Michigan School Testing Conference

1

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

2
Michigan School Testing Conference

• Education YES!
• A New School Improvement Framework
• Revised School Performance Indicators
• Changes in Education YES!

3
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!

4
Michigan School Testing Conference

• The participants will provide
• Feedback throughout the presentation

5

• A New
• School Improvement Framework

6
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

7
Overview of Milestones

• 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)

Product
NOW
8
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

9
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

10
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

11
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.
12
SI Framework Structure
5 Strands
12 Standards
26 Benchmarks
87 Criteria
13
The Strands
Strand I - LEADERSHIP
Strand III - PERSONNEL PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
14
The Standards
Strand II TEACHING LEARNING
Strand I - LEADERSHIP
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
CURRICULUM
OPERATIONAL RESOURCE MNGT.
INSTRUCTION
DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP
ASSESSMENT
Strand III - PERSONNEL PROF. DEVELOPMENT
Strand IV - SCHOOL/ COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Strand V DATA KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
DATA MANAGEMENT
PARENT/FAMILY INVOLVEMENT
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
15
The Benchmarks
Strand I - LEADERSHIP
Strand II TEACHING LEARNING

• Educational Program
• Instructional Support
• Resource Allocation
• Operational Management
• School Climate and Culture
• Continuous Improvement

• Curriculum Written Aligned
• Curriculum Communicated
• Instructional Planning
• Instructional Delivery
• Assessment Aligned to Curriculum and Instruction
• Reporting and Use of Data

16
The Benchmarks
Strand IV - SCHOOL/ COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Strand V - DATA KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Strand III - PERSONNEL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

• Requirements
• Skills, Knowledge, Dispositions
• Collaboration
• Content Pedagogy
• Alignment

• Identification Collection
• Analysis
• Accessibility
• Reporting
• Interpretation Application

• Communication with Families/ Community
• Authentic Engagement with Families/ Community

17
Questions for Consideration

• Does each benchmark carry the same weight in
  improving student achievement?
• What are the implications?

18
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

19
The Framework

• Standard A Instructional Leadership
• 2. Instructional Support
• Monitoring
• Coaching/Facilitating Staff
• Evaluation of Staff
• Clear Expectations
• Collaboration/Communication

20
The Framework

• Standard B Operational/Resource Management
• 1. Resource Allocation
• Human Resources
• Fiscal
• Equipment and Materials
• Time
• Space

21
The Framework

• Standard B Operational/Resource Management
• 2. Operational Management
• State and Federal
• District
• School

22
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

23
The Framework

• Standard C Distributed Leadership
• 2. Continuous Improvement
• Shared Vision/Mission
• Results-Focused Planning
• Planning Implemented
• Planning Monitored/Evaluated

24
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

25
The Framework

• Standard A Curriculum
• 2. Communicated
• Staff
• Students
• Parents

26
The Framework

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

27
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

28
The Framework, continued.

• Strand III Personnel and Professional
  Development
• Standard A Personnel Qualifications
• 1. Requirements
• Certification/Requirements
• NCLB Highly Qualified

29
The Framework

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

30
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

31
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

32
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

33
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

34
The Framework

• Standard A Data Management
• 1. Analysis
• Format Supports Analysis
• Format Supports Longitudinal Comparisons
• 2. Accessibility
• Retrievable
• Secure

35
The Framework

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

36
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?

37

• Revised
• school performance
• indicators

38
Revised School Improvement Indicators How?

• Teacher Survey Focus on instruction and
  collaborationSchool Leader Survey Focus on
  LeadershipSchool Report Focus on Process

39
Revised School Improvement Indicators How?

• May include externally scored constructed
  response
• Other Potential Tools Parent Survey Student
  Survey

40
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?

41
Next Steps Committee Work
SI Steering Committee
Develop a marketing plan, common message about
the framework , pilot, and where/how to roll it
out
Prepare materials and MDE staff to support the
pilot roll-out
Develop rubric, point distribution, collect
feedback, revise the SI Framework
Develop tools, data collection instruments, and
methods
Indicators
Measurement
Professional Development
Communications
Committees recommended work plan supported by
OSI OEAA.
42
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 EdYES!?

43
Questions for Consideration

• Monitoring who should be involved?
• Dissemination what is the best way to let
  districts/schools/ISDs know that the system is
  changing?

44
Next steps Process (2005)

• Development of rubric, point distribution
  (JanFeb)
• Measurement development (Jan-March)
• Pilot SI Framework/Self-Assessment
  (April-May 05)
• Development of Self-Assessment Tool (March-July)
• Revise indicators and measures (June)

45
Next Steps, continued

• State Board approves revisions (July)
• Launch Self-Assessment Tool (Sept)
• Schools self-assess (Oct-Nov)
• Data submitted and analyzed (Nov)
• Board reviews/approves results (Dec)
• Report cards released (Jan 06)

46
Questions for Consideration

• What didnt we ask?
• What issues remain?

47
PI Work Group

• Contact Information
• Dr. Ed Roeber, Executive Director
• Office of Educational Assessment and
  Accountability
• Roebere_at_michigan.gov
• Dr. Yvonne Caamal Canul, Director
• Office of School Improvement
• Canuly_at_michigan.gov
• Linda Forward, Consultant
• Office of School Improvement
• ForwardL_at_michigan.gov