RESULTS DRIVEN
ACCOUNTABILITY
SSIP EVALUATION TOOL
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
Improving Data, Improving Outcomes
Conference
New Orleans
September 10, 2014
Gregg Corr
Director
Monitoring and State Improvement
SESSION OBJECTIVES
1. Share draft versions of SSIP evaluation tool
2. Provide you with an opportunity to ask
questions for clarification and give
feedback
OSEP’S GOAL
• That all States submit high quality
Phase I SSIPs on April 1, 2015.
• OSEP and its TA providers will provide
differentiated support to assist States in
meeting this goal.
HIGH QUALITY SSIP =IMPROVED OUTCOMES
FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES!
DON’T GET STUCK HERE!
SUPPORT TO STATES
• SSIP Implementation Support Visits and
Conference Calls
• Support from OSEP-funded TA Centers
• Materials posted on GRADS 360
https://osep.grads360.org/#program/highlig
hted-resources<https://osep.grads360.org/>
• Center for Systemic Improvement (CSI)
• SSIP Evaluation Tool
SSIP EVALUATION TOOL
• Process for development.
• This is a draft! We invite your input.
• In addition to this rollout, we have
scheduled a TA call for States on Thursday,
September 11, 4:00 EDT.
OVERVIEW OF THE TOOL
• Based on the five components described in
Phase I of the Measurement Table under
Indicator C-11.
1) Data Analysis;
2) Analysis of Infrastructure to Support
Improvement and Build Capacity
3) State-identified Measurable Result for infants
and toddlers with Disabilities (SIMR);
4) Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies;
and
5) Theory of Action
OVERVIEW OF THE TOOL
• Each of the five components is composed
of different elements
• These elements will be analyzed by OSEP
staff members to rate the quality of each
component and the overall quality of Phase
I of the State’s SSIP.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
• As part of the State Performance Plan
(SPP), the SSIP must meet requirements
applicable to all indicators specified at
section 616(b) of the IDEA.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
For Indicators C11/B17 the State must provide:
• FFY 2013 baseline data expressed as a percentage
and aligned with the State-identified Measurable
Results(s) (SIMR) for children with disabilities;
• Measurable and rigorous targets (expressed as
percentage) for each of the five years for FFY 2014
through FFY 2018, with the FFY 2018 target reflecting
measurable improvement over the FFY 2013 baseline
data.
• A plan that includes a description of how the State
will improve performance of the SIMR.
SPP APPROVAL
OSEP will:
• Review each State’s SPP, including the SSIP.
• “Triage” each SPP to determine if the submission
meets IDEA requirements.
• Notify any State whose SPP does not meet legal
requirements and provide opportunity for
resubmission.
QUALITY ANALYSIS OF SSIP
• OSEP’s goal is that all States submit high
quality SSIPs by April 1, 2015.
• Primary purpose of OSEP’s Quality Analysis is
to determine the extent to which each
component clearly and comprehensively
addresses each element in the SPP/APR
Measurement Table.
IMPORTANT!
• OSEP will not be using a State’s Phase I SSIP
as a factor in the 2015 Determination
Process.
• OSEP’s review will form the basis for
feedback to the State on the quality of its
submission.
• Phase 1 is the foundation of a 6 year
improvement plan. It’s critical that we get it
right!
EVALUATION PROCESS
• Each SSIP will be independently reviewed by OSEP
evaluators using the SSIP Evaluation Tool.
• After independent review, evaluators will meet to
discuss their analyses of each component.
• Evaluators will agree on an Overall Rating for the
SSIP, identifying:
• Areas of strength
• Areas that for which State needs support
QUALITY RATING SCALE
Three part scale:
HIGH QUALITY
ADEQUATE QUALITY
LOW QUALITY
HIGH QUALITY
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All elements addressed
Comprehensive and well-developed
Clear description of process and decisions
Stakeholder engagement, multiple data sources,
current research, and evidence-based practices
Proposed improvement strategies align with current
State initiatives
Account for current strengths and needs
Decisions and strategies are logical and supported
by evidence based research and State context.
Cohesion among elements and across
components.
ADEQUATE QUALITY
• Essential criteria addressed, but:
• Additional explanation is needed for clarity
• Additional information is needed to ensure
comprehensiveness
• Initiatives need increased alignment
• Decisions and proposed improvement strategies
are logical, though additional refinement may be
needed
• There is cohesion among elements and
component, although additional connections
could be made.
LOW QUALITY
• Not all elements addressed
• Component not well developed – lacks clear
explanation and details
• Limited stakeholder engagement, data sources, use
of research-based strategies
• Current State initiatives not reflected
• Decisions and proposed strategies not logical.
• Limited cohesion within and across elements,
components
QUALITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
The Worksheet provides prompts for elements in each
of the five Phase I components.
EXAMPLE
Data Analysis: A description of • How State identified and analyzed key data
• How the data were disaggregated by multiple
variables
• Concerns about data quality
• Consideration of compliance data
• Stakeholder involvement
YOUR INPUT!
• Have we captured the essential concepts of the
Phase I SSIP?
• What’s not clear?
• Could you use this tool to self-assess your State’s
work?
• What additional TA would be helpful?
THANK YOU!
Send your comments, suggestions and
questions to:
[email protected]