 chosen States that met the selection criteria and site visit criteria (IL,MI, MN, MO, OR, VA) SISEP Center

The SISEP Center – Intensive and focused activity to build state capacity to use implementation science and best practices across programs and innovations Help align system structures, roles, and functions with desired education outcomes for students Large scale, real time change Capacity Building

OR Public Schools  Students: 565,000  Schools: 1,800  School Districts: 196  Counties: 36  Budget: $4 Billion Education Today

 Shrinking Resources  3-4 Years decline  5-6 Years recovery  Increasing Demands  Move AYP indicators  Literacy and behavior  Graduation rates

How to spend a dollar:  Are students coming to school better prepared?  Are teachers coming to school better prepared?  Are changes in society providing helpful supports to schools, teachers, students?  Are we learning from our experiences?  Are we improving year to year? Have Less, Do Better?

How to spend a dollar:  What are the break-through points?  What small change will have a huge impact  What are the leverage points?  Where and how to start making changes efficiently  What are the tipping points?  How much is needed before “the new” becomes “the standard” Have Less, Do Better?

How to spend a dollar:  Policies to Enable New Practices  $1 input = $ $0.15 output  Accountability & Regulation  $1 input = $ $0.15 output  Re-Organization, Re-Assignment  $1 input = $ $0.15 output  Professional Development  $1 input = $ $0.15 output Have Less, Do Better?

How to spend a dollar:  Staff Competency Development without Organization Change  $1 input = $ $0.20 output  Staff Competency Development with Organization Change  $1 input = $3.00 output  Staff Competency Development with Organization Change and Leadership  $1 input = $ $12.00 output Have Less, Do Better?

Failure to Improve  Insufficient preparation of organizations and leaders for adoption of innovations  We will try to find time for …  Continuing ineffective approaches because of the costs already “sunk”  We already have invested so much in …  A general perception that no innovation will work because each community has its own unique needs  It can’t work here because … Pentz (2000)

Good Intentions Actual Supports Years 1-3 Outcomes Every Teacher Trained Fewer than 50% of the teachers received some training Fewer than 10% of the schools used the CSR as intended Every Teacher Continually Supported Fewer than 25% of those teachers received support Vast majority of students did not benefit Aladjem & Borman, 2006; Vernez, Karam, Mariano, & DeMartini, 2006 Longitudinal Studies of a Variety of Comprehensive School Reforms Failure to Improve

How to spend a dollar:  What are the break-through points?  What small change will have a huge impact  What are the leverage points?  Where and how to start making changes efficiently  What are the tipping points?  How much is needed before “the new” becomes “the standard” Have Less, Do Better?

 Students cannot benefit from interventions they do not experience  Teachers and staff have to change if students are to benefit Dobson & Cook (1980) Breakthrough

EffectiveNOT Effective Effective NOT Effective IMPLEMENTATION INTERVENTION Student Benefits Highly variable, often ineffective, sometimes harmful to students, families, and adults (Institute of Medicine, 2000; 2001; New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003; National Commission on Excellence in Education,1983; Department of Health and Human Services, 1999) Poor Outcomes Implementation Science

Implementation 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: Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature

Data Show These Methods, When Used Alone, Do Not Result In Uses of Innovations As Intended:  Diffusion/ Dissemination of information  Training  Passing laws/ mandates/ regulations  Providing funding/ incentives  Organization change/ reorganization Implementation Science

© Fixsen & Blase, 2007 Integrated & Compensatory Performance Assessment (Fidelity) Coaching Training Selection Staff Competence Systems Intervention Facilitative Administration Decision Support Data System Organization Supports Technical Leadership Adaptive Reliable Benefits for Students Consistent uses of Innovations

OUTCOMES (% of Participants who Demonstrate Knowledge, Demonstrate new Skills in a Training Setting, and Use new Skills in the Classroom) TRAINING COMPONENTS Knowledge Skill Demonstration Use in the Classroom Theory and Discussion 10% 5%0%..+Demonstration in Training 30% 20% 0% …+ Practice & Feedback in Training 60% 5% …+ Coaching in Classroom 95% Joyce and Showers, 2002 Staff Coaching

Student Benefits Technical Integrated & Compensatory Performance Assessment (Fidelity) Coaching Training Selection Systems Intervention Facilitative Administration Decision Support Data System InnovationOrganization Leadership Adaptive Exploration (Sustainability) Installation (Sustainability) Initial Implementation Full Implementation (Effectiveness & Sustainability) Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, – 4 Years Implementation Takes Time

How to spend a dollar:  What are the break-through points?  What small change will have a huge impact  What are the leverage points?  Where and how to start making changes efficiently  What are the tipping points?  How much is needed before “the new” becomes “the standard” Have Less, Do Better?

 Students cannot benefit from education practices they do not experience  Support implementation practices within schools and districts Leverage

Implementation Team Minimum of three people (four or five preferred) to promote effective, efficient, and sustainable implementation, organization change, and system transformation work Tolerate turnover; teams are sustainable even when the players come and go

Implementation Team A group that knows the innovations very well (formal and craft knowledge) A group that knows implementation very well (formal and craft knowledge) A group that knows improvement cycles to make intervention and implementation methods more effective and efficient over time

Implementation Team School & District Supports Management (leadership, policy) Administration (HR, structure) Supervision (nature, content) Teacher & Staff Competence State and Community Supports Regional Authority Supports Implementation Team Simultaneous, Multi-Level Interventions

Implementation Team Prepare Communities Prepare schools and staff Work with Researchers Assure Implementation Prepare Regions Assure Student Benefits Create Readiness Parents and Stakeholders © Fixsen & Blase, 2009

Impl. TeamNO Impl. Team Effective Effective use of Implementation Science & Practice IMPLEMENTATION INTERVENTION 80%, 3 Yrs 14%, 17 Yrs Balas & Boren, 2000 Fixsen, Blase, Timbers, & Wolf, 2001 Implementation Science Letting it Happen Helping it Happen

Costs and Savings Short-Term Investment in Imple. Capacity Realize Long- Term Benefits

 This year’s success pays for next years increase in capacity Barber & Fullan (2005) Costs and Savings

Efficiency and Effectiveness  Example of a “Drivers Analysis”  Gaps, overlaps, and planning for improved effectiveness  Work done by an Implementation Team  Quickly identify how to use current resources more efficiently  Work plan to align functions, roles, & structures with desired outcomes

© Fixsen & Blase, 2008 Performance Assessment Coaching Training Selection Systems Intervention Facilitative Administration Decision Support Data System Adaptive Technical Integrated & Compensatory Competency Drivers Organization Drivers Leadership Locus of Responsibility Innovation State Gov’t. Dept. Local Partnership Direct Service Provider Contracted TA Group National Purveyor

© Fixsen & Blase, 2008 Performance Assessment Coaching Training Selection Systems Intervention Facilitative Administration Decision Support Data System Adaptive Technical Integrated & Compensatory Competency Drivers Organization Drivers Leadership Locus of Responsibility State Gov’t. Dept. Local Partnership Direct Service Provider Contracted TA Group National Purveyor Innovation

© Fixsen & Blase, 2008 Performance Assessment Coaching Training Selection Systems Intervention Facilitative Administration Decision Support Data System Adaptive Technical Integrated & Compensatory Competency Drivers Organization Drivers Leadership Locus of Responsibility State Gov’t. Dept. Local Partnership Direct Service Provider Contracted TA Group National Purveyor Innovation

© Fixsen & Blase, 2008 Performance Assessment Coaching Training Selection Systems Intervention Facilitative Administration Decision Support Data System Adaptive Technical Integrated & Compensatory Competency Drivers Organization Drivers Leadership Locus of Responsibility State Gov’t. Dept. Local Partnership Direct Service Provider Contracted TA Group National Purveyor Innovation

© Fixsen & Blase, 2008 Performance Assessment Coaching Training Selection Systems Intervention Facilitative Administration Decision Support Data System Adaptive Technical Integrated & Compensatory Competency Drivers Organization Drivers Leadership Locus of Responsibility State Gov’t. Dept. Local Partnership Direct Service Provider Contracted TA Group National Purveyor Innovation

How to spend a dollar:  What are the break-through points?  What small change will have a huge impact  What are the leverage points?  Where and how to start making changes efficiently  What are the tipping points?  How much is needed before “the new” becomes “the standard” Have Less, Do Better?

Capacity Building  Scaling up = at least 60% of the students who could benefit from an innovation have access to that innovation  Achieve significant benefits to students and society

Change Systems To scale up, we need to:  Create an infrastructure for implementation of innovations  Turn policy into effective practice  Turn effective practice into policy

© Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008 Scale Up  To scale up interventions we must first scale up implementation capacity  Building implementation capacity is essential to maximizing the statewide use of EBPs and other innovations

© Fixsen & Blase, 2008 N = 565,000 All Students & Families School Teachers and Staff State Department Leadership State 1 for each School (N = 1,800 School Teams) School Implementation Team (N=4) N = 7,200 N = 288 Implementation- Skilled Workforce N = 70 Re-Purpose “District” Implementation Teams (N=4) 1 for every group of 25 Schools (N = 72 “District” Teams) Regional Implementation Teams (N=5) 1 for every group of 5 “Districts” (N = 14 Regional Teams)

Intensive Development Saturation Intensive Development

System Change  Innovative practices do not fare well in existing organizational structures and systems  An infrastructure for implementation does not exist  Organizational and system changes are essential to successful use of innovations

EXISTING SYSTEM EFFECTIVE INNOVATIONS ARE CHANGED TO FIT THE SYSTEM EXISTING SYSTEM IS CHANGED TO SUPPORT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INNOVATION EFFECTIVE INNOVATION System Change

Implementation Team Executive Management Team Practitioners Innovations Consumers Adaptive Challenges Duplication Fragmentation Hiring criteria Salaries Credentialing Licensing Time/ scheduling Union contracts RFP methods Federal/ State laws “External” System Change Support Practice Informed Policy (PIP) Policy Enabled Practice (PEP) System Transformation ♦Look for Faulty Assumptions & Errors; ♦Make Needed Changes; ♦Invite System to Respond

SYSTEM ALIGNMENT State Department Districts Schools Teachers/ Staff Effective Practices ALIGNMENT Federal Departments Implementation Teams FORM SUPPORTS FUNCTION

How to spend a dollar:  What are the break-through points?  Implement “what works”  What are the leverage points?  “District” Implementation Teams  What are the tipping points?  60% or more schools receiving competent implementation supports for using more effective education methods Have Less, Do Better?

August , 2011 Washington, DC Integrate research, practice, and policy

For More Information Dean L. Fixsen, Ph.D.   Karen A. Blase, Ph.D.   Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC

For More Information State Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence- based Practices (SISEP) Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Rob Horner, George Sugai “Resources” Tab  Concept paper  Annotated bibliography  Data on scaling up  Scaling up Briefs

Evidence-based 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: Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature

Thank You for your Support  Annie E. Casey Foundation (EBPs and cultural competence)  William T. Grant Foundation (implementation literature review)  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (implementation strategies grants; national implementation awards)  Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (implementation research)  National Institute of Mental Health (research and training grants)  Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (program development and evaluation grants  Office of Special Education Programs (Scaling up Capacity Development Center)  Administration for Children and Families (Child Welfare Leadership Development)  Duke Endowment (Child Welfare Reform)