results driven accountability state systemic improvement plan

RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITYState Systemic Improvement Plan

OSE Stakeholder MeetingMay 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

OSEP VISION REVISIONTo 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

BACKGROUND

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 DuncanRDA Press Release, March 2, 2012

6

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%)

Results Driven Accountability

7

• 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

• 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

Components of RDA

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

• 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

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


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.

Data AnalysisBroad Analysis

Infrastructure AnalysisBroad Analysis

State Identified Measureable Result

Theory of ActionAnd

Improvement Strategies

Data AnalysisIn-depth Analysis Related to Primary

Concern Area

Infrastructure AnalysisIn-depth Analysis Related to Primary

Concern Area

Phase I Components

Big Ideas • Long Standing Issues • Assumptions

16

SSIP: Theory of ActionMust 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.

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

WhyWe Do What We Do

— our Belief and Assumptions

IfWe Do These

Strategies

ThenWe Will Achieve These Improved

Outcomes

Theory of Action—Beyond the Basics

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

- Winston Churchill

19

SSIP: Stakeholder InvolvementStakeholder 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

Supporting Implementation

Effective Practices

Quality Data

Coherent Infrastructure

Building Capacity

Improved Results

21

• 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

SSIP Activities

22

• 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’

SSIP Activities

23

• 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

SSIP Activities

24

VISION

Working together to build an education system of equity and high quality, focused on student-centered

accountability

Indiana DOE: Macro View

25

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


CURRENT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS

• Regular Assessment - ISTEP+• Alternate Assessment-Modified Achievement

Standards – IMAST (SY13-14 is last year)• Alternate Assessment - ISTAR

27

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 DemographicsIndiana Population* 6,570,902 IN Public School Special Education**

Persons under 5 years 6.5%

Persons under 18 years 24.3%

White 86.6% 71.6% 73.32%

African American or Black 9.4% 12.3% 13.06%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.4% 0.3% 0.33%

Asian 1.8% 1.8% 0.78%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.1% # 0.04%

Two or More Races 1.8% 4.4% 4.70%

Hispanic or Latino 6.3% 9.6% 7.77%*United States Census Bureau 2010

#Number too small **FFY12-13

29

14.4%

Indiana Public School Demographics

14.4%

30

95%

Indiana Public School Demographics

41%

8.1%

51%

95%

31

Total LEAs in State 374

Of Those - # of Charters 84

Total Student Enrollment 1,041,311 (SY12-13)

LEA Demographics

32

LEA Enrollment Range: 31 - 30,813Range # of LEAs

31-500 Students 67501 - 1,000 66

1,000 - 2,000 1072,001 - 5,000 77

5,001 - 10,000 3710,000 -23,000 1923,000 - 31,000 2

LEA Demographics

33

Assessment Results: State ISTEP+

27%

73%

34

61.5%

84.3%

38.5%

15.7%

41.6%

76.9%

58.4%

23.1%

44.2%

74.6%55.8%

25.4%

35

Assessment Results: State ISTAR

18.3% (1,252)

36.2% (2,479) 45.5%

(3,109)

36

Assessment Results: State IMAST

47.1% (7,172) 52.9%

(8,046)

37

51.7%56.3%

48.3%43.7%

53% 52.9% 47%47.1%

38

• 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)

Hypothesis - Preliminary

39

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13Number of students taking

ISTEP MATH 65,598 60,350 54,166 54,713

Number of students taking ISTEP ENGLISH 65,598 60,350 53,141 54,092

Number of students taking

IMAST MATH 6,111 13,087 15,762 16,770

Number of students taking IMAST ENGLISH 6,111 13,087 16,554 17,476

Number of students taking

ISTAR MATH 7,322 7,820 6,799 6,880

Number of students taking ISTAR ENGLISH 7322 7820 6799 6849

40

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


41

Indicator 3 Participation and performance of children with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) on statewide assessments

3-APercent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) targets for the disability subgroup.

SY2006 SY2007 SY2008 SY2009 SY2010 SY2011 SY20120

20

40

60

80

100

120

9684 81

98 99.25

77 77.59

42

Indicator 3Participation and performance of children with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) on statewide assessments

3-B Participation rate for children with IEPs.

Reading Math

SY2006 SY2007 SY2008 SY2009 SY2010 SY2011 SY201294.50

95.00

95.50

96.00

96.50

97.00

97.50

96

97.296.8

96

97

95.5

96.1

SY2006 SY2007 SY2008 SY2009 SY2010 SY2011 SY201294.5

95

95.5

96

96.5

97

97.5

98

97.497.3

96

97

95.6

96.5

43

Indicator 3 Participation and performance of children with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) on statewide assessments

3-C Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level modified and alternate academic achievement standards

Reading Math

SY2006 SY2007 SY2008 SY2009 SY2010 SY2011 SY20120.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

33.60

39.8848.10

43.00

50.0052.70

50.50

SY2006 SY2007 SY2008 SY2009 SY2010 SY2011 SY20120.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

42.50

48.5556.90

51.0057.00

62.10

48.00

44

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00% 51.78%

44.99%

3.23%

2009-10: ISTEP MATH

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00% 50.34%

37.53%

4.13%

2010-11: ISTEP MATH

45

Percent of students who passed (Pass and Pass +)

Percent of students who did not pass

Percent of students who were undetermined

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

47.87%

33.10%

1.60%

2011-12: ISTEP MATH

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00% 59.27%

37.42%

3.31%

2012-13 ISTEP MATH

46

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%

41.85%53.84%

4.31%

2009-10: ISTEP ENGLISH

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

44.54%49.02%

6.44%


47

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00% 48.04% 49.30%

2.65%


Percen

t of st

udents

who passed

(Pass

and Pass

+)

Percen

t of s

tudents

who did not pass

Percen

t of s

tudents

who were

undeterm

ined0.00%

10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%

47.33% 48.36%

4.31%


48

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


49

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 80

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Total Students Taking IMAST in 2012-13

# students ELA # students MA

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s

50

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 80%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

IMAST Proficiency by Grade SY12-13

ELAnguage Proficient Math Proficient

51

Did Not Pass

(5th)

Did Not Pass

(6th)

Did Not Pass

(7th)

Did Not Pass

(8th)

Pass(5th)

Pass(6th)

Pass(7th)

Pass(8th)

Pass+(5

th)

Pass+(6

th)

Pass+(7

th)

Pass+(8

th)

Undeterm

ined(5th)

Undeterm

ined(6th)

Undeterm

ined(7th)

Undeterm

ined(8th)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

154

325 371 387

158

291 337 294

113168 218

15442

10529 41

261

595

637

764

247

417

508

430

177

245

393

250

96

273

6597

MATH IMAST RESULTS COHORT GROUPSY2009-2010 THROUGH SY2012-2013

MALE

FEMALE

52

Did Not Pass

(5th)

Did Not Pass

(6th)

Did Not Pass

(7th)

Did Not Pass

(8th)

Pass(5th)

Pass(6th)

Pass(7th)

Pass(8th)

Pass+(5

th)

Pass+(6

th)

Pass+(7

th)

Pass+(8

th)

Undeterm

ined(5th)

Undeterm

ined(6th)

Undeterm

ined(7th)

Undeterm

ined(8th)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

79166 193 225

47 110 131 12439 68 85 56 8 37 10 17

31

5362

77

32

55 60 55

2028 47 56

626

5 9

282

641698

769

297

508

605498

217

294

446

274

116

297

75 101

18

47

45

68

23

30

43

41

11

17

27

14

6

14

39

MATH IMAST RESULTS COHORT GROUPSY2009-2010 THROUGH SY2012-2013

7 = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

6 = Multiracial (two or more races)

5 = White

4 = Hispanic Ethnicity and of any race

3 = Asian

2 = Black

1 = American Indian/Alaskan Native

53

Did Not Pass

(5th)

Did Not Pass

(6th)

Did Not Pass

(7th)

Did Not Pass

(8th)

Pass(5th)

Pass(6th)

Pass(7th)

Pass(8th)

Pass+(5

th)

Pass+(6

th)

Pass+(7

th)

Pass+(8

th)

Undeterm

ined(5th)

Undeterm

ined(6th)

Undeterm

ined(7th)

Undeterm

ined(8th)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

62109

171 187

57171

128 14849 76 118

765 25 6 16

2942

5982

37

7359 61

2136

6151

211 3 7

241

393

681669

381

732

631541

264

517

610

433

26

9840

66

13

31

4976

29

44

42

31

13

26

30

31

3

7

15

ELA IMAST RESULTS COHORT GROUPSY2009-2010 THROUGH SY2012-2013

7 = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Is-lander

6 = Multiracial (two or more races)

5 = White

4 = Hispanic Ethnicity and of any race

3 = Asian

2 = Black

1 = American Indian/Alaskan Native

54

Percen

t of st

udents

who passed

(Pass

and Pass

+)

Percen

t of s

tudents w

ho did not pass

Percen

t of s

tudents

who were

undeterm

ined0.00%

10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00% 54.07%

34.86%

11.08%

2009-10: IMAST MATH

Percen

t of s

tudents w

ho passed

(Pass

and Pass

+)

Percen

t of s

tudents w

ho did not pass

Percen

t of s

tudents

who were

undeterm

ined0.00%

10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%

55.08%

31.94%

12.98%

2010-11: IMAST MATH

55

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00% 63.35%

33.36%3.29%

20011-12: IMAST MATH

Percen

t of s

tudents

who passed

(Pass

and Pass

+)

Percen

t of s

tudents

who did not pass

Percen

t of s

tudents

who were

undeterm

ined0.00%

10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00% 61.25%

33.51%

5.24%

2012-13: IMAST MATH

56

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%66.29%

28.69%5.02%

2009-10: IMAST ENGLISH

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00% 68.61%

24.81%

6.58%


57

Percen

t of s

tudents

who passed

(Pass

and Pass

+)

Percen

t of s

tudents

who did not pass

Percen

t of s

tudents w

ho were

undeterm

ined0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00% 71.79%

26.48%

1.73%


0.00%20.00%40.00%60.00%80.00% 83.02%

16.88%0.10%


58


• 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

59

BROAD DATA ANALYSIS

1) In looking at the dataa) Review the statewide ISTEP data – all studentsb) Review the overall IMAST data – students with

disabilitiesc) Review the demographic and other data slides

that have been presented d) Review resource book

a) IMAST breakdown by grade/disability/LRE/Gender

Small Group Work

60

BROAD DATA ANALYSIS• Describe the results. What stands out? What differences do you see

between groups?

– Are the differences real, or are they likely to reflect a problem with the quality of the data?

– What could explain them? What might cause them? – These are inferences. Several likely inferences may emerge. – Do you have additional information to rule out some inferences? – What else do you want to know? What further analyses are needed?– What might be some preliminary root causes?-

PLEASE REMEMBER TO WRITE DOWN YOUR RESPONSES!!!

Small Group Work

61

DATA ANALYSIS

STAKHOLDER INPUT

• Overview: Small group report out [5 minutes]

• Additional data needed to continue to focus in on state identified measurable result?

62

• Results Driven Accountability is not solely an OSE responsibility.

• This will take various divisions within DOE to partner

• Have had internal meetings about RDA/SSIP

Initial Infrastructure Analysis Office of Special Education

63

OPPORTUNITIES• Ensuring that the needs of students with

disabilities are considered in standards, assessment, curriculum and instruction

• Working within and across various divisions of IDOE

• Collaboration on statewide initiatives• Resource sharing


64

OPPORTUNITIES• Utilizing external supports– State Advisory Council– IN*Source– ICASE– Building administrators– General and special education teachers– NCRRC/NSTTAC/NCEO/DaSy Center/ECTA– OSEP


65

CHALLENGES– Director turnover (6 in 5 years)– Fewer staff

• Had 33 positions 5 years ago (Now have 16)– 44% of existing staff have less than 2 years in position– Lack of institutional memory and written protocols– Unknown Impact of changes in the regional resource

center structure – Continued impact of Sequestration

• LEA Budgets• Discretionary funds


66

ACTION NEEDED: RECAP

• Continue to refine data collection/analysis

• Identification of the Focus for Improvement

– State Identified Measurable Result (SIMR)

• Identification of infrastructure to support improvement and build capacity

• Theory of Action

67

NEXT STEPS

• Calendar Stakeholder meetings– Discussion of meetings/webinars/conference calls

• Involvement as a result of todays work– What do you need to educate your constituents about

RDA?– How would you like to be involved in the qualitative data

analysis? (Surveys, etc.)– What is the stakeholder group involvement in Phases II and

III?

69

NEXT STEPS: INFRASTRUCTURE

STAKHOLDER INPUT ???

What is needed to educate constituents about the transition to College and Career Readiness assessment

70

Brainstorming: IMAST

• As you think about 2013-14 as the last year for IMAST…– First impression?– What will the students need to think about?– What will teachers need to think about?– What will families need to think about?– What will LEA and DOE administration need to

think about?– What else?

71

RESOURCES• Committed staff • Part B Grant: $255,246,091 (preliminary)• Stakeholders• To be determined


75

Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national [[Page 118 STAT. 2649]] policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.

76

You Are Here

77

• IDOE Superintendent is Elected Official

• Governor Appoints the State Board– Superintendent Chairs State Board

• OSE Director is Appointed by the Governor


78

• “The educational standards must meet national and international benchmarks for college and career readiness standards and be aligned with postsecondary educational expectations. The state board shall implement educational standards that use the common core standards as the base model for academic standards to the extent necessary to comply with federal standards to receive a flexibility waiver under 20 U.S.C. 7861.”


79

SY2014-2015 CHANGES TO THE CURRENT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS

• IMAST Per federal requirement will be eliminated (SY13-14 is Last Year)

• ISTEP and ISTAR – Will require revision because of federal

requirement that assessments be aligned with college and career ready standards (In SY14-15)


80

TRANSITION FROM THE IMAST• Misperception was that it was an Indiana decision

instead of federal• Concern – IMAST is being eliminated– Principals have voiced much anxiety/concern– May impact school ‘grade’– Believe small/rural districts will feel the greatest impact

• Concern – students are not prepared for ISTEP+– What support is available for schools to help students?

Reactions From the Field

81

TRANSITION FROM THE IMAST

• Where should districts start?• How can the information regarding impact be

communicated?• What IDOE communication is happening right

now?

Reactions From the Field

82

AREAS OF POSSIBLE IMPACT ON SSIP WORK

• Changes to the accountability system• SY2013-2014 1st year of working with schools

identified as “focus” or “priority” • SY2013-2014 1st year for the outreach

initiative and work with school on school improvement plans

UNKNOWNS

83

Indiana is committed to improving the academic achievement of students with disabilities in

English and Math

The Bottom Line Is…

84

• Utilizing the SSIP as a tool to address academic achievement, DOE will:– collect outcome data, – share the data with a stakeholder group,

and– analyze the data to determine measurable

student results and root cause

…Results Driven Accountability

85

• Priority analysis will be on the IMAST data

• Additional analysis will be conducted on ISTEP+, ISTAR, End of Course Assessments and trend data on the indicator results described in Indiana’s APR


86

• Qualitative Data– Surveys/focus groups

• Quantitative Data– ISTEP Data (same break-outs as IMAST, above)– IMAST Grade level data• 3rd /8th grade results by gender, ethnicity, race • Where are students receiving their education (LRE)

• Etcetera – Look around the room

Additional Data Collection/Analysis

87

• Special Education and Assessment personnel have collaborated on the creation of three videos so far for educators and families– Posted on the IDOE website

• Project Success has helped with creating an interactive Excel workbook for LEAs and districts to analyze their own data

Immediate Actions

88

• Based on a review of the data and data analysis, the stakeholder group will address the next steps in Phase I of the SSIP process:– Confirming appropriate measureable student

results and root cause – Reviewing infrastructure capacity to support

improvement and build capacity– Identifying coherent improvement strategies– Developing a theory of action


89

DistrictDistrict worksheet to

compare local and state IMAST scores

This sheet allows districts to compare their IMAST data with state data

District Impact District tool

This sheet allows districts to take a look at past performance on ISTEP+, and visualize the impact of students not taking IMAST will have on their overall proficiency

90

BuildingImpact Building tool

This sheet allows building to take a look at past performance on ISTEP+, and visualize the impact of students not taking IMAST will have on their overall proficiency.

Building Breakdown to student level

This sheet allows administrators and teacher to break down data to the classroom level. It also provides a way to determine trends in disproportionality.

91

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 80%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State and District Comparison of IMAST Proficiency

District Language Proficient District Math Proficient State Math Proficient State Language Proficient

92

MATHRecalcula

ted ISTEP+ Math

Proficiency Rate

GRADE#

Students ISTEP+ MATH

ISTEP+ Math Did not pass

ISTEP+ Math

Proficiency

# students IMAST Math

How many

will pass ISTEP+ Math?

3 100 15 85.0% 85.0%4 350 29 91.7% 91.7%5 276 30 89.1% 89.1%6 400 30 92.5% 92.5%7 500 34 93.2% 93.2%8 550 39 92.9% 92.9%

93

• Complete Phase 1 of developing the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) - OSEP’s new monitoring and accountability initiative

• Develop written procedures and protocols for all OSE responsibilities (monitoring, fiscal, data management, etc.)

• Ensure smooth transition from IMAST for teachers and students – collaboration with Assessment

Office of Special Education: Priorities for 2014

94

• Ensure monitoring activities for schools are value added

• Find ways to reduce burden on schools for monitoring, fiscal, and reporting activities

• Collaborate with Accountability, Assessment, Finance, and IT to coordinate and streamline

• Update all job descriptions to reflect current responsibilities

Office of Special Education: Priorities for 2014 (continued)

95

• Multiple internal meetings with staff – Framing the purpose/task

• Data collection/Initial analysis• Initial stakeholder group identified

– First meeting is May 15, 2014• Thinking ahead

– Add subject matter experts to stakeholders to assist• School assessment personnel• Curriculum personnel• Families• Educators

• Timeframes/Action items defined for the SSIP

SSIP Activities

results driven accountability state systemic improvement plan

Documents