RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY State Systemic Improvement Plan

1. RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITYState Systemic Improvement Plan OSE Stakeholder Meeting May 15, 2014

2. AGENDA • Purpose of the Stakeholder group • Focus is on academic outcomes for students with disabilities • Changes in assessment • Data Review • Next Steps

3. BACKGROUND OSEP VISION REVISION To create a balance between the focus on improved results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities while considering compliance as it relates to those results and outcomes

4. How Well is Compliance Impacting Outcomes?

5. “We have to expect the very best from our students—and tell the truth about student performance—so that we can give all students the supports and services they need. The best way to do that is by focusing on results.” U.S. DOE Secretary Arne Duncan RDA Press Release, March 2, 2012

6. Results Driven Accountability The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. DOE has changed focus • In the past, the focus was to ensure that States meet IDEA program procedural requirements • States monitored LEAs on various indicators • Results (Indiana sets the target) • Compliance (the target is either 100% or 0%)

7. Results Driven Accountability • OSEP has repurposed one of the indicators • State Systemic Improvement Plan • OSEP vision for RDA: All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best supports States in improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities and their families

8. Components of RDA • State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) measures results and compliance • Differentiated monitoring and technical assistance supports improvement in LEA, but especially low performing LEAs • Determinations reflect State performance on results as well as compliance

9. State Systemic Improvement Plan • The SSIP is a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement Plan that will consist of three phases: • Phase I – (due as part of April 1, 2015 SPP/APR) • Data analysis/Root cause analysis • Identification of the Focus for Improvement • State Identified Measurable Result (SIMR) • Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity • Theory of Action

10. State Systemic Improvement Plan • Phase II - (due with Feb. 1, 2016 SPP/APR) • Infrastructure Development • Support LEA Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices; and • Evaluation Plan • Phase III – (due with Feb. 1, 2017 SPP/APR) • Results of Ongoing Evaluation and Revisions to the SPP

11. State Systemic Improvement Plan The data and infrastructure analysis should use multiple data sources to identify systemic approaches that will lead to improved results across key measures such as: • Performance on assessment, graduation with a regular diploma, and post-school outcomes • Qualitative data • Quantitative data

12. SSIP: Thinking Through Data Analysis • Begin with a broad overarching review of available quantitative data • Review performance and compliance data • Approach from a the “big picture” view of state data before you drill down to one area. • Don’t immediately proceed to a discrete indicator/area and do a deep data dive on that indicator because you will miss connections and linkages. • Look for trends and patterns • Begin to make connections

13. SSIP: Thinking Through Data Analysis Data analysis requirements A description of how the state analyzed key data • ID of state identified measurable result • ID of root causes contributing to low performance

14. SSIP: Infrastructure Analysis • A description of how the State analyzed the capacity of its current system to • support improvement • build capacity in LEA's and local programs • implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices State system components include: governance, fiscal, quality standards, professional development, data, technical assistance, and accountability.

15. Phase I Components Theory of Action And Improvement Strategies Data Analysis In-depth Analysis Related to Primary Concern Area Infrastructure Analysis In-depth Analysis Related to Primary Concern Area State Identified Measureable Result Data Analysis Broad Analysis Infrastructure Analysis Broad Analysis Big Ideas • Long Standing Issues • Assumptions

16. SSIP: Theory of Action Must describe the general improvement strategies that need to be carried out and the outcomes that will need to be met to achieve the State-identified, measurable improvement outcomes • The State must include in the description the changes in the State system, LEA's and local programs, and school and provider practices that must occur to achieve the State-identified, measurable improvement outcomes. • States should consider developing a graphic that shows the relationship between the activities and the outcomes that the State expects to achieve over a multi-year period.

17. Stakeholders & Theory of Action Input… • From different levels of the system (perspectives) • Participation in the review and interpretation of the data, identification of issues and challenges, and setting of priorities Information… • Conveys clearly the general approach to addressing the measurable result area • Can be consistently articulated by each and all

18. Theory of Action—Beyond the Basics Why If Then We Do What We Do— our Belief and Assumptions We Do These Strategies We Will Achieve These Improved Outcomes However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

19. SSIP: Stakeholder Involvement Stakeholder involvement is an expectation in the development of the SSIP. Benefits : • leads to informed decision-making as stakeholders often possess a wealth of information which can benefit the work • introduces a range of ideas, experiences and expertise • reduces the likelihood of conflicts which can harm the implementation and success • contributes to the transparency of actions • builds trust between the state and others which can lead to long-term collaborative relationships

20. Building Capacity Coherent Infrastructure Quality Data Improved Results Effective Practices Supporting Implementation

21. SSIP Activities • The final packet of instructions not released from OSEP yet • New State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report • Second round of public input recently completed • OSEP has gone ahead • Instructed technical assistance centers to work with States on SSIP expectations

22. SSIP Activities • Indiana was first state to have an on-site OSEP team visit to discuss SSIP activities • Two week notice • April 23-25, 2014 • Indiana provided feedback both to OSEP and neighboring states • OSEP ‘provision of technical assistance –vs- compliance monitoring’

23. SSIP Activities • Indiana Office of Special Education began concentration on the SSIP after 2/1/2014 • Began data collection • Five year trend of the various indicators • Discussions with other DOE divisions • Systemic change for students with disabilities to increase their educational outcomes must occur in the broader educational community

24. Indiana DOE: Macro View VISION Working together to build an education system of equity and high quality, focused on student-centered accountability

25. Indiana DOE: Macro View Background: Indiana Academic Standards • Indiana adopted Common Core standards in 2010 • Indiana General Assembly enacted legislation precluding Indiana’s use of Common Core in March 2014 • Legislation required that new College and Career Ready standards be adopted by the State Board of Education by 7/1/2014 • New standards were accepted by the State Board on 4/28/2014

26. Indiana DOE: Macro View CURRENT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS • Regular Assessment - ISTEP+ • Alternate Assessment-Modified Achievement Standards – IMAST (SY13-14 is last year) • Alternate Assessment - ISTAR

27. Indiana DOE: Macro View No Child Left Behind waiver • Indy Start Excerpt (5/13/14): The report found that Indiana was not meeting expectations on several items, including monitoring, technical assistance for students with disabilities, community outreach, transition to implement college- and career-ready standards, teacher/principal evaluations and developing high-quality assessments.

28. Indiana Demographics

29. Indiana Public School Demographics 14.4% 14.4%

30. Indiana Public School Demographics 41% 51% 8.1% 95% 95%

31. LEA Demographics

32. LEA Demographics

33. Assessment Results: State ISTEP+ 27% 73%

34. 84.3% 76.9% 61.5% 58.4% 41.6% 38.5% 23.1% 15.7% 74.6% 55.8% 44.2% 25.4%

35. Assessment Results: State ISTAR 36.2% (2,479) 45.5% (3,109) 18.3% (1,252)

36. Assessment Results: State IMAST 47.1% (7,172) 52.9% (8,046)

37. 56.3% 48.3% 51.7% 43.7% 53% 52.9% 47% 47.1%

38. Hypothesis - Preliminary • Up to this point – DOE website data • Information used for accountability • Not all students information included • Did not meet parameters of accountability • Decided to look at all data • Have assessment data for four years, all students in Special Education (3rd-8th grade)

40. Hypothesis - Preliminary Indicator 3 Participation and performance of children with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) on statewide assessments • Three sections • Percent of LEAs that meet the subgroup size • Participation • Proficiency

48. Hypothesis - Preliminary IMAST SPECIFIC • Since this is the last year for IMAST, decided to start looking at the data of those students • Anticipate high majority of these students will be assessed on the ‘new’ ISTAR based from newly adopted standards