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
Results Driven Accountability
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
State Systemic Improvement Plan
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
State Systemic Improvement Plan
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
SSIP: Thinking Through Data Analysis
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
Indiana DOE: Macro View
26
Indiana DOE: Macro View
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.
Indiana DOE: Macro View
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
Hypothesis - Preliminary
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%
2010-11: ISTEP ENGLISH
47
0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00% 48.04% 49.30%
2.65%
2011-12: ISTEP ENGLISH
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%
2012-13: ISTEP ENGLISH
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
Hypothesis - Preliminary
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%
2010-11: IMAST ENGLISH
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%
2011-12: IMAST ENGLISH
0.00%20.00%40.00%60.00%80.00% 83.02%
16.88%0.10%
2012-13: IMAST ENGLISH
58
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
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
Initial Infrastructure Analysis Office of Special Education
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
Initial Infrastructure Analysis Office of Special Education
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
Initial Infrastructure Analysis Office of Special Education
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?
68
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
Initial Infrastructure Analysis Office of Special Education
72
73
74
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
Indiana DOE: Macro View
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.”
Indiana DOE: Macro View
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)
Indiana DOE: Macro View
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
Results Driven Accountability
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
Results Driven Accountability
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
96