1. State Scaling-up Workgroup
March 6, 2012

2. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Who’s Accountable for Learning?
Student
Practitioner
System

12. 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),
Based on Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004 12

13. “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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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)

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

21. 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

22. 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

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

24. SMT Investment SMT Alignment RIT Functioning DLIT Functioning
SISEP 2012

25. 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

26. SMT Investment SMT Alignment RIT Functioning DLIT Functioning
SISEP 2012

27. For More Information Barbara Sims Dean L. Fixsen, Ph.D. 919-843-8751
Dean L. Fixsen, Ph.D.
Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
SISEP 2012 27

28. 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:  
SISEP 2012 28

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

30. 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 

31. 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

32. 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 

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

35. 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