State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs): Look How Far We’ve Come

State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs): Look How Far We’ve Come Where Do We Go from Here? Gregg Corr, EdD Leslie Fox, PhD Alecia Walters, EdD

OSEP Disclaimer 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference DISCLAIMER: The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)

Welcome Speaker Introductions • Gregg Corr Director, Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division • Leslie Fox & Alecia Walters OSEP Performance Accountability Implementation Team Presentation Objectives • Overview of OSEP’s Phase III, Year 3 Analysis • Next Steps for Phase III, Year 4

Question What is the SSIP topic most important for you that we discuss today?

Phase III, Year 3 submission required: • FFY 2017 data for the State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR) • Progress implementing the SSIP Phase II plan • Progress toward the SiMR • Any modifications to the SSIP and a rationale or justification • Stakeholder engagement and involvement in SSIP implementation and evaluation activities and decisions Link to Measurement Table and 2018 Indicator Analysis https://osep.grads360.org/#program/spp-apr-resources

OSEP SSIP Review: First Steps • SSIPs arrived on April 1, 2019 – MUST include FFY data and a summary report of the principle activities and outcomes since the last SSIP report • State leads completed a quick approvability check to identify issues that need be addressed during clarification • Missing FFY SiMR data • Missing narrative or summary report • Changes to SiMR, baseline or targets that did not comply with Phase I measurement language

OSEP SSIP Review: Post-clarification State leads completed a review of the SSIP report that includes: • Identification of any approvability issues not resolved during clarification • Status of State’s infrastructure improvement efforts • Role of stakeholders in the implementation and evaluation of the SSIP • Status of the State’s selected evidence-based practices (EBPs) • Data reported that supports improvements toward the SiMR

What did OSEP look for in Phase III, Year 3? • Any approvability issues post-clarification? • Did infrastructure changes that support SSIP initiatives occur? • Are stakeholders engaged in the SSIP? • Are the SSIP’s evidence-based practices implemented with fidelity? • Are improvements toward the SiMR reported?

Approvability • All States submitted FFY 17 SiMR data and a narrative report with a summary of activities and outcomes Part B: n=60 Part C: n=56 116 SSIP reports received, reviewed and included in analysis • 4 States made changes to the SiMR (Part B = 2, Part C = 2) • Any changes to SiMR data baseline or targets were consistent with the requirements defined in the Phase I Measurement Table

Infrastructure Statement A: Part B n=35 Part C n= 37 The State reported on progress for each coherent improvement strategy and/or strands in the theory of action and how it is impacting the SiMR (activities are clearly outlined, data are being collected, decisions are informed by the data). Statement B: Part B n=16 Part C n=12 The State has reported progress for most coherent improvement strategies and/or strands in the TOA. Data is being collected, but it may be unclear how the data is impacting decisions.

Infrastructure Statement C: Part B n=7 Part C n=6 The State has reported on fewer than half of the coherent improvement strategies and/or strands in the TOA. No data is being collected. Statement D: Part B n=2 Part C n=1 Coherent improvement strategies are not clearly defined, the State has not reported on progress, or the activities reported are not aligned with the Theory of Action / SIMR.

Stakeholder Engagement Statement A: Part B n=44 Part C n=45 The SSIP includes information on how the state disseminates information about the SSIP’s implementation and evaluation activities (e.g., types of communication methods like meetings/newsletters and frequency of these activities) and one or more examples of stakeholder input on decisions, evaluation procedures/outcomes or changes to the SSIP.

Stakeholder Engagement Statement B: Part B n=11 Part C n=5 The SSIP includes information on how the State disseminates information about the SSIP’s implementation and evaluation activities (e.g., types of communication methods like meetings/newsletters and frequency of these activities). Statement C: Part B n=3 Part C n=3 The SSIP includes a list of stakeholders but little if any information on how information is shared with stakeholders or how stakeholders are involved in the implementation and evaluation of SSIP activities and decision-making.

Stakeholder Engagement Statement D: Part B n=2 Part C n=3 The SSIP does not include any information regarding stakeholder input or the State’s efforts to share information with stakeholders.

Evidence-Based Practices Statement A: Part B n=39 Part C n=28 Evidence-based practices are being implemented and fidelity data collected (Specific practice is identified, State has a fidelity tool and is collecting and using data to inform decisions like professional development, scale-up, and/or continuing the selected practice). Statement B: Part B n=7 Part C n=7 Evidence-based practices are being implemented but fidelity data not yet collected (tool under development or being piloted but data not yet collected and used for decision-making).

Evidence-Based Practices Statement C: Part B n=10 Part C n=7 Evidence-based practices are being implemented to some degree but no information is provided on fidelity (Intention to collect fidelity is not sufficient). Statement D: Part B n=4 Part n=7 Evidence-based practices are not yet identified or activities are limited to professional development to build teacher/provider knowledge and use of practices.

Progress toward the SiMR Statement A: Part B n=15 Part C n=17 The State met its FFY 2017 SiMR target and is providing progress monitoring data/interim measures of progress that supports the reported progress by tying the activities implemented to the achievement in the target. Statement B: Part B n=30 Part C n=22 The State has provided progress monitoring data/interim measures of progress illustrating progress implementing the SSIP, but did not meet its FFY 2017 SiMR target.

Progress toward the SiMR Statement C: Part B n=8 Part C n=9 The State has met its FFY 2017 SiMR target, but has not provided progress monitoring data/interim measures of progress tying the achievement to activities implemented. Statement D: Part B n=7 Part C n=8 The State did not meet its FFY 2017 SiMR target, nor is it collecting progress monitoring data/interim measures of progress that suggest progress toward the SiMR throughout the year.

Observations from OSEP’s analysis Part B Part C Initiative alignment Professional development, inclusion Family Engagement/Outcomes Frameworks vs. Practices Fidelity Evaluation General Supervision • Initiative alignment SPDG, ESSA, MTSS • Family Engagement/Outcomes • Frameworks vs. Practices • Fidelity • Evaluation • General Supervision

Question What aspect of the SSIP work have you found to be the most important or beneficial?

Phase III, Year 4 • What is different about your system as a result of the SSIP compared to Phase I when the system analysis was completed? • Why do these changes matter for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities? • What mechanisms or resources are in place to sustain improvement efforts? • What is the State’s plan for scale-up? • What infrastructure improvements can be leveraged to impact a different results outcome for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities?

Questions With 6-8 months remaining in the Phase III, Year 4 reporting period, what are you finding the most challenging to implement, evaluate and report? How can we help?

What will OSEP look for in Phase III, Year 4? The State must report data for that specific FFY (expressed as actual numbers and percentages) that are aligned with the SiMR. The State must report on whether the State met its target. In addition, the State may report on any additional data (e.g., progress monitoring data) that were collected and analyzed that would suggest progress toward the SiMR.

What will OSEP look for in Phase III, Year 4? The State must summarize the infrastructure improvement strategies that were implemented, and the short-term outcomes achieved, including the measures or rationale used by the State and stakeholders to assess and communicate achievement. Relate short term outcomes to one or more areas of a systems framework (e.g., governance, data, finance, accountability/monitoring, quality standards, professional development and/or technical assistance) and explain how these strategies support system change and are necessary for: (a) achievement of the SiMR; (b) sustainability of systems improvement efforts; and/or (c) scale-up.

What will OSEP look for in Phase III, Year 4? The State must summarize the specific evidence-based practices that were implemented and the strategies or activities that supported their selection and ensured their use with fidelity. Describe how the evidence-based practices, and activities or strategies that support their use, are intended to impact the SiMR by changing program/district policies, procedures, and/or practices, teacher/provider practices (e.g., behaviors), parent/caregiver outcomes, and/or child outcomes.

What will OSEP look for in Phase III, Year 4? The State must describe the specific strategies implemented to engage stakeholders in key improvement efforts and how the State addressed concerns, if any, raised by stakeholders through its engagement activities.

Question: For the FFY 18 SSIP report, what technical assistance resource would you find the MOST useful?

Questions????? Follow-up with your OSEP state lead or contact Leslie at Leslie.Fox@ed.gov

Thank You! • Thank you to our State partners for your commitment to improving systems and supporting infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities. • Thank you to the OSEP-funded technical assistance centers and providers for your dedication to supporting states as they implement and evaluate improvement efforts. • Thank you to the session participants for sharing your time with us!

OSEP Disclaimer 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference DISCLAIMER: The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)

State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs): Look How Far We’ve Come