1. Rhode Island State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Stakeholder Input November 6, 2014

2. Results Driven Accountability (RDA) The Office of Special Education Education Programs (OSEP) is emphasizing a renewed focus on results, RDA. – Compliance is still included in SPP and important but increased emphasis on results. – Results MUST focus on improving outcomes for students with disabilities.

3. Major Components of RDA Component I: Annual Performance Report (APR) – Continue as in the past with the new SSIP - Indicator 17 Component II: State Status Determinations – Determinations under RDA will be based on States’ overall performance on a set of priority indicators (including compliance and result indicators). – States, in turn, make LEA determinations based on similar criteria. Component III: OSEP Oversight and technical assistance – Performance of States relative to other States and to national data will be determined using data on priority indicators (compliance and results), and will be used to determine the appropriate level of federal oversight and technical assistance.

4. The State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) is a comprehensive, multi-year plan that focuses on improving results for children with disabilities. The SSIP will be reported in the state’s SPP/APR (Indicator 17 for IDEA Part B) beginning with the SPP/APR due April 1, 2015. What is the State Systemic Improvement Plan?

5. Year 1 - FFY 2013 Delivered by April 2015 Year 2 - FFY 2014 Delivered by Feb 2016 Years 3-6 FFY 2015-18 Feb 2017- Feb 2020 Phase I Analysis Phase II Plan Phase III Evaluation Data Analysis Identification of the Focus for Improvement Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity Theory of Action Infrastructure Development Implementing Evidence- Based Practices Evaluation Plan Results of Ongoing Evaluation Extent of Progress Revisions to the SPP Proposed SSIP Activities by Phase

6. You Are Here State Team Training Data & Infrastructure Analysis State Team Review Stakeholder Input (Internal & External) Finalize Target – Submit Theory of Action (TOA) SSIP Phase I - Analysis

7. What is Data and Infrastructure Analysis? Detailed data analysis (related to a student performance area which is tied to a SPP student outcome measure) Development of strategies and infrastructure analysis (examination of State capacity to support LEA improvement, scale up, and sustain evidence– based practices to improve results for children)

8. Things to Keep in Mind Target needs to be narrow and focused Target needs to identify a high need area Target must be measurable Target needs to address one of the three State Performance measures Graduation Rate (Indicator 1) Student Performance on State Assessment (Indicator 3) Early Childhood Outcome (Indicator 7) State must have Infrastructure to address the target to Support improvement and Build capacity in LEA to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices

9. State-Identified Measurable Student Result Description of improvement strategies on which the State will focus, that will lead to a measurable child-based result. How the data analysis led to the identification of the area on which the State will focus. How addressing this area of focus for improvement will build LEA's capacity to improve the identified result for children and youth with disabilities.

10. Students with Disabilities Data Analysis – SPP/APR Proficiency gap for 4 th & 8 th grade children with disabilities on regular statewide assessments – READING = 40% gap in RI (tied with MA for second largest proficiency gap in the region) – MATH = 40% gap in RI (third largest gap in region) RI met the drop out rate target and narrowly missed the graduation rate target by 2.4 percentage points Indicator 3 (2012-13) - Missed proficiency targets in both reading and math for 3 rd, 4 th, and 5 th grades

11. Students with Disabilities Disaggregated Data Analysis Review of NECAP math and reading performance from the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years for students in grades 3-5 with OHI, ED, SLD, SLI, or Autism. Race/ethnicity Accommodations/no accommodations Absence level LRE/placement

12. 14% proficient 31% proficient 65% Grades 3-5 Higher incidence disabilities to allow for disaggregation ED

13. 17% proficient 33% proficient Grades 3-5 Higher incidence disabilities to allow for disaggregation ED

14. 49% of Students grades 3-5 with SLD had scale scores close to but just under a 2 or close to but just under a 3 during the 2013-14 administration of NECAP. Bottom of range for Proficiency Level of 3 PL = 2

15. Scale scores of students in Grades 3-5 with SLI or SLD show similar patterns for NECAP Reading. 46% scored close to but just under a 2 or a 3. 53% scored close to but just under a 2 or a 3.

16. Of the students scoring a 1 on NECAP Reading, what is their level of access to the Regular Class (RC)?

17. Almost half of the students in grades 3-5 with Learning Disabilities who are attending regular class at least 80% of the time are scoring a proficiency level of 1 on NECAP Reading. What was the distribution of scores for students with SLD attending the regular class at least 80% of the time?

18. Of the students scoring a 1 on NECAP Math, what is their level of access to the Regular Class (RC)?

19. Approximately two-thirds of the students in grades 3-5 with Learning Disabilities who were attending regular class at least 80% of the time are scoring a proficiency level of 1 on NECAP Reading. What was the distribution of scores for students with SLD attending the regular class at least 80% of the time?

20. 19% of students with SLD are proficient without accommodations 17% of students with SLD are proficient with accommodations Almost 40% of students with OHI are proficient without accommodations <29% of students with OHI are proficient with accommodations

21. Gr. 3-5 Math NECAP 2014 and Absence Proficiency Days Absent 63% of the students with disabilities (AUT, ED, OHI, SLD, SLI) that scored a 1 or 2 on Math NECAP were absent 10 or fewer days. 78% of the students with disabilities (AUT, ED, OHI, SLD, SLI) that were absent 10 or fewer days scored a 1 or 2 on Math NECAP.

22. 21 points 18 points

23. 27 points

25. Based on the Data… Potential target could be: – Students with Significant Learning Disabilities & Speech & Language Impairments – African American & Hispanic – In Grades 4 & 5

26. Infrastructure Analysis in Theory Improved Student Results State & District Data Analysis Targeted Investments Targeted Interventions Changes in Adult Behavior & School Practices

27. Infrastructure Analysis Where are the resources to build capacity in LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices to improve results for children? – Conducted Infrastructure analysis including: High & Low Investments Connected to Target Area – Race to the Top initiatives – Current & Previous IDEA Part B investments – RIDE Strategic Plan – ESEA Waiver

28. Infrastructure Analysis Results High Influence Investments (tools in our tool belt) – Statewide Systems of Support Direct intervention in schools Partnered with higher education Coordinated statewide and across RIDE Social & Emotional Learning (SEL) – Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) State Personnel Development Grant through 2017 Currently in 12 schools (starting Fall 2014) Federal Grant and Part B funds Proven research based practice – National Center for Intensive Intervention (NCII) Targeted support in three districts Data driven decision-making Will end but lessons learned integrated into MTSS

29. Infrastructure Analysis Results High Influence Strategies OSCAS – Migration to CCSS Through measurable IEP development Through delivery of intensive interventions Through technology access High Influence Strategies RIDE – Instructional Support System (ISS) Longitudinal Data – ESEA Waiver Implementation in Priority & Focus schools – Implementation of CCSS

30. Based on the Infrastructure… Targeted Interventions in Schools through – Multi-Tiered Systems of Support – Coordinated with RIDEs efforts in: ESEA Transformation Common Core Implementation Data Use – Instructional Support System (ISS) – Growth measures

31. Data & Infrastructure Together… Performance of African American & Hispanic students in Grades 4 & 5 with SLD & SLI Targeted Interventions through MTSS Student Result Target

32. Questions & Thoughts