4 th Annual SPDG National Meeting: Day 2 Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D. OSEP Project Director and SPDG...

4th Annual SPDG National Meeting: Day 2

Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D.OSEP Project Director and SPDG Program Lead

John LindDirector, SIGnetwork

Today’s Agenda

• 8:30–8:40 Poll Everywhere• 8:40-10:00 Panel: Using SPDG Knowledge and

PD for Successful Wide-Spread Efforts

• 10:00–10:15 Transition Break• 10:15–11:40 Evidence Based Professional

Development Worksheet Discussions• 11:40–11:45 Transition Break• 11:45–12:00 Closing with Jennifer Coffey

• 12:00–2:00 Meetings with Project Officers

Poll Everywhere: Questions for the Panel• What questions do you have about the

SSIP

• What questions do you have about how Federal Initiatives could be aligned?

Using SPDG Knowledge and PD for Successful Wide-Spread Efforts

Gregg Corr, Jennifer Coffey, and David Guardino (OSEP); Pam Williams (MO SPDG); Terry Jackson (OSEP) Moderator

State Systemic Improvement Plan

5

The SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), focused on improving results for student with disabilities, that includes the following components…

SSIP Purpose

Multi-year, ambitious yet achievable plan that:

– Increases capacity of EIS programs/LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices

– Improves results for children with disabilities (and their families)

6

Drives the SSIP throughout each of the proposed Phases—from development

through implementation and evaluation

7

Data-based decision making

8

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;• Infrastructure

Analysis;• State-identified

measureable result;• Coherent

Improvement Strategies;

• Theory of Action.

• Multi-year plan addressing:• Infrastructure

Development; • Support EIS

Program/LEA in Implementing Evidence-Based Practices;

• Evaluation Plan.

• Reporting on Progress including:• Results of Ongoing

Evaluation;• Extent of Progress.

• Revisions to the SPP .

SSIP Activities by Phase

Data Analysis:

•Description of how State analyzed key data to determine area(s) for improvement:

How were data disaggregated?Concerns about data quality?

9

Phase I(submitted in 2015 with SPP/APR for 2013-14)

Infrastructure to Support Improvement/Build Capacity

• How the State analyzed its capacity to support improvement and build capacity in LEAs/EIS programs to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices to improve results for children with disabilities.

• The results of this analysis.

• Description should include: – governance, – fiscal, – quality standards, – professional

development, – data TA, and – accountability.

10

• Additional areas to be described:Strengths of State system.How system components are coordinated.Areas for improvement within and across

components.

• State initiatives:Include initiatives beyond special education

and EIS.• General Education, Child Care, Child Development. 11

Infrastructure Analysis (cont’d)

• How did the data analysis lead to the identification of the State-identified measurable result for children with disabilities?

• How will addressing the focus area build local capacity to improve the identified result for children with disabilities?

12

State-identified Measureable Result for Children with Disabilities

• Strategies needed to improve State infrastructure and to support LEA implementation of evidence-based practices to improve the SIMR

• How will strategies address root causes of low performance?

• How will strategies build LEA capacity to improve results for the SIMR?

Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies

A graphic illustration that shows the rationale of how implementing the coherent set of improvement strategies will:

–Increase the State’s capacity to lead meaningful change in LEAs; and–Achieve improvement in the SIMR for children with disabilities

Theory of Action

14

Then

This will happen

Theory of Action

IfWe do this…

Identified Improvement

Strategies

Identified Measurable

Result

Simplified Example

…will build the

capacity of schools or programs

to…

Improve early

literacy or reading

proficiency of children

with disabilities

Provide TA to LEAs to develop and implement comprehensive improvement plans

Expand MTSS in low-performing LEAs

• A plan for building State capacity to support LEAs

Implementation of evidence-based practices that will lead to measurable improvement

Plan includes the activities, steps and resources to implement coherent improvement strategies

Timelines for implementation Measures needed to evaluate implementation 17

Phase II(submitted in 2016 with SPP/APR for 2014-15)

Leveraging SPDG Knowledge for the SSIP

Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D.

Research to Practice

Office of Special Education Programs

SSIP Phase I: Analysis (which the State must include with the February 2, 2015 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2013):

• Data Analysis; • Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support

Improvement and Build Capacity;• State-identified Measurable Result(s) for

Children with Disabilities;• Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies;

and• Theory of Action.

Phase 1 components: Data Analysis

• A description of how the State identified and analyzed key data, including data from SPP/APR indicators, 618 data collections, and other available data as applicable, to: (1) select the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities, and (2) identify root causes contributing to low performance….

Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity:

• A description of how the State analyzed the capacity of its current infrastructure to support improvement and build capacity in LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain the use of evidence-based practices to improve results for children with disabilities….

State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities:

• …. The State-identified result(s) must be clearly based on the Data and State Infrastructure Analyses and must be a child-level outcome in contrast to a process outcome…..

Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies:

• ….The improvement strategies should include the strategies, identified through the Data and State Infrastructure Analyses, that are needed to improve the State infrastructure and to support LEA implementation of evidence-based practices to improve the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities….

Theory of Action:

• A graphic illustration that shows the rationale of how implementing the coherent set of improvement strategies selected will increase the State’s capacity to lead meaningful change in LEAs, and achieve improvement in the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities.

Phase II: Plan

• … includes the activities, steps and resources required to implement the coherent improvement strategies, with attention to the research on implementation, timelines for implementation and measures needed to evaluate implementation and impact on the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities.

Infrastructure Development

• …. This section must also identify who will be in charge of implementing the changes to infrastructure, resources needed, expected outcomes, and timelines for completing improvement efforts….

Support for LEA Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices:

• ….This section must identify steps and specific activities needed to implement the coherent improvement strategies, including communication strategies and stakeholder involvement; how identified barriers will be addressed; who will be in charge of implementing; how the activities will be implemented with fidelity; the resources that will be used to implement them; how the expected outcomes of the improvement strategies will be measured; and timelines for completion….

Evaluation

• The evaluation must specify how the State will use the information from the evaluation to examine the effectiveness of the implementation of the SSIP and the progress toward achieving intended improvements in the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities, and to make modifications to the SSIP as necessary, and how information from the evaluation will be disseminated to stakeholders.

Challenges to leveraging SPDG knowledge

• The SPDG is not in the special education office.

• The SPDG staff are not invited to SSIP planning meetings.

• What else?

• Please discuss these challenges, others, and ways to overcome them (5 minutes).

Connecting the Dots……

Staying focused on the big picture.

Alignment within the Department

31

…and across Offices

to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by

fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access

ED Mission

32

Where are the connections?

IMPROVED OUTCOMES FOR ALL STUDENTS 33

ED Collaboration: Building Bridges with partners across ED

Effective Communication:• Meaningfully engage staff across program offices• Changing conversation with States and Stakeholders

Coordinated Monitoring:• Working together across program offices to multiple

perspectives• Supporting States in ensuring that local

implementation addresses the needs of all studentsCoordinated Technical Assistance

• Leveraging resources and expertise• Streamlining assistance to facilitate comprehensive

reforms• Ensuring that support addresses needs of all students

34

Fast Facts About our Students • Title I funds serve 23 million students nationwide

in more than 13,400 LEAs, and 54,000 schools.

• In 2010-2011 there 4.3 million students learning English in grades K-12 nationwide, approximately 70% of EL are also Title I students.

• In 2011-2012 there were 6.4 million children and youth ages 3-21 receiving special education services.

Fast Facts About our Students

In SY 2011-2012 approximately . . . •15% of students in School Improvement Grant (SIG) schools were identified as students with disabilities.

•14% of students in SIG schools received Title III services.

•8% of all students with disabilities ages 6 through 21 were English learners

The Facts About Our Students: One state

• 63% of students with disabilities are also Title I eligible

• 31% of students with disabilities are also English learners

• 27% are in all three categories

• 90% are in at least one category37

Office of State Support (OSS)

• Merges the Office of Student Achievement and School Accountability (SASA), the Office of School Turnaround (OST), and the Office of the Deputy Secretary’s Implementation and Support Unit (ISU), as well as individual programs from several other OESE program offices. 

• Will provide transparent, timely, and high-quality support to states, in order to develop state capacity to drive implementation of P-12 comprehensive reform and differentiated accountability and support systems. 

Office of State Support (OSS)

• Will provide states with a single point of contact across multiple programs to support policy development and technical assistance, in order to reduce duplication of effort and improve effectiveness and efficiency.  

• As a result, states will be better able to assist school districts and schools in developing and strengthening their instructional systems to close achievement gaps and improve student outcomes.

Discussion Question:How do you and your SPDG partners get at the table versus being on the menu, given the overlap in mission and students served?

Missouri SPDG: Collaborative Work

Pam Williams

Coordinator, Special Education Services

Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education

pam.williams@dese.mo.gov

What are we doing?

MISSOURI COLLABORATIVE WORK …

The critical elements to drive the improvement efforts necessary to bring about positive results for all students, but especially students with disabilities…– High expectations – Clear vision

– A few focused, high-impact goals

– Frequent progress monitoring– Effective use of data

– Effective teaching/learning practices– Collaborative teams focused on data

43

44

45

How is the CW related to other work within the Department?

– Department Vision– 10 X 20 Plan– Flexibility Waiver—SSOS, Focus/Priority

Buildings– Teacher/Leader Standards– Missouri Learning Standards– Pre-service training– SSIP/SIMR– Scaling Up/MTSS

Increased Increased student student learninglearning

Increased Increased student student learninglearning

Classroom/ Building

Educators

Regional Professional Developmen

t

State Education Agency

Missouri Statewide System of Support: High quality professional development content,

materials, and structures

Fidelity of delivery and content

Fidelity of implementation

Training and coaching

Shared learning

Effective teaching/

learning practices

SSIP/SIMR• Indicator 17 (SSIP) State Identified Measurable Result is

student performance in ELA and Math• Improvement Activity for Indicator 17 is the framework

established by the Collaborative Work (CW)• The CW Key Elements are being infused with all other

work being done in the Department (Teacher Quality (Teacher/Leader Standards & Evaluation, Leadership Academy), Quality Schools (other Federal Programs), Data System Management, College and Career Readiness (Curriculum, Assessment, Career Ed) through the Department’s 10 X 20 plan

• Collaborative relationships being established with Teacher Education Programs to infuse teaching of CW Key Elements into Preservice learning using CW resources

Discussion Question:What immediate steps can you take so your SPDG project can support (or expand support) the SSIP and other statewide efforts (Flex Waiver, SIG, CCRS/A, RTT)?

U. S. Department of Education

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Gregg Corr, Ed.DDivision Director

Monitoring and State Improvement PlanningOffice of Special Education Programs

(202) 245-7309Gregg.Corr@ed.gov

David Guardino, Ph.D.Education Program SpecialistResearch to Practice Division

Office of Special Education Programs(202)245-6209

David.Guardino@ed.gov

Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D.Education Program SpecialistResearch to Practice Division

Office of Special Education Programs(202)245-6673

Jannifer.Coffey@ed.gov

Closing

Jennifer Coffey, SPDG Program Lead

John Lind, SIGNetwork Coordinator

Looking ahead for the SPDG

• FY 2015 SPDG Competition

• Program Measure Evaluation for the FY 2014 APRs

Upcoming SIGnetwork Webinars

• Power Up What Works: Wednesday, October 22nd 3:00 ET

• Using Best Practices in Professional Development, Laura Desimone: Thursday, November 6th at 3:00 ET

Objectives of the Meeting

• Increase knowledge and skills about evidence-based professional development practices

• Increase knowledge of and ability to use new tools presented

• Build a stronger program network

Learning Targets

• Make one change in your professional development system as a result of what you learned here.

• Begin using one new tool or modify one of your tools, as a result of what is shared.

• Make a new connection and contact that person after the meeting.

Now that we are not holding PLCs…

• Think about whether you would like a “pop-up” meeting or Webinar– We will support you any way we can

• The SIGnetwork is for you, so when you share your needs, we meet them

Thank you for all of your hard work!

• Have a safe trip home (however you happen to be getting there).

Meetings with Project Officers

Jennifer Coffey Academy Hall

Corine Weidenthal Vista A

Greg Knollman Vista B

Grace Zamora Duran Vista C

Shedeh Hajghassemali Balcony B

Terry Jackson Balcony C

Tina Diamond Balcony D

David Guardino Balcony E