1 / 58

4 th Annual SPDG National Meeting: Day 2

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

florence-weaver
Download Presentation

4 th Annual SPDG National Meeting: Day 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 4th Annual SPDG National Meeting: Day 2 Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D. OSEP Project Director and SPDG Program Lead John Lind Director, SIGnetwork

  2. 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

  3. 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?

  4. 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

  5. State Systemic Improvement Plan 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…

  6. 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)

  7. Data-based decision making Drives the SSIP throughout each of the proposed Phases—from development through implementation and evaluation

  8. SSIP Activities by Phase

  9. Phase I(submitted in 2015 with SPP/APR for 2013-14) Data Analysis: • Description of how State analyzed key data to determine area(s) for improvement: • How were data disaggregated? • Concerns about data quality?

  10. 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.

  11. Infrastructure Analysis (cont’d) • 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.

  12. State-identified Measureable Result for Children with Disabilities • 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?

  13. Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies • 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?

  14. Theory of Action 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 14

  15. Theory of Action Then This will happen IdentifiedImprovementStrategies IdentifiedMeasurable Result If We do this…

  16. SimplifiedExample Provide TA to LEAs to develop and implement comprehensive improvement plans Improve early literacy or reading proficiency of children with disabilities …will build the capacity of schools or programs to… Expand MTSS in low-performing LEAs

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

  18. Leveraging SPDG Knowledge for the SSIP Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D. Research to Practice Office of Special Education Programs

  19. 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.

  20. 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….

  21. 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….

  22. 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…..

  23. 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….

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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….

  27. 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….

  28. 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.

  29. 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).

  30. Connecting the Dots…… Staying focused on the big picture.

  31. to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access Alignment within the Department ED Mission to provide leadership to achieve full integration and participation in society of people with disabilities by ensuring equal opportunity and access to, and excellence in, education, employment and community living OSERS Mission to improve results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities ages birth through 21 by providing leadership and financial support to assist states and local districts...[and by] ensuring that the rights of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and their parents are protected OSEP Mission

  32. to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access …and across Offices ED Mission

  33. Where are the connections? IMPROVED OUTCOMES FOR ALL STUDENTS

  34. 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 students Coordinated Technical Assistance • Leveraging resources and expertise • Streamlining assistance to facilitate comprehensive reforms • Ensuring that support addresses needs of all students

  35. 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.

  36. 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

  37. 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 category

  38. 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. 

  39. 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.

  40. 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?

  41. Missouri SPDG: Collaborative Work Pam Williams Coordinator, Special Education Services Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education pam.williams@dese.mo.gov

  42. 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. 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

  44. Missouri Statewide System of Support: High quality professional development content, materials, and structures State Education Agency Training and coaching Regional Professional Development Effective teaching/ learning practices Shared learning Classroom/ Building Educators Fidelity of delivery and content Increased student learning Fidelity of implementation

  45. 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

  46. 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)?

  47. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Gregg Corr, Ed.D Division DirectorMonitoring and State Improvement PlanningOffice of Special Education Programs (202) 245-7309 Gregg.Corr@ed.gov David Guardino, Ph.D. Education Program Specialist Research to Practice Division Office of Special Education Programs (202)245-6209 David.Guardino@ed.gov Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D. Education Program Specialist Research to Practice Division Office of Special Education Programs (202)245-6673 Jannifer.Coffey@ed.gov U. S. Department of Education

More Related