1 / 43

Region 1 PTAC Regional Conference

Gain insights on Results-Driven Accountability and State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIP) to enhance educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Explore core principles, engage stakeholders, and tailor improvement strategies for impactful results in your state. 8

pence
Download Presentation

Region 1 PTAC Regional Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Region 1 PTAC Regional Conference Feeling Adrift in the Results Driven Accountability Seas? Strategies for Connecting with and Supporting Your State’s SSIP October 27, 2016

  2. Session Objectives • Build knowledge and understanding about RDA and Phases I, II, and III of the SSIP • Explore state-specific SSIP plans and improvement strategies • Discuss with colleagues connections between the work of your center and your state’s SSIP efforts

  3. Results Driven Accountability (RDA) The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities shall be on… 1. Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities 2. Ensuring that States meet… the program requirements, with… emphasis on those most related to improving results 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(2) Sec. 616(a)

  4. Results Driven Accountability (RDA) OSEP’s Goal: BALANCE THE APPROACH! Prioritize improved outcomes for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities and their families.

  5. (RDA) Core Principles • Partnership with stakeholders • Transparent and understandable • Drives improved outcomes • Protection of individual rights • Differentiated incentives • Resources match to impact • Responsive to ultimate consumers

  6. Why RDA? Why Now? • For over 30 years, there has been a strong focus on regulatory compliance with the IDEA and Federal regulations for early intervention and special education. • OSEP • States • Districts/Programs • As a result, compliance has improved!

  7. Why RDA? Why Now? Despite this focus on compliance, we are still not seeing the outcomes for children with disabilities that we hope for and expect.

  8. Elements of RDA • Differentiated monitoring and support https://osep.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/10319 • Results focused determinations • State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)

  9. State Systemic Improvement Plan • The State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) is a comprehensive, multi-year plan that focuses on improving results for children with disabilities. • The SSIP is reported in the state’s SPP/APR (Indicator 11 for Part C and Indicator 17 for Part B).

  10. Stakeholder Engagement

  11. SSIP Phase I • Data Analysis • Infrastructure Analysis • State-Identified Measurable Result (SIMR) • Coherent Improvement Strategies • Theory of Action **Stakeholder Engagement**

  12. SSIP Phase II • Infrastructure Development • Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs) • Evaluation **Stakeholder Engagement**

  13. What do states’ SSIPs look like?

  14. Part C and B Phase I and Phase II SSIP Analyses Analyses conducted by following TA centers: • NCSI • IDC • NTACT • ECTA • DaSy

  15. State-Identified Measurable Result (SIMR)

  16. Phase I: Part C Data Sources Used Across Programs/Agencies

  17. Phase I: SIMR Selected by Part B States

  18. Phase I: SIMR Selected by Part C States FFY 2013 (2013-2014) MP MH GU • Legend • Child Outcomes: • C3A- Social relationships • C3B- Knowledge and skills • C3C- Meeting own needs • C3A, B, and C PW VI FM • Family Outcomes: • C4A- Know their rights • C4B- Communicate children’s need • C4C- Help their children develop and learn • Other- NY: All 3 Family Outcomes + other content; MP: Selected domains from assessment tool PR AS HI

  19. Phase II: Revisions to Part B SIMRs Thirteen states out of 60 (22%) indicated making revisions to the SIMRs reported in Phase I. Some examples of the rationales that states provided for adjusting their SIMRs included: • better alignment of the SIMR with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver/Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); • changes in measurement of student achievement from Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) to the English Language Arts (ELA) state test; • recommendations from OSEP and stakeholders to align with sites participating in Part C SSIP; • combining the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) and SSIP; and • changes in assessment procedures.

  20. Phase II: Revisions to Part C SIMRs Seven (7) of 56 states Part C (13%) revised their SIMR baselines based on the following rationales: • Two states revised their baselines because of improved data quality. • One state revised because it is using a new measurement tool. • One state revised because it changed the SIMR from a measure of the total population at exit to a measure of a subgroup of the population. • One state revised to better align the baseline with its initiation of implementation. • Two states did not provide rationales for changing their baselines.

  21. Coherent Improvement Strategies and Selection of Evidence-Based Practices

  22. Phase II: Part B States’ Selection of EBPs

  23. Phase II: Part B States’ Approaches to Implementing EBPs

  24. Phase II: Part B States’ Selected EBPs for Reading and Math SIMRs

  25. Phase II: Part C States’ Selected EBPs

  26. Phase II: Part C States’ Implementation of EBPs

  27. Stakeholder Engagement

  28. Phase I: Part B Stakeholder Engagement • All states indicated external stakeholders were engaged in at least some aspect of the development of Phase I. • External stakeholders represented over 20 different roles, titles, and organizations. • Across all SSIPs, parents, Parent Training and Information Centers, parent advocacy organizations, and LEA representatives (e.g., administrators, educators, and related services personnel) were the most frequently identified participants and organizations.

  29. Phase I: Part B Stakeholder Engagement Most Frequent Participants Unique Participants

  30. Phase I: Part B Stakeholder Engagement

  31. Phase I: Part C Stakeholder Engagement

  32. Phase I: Part C Stakeholder Engagement

  33. Phase II: Part BStakeholder Involvement in Implementation of EBPs

  34. Phase II: Part C Stakeholder Involvement in Implementation of EBPs

  35. Stakeholder Engagement in Phase III (OSEP Requirements) States are required to: • Communicate SSIP revisions and rationale to stakeholders • Disseminate and solicit information from stakeholders • Address any concerns raised by stakeholders • Involve stakeholders in the implementation and evaluation of SSIP activities

  36. Discussion: Pair Share

  37. Contact NCSI: Leadership NCSI Co-Directors Rorie Fitzpatrick • rfitzpa@wested.org • 415.615.3466 Kristin Reedy • kreedy@wested.org • 802.951.8218

  38. Contact NCSI https://ncsi.wested.org/

  39. Contact NCSI https://ncsi.wested.org/

  40. Contact NCSI

  41. THANK YOU!http://ncsi.wested.org | @TheNCSI

More Related