Presentation to SAC June 3, 2015 Ruth Littlefield.
-
Upload
kelly-caldwell -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Presentation to SAC June 3, 2015 Ruth Littlefield.
State Systemic Improvement Plan:
Improving social-emotional outcomes for preschool
children with disabilities
Presentation to SACJune 3, 2015
Ruth Littlefield
Why did we develop the SSIP? Indicator 17 says..
◦ The State’s SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement Plan, focused on improving results for students with disabilities….
History
Phases
Analysis Planning
Phase IA. Data Analysis;B. Identification of the
Focus for Improvement;
C. Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build capacity; and
D. Theory of Action
Phase IIE. Infrastructure
Development;F. Support for LEA
Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices;
G. Evaluation Plan
Phase III: h. Results of Ongoing Evaluation and Revisions to the SPP
Stakeholder Input Regional Focus groups Technical assistance from IDC and DaSY
Iterative process ◦ (broad analysis in-depth analysis)◦ Working plan not a static document
Input and Support
Preschool children with disabilities in the identified subset of districts will substantially increase their rate of growth in the area of improved positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) by the time they turned six years of age or exit the program.
State-Identified Measurable Result
FFY 2013: 1210 preschool children with disabilities exited preschool special education
SSIP baseline data: Subset of 16 districts representing approximately 20% (241/1210*100) of the preschool children with disabilities who exited preschool special education
Not selected based on lowest performance
Seven Preschool Technical Assistance Network regions and the five Superintendent Regions.
Both assessment tools: AEPSi ™ and TS Gold ™. Range in size, with child count ranging from fewer than five to more than
100 preschool children with disabilities Offer a variety of service models and placement options. A significant factor used in identifying these districts was a readiness
and willingness to improve the social-emotional outcomes for preschool children with disabilities.
Subset of Districts
Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)
State Subset
a. Preschool children who did not improve functioning
231.90%
31.24%
b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers
16013.22%
53 21.99%
c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it
27923.05%
6225.73%
d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
49841.15%
7631.54%
e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers
25020.66%
4719.50%
Total 1210 241
Formula for Summary Statement 1: (c+d)/(a+b+c+d)
777/96080.94%
138/19471.13%
Data: Ind. 7 A: Indicator 17
Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships
FFY 13 B17 Numerator(subset)
FFY 13 B17 Denominator(subset)
FFY 13 B17 Baseline(subset)
FFY 13 State Level Data
A1: Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the % who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.Formula: (c+d)/(a+b+c+d)
138(62+76)
194 (3+53+62+76)
71.13% 80.94%
(777/960)
Data
FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Target 71.13% 71.13% 73.71% 76.29% 78.90%
Target setting
Results in meaningful, significant change
Impacts State-level data
FFY 13 Baseline = 71.13%
FFY 13: July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014
FFY 14 ends June 30 2015
FFY 15 ends June 30 2016.
Children have to receive intervention and then exit before we see impact.
FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Target 71.13% 71.13% 73.71% 76.29% 78.90%
Target setting
Results in meaningful, significant change
Impacts State-level data
FFY 13 Baseline = 71.13%
FFY 13: July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014
FFY 14 ends June 30 2015
FFY 15 ends June 30 2016.
Children have to receive intervention and then exit before we see impact.
1. The NHDOE was not able to disaggregate child outcome data by race/ethnicity, age, disability, length of time in service or setting. As a result, the NHDOE was not able to determine if these factors were impacting social-emotional outcomes for preschool children with disabilities.
2. The NHDOE was not able to link child outcome data to Part C or to the K-12 longitudinal data system. As a result, no conclusions could be made on child outcomes from Part C to Part B or regarding impact of preschool special education over time.
3. Local district personnel have varied ability to link data at the local level from preschool special education to the K-12 system. As a result, they are not able to analyze the long term impact of services by demographic and programmatic factors.
4. Local district personnel have limited capacity to analyze data to inform instruction and to guide IEP development. As a result, data are not used across all districts to the fullest effect and opportunities to refine practices to improve outcomes may be missed.
5. While the State-level data have been determined to be of high quality, some districts have identified a need to strengthen inter-rater reliability and to hone assessment skills. As a result, some data may not be accurately reflecting the social-emotional outcomes for individual children and assessments may not be conducted in the most efficient manner, creating a more cumbersome assessment process.
Root causes contributing to low performance based on Data Analysis
1. There was no formal state-level structure (advisory body or leadership team) that focused on improving social-emotional outcomes for preschool children with disabilities.
2. Local administrators and school board members did not uniformly understand the factors that impact positive social-emotional outcomes for preschool children with disabilities and cost-benefit of intervening early with sound, evidence-based practices.
3. Practitioners (district and community-based) have a range of knowledge and skill regarding the implementation with fidelity of evidence-based practices that are likely to improve social-emotional outcomes for preschool children with disabilities.
Root cause analysis based on Infrastructure Analysis
Stakeholder input◦ SSIP Input group◦ PTAN Regional focus group◦ NHDOE/PIC: family input◦ Subset of districts: Lead Personnel◦ Incidental Input (surveys, scans, natural
opportunities) State Leadership Team Promote TA/PD System
Coherent Improvement Strategies
Data system development◦ Expand data reporting and collection (POMS)◦ Explore linking POMS to NHDOE data systems◦ Assess feasibility of linking FCESS-PSE◦ Longitudinal data on social-emotional outcomes
NHDOE supports expansion of this work beyond the subset of districts◦ Ongoing alignment across preschool special
education and related initiatives◦ Maximize national resources
Coherent Improvement Strategies
In-depth data and infrastructure analysis of subset of districts◦ Self-assessment framework◦ Liaison assigned to support teams◦ Identify current initiatives, strengths to leverage
opportunities for improvement, and challenges/barriers
◦ Identify local coherent improvement strategies Enhance implementation of Evidence-based
practices Family engagement Use implementation science
Coherent Improvement Strategies
NHDOE promotes capacity of subset of districts to sustain improved results in social-emotional outcomes for preschool children with disabilities◦ Build personnel capacity◦ Ensure ongoing training and support◦ Educate administration and school board about
cost-benefit of quality early childhood supports◦ Define markers of success and evaluate
improvement strategies
Coherent Improvement Strategies
NHDOE, with Parent Information Center, will develop resources for districts that increase family engagement and promote positive social-emotional outcomes for preschool children with disabilities.◦ How schools communicate with families regarding
a child’s social-emotional development◦ Strategies to support social-emotional
development at home◦ Strengthening understanding of role of district in
helping families connect to social-emotional resources
Coherent Improvement Strategies
New Hampshire State Systemic Improvement Plan Theory of Action
“We know from a wide body of research that children’s earliest experiences will have consequences for the rest of their lives. That’s why we need to ensure that our system of early childhood services and supports works to promote healthy development early in life” Governor
Hassan, NH Comprehensive Plan for Early Childhood 2013-2016
IMPROVEDSOCIALEMOTIONAL OUTCOMESFOR PRESCHOOLCHILDREN WITHDISABILITIES
CHILD LEVEL ACTIVITIES
Engagement with adults, peers and materials
Playing, Learning and
Growing
STATE LEVEL ACTIVITIES
Enhance Data SystemsNHSEIS
I4SEEPOMS
Connect NH BOLD Initiatives,
Safe Schools/Healthy Students and
SEE Change through the SSIP
to leverage broader Early
Childhood State
InfrastructureSpark NH Vision:“All NH Children
and their families are
healthy, learning and thriving now
and in the future.”
Evaluation of SSIP
IFNew Hampshire Department of
Education leverages statewide
initiatives, data systems,
infrastructure and interagency drivers to scale-
up the implementation
of evidence-based practices for increasing
child engagement, including the
DEC Recommended
Practices;
THENPreschool
children with disabilities will benefit from
the implementatio
n of evidenced-
based practices with fidelity that
promote social-emotional
development
THENDistricts will
develop a deep
understanding of their local
infrastructure and data;
participate in high quality PD; receive high quality
TA and create,Implement
and evaluate plans to
improve social emotional
outcomes for preschool
children with disabilities in their district
THENStaff working
with preschool children with
disabilities will implement evidence-
based practices with
fidelity, engage
families, gather data and adjust
instruction, in order to
improve social emotional
outcomes for preschool
children with disabilities in
their classrooms
Research Rationale: “Young children’s healthy social and emotional development is critical to school readiness and positive long term outcomes.” (National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2000; Raver & Knitzer, 2002; Thompson & Raikes, 2007).
Family and Stakeholder Engagement: “
THEN
Preschool children with disabilities will increase their rate of growth in the area of improved positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships).
DISTRICT LEVEL
ACTIVITIESData and
Infrastructure Analysis
Participation in PD/TA
Receive Coaching
EvaluationOf Coherent
Improvement Plans
CLASSROOMLEVEL
ACTIVITIESImplementation
of evidence-based practices
Family Engagement
Evaluation of Fidelity of
Implementation of Evidence-
Based Practices
Infrastructure Development◦ Who will implement infrastructure changes◦ Resources Needed◦ Expected outcomes◦ Timelines◦ Steps to further align/leverage current
improvement plans/initiatives ◦ Involvement of other SEA offices and other
agencies
Phase II
Evidence-based practices◦ Steps and activities that support implementation of
improvement strategies◦ Communication strategies and stakeholder
involvement◦ How barriers will be addressed◦ Who will be in charge of implementing◦ How activities will be implemented with fidelity◦ Resources that will be used◦ How expected outcomes of strategies will be measured◦ Timelines◦ Involvement of other SEA offices and other agencies
Phase II
Evaluation plan to evaluate implementation ◦ Short-term and long-term objectives to measure
implementation and impact on results◦ Plan must be aligned with
Theory of Action Other components of SSIP
◦ Plan must include: How stakeholders will be involved Methods to collect and analyze data on activities and
outcomes How the State will use evaluation results to:
Examine effectiveness of implementation Measure progress toward achieving intended outcomes Make modifications to plan How results of evaluation will be disseminated
Phase II
Report on progress including:◦ Results of ongoing evaluation◦ Extent of Progress
Revisions to the SPP
Phase III
SAC representatives on stakeholder group? Feedback to larger committee?
Other comments of questions for the bureau?
Wrap Up