state systemic improvement plan - hawaii doe

State Systemic Improvement Plan

September 18, 2014DES Stakeholder Meeting

September 19, 2014State-level Stakeholder Meeting

September 20, 2014 - Parent & Community Stakeholder Meeting

September 23, 2014 – Teacher Focus Group Meeting

Introductions

• CORE SSIP Team

– Amy Estes

– Yvonne Humble

– Ravae Todd

• Shari Dela Cuadra-Larsen, Acting Director, Special Projects

• Leila Hayashida, Assistant Superintendent, OCISS

• Cesar D’Agord – Western Regional Resource Center

• Your Turn:

– Name

– Office (& Section)

– Favorite Food or Animal

Teamwork makes the dream work!

John C Maxwell

Agenda

• Overview of SSIP

• Infrastructure Analysis – SWOT Exercise

• Data Analysis

• State Measurable Result (SiMR)

• Rationale for SiMR

• Next Stakeholder Meeting

Alignment to USDOE’s Accountability System For IDEA

Focus

State Determination

THEN NOW

Compliance Compliance + Results

“Meets Requirements”Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

“Needs Assistance”Indicators 1-16 + 17

95% Compliance, 40% Results

State Performance Plan/Annual Perfomance Report (SPP/APR)

Indicators 1-16 *different numbers

Indicators 1-16 + 17 (SSIP)

NCLB - AYP ESEA – STRIVE HI

Year 1 - FFY 2013Due by Apr 2015

Year 2 - FFY 2014Due by Feb 2016

Years 3-6 FFY 2015-18Due 2017- 2020

Phase IAnalysis

Phase IIDevelopment

Phase IIIEvaluation and Implementation

• Data Analysis;• Analysis of Infrastructure to

Support Improvement and Build Capacity;

• State-identifiedMeasureable Result;

• Selection of 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

5

SSIP Phases and Required Components

State Identified Measurable Result(s)

In-depth Data Analysis

In-depthInfrastructure

Analysis

Phase I Components - Analysis

What is the problem?

Broad Data Analysis

BroadInfrastructure

Analysis

Why is it happening?

6

Coherent Improvement Strategies & Theory of Action

What will we do about it?

Goal of SSIP: Improve results for students with disabilities

7

Then “X” will

happen(Explain in

research base or theory base why this will happen)

And we will see this

result in:

(Describe the improvement in the measurable

Improvement on child-based result)

Potential Solutions

A set of proposed Strategies:

If we do this

(describe in detail)

Theory of Action

Hawaii’s SSIP (draft) Theory of Actionfor improving results for students with disabilities

Initiatives:

(1) State-level Reorganization

(2) Strategic Alignment of Interventions

Governance

Funding / Finance

Personnel/ Workforce (PD&TA)

Data System

Monitoring and Accountability

Quality Standards

Evidence-Based InterventionsFocused on Students with Disabilities

Improved

results for

students

with

disabilities

Timeline of Process for Phase I

Stakeholders

Date of Activity

Info

Session

Bro

ad D

ata An

alysis

Bro

ad In

frastructu

re

An

alysis

Reco

mm

end

Initial

SiMR

In-d

epth

Data

An

alysis

In-d

epth

Infrastru

cture

An

alysis

Reco

mm

end

Final

SiMR

Inp

ut/Fee

db

ack on

Co

heren

t

Imp

rovem

en

t

Strategies

Theo

ry of A

ction

Plan

nin

g

SSIP Core Team 7/23

-

7/24

9/18 9/18 9/18 Complex Area or District

Convening

October 22- November 21

Dec (1-5) Dec (1-5) 7/2

5

District Ed Specialist (Special

Education)

9/18 9/18 9/18 9/18 Dec (1-5) Dec (1-5) X

Complex Area SUPT 8/27 Sept Sept Sept Dec (1-5) Dec (1-5) X

Principals Sept Sept Sept Sept Dec (1-5) Dec (1-5) X

Teachers Sept Sept Sept Sept Dec (1-5) Dec (1-5) X

CAST Leads 9/18 9/18 9/18 9/18 Dec (1-5) Dec (1-5) X

State–level Program

Specialist

9/19 9/19 9/19 9/19 Nov Nov Nov Dec (1-5) Dec (1-5) X

State-level Operations

Specialists

7/6 X 7/6 X Nov Nov Nov Dec (1-5) Dec (1-5) X

Parents & Community 9/20 9/20 9/20 9/20 Oct Oct Oct Dec 12 Dec 12 X

SSIP Overview - Checkpoint

STOP or GO?

Next Section: Implementation of the 6 Strategies

SLOW or pass GO?

Induction & Mentoring

Educator Effectiveness

Systems

Comprehensive Student Supports

Common Core

Formative Instruction/ Data Teams

Academic Review Teams

Our “Big Bet” = 6 Priority Strategies

6 Strategies: Common Core• Strategies for Implementing

the learning standards in mathematics and English Language Arts to prepare students for college, career and community success.

• Building capacity for staff on the use of the selected State-wide curriculum.

School Level Reading Math

Elementary Wonders Stepping Stones

Middle Springboard Go Math

High Springboard DOE + UH Courses

6 Strategies: Formative Instruction & Data Teams

• Teachers use tools, strategies, and resources to determine what students know, identify possible gaps in understanding, modify instruction, and actively engage students in their learning.

• Data Teams allow teachers to collaborate on ideas and best practices regarding student performance.

6 Strategies: Comprehensive Student Support System and RTI

• A schoolwide multi-tiered continuum of proactive student supports provides services for prevention and early intervention to meet the needs of students,

• To ensure individualized supports reach students, the following elements of RTI are consistently applied:• Universal Screening• Progress Monitoring• Multi-tier System of Supports• Data-driven decision-making

6 Strategies: Induction and Mentoring

• Every beginning teacher will participate in a comprehensive three-year induction program.

• Engage beginning teachers in a system of support that includes working with a highly skilled, trained instructional mentor to accelerate teacher effectiveness and student learning.

• The induction program will also improve the retention of quality teachers in the profession and strengthen teacher leadership.

6 Strategies: Educator Effectiveness System

• The EES utilizes multiple measures when possible to give teachers the best information available, while guarding against misguided judgments.

• The EES introduces a new performance rating system that celebrates exceptional teachers.

To reach its goals, the Department must invest in its teachers. The EES provides new tools and data to help teachers become more effective. The EES supports teacher development by:

•Clarifying Expectations•Providing Feedback

•Driving Professional Development•Valuing Collaboration

6 Strategies: Academic Review Team

• Performance management system.• An Academic Review Team is

charged with planning, doing, checking (monitoring), and taking action (next steps) for strategic projects and initiatives.

• Key leaders must have regular routines in place that facilitate dialogue and action around student outcomes aligned with the strategic plan.

• These routines are focused on achieving measurable success.

Critical components of the 6 Strategies

Implementation Continuums

(“rubrics”)

Field Assessment

Complex Area Support Team

(CAST)

6 Strategies Survey

Routines

Implementation Continuums

• Describes implementation progress in 4 phases• Establishing (1)• Applying (2)• Integrating (3) • Systematizing (4)

• School level• Includes evidence

Parallel Structures



Systems

Comprehensive Student

Support System

Common Core





Systems


Support System

Common Core



State Support Team Complex Area Support Team

Roles & Responsibilities



Systems


Support System

Common Core



State Support Team Lead state’s implementation plan

Facilitate (PLC) among CA leads

Provide field with timely communication and feedback opportunities

Gather and analyze implementation data to guide improvements

Develop / share resources to support quality implementation

Provide feedback to DOE leadership

Roles & Responsibilities



Systems


Support System

Common Core



Complex Area Support Team

• Collaborate across 6 Priority Strategies

• Lead CA implementation plan

• Participate in PLC

• Communication & feedback linchpin between state and schools

• Gather and analyze data & evidence school implementation

• Support CAS’s efforts to differentiate school support

• Build schools’ capacity

Infrastructure Analysis

Purpose of the Infrastructure Analysis

Determine the capacity of the current state system to support improvement and build capacity in schools to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices to improve results for children and youth with disabilities

25

Using SWOT Analysis to Analyze the State Infrastructure

Organizes and stimulates thinking about various system and infrastructure components by asking what are the system’s:

• Strengths

• Weaknesses

• Opportunities

• Threats

26

Analysis of Hawai‘i’s Infrastructure– Fiscal

– Governance

– Technical Assistance

– Professional Development

– Data

– Quality Standards

– Monitoring and Accountability

27

Governance

Funding / Finance

Personnel/ Workforce (PD&TA)

Data System

Monitoring and Accountability

Quality Standards

Instructions for SWOT Analysis

• Divide into four teams. See name-tag for team.

• Each team will spend 15 minutes on first brainstorming the SWOT at the first station, then 12 minutes at each subsequent station.

• Teams start with one of the system components and when time is up, the team moves to the next station.

• Team writes thoughts/ideas on post it notes and place them on sheets (one idea per post it note!)

• When you arrive at a system component where a team has already provided ideas, you can endorse their ideas (by placing a dot on the post-it note of that idea) or contribute with new ideas.

• Group-wide reflections will take place at the end of the session, with amendments as needed.

Please resume Infrastructure

Analysiswhen you return in

15 minutes.

Infrastructure Analysis - Checkpoint

Think-Pair-Share

State-identified Measurable Result

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

• The result the State intends to achieve through the implementation of the SSIP.

• Must be a child-level outcome in contrast to a process outcome.

• The State may select a single result (e.g., increasing the graduation rate for children with disabilities).

SiMR

• SIMR is aligned to an SPP/APR indicator or a component of an SPP/APR indicator.

• SIMR is based on the data and infrastructure analysis

• SIMR is aligned with current agency initiatives or priorities

• Addressing the SIMR will have an impact on improving results for children with disabilities within the State

Don’t get stuck here…

State Identified Measurable Result(s)

Coherent Improvement Strategies

Theory of Action

In-depth Data Analysis

In-depthInfrastructure

Analysis

AN ITERATIVE PROCESS

What is the problem?

Broad Data Analysis

BroadInfrastructure

Analysis

Why is it happening?

What will we do about it?

35

SiMR- Checkpoint

STOP or GO?

Data Analysis

Pre

limin

ary

Dat

a: W

he

re a

re o

ur

stu

de

nts

?

Strive HI: Student Group Performance Report – State of Hawaii (SY 2013-2014)

74%

83%

75%

75%

72%

69%

69%

67%

60%

59%

49%

43%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Target

White

Asian

Native American

Black

All Students

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

Native Hawaiian

Disadvantaged

Pacific Islander

Limited English (ELL)

Disabled (SPED)

Reading ProficiencyELL and SPED includes ELL and SPED Exits Proficiency Rate


ELL and SPED includes ELL and SPED Exits Proficiency Rate

64%

69%

68%

59%

57%

55%

54%

53%

48%

47%

41%

37%

17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Target

White

Asian

All Students


Native American

Hispanic

Black

Disadvantaged

Native Hawaiian


Pacific Islander

Disabled (SPED)

Math Proficiency


84%

90%

84%

82%

79%

79%

78%

77%

75%

73%

62%

61%

57%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Target

Asian


All Students

White

Native Hawaiian

Disadvantaged

Hispanic

Black

Pacific Islander

Native American

Disabled (SPED)


Graduation

• Percent of the number of students with IEPs who graduate in four years (standard number of years) with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students with IEPs who form the adjusted cohort for the graduating class.

Graduation Rates(Indicator B-1)

Graduation Rates(Indicator B-1)

58.3 58.3 57.9 59.30

82.00

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

2010 APR

FFY 20082008-09

data

2011 APR

FFY 20092008-09

data

2012 APR

FFY 20102009-10

data

2013 APR

FFY 20112010-11

data

2013 APRTarget

National Rank: 34 out of 60 states)

Post School OutcomesIndicator B-14

• A. Percent enrolled in higher education = (# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school)

• B. Percent enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school = (# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school)

• C. Percent enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment = (# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment)

Indicator B-14Post School Outcomes

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Target National Rank

14a 38.0 37.0 37.50 38.6 41.0 9 out 60

14b 69.0 73.0 72.50 76.8 75.0 2 out of 60

14c 77.0 79.0 78.20 84.9 81.0 9 out of 60

Indicator B-14Post School Outcomes

38 37 38 39 41

6973 73

7775

77 79 7885 81

0

20

40

60

80

100

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Target

14a 14b 14c

Representative Data by Ethnicity

EthnicityTotal # of

SPED leavers(n = 1136)

%# Interviewed

(n = 469)%

American Indian/Alaskan

12 <1.0 9 1.9

Asian or Pacific Islander 839 73.9 351 74.8

Black or African American 32 2.8 12 2.5

Hispanic/Latino 46 4.0 15 3.2

White 163 14.3 57 12.2

Not categorized and Multiple 44 3.9 25 5.3

Representative Data by Disability

DisabilityTotal # of

SPED leavers(n = 1136)

%# Interviewed

(n = 469)%

Autism 46 4.0 22 4.7

Emotional disability

110 9.7 33 7.0

Intellectual disability

97 8.5 25 5.3

Other health impaired

179 15.8 89 18.9

Specific learning disability 657 57.8 258 55.0

Hard of hearing/deaf

22 1.9 6 1.2

*Others 25 2.2 7 1.5

2014 Hawaii Public Schools Student Outcomes by Disability Type

All Complex Areas

Specific learning disabilityOther health impairmentDevelopmental delay

AutismIntellectual disability

Emotional disturbanceSpeech or language impairment

Multiple disabilitiesHearing impairment

Orthopedic impairmentTraumatic brain injuryVisual impairmentDeaf-blindness 0.1% (9)

0.3% (51)0.3% (61)0.5% (85)1.7% (300)3.2% (559)3.2% (560)

5.1% (898)6.0% (1,048)7.6% (1,339)

13.9% (2,448)14.2% (2,497)

43.9% (7,702)

Enrollment

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Math0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Reading

No disabilitySpecific learning disabilityOther health impairmentDevelopmental delay




Orthopedic impairmentTraumatic brain injuryVisual impairmentDeaf-blindness

62.3%10.5%12.3%11.7%

26.5%

17.7%42.4%

12.4%12.5%

27.6%

0.0%

0.0%

8.3%

0.0%

73.6%16.7%

24.6%

31.4%

34.7%41.5%

13.1%19.4%20.8%

34.5%

9.2%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

Proficiency Rates by Disability

0 20 40 60 80 100

Math0 20 40 60 80 100

Reading






Median SGP by Disability






2.561.99

1.78

2.081.38

0.872.19

1.742.04

1.57

2.21

GPA by Disability

2014 Hawaii Public Schools Student Outcomes by Disability Type

No disability

Specific learning disability

Other health impairment

Developmental delay

Autism


Emotional disturbance

Speech or language impairment

Multiple disabilities

Hearing impairment

Orthopedic impairment

Traumatic brain injury

Visual impairment

Deaf-blindness

18%

30%

33%

40%

21%

32%

45%

20%

41%

36%

45%

38%

25%

22%

Chronic Absenteeism Rate by Disability

No disability



Developmental delay

Autism





Hearing impairment

Orthopedic impairment

Traumatic brain injury

Visual impairment

Deaf-blindness

108

293

22

85

17

66

55

98

20

9

8

6

0

0

Suspensions per 500

No disability



Developmental delay

Autism





Hearing impairment

0.06

0.13

0.00

0.20

0.00

0.48

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Expulsions per 500

All Complex Areas

2014 Hawaii Public Schools Enrollment by Disability and Student Characteristics

All Complex Areas

Specific learningdisability

Other healthimpairment

Developmentaldelay

Autism Intellectual disabilityEmotionaldisturbance

Speech or languageimpairment

Multiple disabilities Hearing impairmentOrthopedicimpairment

Native HawaiianFilipinoWhite

JapaneseHispanicSamoan

MicronesianBlack

PortugueseChineseMultiple

Indo-ChineseAmerican Indian..

TonganKorean

51.0%44.4%

30.9%33.2%44.9%53.4%

44.0%45.5%42.0%36.5%41.4%41.0%46.2%52.0%

35.3%

15.4%

20.2%15.8%14.8%

14.7%18.6%12.7%12.3%10.9%11.4%11.2%13.7%

9.1%

9.0%6.7%

10.9%17.3%15.5%15.5%13.7%14.6%17.8%10.8%15.3%17.6%14.9%16.0%

18.4%17.6%

9.8%

14.4%16.2%

12.2%

12.2%

12.8%

16.7%

3.9%8.4%

7.8%2.4%1.1%

5.3%

8.6%

7.6%0.8%

10.1%

5.8%8.2%3.4%4.8%5.8%8.4%

4.6%5.0%6.8%7.5%7.1%6.1%5.6%4.9%

6.5%3.2%5.1%3.6%5.3%5.2%3.2%4.8%6.4%2.7%7.1%3.2%9.8%5.6%2.0%

2.4%2.8%6.3%3.3%4.9%1.3%1.2%4.3%3.1%3.5%2.2%1.3%4.5%0.8%2.9%

2.3%3.6%2.6%5.8%1.7%3.4%7.4%1.9%2.4%6.2%4.9%5.8%1.5%4.0%6.9%

1.5%2.5%0.8%1.0%0.7%2.1%6.6%1.0%1.4%1.6%0.7%1.9%3.0%0.8%

0.3%0.6%0.7%0.8%0.5%0.4%1.8%0.2%0.5%0.3%0.4%

0.8%

Identification by Race/Ethnicity (15 Largest Groups Represented)

Specific learningdisability

Other healthimpairment

Developmentaldelay

Autism Intellectual disabilityEmotionaldisturbance

Speech or languageimpairment

Multiple disabilities Hearing impairmentOrthopedicimpairment

PreK Age 2PreK Age 3PreK Age 4

KG123456789101112

SPED Over Age

54.3%

60.7%

60.2%

60.4%

54.8%

12.8%

17.5%

15.5%

16.1%

14.6%

16.6%

3.2%

5.2%

75.0%

71.4%

45.2%

14.9%

20.0%

10.6%

13.3%

11.5%

23.9%

7.5%

6.3%

5.1%

5.0%

29.3%

0.4%

1.1%

3.2%

7.0%

7.6%

6.9%

7.9%

0.2%

1.2%

3.2%

3.9%

5.5%

6.4%

7.9%

7.3%

13.0%

5.0%

5.1%

6.0%

2.8%

1.2%

0.2%

0.4%

1.1% 29.3%

3.8%

2.5%

2.6%

2.5%

2.5%

2.1%

3.1%

1.3%

2.6%

2.0%

1.3%

2.1%

1.6%

0.8%

2.4%

1.3%

0.8%

0.5%

0.8%

0.4%

0.5%

0.1%

0.3%

Identification by Grade





Orthopedic impairmentTraumatic brain injuryVisual impairmentDeaf-blindness 78%

63%75%

61%61%

54%54%

72%71%

38%64%59%69%

53%

22%37%25%

39%39%

46%46%

28%29%

62%36%41%31%

47%

Identification by SES StatusNo disability

Specific learning disabilityOther health impairmentDevelopmental delay

AutismIntellectual disabilityEmotional disturbance

Speech or language impairmentMultiple disabilitiesHearing impairment

Orthopedic impairmentTraumatic brain injuryVisual impairmentDeaf-blindness 22%

20%13%15%18%14%6%4%

21%6%8%5%9%7%

78%80%

87%85%82%86%

94%96%

79%94%92%95%91%93%

Identification by English Language Learner Status

Data Analysis and Capacity Building- Checkpoint

STOP or GO?

Rationale for SiMR

The Rationale for the SiMR

• Based on the data analysis and infrastructure analysis completed so far, explain the rationale for why you would recommend the state select each one of the four outcomes for students with disabilities for a SiMR:

– Improve reading proficiency/growth

– Improve math proficiency/growth

– Improve graduation rates

– Improve post-school outcomes

14. Post School Outcomes

1. Graduation Rates2. Dropout Rates

13. Post Secondary Transition4. Suspensions/Expulsions

3. Performance on Reading and Math Statewide

Assessments

7. Early Childhood Outcomes

8. Parent Involvement

6. Pre-School Educational Settings

5. Educational Settings

The rationale

• Imagine you are in an elevator with the Superintendent, and you only have about 10 floors to explain your rationale…

• Rationale should include:– Why would you view it as a priority for the state?

– How is it aligned with current agency initiatives or priorities?

– How will working on it impact results for children with disabilities within the State?

Rationale for SiMR- Checkpoint

STOP or GO?

Next Steps!

• Special Projects & will assemble input from all Stakeholder groups in convened in August and September, and work with CORE SSIP Team.

• Complex Area or District Convening

• Next Stakeholder Meeting - December

Thank you for your input!

Questions?

Shari Dela Cuadra-Larsen

[email protected]

(808) 586-3447

SPP/APR old and newFFY 2004 to FFY 2012 FFY 2013 to FFY 2018

B1. Graduation Rates B1. Graduation Rates

B2. Dropout Rates B2. Dropout Rates

B3. Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments B3. Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments

B4. Suspensions/Expulsions B4. Suspensions/Expulsions

B5. School-age Settings B5. School-age Settings

B6. Pre-school Settings B6. Pre-school Settings

B7. Pre-school outcomes B7. Pre-school outcomes

B8. Parent Involvement B8. Parent Involvement

B9. Disproportionality – Special Ed. Identification B9. Disproportionality – Special Ed. Identification

B10. Disproportionality – Six disabilities B10. Disproportionality – Six disabilities

B11. Child Find (timeline for initial evaluation) B11. Child Find (timeline for initial evaluation)

B12. Transition C to B B12. Transition C to B

B13. Post Secondary Transition B13. Post Secondary Transition

B14. Post School Outcomes B14. Post School Outcomes

B15. General Supervision Eliminated: Correction of noncompliance still applicable

B16. Written Complaints Resolved Within Timeline Eliminated: Table 7 of Section 618

B17. Due Process Hearing Requests Adjudicated within timeline Eliminated: Table 7 of Section 618

B18. Resolution Session Settlement Agreements B15. Resolution Session Settlement Agreements

B19. Mediation Agreements B16. Mediation Agreements

B20. Data (timeliness and validity) Eliminated: OSEP calculates

B17. State Systemic Improvement Plan

state systemic improvement plan - hawaii doe

Documents