Rhode IslandState Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)

Stakeholder InputNovember 6, 2014

Results Driven Accountability (RDA)

The Office of Special Education Education Programs (OSEP) is emphasizing a renewed focus on results, RDA.– Compliance is still included in SPP and important

but increased emphasis on results.– Results MUST focus on improving outcomes for

students with disabilities.

Major Components of RDA

Component I: Annual Performance Report (APR)– Continue as in the past with the new SSIP - Indicator 17

Component II: State Status Determinations– Determinations under RDA will be based on States’ overall performance

on a set of priority indicators (including compliance and result indicators).– States, in turn, make LEA determinations based on similar criteria.

Component III: OSEP Oversight and technical assistance– Performance of States relative to other States and to national data will be

determined using data on priority indicators (compliance and results), and will be used to determine the appropriate level of federal oversight and technical assistance.

• The State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) is a comprehensive, multi-year plan that focuses on improving results for children with disabilities.

• The SSIP will be reported in the state’s SPP/APR (Indicator 17 for IDEA Part B) beginning with the SPP/APR due April 1, 2015.

What is the State Systemic Improvement Plan?

Year 1 - FFY 2013Delivered by April 2015

Year 2 - FFY 2014Delivered by Feb 2016

Years 3-6 FFY 2015-18Feb 2017- Feb 2020

Phase IAnalysis

Phase IIPlan

Phase IIIEvaluation

• Data Analysis• Identification of the Focus

for Improvement• Infrastructure to Support

Improvement and Build Capacity

• Theory of Action

• Infrastructure Development

• Implementing Evidence-Based Practices

• Evaluation Plan

• Results of Ongoing Evaluation

• Extent of Progress• Revisions to the SPP

Proposed SSIP Activities by Phase

You Are Here

State Team Training

Data & Infrastructure

Analysis

State Team Review

Stakeholder Input

(Internal & External)

Finalize Target – Submit

Theory of Action (TOA)

SSIP Phase I - Analysis

What is Data and Infrastructure Analysis?

Detailed data analysis (related to a student performance area which is tied to a SPP student outcome measure)

Development of strategies

and infrastructure analysis (examination of State capacity to support LEA improvement, scale up, and sustain evidence–based practices to improve results for children)

Things to Keep in Mind

• Target needs to be narrow and focused• Target needs to identify a high need area• Target must be measurable• Target needs to address one of the three State

Performance measures• Graduation Rate (Indicator 1)• Student Performance on State Assessment (Indicator 3)• Early Childhood Outcome (Indicator 7)

• State must have Infrastructure to address the target to • Support improvement and • Build capacity in LEA to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-

based practices

State-Identified Measurable Student Result

Description of improvement strategies on which the State will focus, that will lead to a measurable child-based result.• How the data analysis led to the identification of the

area on which the State will focus. • How addressing this area of focus for improvement

will build LEA's capacity to improve the identified result for children and youth with disabilities.

Students with Disabilities Data Analysis – SPP/APR

• Proficiency gap for 4th & 8th grade children with disabilities on regular statewide assessments– READING = 40% gap in RI (tied with MA for second

largest proficiency gap in the region)– MATH = 40% gap in RI (third largest gap in region)

• RI met the drop out rate target and narrowly missed the graduation rate target by 2.4 percentage points

• Indicator 3 (2012-13) - Missed proficiency targets in both reading and math for 3rd , 4th, and 5th grades

Students with Disabilities Disaggregated Data Analysis

Review of NECAP math and reading performance from the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years for students in grades 3-5 with OHI, ED, SLD, SLI, or Autism.• Race/ethnicity• Accommodations/no accommodations• Absence level• LRE/placement

14% proficient31%

proficient

65%

Grades 3-5

Higher incidence disabilities to allow for disaggregationED

17% proficient33%

proficient

Grades 3-5

Higher incidence disabilities to allow for disaggregationED

49% of Students grades 3-5 with SLD had scale scores close to but just under a 2 or close to but just under a 3 during the 2013-14

administration of NECAP.

Bottom of range for Proficiency Level of 3

PL = 2

Scale scores of students in Grades 3-5 with SLI or SLD show similar patterns for NECAP Reading.

46% scored close to but just under a 2 or a 3.

53% scored

close to but just

under a 2 or a 3.

Of the students scoring a 1 on NECAP Reading, what is their level of access to the Regular Class (RC)?

Almost half of the students in grades 3-5 with Learning Disabilities who are attending regular class at least 80% of the time are scoring a proficiency level of 1 on NECAP Reading.

What was the distributionof scores for students with SLD attending the regular class at least 80% of the time?

Of the students scoring a 1 on NECAP Math, what is their level of access to the Regular Class (RC)?

Approximately two-thirds of the students in grades 3-5 with Learning Disabilities who were attending regular class at least 80% of the time are scoring a proficiency level of 1 on NECAP Reading.

What was the distributionof scores for students with SLD attending the regular class at least 80% of the time?

• 19% of students with SLD are proficient without accommodations

• 17% of studentswith SLD are proficientwith accommodations

• Almost 40% of students with OHI areproficient withoutaccommodations

• <29% of studentswith OHI are proficientwith accommodations

Gr. 3-5 Math NECAP 2014 and Absence

Proficiency

Days Absent

63% of the students with disabilities (AUT, ED, OHI, SLD, SLI)that scored a 1 or 2 on Math NECAP were absent 10 or fewer days.

78% of the students with disabilities(AUT, ED, OHI, SLD, SLI)that were absent 10 or fewer days scored a 1 or 2 on Math NECAP.

21points 18

points

27points

Low Low typical Typical High typical High1st-30th

percentile31st - 45th percentile

46th-55th percentile

56th-70th percentile

71st-99th percentile

Based on the Data…

Potential target could be:– Students with Significant Learning Disabilities &

Speech & Language Impairments– African American & Hispanic– In Grades 4 & 5

Infrastructure Analysis in Theory

Improved Student Results

State & District Data Analysis

Targeted Investments

Targeted Interventions

Changes in Adult Behavior &

School Practices

Infrastructure Analysis

Where are the resources to build capacity in LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices to improve results for children?– Conducted Infrastructure analysis including:• High & Low Investments Connected to Target Area

– Race to the Top initiatives– Current & Previous IDEA Part B investments – RIDE Strategic Plan– ESEA Waiver

Infrastructure Analysis ResultsHigh Influence Investments (tools in our tool belt)

– Statewide Systems of Support• Direct intervention in schools• Partnered with higher education• Coordinated statewide and across RIDE • Social & Emotional Learning (SEL)

– Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)• State Personnel Development Grant through 2017• Currently in 12 schools (starting Fall 2014)• Federal Grant and Part B funds• Proven research based practice

– National Center for Intensive Intervention (NCII)• Targeted support in three districts• Data driven decision-making • Will end but lessons learned integrated into MTSS

Infrastructure Analysis Results

• High Influence Strategies OSCAS– Migration to CCSS

• Through measurable IEP development• Through delivery of intensive interventions• Through technology access

• High Influence Strategies RIDE– Instructional Support System (ISS) Longitudinal Data– ESEA Waiver Implementation in Priority & Focus

schools– Implementation of CCSS

Based on the Infrastructure…

• Targeted Interventions in Schools through– Multi-Tiered Systems of Support– Coordinated with RIDEs efforts in:• ESEA Transformation• Common Core Implementation• Data Use

– Instructional Support System (ISS)– Growth measures

Data & Infrastructure Together…

Performance of African

American &

Hispanic students

in Grades 4 & 5 with SLD & SLI

Targeted

Interventio

ns throu

gh MTSS

Student Result

Target

Questions & Thoughts