Michigan School Testing Conference Ann Arbor Michigan March

Michigan School Testing Conference Ann Arbor, Michigan March 1, 2005 Michigan Department of Education Office of School Improvement

Michigan School Testing Conference Education YES! A New School Improvement Framework + Revised School Performance Indicators = Changes in Education YES!

Michigan School Testing Conference The participants will receive an overview of the: Draft School Improvement Framework for Michigan Development of revised school performance indicators Possible changes to Education YES!

Michigan School Testing Conference The participants will provide: Feedback throughout the presentation

A New School Improvement Framework

The Vision… A coherent, comprehensive research-based School Improvement Framework Serve as a foundation for: Professional Development Technical Support Grant Criteria Assessment and Accountability Accreditation – Performance Indicators A practitioners’ “collaborative”

Overview of Milestones Product NOW Convened 60 educators (July ‘ 04) Workgroup of ISD School Improvement Specialists drafted revisions (Aug – Dec) Field Services followed-up on “discrepancy list” (SY ’ 04 -’ 05) State Board Review (Jan ‘ 05) Field Review/Feedback of SI Framework (Feb-Apr ’ 05)

Overview of Workgroup Process Reviewed “Kent Report” for recommendations Reviewed current Performance Indicators Reviewed the literature on school improvement Cross-referenced research – search for common elements Developed a “school improvement framework” – strands, standards, benchmarks, criteria, evidence OSI develops framework; OEAA develops measurements

Criteria for SI Framework Based on Something (External Validity) “Logical”- Makes sense to various audiences (State Board, Legislature, Schools, Teachers…) Build on current Indicators (Internal Validity) Easy to Understand & User Friendly Measurable Self-sufficient/Stand Alone

Criteria for SI Framework Aligned - NCLB, Research, State/Federal Programs, PA 25, existing Performance Indicators Address triple purpose: Accreditation, School Improvement feedback and guidance, and Accountability Student achievement focus Strand/Standard/Benchmark/Criteria format District/School-based

SI Framework Structure Strand – General Area of Focus Standard - Category of Influence within the Strand. Benchmark - Focus of Influence within a Standard. Criteria - Process that drives the Benchmark. Evidence - Hard and/or soft data that provides evidence of continuous assessment or progress in each identified expectation.

SI Framework Structure 5 Strands 12 Standards 26 Benchmarks 87 Criteria

The Strands Strand I - LEADERSHIP Strand II – TEACHING & LEARNING Strand III - PERSONNEL & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Strand IV – SCHOOL & COMMUNITY RELATIONS Strand V - DATA & KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

The Standards Strand II – TEACHING & LEARNING Strand I - LEADERSHIP INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP CURRICULUM OPERATIONAL RESOURCE MNGT. INSTRUCTION DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT Strand III - PERSONNEL Strand IV - SCHOOL/ & PROF. DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY RELATIONS Strand V DATA & KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS PARENT/FAMILY INVOLVEMENT DATA MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

The Benchmarks Strand I - LEADERSHIP • Educational Program Strand II – TEACHING & LEARNING • Instructional Support • Curriculum – Written & Aligned • Resource Allocation • Curriculum – Communicated • Operational Management • Instructional Planning • School Climate and Culture • Instructional Delivery • Continuous Improvement • Assessment Aligned to Curriculum and Instruction • Reporting and Use of Data

The Benchmarks Strand III PERSONNEL & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT • Requirements • Skills, Knowledge, Dispositions • Collaboration • Content & Pedagogy • Alignment Strand IV SCHOOL/ COMMUNITY RELATIONS Strand V - DATA & KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT • Communication with Families/ Community • Identification & Collection • Authentic Engagement with Families/ Community • Accessibility • Analysis • Reporting • Interpretation & Application

Questions for Consideration Does each benchmark carry the same weight in improving student achievement? What are the implications?

The Framework Strand I – Leadership Standard A: Instructional Leadership 1. Educational Program Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Knowledge and Use of Data Technology Knowledge Student Development/Learning Knowledge of Adult Learning Change Agent Focus on Student Results

The Framework… Standard A: Instructional Leadership 2. Instructional Support Monitoring Coaching/Facilitating Staff Evaluation of Staff Clear Expectations Collaboration/Communication

The Framework… Standard B: Operational/Resource Management 1. Resource Allocation Human Resources Fiscal Equipment and Materials Time Space

The Framework… Standard B: Operational/Resource Management 2. Operational Management State and Federal District School

The Framework… Standard C: Distributed Leadership 1. School Culture and Climate Safe and Orderly Learning Focused Inclusive/Equitable Collaborative Inquiry Data-Driven Culture Collaborative Decision-Making

The Framework… Standard C: Distributed Leadership 2. Continuous Improvement Shared Vision/Mission Results-Focused Planning Implemented Planning Monitored/Evaluated

The Framework, continued… Strand II – Teaching and Learning Standard A: Curriculum 1. Written and Aligned Curriculum Documents Curriculum Review Curriculum Alignment (MCF and GLCE) Articulated Design Inclusive

The Framework… Standard A: Curriculum 2. Communicated Staff Students Parents

The Framework… Standard B: Instruction 1. Planning Content Pedagogy Knowledge Developmental Appropriateness 2. Delivery Enacted Curriculum Research-based/Best Practices Focus on Student Engagement

The Framework… Standard C: Assessment 1. Aligned to Curriculum and Instruction Alignment/Content Validity Consistency/Reliability Multiple Measures 2. Reporting and Use of Data Systemic Reporting Informs Curriculum and Instruction Meets Needs of Students

The Framework, continued…. Strand III – Personnel and Professional Development Standard A: Personnel Qualifications 1. Requirements Certification/Requirements NCLB – Highly Qualified

The Framework… Standard A: Personnel Qualifications 2. Skills, Knowledge, and Dispositions Content Knowledge and Pedagogy Communication School/Classroom Management Collaboration Student-Centered Instructional Technology

The Framework… Standard B: Professional Development 1. Content and Pedagogy Use of Research-based/Best Practices Application to Curriculum Content Instructional Mentoring/Coaching 2. Collaboration Staff Participates in Learning Teams Collaborative Analysis of Student Work 3. Alignment Aligned Job-embedded Results-driven

The Framework, continued…. Strand IV – School and Community Relations Standard A: Family Involvement 1. Communications Variety of Methods Regard for Diversity 2. Authentic Engagement in Life of School Volunteering Extended Learning Opportunities Decision-Making

The Framework… Standard B: Community Involvement 1. Communication About/With School Variety of Methods Regard for Diversity 2. Authentic Engagement Businesses Educational Community-based Variety of Methods

The Framework, continued…. Strand V – Data & Knowledge Management Standard A: Data Management 1. Data Identification and Collection Systematic and Applied Multiple Types Multiple Sources Technical Quality

The Framework… Standard A: Data Management 1. Analysis Format Supports Longitudinal Comparisons 2. Accessibility Retrievable Secure

The Framework… Standard B: Knowledge Management 1. Reporting User-friendly Appropriate 2. Interpretation and Application Meaningful Dialogue Use in Decision-Making

Questions for Consideration Are there other important criteria? Which of the SI Framework elements are the “performance indicators” – the 12 standards, the 26 benchmarks, or the 87 criteria? Data-based evidence – should all evidence be quantifiable? How to measure?

Revised school performance indicators

Revised School Improvement Indicators –How? Teacher Survey Focus on instruction and collaboration School Leader Survey Focus on Leadership School Report Focus on Process

Revised School Improvement Indicators – How? May include externally scored “constructed response” Other Potential Tools Parent Survey Student Survey

Questions for Consideration Do we need a parent survey? Do we need a student survey? If so, how does it look different at each grade range? Are we overlooking groups whose perspective is important? When is the appropriate time to administer the data collection? - November-December?

Next Steps: Committee Work SI Steering Committee Develop tools, data collection instruments, and methods Develop a marketing plan, common message about the framework , pilot, and where/how to roll it out Measurement Communications Prepare materials and MDE staff to support the pilot & roll-out Professional Development Develop rubric, point distribution, collect feedback, revise the SI Framework Indicators Committees’ recommended work plan supported by OSI & OEAA.

Questions for Consideration How might the self-assessment be submitted? Transparency of self-assessment – should it be visible to the general public via the web through a link with Ed. YES!?

Questions for Consideration Monitoring – who should be involved? Dissemination – what is the best way to let districts/schools/ISD’s know that the system is changing?

Next steps: Process (2005) Development of rubric, point distribution (Jan–Feb) Measurement development (Jan-March) Pilot SI Framework/Self-Assessment (April-May ‘ 05) Development of Self-Assessment Tool (March-July) Revise indicators and measures (June)

Next Steps, continued… State Board approves revisions (July) Launch Self-Assessment Tool (Sept) Schools self-assess (Oct-Nov) Data submitted analyzed (Nov) Board reviews/approves results (Dec) Report cards released (Jan ‘ 06)

Questions for Consideration What didn’t we ask? What issues remain?

PI Work Group Contact Information: Dr. Ed Roeber, Executive Director Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Roebere@michigan. gov Dr. Yvonne Caamal Canul, Director Office of School Improvement Canuly@michigan. gov Linda Forward, Consultant Office of School Improvement Forward. L@michigan. gov