nc ssip: 5 things we’ve learned directors’ update march 2015...
TRANSCRIPT
NC SSIP:5 Things We’ve Learned
Directors’ UpdateMarch 2015
ncimplementationscience.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/Recent+Presentations
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