state scaling-up workgroup march 6, 2012. swg agenda 9:00 welcome & introductions 9:15 review...
TRANSCRIPT
State Scaling-up Workgroup
March 6, 2012
SWG Agenda9:00 Welcome & Introductions 9:15 Review Agenda/TIPS Meeting Form 9:20 Purpose of the Scaling-Up Workgroup & Your Role 9:30 Meeting Foundations 9:45 Overview of Implementation Science 10:30 RtI, PBIS, and MTSS 10:40 Sub-Workgroups 11:20 Next Steps
State Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence-based Practices Center
Dean Fixsen and Karen BlaseUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Rob Horner and George SugaiUniversity of Oregon; University of Connecticut
Barbara Sims and Michelle DudaUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
NC SLC 02/2012
Formula for Success
Effective intervention
X
Effective implementation
=
Effective outcomes
SISEP 2012
0.97
0.03
0.03
X
Infrastructure for Success Improve student outcomes
Improve teacher instruction
Improve school supports for teachers
Improve district supports for schools
Improve regional supports for districts
Improve State supports for outcomes
Re-define relationships among system componentsFocus fully on student outcomes
SISEP 2012
© Fixsen & Blase, 2008
All Students & Families
All Students & Families
School Teachers and
Staff
School Teachers and
Staff
StateDepartment Leadership
StateDepartment Leadership
1 for each SchoolBuilding
Implementation Team
Building Implementation
Team
Implementation-Skilled Workforce
Staff with special implementation skills
Re
-Pu
rpo
se
“District” Implementation
Teams
“District” Implementation
Teams1 for every group of 15-25 Schools
Regional Implementation
Teams
Regional Implementation
Teams
1 for every group of 4 “Districts”
Adult interactions produce Student benefits
SISEP 2012
Letting it happen
Helping it happen
“Do it yourself” approaches
Making it happen
“Do it with expert help”
Implementation Teams are accountable
Based on Hall & Hord (1987); Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou (2004); Fixsen, Blase, Duda, Naoom, & Van Dyke (2010)
Implementation Science
Implementation Team
Implementation Team
Prepare Buildings & Districts
Prepare Teachers and Staff
Work with Researchers
Assure Implementation
Prepare Regions Assure Student Benefits
Create Readiness
Parents and Stakeholders
© Fixsen & Blase, 2009
20%80%
SISEP 2012
Impl. Team NO Impl. Team
Effective
Effective use of Implementation Science & Practice
IMPLEMENTATION
INT
ER
VE
NT
ION
80%, 3 Yrs 14%, 17 Yrs
Balas & Boren, 2000 Green & Seifert, 2005
Fixsen, Blase, Timbers, & Wolf, 2001
Letting it Happen Helping it Happen
SISEP 2012
Implementation Team
Implementation Team
StateManagement
Team
TeachersInnovations
Students
Sys
tem
C
han
ge
Adaptive Challenges• Duplication• Fragmentation• Hiring criteria• Salaries• Credentialing• Licensing• Time/ scheduling• Union contracts• RFP methods• Federal/ State laws
SIS
EP
Sy
ste
m C
ha
ng
e S
up
po
rt
Pra
ctic
e-
Po
licy
C
om
mu
nic
ati
on
Cy
cle
Po
licy
Su
pp
orts
Effe
ctive
Pra
ctice
System Reinvention
SISEP 2012
Capacity Building
YEARS
AM
OU
NT
S
Funding
Cap
acity
Implementation TeamsOrganization ChangeSystem Reinvention
SISEP 2012
State Capacity Assessment
Assess features and functions critical to statewide scaling
Each item is important» A guide for action planning
» A marker of baseline and progress
» An outcome of SISEP effectiveness
SISEP 2012
State Capacity Assessment
State Capacity Assessment
Searched for system-level assessments across the world
Began drafting possible items (May 2008)
Convened the National Evaluation Board (September 2008)
Tried out the items in our SISEP and STS meetings (instant feedback!)
Arrived at an acceptable State Capacity Assessment draft (October 2011; version 18)
SISEP 2012
Time frame of Assessment
• Period 1: September 2008 thru February 2009
• Period 2: March 2009 thru August 2009
• Period 3: September 2009 thru February 2010
• Period 4: March 2010 thru August 2010
• Period 5: September 2010 thru February 2011
• Period 6: March 2011 thru August 2011
• Period 7: September 2011 thru February 2012 in progress
SISEP 2012
SMT Investment SMT Alignment RIT Functioning DLIT Functioning
SISEP 2012
SISEP 2012
Critical Elements1. A State Management Team (SMT) includes the Chief State School Officer
(CSSO) and State department of education decision makers for general and special education and management o A SMT is a group that can make significant decisions about guidance for
the entire department and about resources (time, structures, funds) without leaving the room to consult a higher authority
2. SMT meetings attended regularly by State implementation coordinators (e.g. State Transformation Specialists [STSs])o The STSs are included in discussions about implementation capacity
building during SMT meetings as well as between meetings3. SMT monthly agenda includes sufficient time (typically one hour) to focus on
implementation content (e.g. implementation functions; organization and system change methods)o The STSs and others use the time to provide information about
implementation, progress toward building implementation capacity, problems for the SMT to help resolve, and facilitators of implementation for the SMT to consider
Total Score (Maximum Score = 6)
SMT Investment: Commitment
SMT Investment SMT Alignment RIT Functioning DLIT FunctioningSISEP 2012
For More Information
Dean L. Fixsen, Ph.D.
919-966-3892
Karen A. Blase, Ph.D.
919-966-9050
Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/ www.scalingup.org
www.implementationconference.org
SISEP 2012
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).
Download all or part of the monograph at:
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/resources/detail.cfm?resourceID=31
Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature
Implementation Science
SISEP 2012
Responsiveness to Instruction (RtI)
Consortium Research to Practice
Funded by Oak Foundation Sept 2010 - August 2013
Purpose of Consortium
• Collaboration among regional LEAs on successful district wide implementation of RtI
• Goals:o Identify essential elements of the RtI model and effective
practices;o Identify mechanisms and structures to ensure fidelity to the RtI
model and practices;o Identify systems and structures to support sustainability from
the district level to the individual classroom level; ando Identify an evaluation process for RtI implementation
Participating LEAsOriginal members include:• Alamance-Burlington School System, • Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, • Chatham County Schools, • Durham Public Schools, • Guilford County Schools, • Orange County Schools, and • Wake County Public School System
Additional Members include:• Cabarrus County Schools• Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools• Johnston County Schools• Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools
Objectives and Outcomes
Objective 1: • Identification of the essential components/characteristics at each
tier for effective RtI implementation.• Identification of the “flexible” elements within each tier of the RtI
process that can be loosely defined by each school implementing RtI.
Activities:• Guided literature discussions• Attendance at RtI Summit 2011• Attendance at RtI Innovations 2011• Attendance at Professional Learning Communities & RtI
Sub-Workgroups
• Communication
• Data, Evaluation, & Assessment
• Training, Coaching, & Technical Assistance
Next Steps• Next Meeting: April 18, 9-12
– Read chapters 1 and 2
• Come to the next meeting with one “ah-ha” and one question.
– Meeting roles and norms
• Future meeting dates:
– May 29, 9:30-3:30
– June 29, 9:30-3:30