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 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill NC SLC 02/2012

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

7. Infrastructure for Success  Improve student outcomes  Improve teacher instruction  Improve school supports for teachers  Improve district supports for schools  Improve regional supports for districts  Improve State supports for outcomes Re-define relationships among system components Focus fully on student outcomes SISEP 2012

8. © Fixsen & Blase, 2008 All Students & Families School Teachers and Staff State Department Leadership State Department Leadership 1 for each School Building Implementation Team Implementation- Skilled Workforce Staff with special implementation skills Re-Purpose “District” Implementation Teams 1 for every group of 15-25 Schools Regional Implementation Teams 1 for every group of 4 “Districts” Adult interactions produce Student benefits SISEP 2012

9.  Letting it happen  Helping it happen “Do it yourself” approaches  Making it happen  “Do it with expert help”  Implementation Teams are accountable Based on Hall & Hord (1987); Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou (2004); Fixsen, Blase, Duda, Naoom, & Van Dyke (2010) Implementation Science

10. Implementation Team Prepare Buildings & Districts Prepare Teachers and Staff Work with Researchers Assure Implementation Prepare Regions Assure Student Benefits Create Readiness Parents and Stakeholders © Fixsen & Blase, 2009 20% 80% SISEP 2012

11. Impl. TeamNO Impl. Team Effective Effective use of Implementation Science & Practice IMPLEMENTATION INTERVENTION 80%, 3 Yrs 14%, 17 Yrs Balas & Boren, 2000 Green & Seifert, 2005 Fixsen, Blase, Timbers, & Wolf, 2001 Letting it Happen Helping it Happen SISEP 2012 Implementation Team

12. Implementation Team State Management Team Teachers Innovations Students System Change Adaptive Challenges Duplication Fragmentation Hiring criteria Salaries Credentialing Licensing Time/ scheduling Union contracts RFP methods Federal/ State laws SISEP System Change Support Practice- Policy Communication Cycle Policy Supports Effective Practice System Reinvention SISEP 2012

13. Capacity Building YEARS AMOUNTS Funding Capacity Implementation Teams Organization Change System Reinvention SISEP 2012

14.  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 State Capacity Assessment

15.  Searched for system-level assessments across the world  Began drafting possible items (May 2008)  Convened the National Evaluation Board (September 2008)  Tried out the items in our SISEP and STS meetings (instant feedback!)  Arrived at an acceptable State Capacity Assessment draft (October 2011; version 18) SISEP 2012

16. 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

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

18. Critical Elements 1.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 o 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 2.SMT meetings attended regularly by State implementation coordinators (e.g. State Transformation Specialists [STSs]) o The STSs are included in discussions about implementation capacity building during SMT meetings as well as between meetings 3.SMT monthly agenda includes sufficient time (typically one hour) to focus on implementation content (e.g. implementation functions; organization and system change methods) o 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) SMT Investment: Commitment

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

20. For More Information Dean L. Fixsen, Ph.D.  919-966-3892  dean.fixsen@unc.edu dean.fixsen@unc.edu Karen A. Blase, Ph.D.  919-966-9050  karen.blase@unc.edu karen.blase@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

21. 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 Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature Implementation Science SISEP 2012

22. Responsiveness to Instruction (RtI) Consortium Research to Practice Funded by Oak Foundation Sept 2010 - August 2013

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

24. 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

25. Objectives and Outcomes Objective 1:  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

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

28. 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