Nancy T. Johnson, Ed.D. Exceptional Children Division, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Data Analyses for Indicator 17/ State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Objectives Criteria for Assigned Task Data Factors to Consider and Some Examples Questions Do Not Fear the Data Criteria for Assigned Task Aligned to an SPP/APR Outcome Indicator or component Clearly based on the Data and State Infrastructure Analyses May select a single result (e.g. increasing the graduation rate for children with disabilities) or a cluster of related results (increasing the graduation rate and decreasing the dropout rate for children with disabilities) Additional Criteria/Factors Considered: Data availability Stakeholder Involvement (Multiple Internal and External Stakeholders) Alignment with Agency Initiatives/Priorities Moving the needle A SiMRs impact on more than one performance indicator State Determinations Effective Data Analysis Accurate, Valid, & Reliable Informative Easy to understand Easily informs on progress towards goals to variety of stakeholders Allows for good policy decisions Its Important that Data Are Verify! Know the Source of the Data and Its Business Rules Disaggregate in Various Ways Trends v. Blips Number of Students High and Low Performance Data Tracked to Students Data Considerations Source of Data & Business Rules State Drop-Out Rate vs. Exiting Drop-Out Data State Drop-Out RateExiting Drop-Out Data Event Rate formula calculationEvent Rate simple average rate calculation Numerator students, 16 & older, with IEPs that drop out in one school year & have not re-enrolled by the next school year 1 st month 20 day ADM count Numerator students, 16 & older, with IEPs that exit special education by dropping out Denominator all students, 16 & older, with IEPs Denominator all students with IEPs that exited special education 3.77% % Data Analyzed Indicator Data Graduation Cohort Data, disaggregated by Category & Placement Early Childhood Data Problem Analysis: SED - AA Graduation & Achievement comparisons for like LEAs Data Disaggregation NC Cohort Graduation Rates for Students with IEPs Entering 9 th Grade in Trends vs. Blips NC Cohort Graduation Rates for All Students & Students with IEPs Aha Moment North Carolina Data Considerations for Graduation Rate Selected SWD Subgroups A. Subgroups of Students with Disabilities B. Subgroups Portion of Graduation Denominator C. # Graduated in Subgroup D. Subgroup Denominator E. Subgroup Graduation Rate F. # of SWD needed to get to 80% rate for subgroup G. Subgroup Graduation Rate if additional students in column F had graduated H. Percentage Point Impact on Graduation rate 62.3% All/NC 100% % % LEAs w/rates below 60% 43.7%2741*4915*55.8% % AA Students 36.3%2427*4081*59.5% %+ 7.4 Separate Class 19.5%1047*2196*47.7% %+ 6.3 Separate Class plus Separate Environments 21.9%1107*2460*45.0% %+ 7.6 Students with ED 5.5%237*618*38.3% %+ 2.3 AA/SED/Sep & Res Settings 1.2%33*130*25.4%3862.6%+ 0.3 * EC Exit Data Report based on event rates (1 year only) 65.5% rather than the SPP/APR required 4-year cohort graduation rate shown in green 62.3%. The 65.5% includes an additional 200 students that graduated and 250 fewer students in the denominator for a difference of 450 students. Root Cause Analysis Parent/family involvement/knowledge of graduation requirements Retention Attendance Student engagement Discipline Disproportionality in identification, placement, & discipline Lack of credits to graduate Poor academic performance ResearchDataAnecdotal Information Academics Behavior Transition Theory of Action Literacy Instruction Systematic Explicit Multi- Sensory Cumulative Direct Phonemic Awareness Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension LEA => School => Classroom => Student Improvement Planning Policy Compliance Fiscal Management IEP Development, Implementation, Outcomes Problem-Solving for Improvement Research Based Instruction Communication and Collaboration Academics Behavior Transition Theory of Action A theory of action is designed to be a relatively simple IF, THEN statement. Essentially a working hypothesis Development of the logic model and evaluation tests the working hypothesis The SSIP theory of action should describe changes in the State system and local provider practices that must occur to achieve the State-identified, measureable improvement (OSEP, 2013) EC Division: Theory of Action ECD provides customized support for LEAs to address lower SWD graduation rate: effective problem-solving implementation of interventions LEAs work with schools: to identify cause of low SWD graduation rates to determine which interventions to implement/strengthen With support from the ECD, LEAs: implement interventions with fidelity monitor and modify as needed Graduation rates for SWD increase, closing the gap If Then.. Cascading Teaming Structures OSEP If, then EC Division If, then Regional Support Teams If, then LEA If, then School If, then