SSIP Learning Collaborative Meeting Notes

November 2, 2016 • 1:00-4:00

PSU, 2 Pillsbury Street, Concord, NH (5th Floor)

Facilitators and Presenters: Ruth Littlefield, Christina McDonald, Tamara Nimkoff, Michelle Lewis

Meeting scribe: Joan Izen

Participants:Chris Beeso, Pam Briggs, Tobi Chassie, Chrisie Crocker, Jennifer Cunha, Joel Eastman, Sue Gleason, Maureen Gross, Laurie Hart, Barbara Hemingway, Liza Hewitt, Joan Izen, Jennifer Katz-Borrin, Roberta Keane, Susan Lengel, Michelle Lewis, Ruth Littlefield, Christina MacDonald, Pam MacDonald, Kelly McPherson, Leila Meehan, Dan Mello, Joanne Mulligan, Tamara Nimkoff, Joan Rees, Julie Sackett, Pam Miller Sallet, Pamela Stimpson, Sunny Ternullo, Gail Yalenezian, Bob Belmont, Michele Vance

Meeting Goals:This learning collaborative meeting will:

  1. Support districts in the implementation of the SSIP.
  2. Orient participants to the purpose and process of the SSIP evaluation.
  3. Orient participants to the role of data collection and expectations.

Time / Agenda Item / Process
1:00 / Participants arrive / Participants signed in, received handout packet, chose a preferred Hershey Miniature
1:10 / Welcome
Review meeting goals and agenda
Introductions – Ruth /
  • Ruth welcomed participants; provided context of the meeting; and reviewed meeting goals and agenda
-People are at very different places in their work on this initiative (and that’s ok!)
-Ruth applauded and appreciated everyone’s work
  • Participants introduced themselves and shared their chocolate choice and corresponding personality trait (see Hershey’s Miniature’s Personality Indicator)
  • Introduced the SSIP Infrastructure Graphic (handout) and provided the context of the overarching vision of the SSIP. Applied the graphic to the current status of the initiative.

1:30 / Action Plan activity - Ruth /
  • Two teams met to discuss their action plans and learn from each other’s experiences. Each team presented highlights of their plan and answered questions or requests for clarification.
  • Follow up reflection:
-Did you hear anything that may influence how you/your team implements your action plan?
  • Interesting ideas about universal access
  • Desire to offer transportation to ALL children
  • Focus on all the elements required to developing this system
-Any new revelations?
  • Impressed with Keene’s plan for including families
  • Increase in number of regular early childhood classrooms (vs. PSE classrooms)
  • Parent engagement that isn’t just focused on “bringing them in”
  • Teams ARE in very different places (and that’s OK!)
-Any changes you might make?
  • Ideas to promote family engagement
  • Expand Leadership Team to include others

Role of the Data Coordinator / Ruth and Michelle reviewed a “District Leadership Team Data Coordinator” job description (handout)
-Each district will assign a team member to serve this role
-There will be professional development to support this position
-It’s about having a point person on the LT responsible for SSIP data
-This role is different from the district’s i4see Coordinator
2:00 / Data and evaluation purpose and process - Christina, Tamara, Dan / Tamaraprovided an overview of the evaluation:
  • Collecting, analyzing/making sense of and using data to promote continuous improvement
  • Integral to the improvement process
  • Looking at the EBP as implemented and what are the changes taking place at an infrastructure level. The pillars are being developed in cooperation at both the local and state level.
  • Reviewed the SSIP Evaluation Overview handout: Main Evaluation Questions; Related Evaluation Questions
Christina talked specifically about applying the evaluation process at the district level:
  • State is very cognizant of the burden of data collection and wants to be sure all data collection processes are intentional and necessary
  • SSIP will ‘entry’ on the MYNHDOE
  • Majority of data collection will be inherent to the implementation process
  • Reviewed handout: SSIP Evaluation District-Level Data Collection
-Overview
-Calendar
-Action plans can be modified at any point. Twice a year report on plans required.
-Family Engagement Survey – family participation will be optional
-Coaching feedback: Practice-based and Process-based
  • Creating a state-level data base that will accept the district data
-Will generate reports analyzing the data
-Districts will be able to request reports
2:30 / Break
2:45 / Data and evaluation purpose and process (continued) / Christina reviewed each of the required data collection tools:
  • The tools are in various stages of development.
  • Presented the tools grouped by infrastructure category
-Governance/Leadership
  • Action Plans—familiar tool, focus on reporting elements
  • Leadership Team Meeting Logs
  • Start using immediately (paper version)
  • Only front of sheet will go to state (minus names of participants)
  • Leadership Team Survey
  • In development; available by end of year
  • Feedback on Process-based Coaching
-Data Systems/Evaluation
  • Data Use Survey—Tool for helping to identify where the resources, access, and expertise are within a district, and from the state perspective, where there are opportunities to improve systems and TA to support this local infrastructure.
  • Will be released in the next few weeks.
-Professional Development/TA (all tools in development)
  • Practice-based Coaching Logs
  • Feedback on Practice-based Coaching
-Quality Standards
  • TPOT (specific to Pyramid Model)
  • Benchmarks of Quality – all LTs will complete (whether or not engaged in Pyramid Model implementation)
  • Family Engagement Survey—in development, planning to base on the TPOT, districts responsible for distributing information to families of students in implementation classrooms in order to complete the online survey
  • If another EBP is implemented a different survey will be used
Christina facilitated a reflection discussion on information presented. Some comments included:
  • TPOT will be most valuable for us
  • Don’t underestimate value for Benchmarks of Quality; helpful to “moving the whole process forward”
  • How do we aggregate all our data (at the district level) and use it all?
  • POMS data will be used to measure the SiMR
  • How do we make sense of the different levels of data?
  • We don’t yet know the questions to ask?
  • “This is messy work”

3:15 / Discussion: How are we doing? – Michelle / Michelle facilitated the group’s discussion. Sample responses to key questions included:
  • How are we doing?
  • I like to know ‘what’s coming’, even if things are in progress
  • Need more information about how the coaching process will roll out
  • Want to talk more about how districts are structuring time to do all the associated work?
  • We try to build it into our schedule
  • Keep whole staff up to date on all our initiatives
  • Is the time dedicated for the liaisons sufficient to support your work?
  • What is the amount of time we have? Budgeted on average 15 hours/month (including travel)
  • Liaison has been incredibly helpful; could always use more
  • Supports aren’t limited to liaisons; Michelle and Jen will help brainstorm replies

3:45 / Next steps - Ruth /
  • Save the date: January 10th, full day meeting with Rob Corso from the Pyramid Model Consortium
  • Documents posted on the SSIP Districts’ page on the PTAN website; working on developing interactive options to promote communication and collaboration among collaborative members

3:55 / Reflection - Ruth / Participants shared their reflections on today’s meeting. Sample comments included:
  • Liked hearing from other districts
  • Liked discussion time better than listening
  • Data presentation provided a lot clarity, very helpful
  • Conversation was fantastic
  • “You guys are really listening”
  • Invite everyone to come to North Country for next meeting
  • Presentation slides were really helpful
  • Helpful to know what’s expected

4:00 / Adjourn