State Scaling-up Workgroup

March 6, 2012

SWG Agenda9:00 Welcome & Introductions  9:15 Review Agenda/TIPS Meeting Form 9:20 Purpose of the Scaling-Up Workgroup & Your Role  9:30 Meeting Foundations  9:45 Overview of Implementation Science  10:30 RtI, PBIS, and MTSS 10:40 Sub-Workgroups  11:20 Next Steps 

http://ncswg.wikispaces.com/

State Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence-based Practices Center

Dean Fixsen and Karen BlaseUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Rob Horner and George SugaiUniversity of Oregon; University of Connecticut

Barbara Sims and Michelle DudaUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

NC SLC 02/2012

Formula for Success

Effective intervention

X

Effective implementation

=

Effective outcomes

SISEP 2012

0.97

0.03

0.03

X

Infrastructure for Success Improve student outcomes

Improve teacher instruction

Improve school supports for teachers

Improve district supports for schools

Improve regional supports for districts

Improve State supports for outcomes

Re-define relationships among system componentsFocus fully on student outcomes

SISEP 2012

© Fixsen & Blase, 2008

All Students & Families

All Students & Families

School Teachers and

Staff

School Teachers and

Staff

StateDepartment Leadership

StateDepartment Leadership

1 for each SchoolBuilding

Implementation Team

Building Implementation

Team

Implementation-Skilled Workforce

Staff with special implementation skills

Re

-Pu

rpo

se

“District” Implementation

Teams

“District” Implementation

Teams1 for every group of 15-25 Schools

Regional Implementation

Teams

Regional Implementation

Teams

1 for every group of 4 “Districts”

Adult interactions produce Student benefits

SISEP 2012

Letting it happen

Helping it happen

“Do it yourself” approaches

Making it happen

“Do it with expert help”

Implementation Teams are accountable

Based on Hall & Hord (1987); Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou (2004); Fixsen, Blase, Duda, Naoom, & Van Dyke (2010)

Implementation Science

Implementation Team

Implementation Team

Prepare Buildings & Districts

Prepare Teachers and Staff

Work with Researchers

Assure Implementation

Prepare Regions Assure Student Benefits

Create Readiness

Parents and Stakeholders

© Fixsen & Blase, 2009

20%80%

SISEP 2012

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, 2000 Green & Seifert, 2005

Fixsen, Blase, Timbers, & Wolf, 2001

Letting it Happen Helping it Happen

SISEP 2012

Implementation Team

Implementation Team

StateManagement

Team

TeachersInnovations

Students

Sys

tem

C

han

ge

Adaptive Challenges• Duplication• Fragmentation• Hiring criteria• Salaries• Credentialing• Licensing• Time/ scheduling• Union contracts• RFP methods• Federal/ State laws

SIS

EP

Sy

ste

m C

ha

ng

e S

up

po

rt

Pra

ctic

e-

Po

licy

C

om

mu

nic

ati

on

Cy

cle

Po

licy

Su

pp

orts

Effe

ctive

Pra

ctice

System Reinvention

SISEP 2012

Capacity Building

YEARS

AM

OU

NT

S

Funding

Cap

acity

Implementation TeamsOrganization ChangeSystem Reinvention

SISEP 2012

State Capacity Assessment

Assess features and functions critical to statewide scaling

Each item is important» A guide for action planning

» A marker of baseline and progress

» An outcome of SISEP effectiveness

SISEP 2012

State Capacity Assessment

State Capacity Assessment

Searched for system-level assessments across the world

Began drafting possible items (May 2008)

Convened the National Evaluation Board (September 2008)

Tried out the items in our SISEP and STS meetings (instant feedback!)

Arrived at an acceptable State Capacity Assessment draft (October 2011; version 18)

SISEP 2012

Time frame of Assessment

• Period 1: September 2008 thru February 2009

• Period 2: March 2009 thru August 2009

• Period 3: September 2009 thru February 2010

• Period 4: March 2010 thru August 2010

• Period 5: September 2010 thru February 2011

• Period 6: March 2011 thru August 2011

• Period 7: September 2011 thru February 2012 in progress

SISEP 2012

SMT Investment SMT Alignment RIT Functioning DLIT Functioning

SISEP 2012

SISEP 2012

Critical Elements1. A State Management Team (SMT) includes the Chief State School Officer

(CSSO) and State department of education decision makers for general and special education and management o A SMT is a group that can make significant decisions about guidance for

the entire department and about resources (time, structures, funds) without leaving the room to consult a higher authority

2. SMT meetings attended regularly by State implementation coordinators (e.g. State Transformation Specialists [STSs])o The STSs are included in discussions about implementation capacity

building during SMT meetings as well as between meetings3. SMT monthly agenda includes sufficient time (typically one hour) to focus on

implementation content (e.g. implementation functions; organization and system change methods)o The STSs and others use the time to provide information about

implementation, progress toward building implementation capacity, problems for the SMT to help resolve, and facilitators of implementation for the SMT to consider

Total Score (Maximum Score = 6)

SMT Investment: Commitment

SMT Investment SMT Alignment RIT Functioning DLIT FunctioningSISEP 2012

For More Information

Dean L. Fixsen, Ph.D.

919-966-3892

dean.fixsen@unc.edu

Karen A. Blase, Ph.D.

919-966-9050

karen.blase@unc.edu

Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute

University of North Carolina

Chapel Hill, NC

http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/ www.scalingup.org

www.implementationconference.org

SISEP 2012

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

Implementation Science

SISEP 2012

Responsiveness to Instruction (RtI)

Consortium Research to Practice 

Funded by Oak Foundation Sept 2010 - August 2013 

Purpose of Consortium 

• Collaboration among regional LEAs on successful district wide implementation of RtI

• Goals:o Identify essential elements of the RtI model and effective

practices;o Identify mechanisms and structures to ensure fidelity to the RtI

model and practices;o Identify systems and structures to support sustainability from

the district level to the individual classroom level; ando Identify an evaluation process for RtI implementation 

Participating LEAsOriginal members include:• Alamance-Burlington School System, • Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, • Chatham County Schools, • Durham Public Schools, • Guilford County Schools, • Orange County Schools, and • Wake County Public School System

Additional Members include:• Cabarrus County Schools• Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools• Johnston County Schools• Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools 

Objectives and Outcomes

Objective 1:  • Identification of the essential components/characteristics at each

tier for effective RtI implementation.• Identification of the “flexible” elements within each tier of the RtI

process that can be loosely defined by each school implementing RtI.

Activities:• Guided literature discussions• Attendance at RtI Summit 2011• Attendance at RtI Innovations 2011• Attendance at Professional Learning Communities & RtI

   

Sub-Workgroups

• Communication

• Data, Evaluation, & Assessment

• Training, Coaching, & Technical Assistance

Next Steps• Next Meeting: April 18, 9-12

– Read chapters 1 and 2

• Come to the next meeting with one “ah-ha” and one question.

– Meeting roles and norms

• Future meeting dates:

– May 29, 9:30-3:30

– June 29, 9:30-3:30