The SWIFT CenterSCHOOLWIDE INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSFORMATION

Wayne SailorJenny Stonemeier

National Title 1 Conference San Diego, CA

February, 2014

The SWIFT CENTER:A Schoolwide Integrated Framework for

Transformationis the

National Center on Schoolwide Inclusive School ReformAt the University of Kansas

funded by The U.S. Department of Education

Office of Special Education Programs

SWIFT a

National Technical Assistance Center providing intensive technical assistance to five states:

MarylandMississippi

New HampshireOregon

Vermont

Serving 64 schools across 16 school districts2013-2017

SWIFT CENTERIntensive

Technical AssistanceThree levels

Universal TA to all 64 schoolsTargeted TA to some schools

Needs-based, on-demand TA to a few schools

LEVEL 1 UNIVERSAL TA• www.swiftschools.org• Professional Learning Institutes– National– In-state

• SEA/LEA facilitator support• Coach training• Dashboard

LEVEL 2 TARGETED TA• Level 1 TA supports• WEBINAR participation• Skype problem-solving sessions with

consultants• SWIFT-FIT knowledge bank

LEVEL 3: Needs based, on-demand TA

• Level 1 supports• Level 2 supports• On-site specialized consultant services

SWIFT CENTERCapacity building system

uses implementation science

at 3 levels:

SEA Implementation TeamLEA Implementation Team

LEA/School Leadership Team

SEA IMPLEMENTATION TEAM• SWIFT process SEA coordinator plus• General education/special education leaders

plus• Other stakeholders including parent

organization representatives

Supported by• SWIFT Center SEA facilitator

LEA IMPLEMENTATION TEAM• SWIFT process LEA coordinator plus• General education/special education leaders

plus• Other stakeholders including parent

organization representatives

Supported by• SWIFT Center LEA facilitators

LEA/SCHOOLS LEADERSHIP TEAMS

Four stages of Transformation• Exploration• Installation• Initial Implementation• Full ImplementationProgress measured by SWIFT-FIT (fidelity of implementation tool)

SWIFT Domains of Influence & Core Features

SWIFT Goals• Goal 1: Identify and examine six Knowledge Development Schools using

rigorous evaluation measures and field assessments to determine the unique features of effective inclusive schoolwide reform.

• Goal 2: Recruit, select and then provide intensive technical assistance to four states, with four districts per state, to build capacity to install SWIFT in 64 schools.

• Goal 3: Build capacity to sustain SWIFT schools and extend SWIFT practices to additional schools within implementing districts.

• Goal 4: Implement a system to support multi-level state leadership and coordination to scale up SWIFT.

• Goal 5: Establish and disseminate a national Knowledge Bank on schoolwide inclusive reform.

Expected outcomes from SWIFT Transformation at School Level

• Significant increases in measured academic achievement for all students, all subgroups

• Closure trend for achievement gap---Students with disabilities

• Significant increases in time students with disabilities spend in general education

Pearson correlation between ELA & SAMAN Score: Significant positive correlation betweenSTAR ELA score and SAMAN, r(10763)= .088, p < .01.

Year 03-04 Year 04-05 Year 05-06 Year 06-07 Year 07-08 Year 08-09 Year 09-10280

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

330

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

298.17

302.97

307.74 309.13

310.68

319.66

327.07

1.71

2.322.42

2.352.44

2.56 2.61

STAR ELA & SAMAN Score Change(All Cohort 1 Schools: Chavez, Willow Oaks, Belle Haven, & Brentwood)

STARSAMAN

STAR

ELA

Sco

re

School Year

SAM

AN S

core

Pearson correlation between Math & SAMAN Score: Significant positive correlation betweenSTAR ELA score and SAMAN, r(10596)= .163, p < .01.

Year 03-04 Year 04-05 Year 05-06 Year 06-07 Year 07-08 Year 08-09 Year 09-10270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

296.99

304.61

315.23

313.17

322.91

336.28

349.36

1.71

2.322.42

2.362.44

2.562.64

STAR Math & SAMAN Score Change(All Cohort 1 Schools: Chavez, Willow Oaks, Belle Haven, & Brentwood)

STARSAMAN

STAR

Mat

h Sc

ore

School Year

SAM

AN S

core

SY 09-10 SY 10-11 SY 11-1228

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

28

28.5

29

29.5

30

30.549.48 49.04 49.71

28.39

28.84

29.94

DC-CAS ReadingAchievement gap between students with IEPs and their peers

3 enculturated SAM schools vs Comparison Schools

SAM Students without IEPs

SAM Students with IEPs

DC-C

AS S

cale

d Sc

ore

for S

tude

nts w

ithou

t IEP

s

DC-C

AS S

cale

d Sc

ore

for S

tude

nts w

ith IE

Ps

SY 09-10 SY 10-11 SY 11-1228

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

28.5

29

29.5

3049.42 46.63

47.26

28.92

29.62

29.31Comparison Students without IEPsComparison Students with IEPs

School Year

DC-C

AS S

cale

d Sc

ore

for S

tude

nts w

ithou

t IEP

s

DC-C

AS S

cale

d Sc

ore

for S

tude

nts w

ith IE

Ps

SY 09-10 SY 10-11 SY 11-1225

30

35

40

45

50

55

29

30

31

32

33

34

3551.4

48.2 47.9233.96

33.48

30.72

Comparison Students without IEPsComparison Students with IEPs

School Year

DC-C

AS S

cale

d Sc

ore

for S

tude

nts w

ithou

t IEP

s

DC-C

AS S

cale

d Sc

ore

for S

tude

nts w

ith IE

Ps

SY 09-10 SY 10-11 SY 11-1230

33

36

39

42

45

48

51

54

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

48.9250.93

52.97

31.43

35.98

38.18

DC-CAS MathAchievement gap between students with IEPs and their peers

3 enculturated SAM schools vs Comparison Schools

SAM Students without IEPsSAM Students with IEPs

DC-C

AS S

cale

d Sc

ore

for S

tude

nts w

ithou

t IEP

s

DC-C

AS S

cale

d Sc

ore

for S

tude

nts w

ith IE

Ps

Significant effect of SAM

Positive in slope ( = 1.23 , t = 1.96, p = .05). Regression weight for SAM implementation in the prediction of math score SLOPE is significantly different.

The SAM implementation impacts the slope positively, which means that students in SAM schools are making more progress on DC-CAS Math over 3 school years (i.e., SY 09-10, SY 10-11, and SY 11-12) than comparison schools.

DC-CAS Math Score7 SAM schools vs 7 Comparison Schools

Significant effect of SAM

Positively with slope ( = 9.01 , t = 3.13, p < .01)

SAM implementation had a significant effect on slope of DC-CAS Math score for students who were receiving special education service any year between 2009 and 2011 school year. The SAM implementation impacts the slope positively, which means that those students in SAM schools are making more progress on DC-CAS Math over 3 school years (i.e., SY 09-10, SY 10-11, and SY 11-12)

DC-CAS Math ScoreAll students who received special education any year between SY09-10 and SY11-12

3 Best Encultration SAM schools vs 3 Comparison Schools

Expected outcomes from SWIFT Transformation at District Level

• Capacity to:– Sustain transformed schools– Scale up transformation to additional district

schools

Expected outcomes from SWIFT Transformation at State Level

• Capacity to:– Assist LEAs to sustain and scale up SWIFT

transformational systems– Scale up SWIFT transformational systems to other

LEAs statewide

Policy FrameworkEarly Lessons

26

PolicyDefinition Authorizing Body Examples

A principle, plan, or course of action established in statute, regulation, or proclamation

Elected chief executive or a federal, state, or local governing body

AccountabilityDisciplineFundingOthers?

27

Practice Definition Authorizing Body Examples

A method or procedure used in a particular field or profession; a set of these regarded as standard

Field leaders – researchers, professional associations, credentialing agencies

MTSSInstructional methodologyCurriculumUDLOthers?

28

Implementation StrategiesDefinition Authorizing Body Examples

A systematic series of actions directed to some end

Building and District Leadership

School visitor managementStaffing models and assignmentsDaily dismissal Others?

29

In What Ways are Federal Policies Implicated with SWIFT?

• 14th Amendment, Brown vs. Board of Ed• Civil Rights Act, Title VII• ADA: Title II – integration • Rehab Act, Section 504 – accommodation • ESEA

– Disadvantaged youth, Family engagement, Funding streams– Qualified personnel– Performance standards and reporting requirements, etc.

• IDEA– FAPE, IEP, LRE, UDL, Due process, Funding, Family engagement – Performance indicators and plans, Evidence based practices, etc.

30

In What Ways are State Policies Implicated with SWIFT?

• State legislation aligned with federal statutes– ADA and Section 504– ESEA– IDEA

• State Board of Ed policy and implementing regulations such as:– Curricular standards and textbooks– Licensure/ certification – UDL– Use of restraint and seclusion – Professional development– Funding– Other

• State DOE policy, regulations, guidance, resource allocations• Collective Bargaining• And more ---

31

In What Ways are District Policies Implicated with SWIFT?

• Transparency of district policies; Issuing guidance to schools

• Attendance policies; Disciplinary policies; Bullying prevention

• Visitors/volunteers policies; Parent/Community engagement

• Revenue structures; Staffing ratios• IDEA eligibility processes/placement• District leadership selection process• Professional development for

educators• ADA accessibility of facilities• Assessment, equipment, and

services for Assistive Technology• Hiring/firing/retiring timelines and

processes• Student academic placement;

Matriculation/graduation• School assignment and feeder

processes• Instructional strategies (UDL, MTSS,

etc.)• Transportation • And more-----

32

In What Ways are School Policies Implicated with SWIFT

Any school level policies (written or oral, real or perceived) that influence effective implementation

33

Why is Policy Important for SWIFT?

• Goals: – To align policies at the school, district, state and

federal level in order to support sustainability – To identify and address policy barriers that

prevent successful implementation of SWIFT– To learn lessons about policy solutions that

support broad replication of SWIFT

34

SWIFT Policy Principles1. Every student’s individual strengths, preferences and

abilities are highly valued. 2. Every student receives a rigorous and quality education in

order to become productive and contributing citizens.3. Every adult in the school takes shared ownership for the

success of every child.4. Schools actively engage family and community partners.5. Students are given meaningful opportunities to engage in

their education.6. Students are healthy: physically, socially and emotionally.

SWIFT Policy Conditions• These principles are aligned and coordinated across

systems.• Resources are allocated and managed equitably to

achieve all principles.• All school personnel receive the preparation and

supports they need on research based practices to implement and sustain these principles.

• The Local Education Agency, through ongoing monitoring, identification and removal of barriers, supports the Policy Principles.

36

Policy Areas of Focus • Funding – Models, Blending and Braiding• Professional development• Eligibility, IEPs, Placement• Discipline• Accountability/ teacher effectiveness• Parent and stakeholder engagement

37

What Can We Learn? • What are commonly identified policy enablers/

barriers?• Who are essential stakeholders?• What are financial/economic impacts of SWIFT

implementation? • Which policies/solutions support SWIFT

implementation?• Which policies/solutions support SWIFT sustainability?• Which policies/solutions support SWIFT replication?