NC SSIP:5 Things We’ve Learned

Directors’ UpdateMarch 2015

ncimplementationscience.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/Recent+Presentations

How Should I Feel About This?

The Anxiety Bell Curve

#1: > SSIP

Update

March 10, 2014

…this is our work…

…this is the work…

…this is your work…

RDA

INDICATOR 17 = State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)

2017-2020

Aug 2013

Dec 2013

May 2014

Apr2015

Feb 20162011 2012 Jan

2013

Evolution of NCDPI RDA - continued

NC begins RDA work & shares during OSEP visit

Submit Phase I:•Data & Infrastructure Analysis;•SiMR•Theory of Action

EC Division staff analyzes regional data

Inventory of Core, Supplemental, & Intensive Training/TA

Collect feedback: What do LEAs need to know and be able to do to provide support for all students?

EC Division identifies core elements

Apr2014

LEA Self-assessment draft; SSIP team forms

SSIP/ Indicator 17 becomes part of SPP/APR

Report ongoing evaluation & progress; revise SPP

Submit multi-year plan addressing:• Infrastructure

development • Supporting LEAs

to implement EBPs• Evaluation plan

Indicator Data

Profile

Compliance (Policy & Fiscal)

Practice Profile

Summary & Analysis

Identify problems in Academics, Behavior,

Engagement

LEA Self-Assessment

& Improvement

Process

DPI

DPI

LEA with DPI TA

Research-Based Instruction &

Communication & Collaboration

LEA with DPI TA

LEA

Improvement Plan

•Select from Package of Interventions •Plan for implementation in an MTSS framework•Identify outcome measures

Evaluation

Examine outcome and implementation

data

Implementation of Full Continuum of Support

•For Students AND Teachers•Strategies/Interventions•Fidelity Measures•Data for monitoring implementation

LEA with DPI TA

Problem-Solving for Improvement

IEP Development & Implementation

SSIP Data Analysis: Data Disaggregation, Infrastructure

Analysis of Compliance

Data Impact on Outcomes

Strategic Vision

Summary & Analysis

•Root Cause•Is the Infrastructure we have the Infrastructure we need?

ECD Self-Assessment

& Improvement

Process

SSIP Phase I

SSIP Phase I & II

Improvement Plan

•Determine Package of Interventions •Plan for implementation in an MTSS framework•Identify outcome measures•Building ECD capacity

Evaluation

Examine outcome and implementation

data

Implementation of Customized Continuum of

Support

•ECD Staff training & Support •Strategies/Interventions•Fidelity Measures•Data for monitoring implementation

SSIP Phase III

SSIP Phase I

SSIP Phase II & III

#2: We can only use the data we have; the

graduation rate for SWD is improving but not quickly

enough. But we can plan to have better, more

accessible data in the future

4-yr Cohort Graduation Rates + Linear Regression Forecast

2006

-18.32010

-16.62014

-19.42016

-21.5

2019

-23.2

5-yr Cohort Graduation Rates + Survival Modeling Forecast

2007

-16.72010

-11.12014

-17.12016

-17.6

2019

-16.6

#3: We will not be able to significantly change Graduation rate by improving any ONE

subgroup

We’ll need strategies that will impact multiple subgroups

NC Data Considerations for 2012-13 Graduation Rate – Selected SWD

SubgroupsA. Subgroups of Students with

Disabilities

B. Subgroup’s Portion of

Graduation Denominator

C. # Graduated in Subgroup

D. Subgroup Denominator

E. Subgroup Graduation

Rate

F. # of SWD needed to get to

80% rate for subgroup

G. Subgroup Graduation Rate if

additional students in column F had

graduated

H. Percentage Point Impact on 2012-13Graduation rate –

62.3%

All/NC

100% 7006 11251 62.3% 1995 80.0% + 17.7 LEAs w/rates below

60%

43.7% 2741* 4915* 55.8% 1189 72.8% + 10.5

AA Students

36.3% 2427* 4081* 59.5% 837 69.7% + 7.4

Separate Class

19.5% 1047* 2196* 47.7% 709 68.6% + 6.3

Separate Class plus

Separate Environments

21.9% 1107* 2460* 45.0% 861 69.9% + 7.6

Students with ED

5.5% 237* 618* 38.3% 257 64.6% + 2.3

AA/SED/Sep & Res

Settings

1.2% 33* 130* 25.4% 38 62.6% + 0.3*2012-13 EC Exit Data Report based on event rates (1 year only) – 65.5% rather than the SPP/APR required 4-year cohort graduation rate shown in green 62.3%. The 65.5% includes an additional 200 students that graduated and 250 fewer students in the denominator for a difference of 450 students.

#4: It’s really hard to establish root cause at

the state level

LEAs will have to problem-solve based on their data

#5: Current efforts must be strengthened and better integrated with

agency activities

Fidelity? Saturation? Time Implementing? Better Fit?

Academic Deficits

Behavioral Deficits

Lack of Engagement

• Post-School Ready• EI-12 transitions

Transition Projects

• Increase Saturation• Systems of Care

PBIS & SEFEL

• Math/Reading Foundations• Instructional Practices • Effective Leadership

Comprehensive Professional Development

MTSSTeam Structures

Problem-Solving

Implementation

Improved Student

Outcomes

Improved Student

Outcomes

Improved SWD

Graduation Rates

Improved SWD

Graduation Rates

Agency-wide Efforts

Agency-wide Efforts

ECD Specific Efforts

ECD Specific Efforts

Theory of ActionIFTHEN