Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Scaling Up Improved Education
Dean L. Fixsen, Ph.D. & Karen A. Blase, Ph.D.
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Rob Horner, Ph.D.
University of Oregon
George Sugai, Ph.D.
University of Connecticut
OR Special Education Directors Meeting 2010
SISEP Center
State Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence-based Practices (SISEP)
www.scalingup.org
Dean Fixsen and Karen BlaseNational Implementation Research Network, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Rob HornerUniversity of Oregon
George SugaiUniversity of Connecticut
In 2008
State of Oregon participated in a process to select States to create an infrastructure for implementation of innovations statewide.
1 of 36 interested States
1 of 16 applicant States
1 of 6 chosen States that met the selection criteria and site visit criteria (IL,MI, MN, MO, OR, VA)
SISEP Center
The SISEP Center – Intensive and focused activity to build state capacity to use implementation science and best practices across programs and innovations
Help align system structures, roles, and functions with desired education outcomes for students
Large scale, real time change
Capacity Building
OR Public Schools
Students: 565,000
Schools: 1,800
School Districts: 196
Counties: 36
Budget: $4 Billion
Education Today
Education Today
Shrinking Resources 3-4 Years decline 5-6 Years recovery
Increasing Demands Move AYP indicators Literacy and behavior Graduation rates
How to spend a dollar:
Are students coming to school better prepared?
Are teachers coming to school better prepared?
Are changes in society providing helpful supports to schools, teachers, students?
Are we learning from our experiences?
Are we improving year to year?
Have Less, Do Better?
How to spend a dollar:
What are the break-through points?
What small change will have a huge impact
What are the leverage points?
Where and how to start making changes efficiently
What are the tipping points?
How much is needed before “the new” becomes “the standard”
Have Less, Do Better?
How to spend a dollar:
Policies to Enable New Practices
$1 input = $0.05 - $0.15 output
Accountability & Regulation
$1 input = $0.05 - $0.15 output
Re-Organization, Re-Assignment
$1 input = $0.05 - $0.15 output
Professional Development
$1 input = $0.05 - $0.15 output
Have Less, Do Better?
How to spend a dollar:
Staff Competency Development without Organization Change
$1 input = $0.10 - $0.20 output
Staff Competency Development with Organization Change
$1 input = $3.00 output
Staff Competency Development with Organization Change and Leadership
$1 input = $8.00 - $12.00 output
Have Less, Do Better?
Failure to Improve Insufficient preparation of organizations
and leaders for adoption of innovations We will try to find time for …
Continuing ineffective approaches because of the costs already “sunk” We already have invested so much in …
A general perception that no innovation will work because each community has its own unique needs It can’t work here because …
Pentz (2000)
Good Intentions
Actual SupportsYears 1-3
Outcomes
Every Teacher Trained
Fewer than 50% of the teachers received some training
Fewer than 10% of the schools used the CSR as intended
Every Teacher Continually Supported
Fewer than 25% of those teachers received support
Vast majority of students did not benefit
Aladjem & Borman, 2006; Vernez, Karam, Mariano, & DeMartini, 2006
Longitudinal Studies of a Variety of Comprehensive School Reforms
Failure to Improve
How to spend a dollar:
What are the break-through points?
What small change will have a huge impact
What are the leverage points?
Where and how to start making changes efficiently
What are the tipping points?
How much is needed before “the new” becomes “the standard”
Have Less, Do Better?
Students cannot benefit from interventions they do not experience
Teachers and staff have to change if students are to benefit
Dobson & Cook (1980)
Breakthrough
Effective NOT Effective
Effective
NOT Effective
IMPLEMENTATION
INT
ER
VE
NT
ION Student Benefits
Highly variable, often ineffective, sometimes harmful to students,
families, and adults
(Institute of Medicine, 2000; 2001; New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003; National Commission on Excellence in Education,1983; Department of Health and Human Services, 1999)
Poor Outcomes
Implementation Science
Implementation
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).
Download all or part of the monograph at:
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/resources/detail.cfm?resourceID=31
Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature
Data Show These Methods, When Used Alone, Do Not Result In Uses of Innovations As Intended:
Diffusion/ Dissemination of information
Training
Passing laws/ mandates/ regulations
Providing funding/ incentives
Organization change/ reorganization
Implementation Science
© Fixsen & Blase, 2007
Integrated & Compensatory
Performance Assessment (Fidelity)
Coaching
Training
Selection
Staff Competence
Systems Intervention
Facilitative Administration
Decision Support Data System
Organization Supports
TechnicalLeadership
Adaptive
Reliable Benefits for Students
Consistent uses of Innovations
OUTCOMES(% of Participants who Demonstrate Knowledge, Demonstrate
new Skills in a Training Setting, and Use new Skills in the Classroom)
TRAININGCOMPONENTS
KnowledgeSkill
DemonstrationUse in the Classroom
Theory and Discussion
10%
5% 0%
..+Demonstration in Training
30%20%
0%
…+ Practice & Feedback in Training
60% 60% 5%
…+ Coaching in Classroom
95% 95% 95%
Joyce and Showers, 2002
Staff Coaching
Student Benefits
Technical
Integrated & Compensatory
Performance Assessment (Fidelity)
Coaching
Training
Selection
Systems Intervention
Facilitative Administration
Decision Support Data System
Innovation Organization
Leadership
Adaptive
•Exploration (Sustainability)
•Installation (Sustainability)
•Initial Implementation
•Full Implementation (Effectiveness & Sustainability)
Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005
2 – 4 Years
Implementation Takes Time
How to spend a dollar:
What are the break-through points?
What small change will have a huge impact
What are the leverage points?
Where and how to start making changes efficiently
What are the tipping points?
How much is needed before “the new” becomes “the standard”
Have Less, Do Better?
Students cannot benefit from education practices they do not experience
Support implementation practices within schools and districts
Leverage
Implementation Team
Minimum of three people (four or five preferred) to promote effective, efficient, and sustainable implementation, organization change, and system transformation work
Tolerate turnover; teams are sustainable even when the players come and go
Implementation Team
A group that knows the innovations very well (formal and craft knowledge)
A group that knows implementation very well (formal and craft knowledge)
A group that knows improvement cycles to make intervention and implementation methods more effective and efficient over time
Implementation Team
School & District Supports
Management (leadership, policy)
Administration (HR, structure)
Supervision (nature, content)
Teacher & Staff Competence
State and Community Supports
Regional Authority Supports
Imp
lem
enta
tio
n T
eam
Simultaneous, Multi-Level Interventions
Implementation Team
Implementation Team
Prepare Communities
Prepare schools and staff
Work with Researchers
Assure Implementation
Prepare Regions Assure Student Benefits
Create Readiness
Parents and Stakeholders
© Fixsen & Blase, 2009
Impl. Team NO Impl. Team
Effective
Effective use of Implementation Science & Practice
IMPLEMENTATION
INT
ER
VE
NT
ION
80%, 3 Yrs 14%, 17 Yrs
Balas & Boren, 2000Fixsen, Blase, Timbers, & Wolf, 2001
Implementation Science
Letting it Happen Helping it Happen
Costs and Savings
Implementation Costs & Savings(Inflation Adjusted)
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
1 Yr Pre During PostYear 1
PostYear 2
PostYear 3
Ch
ang
e in
Bu
dg
et (
Per
cen
t)
Short-Term Investment in Imple. Capacity
Realize Long-Term Benefits
This year’s success pays for next years increase in capacity
Barber & Fullan (2005)
Costs and Savings
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Example of a “Drivers Analysis” Gaps, overlaps, and planning for
improved effectiveness
Work done by an Implementation Team
Quickly identify how to use current resources more efficiently
Work plan to align functions, roles, & structures with desired outcomes
© Fixsen & Blase, 2008
Performance Assessment
Coaching
Training
Selection
Systems Intervention
Facilitative Administration
Decision Support Data System
Adaptive
Technical
Integrated & Compensatory
Com
pete
ncy
Driv
ers
Com
pete
ncy
Driv
ers O
rganization Drivers
Organization D
rivers
LeadershipLeadership
Locus of ResponsibilityInnovation
State Gov’t. Dept.Local PartnershipDirect Service ProviderContracted TA GroupNational Purveyor
© Fixsen & Blase, 2008
Performance Assessment
Coaching
Training
Selection
Systems Intervention
Facilitative Administration
Decision Support Data System
Adaptive
Technical
Integrated & Compensatory
Com
pete
ncy
Driv
ers
Com
pete
ncy
Driv
ers O
rganization Drivers
Organization D
rivers
LeadershipLeadership
Locus of Responsibility
State Gov’t. Dept.Local PartnershipDirect Service ProviderContracted TA GroupNational Purveyor
Innovation
© Fixsen & Blase, 2008
Performance Assessment
Coaching
Training
Selection
Systems Intervention
Facilitative Administration
Decision Support Data System
Adaptive
Technical
Integrated & Compensatory
Com
pete
ncy
Driv
ers
Com
pete
ncy
Driv
ers O
rganization Drivers
Organization D
rivers
LeadershipLeadership
Locus of Responsibility
State Gov’t. Dept.Local PartnershipDirect Service ProviderContracted TA GroupNational Purveyor
Innovation
© Fixsen & Blase, 2008
Performance Assessment
Coaching
Training
Selection
Systems Intervention
Facilitative Administration
Decision Support Data System
Adaptive
Technical
Integrated & Compensatory
Com
pete
ncy
Driv
ers
Com
pete
ncy
Driv
ers O
rganization Drivers
Organization D
rivers
LeadershipLeadership
Locus of Responsibility
State Gov’t. Dept.Local PartnershipDirect Service ProviderContracted TA GroupNational Purveyor
Innovation
© Fixsen & Blase, 2008
Performance Assessment
Coaching
Training
Selection
Systems Intervention
Facilitative Administration
Decision Support Data System
Adaptive
Technical
Integrated & Compensatory
Com
pete
ncy
Driv
ers
Com
pete
ncy
Driv
ers O
rganization Drivers
Organization D
rivers
LeadershipLeadership
Locus of Responsibility
State Gov’t. Dept.Local PartnershipDirect Service ProviderContracted TA GroupNational Purveyor
Innovation
How to spend a dollar:
What are the break-through points?
What small change will have a huge impact
What are the leverage points?
Where and how to start making changes efficiently
What are the tipping points?
How much is needed before “the new” becomes “the standard”
Have Less, Do Better?
Capacity Building Scaling up = at least 60% of
the students who could benefit from an innovation have access to that innovation
Achieve significant benefits to students and society
Change Systems
To scale up, we need to:
Create an infrastructure for implementation of innovations
Turn policy into effective practice
Turn effective practice into policy
© Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008
Scale Up
To scale up interventions we must first scale up implementation capacity
Building implementation capacity is essential to maximizing the statewide use of EBPs and other innovations
© Fixsen & Blase, 2008
N = 565,000All Students & All Students & FamiliesFamilies
All Students & All Students & FamiliesFamilies
School Teachers School Teachers and Staffand Staff
School Teachers School Teachers and Staffand Staff
StateStateDepartment Department LeadershipLeadership
StateStateDepartment Department LeadershipLeadership
1 for each School(N = 1,800 School Teams)
School School Implementation Implementation
Team (N=4)Team (N=4)
School School Implementation Implementation
Team (N=4)Team (N=4)N = 7,200
N = 288
Implementation-Skilled Workforce
N = 70
Re
-Pu
rpo
se
““District” District” Implementation Implementation Teams (N=4)Teams (N=4)
““District” District” Implementation Implementation Teams (N=4)Teams (N=4)
1 for every group of 25 Schools (N = 72 “District” Teams)
Regional Regional Implementation Implementation Teams (N=5)Teams (N=5)
Regional Regional Implementation Implementation Teams (N=5)Teams (N=5)
1 for every group of 5 “Districts” (N = 14 Regional Teams)
Intensive Development
Saturation
State Capacity Development
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Years
Reg
iona
l Im
pl. T
eam
s RITs
STTs
Intensive Development
System Change
Innovative practices do not fare well in existing organizational structures and systems
An infrastructure for implementation does not exist
Organizational and system changes are essential to successful use of innovations
EXISTING SYSTEM
EFFECTIVE INNOVATIONS
ARE CHANGED TO
FIT THE SYSTEM
EXISTING SYSTEM IS
CHANGED TO SUPPORT
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE INNOVATION
EFFECTIVE INNOVATION
System Change
Implementation Team
Executive Management
Team
PractitionersInnovationsConsumers
Adaptive Challenges• Duplication• Fragmentation• Hiring criteria• Salaries• Credentialing• Licensing• Time/ scheduling• Union contracts• RFP methods• Federal/ State laws
“Ex
tern
al”
Sy
ste
m C
ha
ng
e S
up
po
rt
Pra
ctic
e In
form
ed
Po
licy
(P
IP)
Po
licy
En
ab
led
P
ractic
e (P
EP
)
System Transformation
♦Look for Faulty Assumptions & Errors; ♦Make Needed Changes; ♦Invite System to Respond
SYSTEM ALIGNMENT
State Department
Districts
Schools
Teachers/ Staff
Effective Practices
AL
IGN
ME
NT
Federal Departments
Imp
lem
enta
tio
n T
eam
s
FORM SUPPORTS FUNCTION
How to spend a dollar:
What are the break-through points?
Implement “what works”
What are the leverage points?
“District” Implementation Teams
What are the tipping points?
60% or more schools receiving competent implementation supports for using more effective education methods
Have Less, Do Better?
August 15-16-17, 2011
Washington, DCwww.implementationconference.org
Integrate research, practice, and policy
For More InformationDean L. Fixsen, Ph.D.
919-966-3892
Karen A. Blase, Ph.D.
919-966-9050
Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/
For More InformationState Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence-
based Practices (SISEP)
Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Rob Horner, George Sugai
www.scalingup.org
“Resources” Tab
Concept paper
Annotated bibliography
Data on scaling up
Scaling up Briefs
Evidence-based
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).
Download all or part of the monograph at:
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/resources/detail.cfm?resourceID=31
Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature
Thank You for your Support
Annie E. Casey Foundation (EBPs and cultural competence)
William T. Grant Foundation (implementation literature review)
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (implementation strategies grants; national implementation awards)
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (implementation research)
National Institute of Mental Health (research and training grants)
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (program development and evaluation grants
Office of Special Education Programs (Scaling up Capacity Development Center)
Administration for Children and Families (Child Welfare Leadership Development)
Duke Endowment (Child Welfare Reform)
