When schools talk about improving outcomes for students with disabilities, the conversation can get big fast: data systems, compliance, professional learning, coaching, and statewide initiatives. Washington State’s Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Phase I takes all of that complexity and aims it at one clear goal—improving early literacy for young learners with disabilities.
At TinyEYE, we support schools with online therapy services, and we know that early literacy is not “just reading.” It is language, attention, self-regulation, phonological awareness, and the ability to access instruction. When early literacy systems work well, students benefit across grades and settings. When they don’t, gaps can widen quickly.
This post breaks down key takeaways from Washington State’s SSIP Phase I submission for IDEA Part B, Indicator B17—using plain language and practical connections for educators and school leaders.
What is the SSIP, and why does it matter?
The SSIP is a multi-year, statewide plan required under IDEA Part B (Indicator B17). It is designed to improve educational results for students with disabilities through a structured process:
Phase I: Analyze data and infrastructure to choose a focus area
Phase II: Develop the plan (strategies, supports, measurement)
Phase III: Implement and evaluate the plan over multiple years
Washington’s Phase I work emphasized something important: improvement is not only about picking a program. It is about building capacity—at the state, regional, district, school, and classroom levels—to implement evidence-based practices consistently.
Washington’s focus area: early literacy
After reviewing broad sets of quantitative and qualitative data, Washington identified a consistent and concerning pattern: a significant literacy gap between students with disabilities and their typically developing peers—starting early and persisting.
Rather than waiting until later grades (when gaps are often larger and harder to close), the state selected early literacy as the focus area and built its State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR) around kindergarten entry skills.
The SiMR in plain language
Washington’s SiMR: Reduce the early literacy performance gap between kindergarteners with disabilities and their typically developing peers.
Primary measure: The Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (WaKIDS), specifically the literacy domain.
Why WaKIDS is central to this plan
WaKIDS is an entrance assessment used at kindergarten entry. In the SSIP, it becomes a statewide “starting line” measure—helping the state see who is arriving ready for literacy demands and where supports need to be strengthened.
The WaKIDS literacy domain includes foundational skills such as:
Phonological awareness (noticing rhyme, alliteration, and smaller sound units)
Alphabet knowledge (letter naming and letter-sound connections)
Print concepts (how books and print work)
Comprehension and response to text (retelling, emergent reading behaviors)
Emergent writing (writing name, writing to convey meaning)
These are skills that can be strengthened through strong classroom instruction, targeted interventions, and related services that align with student needs.
What the data analysis found (and why it’s a big deal)
Washington’s Phase I analysis did not rely on one data source. The state reviewed performance indicators, federal data collections, monitoring results, stakeholder input, and disaggregated trends (race/ethnicity, disability category, district size, and more).
Several findings stood out:
Large reading gaps in third grade between students with disabilities and peers (reported as roughly 36% to 41% across trend lines).
Early literacy gaps at kindergarten entry between students with disabilities and peers (reported as roughly 18% to 30% across trend lines).
Stagnant gap patterns from grades 1–3, suggesting that without early, consistent support, the gap does not naturally shrink.
District size matters: districts with enrollment of 10,000+ showed a notably greater reading gap than smaller districts.
From a special education perspective, this reinforces a familiar truth: early literacy difficulties are not “outgrown” without intentional, well-implemented supports.
Compliance and instruction are connected
One of the most practical parts of the SSIP Phase I is its connection between compliance and student outcomes. Washington reviewed monitoring data (WISM) and found widespread non-compliance related to evaluations and IEP development.
Key compliance findings included:
94% of monitored districts had non-compliance findings related to eligibility and sufficient evaluations.
97% of monitored districts had non-compliance findings related to properly formulated IEPs.
76% of monitored districts had findings related to inconsistencies between evaluation recommendations and the IEP.
Why does this matter for literacy?
If an evaluation does not clearly identify needs (including language, phonological processing, attention, or learning profiles), the IEP may not target the right skills. If the IEP is not measurable or aligned to present levels, progress monitoring becomes weak. And if services in the IEP do not match what the evaluation recommends, instruction can become generic instead of truly individualized.
Implementation science: making good ideas actually happen
Washington’s SSIP is strongly influenced by implementation science—an approach that focuses on how systems adopt and sustain evidence-based practices over time.
This matters because schools often experience “initiative overload.” A new program is introduced, training happens once, and then results vary widely across classrooms. Implementation science pushes the system to ask:
Do we have the training and coaching needed for staff to use the practice well?
Do we have data routines that inform instruction, not just collect numbers?
Do we have leadership structures and feedback loops that keep the work going?
Washington also connected SSIP work with other initiatives and grants (such as leadership development and efforts to improve access to general education instruction). The goal is alignment, not duplication.
Four improvement strategy strands that schools can learn from
Washington identified coherent improvement strategies that work at multiple levels (district, school, classroom) and address root causes found in the data. The strands are especially relevant to special education teams trying to improve literacy outcomes without burning out staff.
1) Intensive technical assistance using implementation science
This is about building readiness and capacity before scaling. It emphasizes structured support, problem-solving, and system change—not just information sharing.
2) Coordinated professional learning (with coaching)
A major theme in the qualitative data was frustration with “do this” directives without enough training or coaching. The SSIP highlights coaching as essential because training alone rarely transfers into consistent classroom practice.
3) Consistency Index (evaluation → IEP → instruction)
The Consistency Index is a practical concept: measure how well the evaluation, IEP, and specially designed instruction line up. When those elements align, instruction is more likely to be targeted, measurable, and effective.
4) Parent engagement resources
Families are part of the literacy system. Washington’s Phase I notes parent involvement measures and the need for more accessible resources. For early learners, family-school partnerships can strengthen carryover of skills (language, book routines, early writing) beyond the school day.
Where TinyEYE fits into this kind of work
Online therapy services can support early literacy goals when they are integrated into the broader system the SSIP describes. For example:
Speech-language therapy can directly support phonological awareness, vocabulary, narrative skills, and listening comprehension—core building blocks of reading.
Occupational therapy can support fine motor and visual-motor skills for emergent writing, as well as self-regulation and attention needed for literacy tasks.
Collaborative service delivery (therapists partnering with educators) can strengthen generalization, align goals, and improve progress monitoring.
Most importantly, related services are most powerful when they connect clearly to present levels, measurable goals, and classroom instruction—exactly the kind of alignment Washington’s SSIP is working to improve.
Takeaway: start early, align supports, and use data for action
Washington’s SSIP Phase I sends a clear message: early literacy gaps are measurable at kindergarten entry, and systems can respond—if they commit to aligned implementation, strong IEP practices, coaching-based professional learning, and meaningful family engagement.
For more information, please follow this link.
