State Systemic Improvement Plan : Preparing, Planning, and Staying Informed

1. State Systemic Improvement Plan: Preparing, Planning, and Staying Informed Presentation to Louisiana ICC July 10, 2013

2. Overview of Proposed Process • Provide an overview of the proposed SPP/APR • Streamlined and Consolidated process • Review new C-11 • Identify and discuss SSIP components • Goal for Today: Recommend a plan to prepare for stakeholder and SICC involvement Prepare, Plan, and Stay Informed

3. SPP-APR Proposed Changes • Eliminated requirement to submit APR and update SPP—now just one document • Will eventually be an online submission process • Removed some indicators as duplicative reporting: Indicators 9, 10 and 14 • Removed reporting Improvement Strategies by indicator • Removed reporting progress/slippage when targets are met • Moving toward Results Driven Accountability: new C-11

4. Overview of State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) • Proposed Indicator C-11 • INDICATOR: The State’s SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan that meets the requirements set forth for this indicator. • MEASUREMENT: The State’s SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement Plan, focused on improving results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

5. Overview of State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) • Components: • Implement in 3 Phases which occur over the new reporting period of 2015-2020 • Implementation requires • Data Analysis • Identification of a Focus for Improvement • Assessment of infrastructure capacity to support improvement and build capacity • Uses a Theory of Action-Logic Model Approach

6. State Systemic Improvement Plan • Phase I Components (FFY 13 APR Due February 2015)

7. State Systemic Improvement Plan • Starts with: • Phase 1—February, 2015 • a detailed data and infrastructure analysis that will guide the development of the strategies to increase the State’s capacity to structure and lead meaningful change in EIS programs and providers • Identification of evidence-based practices • Identify Focus for Improvement • Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity • Theory of Action • Phase 2—February, 2016 • Steps to implement the SSIP • Improvement Strategies with timelines • Formative Evaluation • Plan for how the Lead Agency will support EIS programs and providers in “scaling up” and sustaining implementation • Evaluation Plan • Phase 3—February, 2017 through February, 2020 • Results of Ongoing Evaluation and Revisions to the SPP • Extent of Implementation • Progress • Revisions

8. State Systemic Improvement Plan • The data and infrastructure analysis should use multiple data sources, including SPP/APR indicators and 618 State-reported data, to identify systemic approaches that will lead to improved results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families across key measures: • Early childhood outcomes and family involvement

9. State Systemic Improvement Plan • While the primary focus of SSIP is on improvement of child and family outcomes, the State must also address in its SSIP how the State will use its general supervision system to improve implementation of the requirements of IDEA Part C. • The GSS system is the whole Continuous Improvement process in EarlySteps: monitoring, training, correction of noncompliance, complaints

10. Phase 1: Data Analysis • Description of process for identifying and analyzing key data, including data from SPP/APR indicators, to determine the areas for improvement. • The description must include information about how the data were disaggregated in order to identify areas for improvement. • In addition, the description must include any concerns about the quality of the data and how the State will address this, as well as methods and timelines to collect additional data that may be needed to inform areas for improvement. • As part of its data analysis, the State should determine if there are any compliance issues that present barriers to achieving improved results for children and youth with disabilities.

11. Data Analysis • Thinking through Data Analysis • Begin with a broad overarching review of available quantitative data (Across SPP/APR, 618, and other state data sources). Review performance and compliance data. • Approach from a the “big picture” view of state data before you drill down to one area. • Don’t immediately proceed to a discrete indicator/area and do a deep data dive on that indicator because you will miss connections and linkages . • Look for trends and patterns that appear in the data. Begin to make connections between indictors/areas.

12. Phase 1: Data Analysis • Thinking through Data Analysis (continued) • Determine contributing factors • These factors are essential to the success of your plan. Don’t treat the symptom, treat the cause. • Determine barriers to success • These barriers stand in the way of addressing the low performance. • Document data review (including all above activities) and identified area(s) of improvement based on the data review

13. Phase 1:Focus for Improvement • Description of improvement strategies on which the State will focus, that will lead to a measurable child-based result. • The State must include in the description how the data analysis led to the identification of the area on which the State will focus. • The State must demonstrate how addressing this area of focus for improvement will build EIS program capacity to improve the identified result for children and youth with disabilities. (For example, the State might be working to improve performance on Kindergarten readiness through improving early childhood literacy and the focus of improvement strategies would be implementing evidence-based early literacy practices.)

14. Phase 1: Focus for Improvement • Thinking through Identification of Improvement Focus area: • Clearly define the proposed improvement area. • Make strong connections between the data analysis and area for improvement. • Discuss the root cause (contributing factors and barriers to improvement) • Focus on building local capacity to address improved results. • Consider the impact of your focus area on local capacity and outcomes.

15. Phase 1: Infrastructure Analysis • A description of how the State analyzed the capacity of its current system to support improvement and build capacity in LEA's and local programs to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices to improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, and the results of this analysis. • State system components include: governance, fiscal, quality standards, professional development, data, technical assistance, and accountability.

16. Infrastructure Analysis • The description must include the strengths of the system, how components of the system are coordinated, and areas for improvement within and across components of the system. • The description must also include an analysis of initiatives in the State, including initiatives in general education and other areas beyond special education, which can have an impact on children and youth with disabilities. • The State must include in the description how decisions are made within the State system and the representatives (e.g., agencies, positions, individuals) that must be involved in planning for systematic improvements in the State system

17. Infrastructure Analysis • Thinking through Infrastructure Analysis • Determine the strengths of the system and coordination of the components of the system to support improvement and build capacity. • System assessment tools • Identify the relevant initiatives across the agency and determine impact of performance of children and youth with disabilities. • Determine the improvements that must be made to the system to support performance and outcomes and who must be involved in this system’s improvement work.

18. Phase 1: Theory of Action • Based on the data analysis and infrastructure analysis, the State must describe the general improvement strategies that will need to be carried out and the outcomes that will need to be met to achieve the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. • The State must include in the description the changes in the State system, EIS programs, and provider practices that must occur to achieve the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for children and families . • States should consider developing a logic model that shows the relationship between the activities and the outcomes that the State expects to achieve over a multi-year period.

19. Theory of Action/Logic Model • A theory of action focuses on how and why the program will produce the change, using “if-then” statements to generate a logical explanation and reveal strategies and assumptions about how resources and activities are used. • A logic model visually depicts a program’s components so that planned activities align with desired outcomes • A logic model is most effective when an explicit theory of action is embedded in the program components

20. Theory of Action • Thinking through Theory of Action: • In order to implement a successful state systemic improvement plan, it is important for the state staff to develop a common understanding of what a theory of action is- • Strategic plans include the policies, strategies and practices that create a logical, data-driven plan to address the problems identified during problem assessment. • Action plans ensure that all members are involved in carrying out the work of the program with sufficient support and appropriate accountability

21. Theory of Action • Theory of change describes the types of strategies used by the program to accomplish its aim • Theory of action describes how and why your program will work and reveals the strategic thinking behind the change you seek to produce • Logic models diagram identified problems, root causes and local conditions that facilitate concise and clear communication, planning and evaluation, and allow coalitions to critically analyze the progress they are making toward their goals.

22. Logic Models & Evaluation • There’s an impulse to jump right into planning activities. Similarly, with evaluation design, people tend to focus on data collection. But how will you know what activities and which data are going to be most relevant and useful? • Use a logic model to clarify the connections between your planned activities and desired goals so you can focus the evaluation process on important questions.

23. Theory of Action • Thinking through Theory of Action: • Based on your state’s data, begin to develop your theory of action, based on evidence-based practices related to the improvement area • Implementation Strategies: Implementation Science Model

24. View of a Results-focused State System Leadership Governance Culture of Empowerment and High Expectations Quality Standards Collaboration and Coordination Improved Outcomes/ Results Partnerships Coherence with General Education Vision and Mission Improvement Practices Accountability and Evaluation

25. Guiding Questions • What are your initial reactions to the OSEP Proposed Indicator 11? • What are the implications for Louisiana? • What challenges do can we anticipate as a result of the changes in the SPP/APR? • What would you need to get this work done? • What TA needs do you anticipate? • What do we need next?

27. The Uphill Climb Planning is what you do before you do something, so that when you do it, it is not all mixed up.” Winnie the Pooh to Christopher Robin Thanks to Grace Kelley with SERRC for sharing the presentation with us.