Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Michigan School Testing Conference
Ann Arbor, MichiganMarch 1, 2005
Michigan Department of EducationOffice 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 MichiganDevelopment 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 FrameworkServe as a foundation for:
Professional DevelopmentTechnical SupportGrant CriteriaAssessment and AccountabilityAccreditation – Performance Indicators
A practitioners’ “collaborative”
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 Milestones
NOW
Product
Overview of Workgroup ProcessReviewed “Kent Report” for recommendationsReviewed current Performance IndicatorsReviewed the literature on school improvementCross-referenced research – search for common elementsDeveloped a “school improvement framework” – strands, standards, benchmarks, criteria, evidenceOSI 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 FriendlyMeasurableSelf-sufficient/Stand Alone
Criteria for SI Framework
Aligned - NCLB, Research, State/Federal Programs, PA 25, existing Performance IndicatorsAddress triple purpose: Accreditation, School Improvement feedback and guidance, and AccountabilityStudent achievement focusStrand/Standard/Benchmark/Criteria formatDistrict/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 Benchmar
ks87 Criteria
Strand I - LEADERSHIP
Strand II – TEACHING & LEARNING
Strand III - PERSONNEL & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Strand IV – SCHOOL & COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Strand V - DATA & KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
The Strands
Strand I - LEADERSHIP
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
OPERATIONAL RESOURCE MNGT.
DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP
CURRICULUM
INSTRUCTION
ASSESSMENT
Strand II – TEACHING & LEARNING
Strand III - PERSONNEL & PROF. DEVELOPMENT
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Strand IV - SCHOOL/ COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PARENT/FAMILY INVOLVEMENT
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Strand V DATA & KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENTDATA
MANAGEMENT
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
The Standards
Strand I - LEADERSHIP
•Educational Program
•Instructional Support
•Resource Allocation
•Operational Management
•School Climate and Culture
•Continuous Improvement
Strand II – TEACHING & LEARNING
•Curriculum – Written & Aligned
•Curriculum – Communicated
•Instructional Planning
•Instructional Delivery
•Assessment Aligned to Curriculum and Instruction
•Reporting and Use of Data
The Benchmarks
The Benchmarks
Strand III - PERSONNEL & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Strand IV - SCHOOL/
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Strand V - DATA & KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
•Requirements
•Skills, Knowledge, Dispositions
•Collaboration
•Content & Pedagogy
•Alignment
•Communication with Families/ Community
•Authentic Engagement with Families/ Community
•Identification & Collection
•Analysis
•Accessibility
•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 – LeadershipStandard A: Instructional Leadership
1. Educational ProgramKnowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and AssessmentKnowledge and Use of DataTechnologyKnowledge Student Development/LearningKnowledge of Adult LearningChange AgentFocus on Student Results
The Framework…
Standard A: Instructional Leadership 2. Instructional Support
MonitoringCoaching/Facilitating StaffEvaluation of StaffClear ExpectationsCollaboration/Communication
The Framework…
Standard B: Operational/Resource Management
1. Resource AllocationHuman ResourcesFiscalEquipment and MaterialsTimeSpace
The Framework…
Standard B: Operational/Resource Management
2. Operational ManagementState and FederalDistrictSchool
The Framework…
Standard C: Distributed Leadership
1. School Culture and ClimateSafe and OrderlyLearning FocusedInclusive/EquitableCollaborative InquiryData-Driven CultureCollaborative Decision-Making
The Framework…
Standard C: Distributed Leadership
2. Continuous ImprovementShared Vision/MissionResults-Focused PlanningPlanning ImplementedPlanning Monitored/Evaluated
The Framework, continued…
Strand II – Teaching and LearningStandard A: Curriculum
1. Written and AlignedCurriculum DocumentsCurriculum ReviewCurriculum Alignment (MCF and GLCE) Articulated Design Inclusive
The Framework…
Standard A: Curriculum2. Communicated
Staff StudentsParents
The Framework…
Standard B: Instruction1. Planning
Content Pedagogy Knowledge Developmental Appropriateness
2. DeliveryEnacted Curriculum Research-based/Best Practices Focus on Student Engagement
The Framework…
Standard C: Assessment1. Aligned to Curriculum and Instruction
Alignment/Content ValidityConsistency/ReliabilityMultiple Measures
2. Reporting and Use of DataSystemic ReportingInforms Curriculum and Instruction Meets Needs of Students
The Framework, continued….
Strand III – Personnel and Professional Development
Standard A: Personnel Qualifications
1. RequirementsCertification/RequirementsNCLB – Highly Qualified
The Framework…Standard A: Personnel Qualifications
2. Skills, Knowledge, and Dispositions
Content Knowledge and PedagogyCommunicationSchool/Classroom ManagementCollaborationStudent-CenteredInstructional Technology
The Framework…Standard B: Professional Development
1. Content and PedagogyUse of Research-based/Best PracticesApplication to Curriculum ContentInstructional Mentoring/Coaching
2. CollaborationStaff Participates in Learning TeamsCollaborative Analysis of Student Work
3. AlignmentAlignedJob-embeddedResults-driven
The Framework, continued….
Strand IV – School and Community Relations
Standard A: Family Involvement1. Communications
Variety of MethodsRegard for Diversity
2. Authentic Engagement in Life of School
VolunteeringExtended Learning OpportunitiesDecision-Making
The Framework…
Standard B: Community Involvement1. Communication About/With School
Variety of MethodsRegard for Diversity
2. Authentic EngagementBusinessesEducationalCommunity-basedVariety of Methods
The Framework, continued….
Strand V – Data & Knowledge Management
Standard A: Data Management1. Data Identification and Collection
Systematic and AppliedMultiple TypesMultiple SourcesTechnical Quality
The Framework…
Standard A: Data Management1. Analysis
Format Supports AnalysisFormat Supports Longitudinal Comparisons
2. AccessibilityRetrievableSecure
The Framework…
Standard B: Knowledge Management
1. ReportingUser-friendlyAppropriate
2. Interpretation and ApplicationMeaningful DialogueUse 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 SurveyFocus on instruction and
collaboration
School Leader SurveyFocus on Leadership
School ReportFocus on Process
Revised School Improvement Indicators – How?
May include externally scored “constructed response”
Other Potential ToolsParent SurveyStudent 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?
Develop rubric, point distribution,
collect feedback,
revise the SI Framework
Develop tools, data collection
instruments, and
methods
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
IndicatorsMeasurement
Professional Developme
nt
Communications
SI Steering Committee
Committees’ recommended work plan supported by OSI & OEAA.
Next Steps: Committee Work
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!?
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 and 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
Dr. Yvonne Caamal Canul, DirectorOffice of School Improvement
Linda Forward, ConsultantOffice of School Improvement
