MI Excel Collaborative Partner Meeting Supporting Michigan Districts with Focus Schools February 17, 2016

WELCOME Think about the districts you work with If they were going to play a game, what game might that be and why? Stand and find a partner from another table to share your district’s game and reason At the signal, each pair will find another pair and share Each group of four will share one game and reason with the group Welcome, introductions, While I am standing up here facilitating today – I know that you are the ones who know the work and you are the ones who understand what your districts need. So, the best people to listen to are one another and we hope to give you ample opportunities to do that. So let’s give you a fun opportunity to talk to your colleagues.

District Improvement Facilitators Roles and Responsibilities Review both sides of the DIF handout Take 15 minutes individually and silently to take notes on the handout relative to your work in each of the columns Share your responses in the categories at your table At the end, report out by table where you are collectively having the most success and where you need support in the challenges Ask if there are clarifications needed. After about 15 minutes, ask them to start the conversation

Leveling the Playing Field Supporting Children Who Live in Poverty

Lunch Conversation How do your districts support their Focus Schools in collecting and analyzing the classroom level data of the bottom 30% of students?

Debrief Lunch Conversation Share with the group how your districts are supporting the bottom 30% data collection happening at the classroom level

Samples of Bottom 30% Data Collection

This school had identified ED students as their low population in the bottom 30% and while they did not do a wonderful job of closing the gap, they stated that in the past, their non-ED students made greater gains than their ED students. Now, their students were gaining at the same rate, and they were happy about this.

Quarterly Board Report Examples Ideally, there are dates submitted for the data dialogues. This one includes board members and is focused on academic and behavior data. What do you think of this?

Quarterly Board Report Examples These district level data dialogues are occurring monthly and focusing district and school goals.

These school data dialogues are ongoing – occurring weekly and monthly These school data dialogues are ongoing – occurring weekly and monthly. MDE accepts this.

This school is submitting data on the bottom 50% of students who participate in their afterschool Math Club. What do you think about this type of data submission?

Quarterly Board Report Review Criteria Submitted? All sections of the Quarterly Report addressed?  * Shared with School Board, dated? * Specifics provided in response to the questions? Dates provided?  Persons/positions identified? Data provided to support closing of the gap?  Is the work of the DIF at the district level? Use of Building and District Set-Asides discussed? * * These things are what causes the Quarterly Board Reports to be returned for Modifications Required

Common Deficiencies Date that Quarterly Report was shared with School Board is missing * No data Includes identifiable student level data Data provided does not address closing of the gap District Level Professional Dialogues description missing, or describes Building Level dialogues Superintendent seldom identified by position as among those participating in the Data Dialogues Elementary schools believe that they are not required to implement the Superintendents Dropout Challenge The work of the District Improvement Facilitator describe Building level rather than district level activities Use of Title I Set-asides not well articulated No response to required sections, or N/A with no explanation as to why this is N/A, or left blank * * These things are what causes the Quarterly Board Reports to be returned for Modifications Required

What questions might you have about your support to central office in writing and presenting the Quarterly Board Reports?

Criteria for Focus School Exit Focus Gap schools were exited if they had either: Above average Bottom 30% improvement Above average Bottom 30% achievement Focus Grad schools were exited if historically low graduation rates were raised above critical levels

What is Focus Gap Improvement? Focus Gap Improvement: Two-year average improvement of the school’s bottom 30% is greater than the statewide two-year average of bottom 30% subgroup improvement in both Math and Reading for all applicable grade bands (elementary/middle and/or high school)

What is Focus Gap Achievement Focus Gap Achievement: Two-year average achievement of the schools’ bottom 30% is greater than the statewide two-year average of bottom 30% subgroup achievement in both Math and Reading for all applicable grade bands (elementary/middle and/or high school)

REL Midwest Focus School Project

Michigan’s Focus Networked Improvement Community (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Michigan’s Focus Networked Improvement Community Monica P. Bhatt 02 / 17 / 16 Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

(added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Agenda Overview and History of the Michigan Focus Networked Improvement Community Forming a Networked Improvement Community Identifying a Problem Developing a Theory of Action Measuring Progress Through Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles Next Steps: Moving Toward Sustainability Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Regional Educational Laboratories (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Regional Educational Laboratories Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

(added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Research Alliances College and Career Success Dropout Prevention Early Childhood Education Educator Effectiveness Rural School Turnaround Urban Virtual Education Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

(added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Priority Areas Early Childhood Education Educator Effectiveness College and Career Readiness Low-Performing Schools and School Improvement Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Who, What, When, Where, Why?

(added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Networked Improvement Community (n.): Individuals or organizations that use systematic inquiry to improve practice Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

” “Rather than asking whether an ‘intervention works,’ a network improvement community asks, ‘What works, when, for whom and under what sets of circumstances?’” — Bryk, Gomez, & Grunow, 2015

In Michigan… We can use a networked improvement community (NIC) to: Refine supports for Focus schools Learn from changes to supports in varied contexts Use data to drive improvement in practice

Who is at the table? Focus NIC (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Who is at the table? Focus NIC MDE Districts Schools ISDs Research Staff Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

(added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 What are we trying to accomplish? 1. Develop an improvement community. 2. Improve mathematics fluency for focus students. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Michigan’s Focus NIC: Timeline We are here. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April Nov. 15 Theory of Action and Develop Outcome Measures April 16 Debrief Sept. 15 Participant Recruitment Jan. 16 Implement Cycle 1 Dec. 15 Develop Intervention March 16 Measure Outcome Root-Cause Analysis Oct. 15

(added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 How? Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Michigan Focus NIC Approach (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Michigan Focus NIC Approach Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

(added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Identifying a Problem. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Focus NIC Meeting: Root-Cause Analysis October 20, 2015 (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Participants: School principals Central office representatives ISD representatives Michigan Department of Education staff REL Midwest staff In the first meeting of the Focus NIC, members worked together to: Conduct a root-cause analysis Develop a problem statement: “Lack of access to, understanding of, and use of data to implement continuous improvement on a daily basis” Brainstorm interventions that can improve data-utilization skills among school staff Focus NIC Meeting: Root-Cause Analysis October 20, 2015 Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

(added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

See the system that produces these outcomes. (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 See the system that produces these outcomes. Primary Drivers Utilizing appropriate strategies and recalling facts, all students in the bottom 30 percent will demonstrate mastery of the grade-level fluency benchmarks. Aim Statement Daily practice for math fluency for students   Scheduling math block Materials and resources Embedded coaching Interventions for bottom 30 percent Progress Monitoring Emphasis on math/math fluency Engaging families Increasing data usefulness Training/professional development for teachers Secondary Drivers Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Developing a Theory of Action. (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Developing a Theory of Action. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Theory of Action Program Inputs Program Activities Program Outputs (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Theory of Action Program Inputs Program Activities Program Outputs Outcomes Teacher logs to track daily math practice of fluency skills Implementation guide developed by Focus NIC Observation protocol developed by Focus NIC Principal guidance, coaching, and support to math teachers RocketMath kits (Ingham) or workstations (Kalamazoo) District math coach District and ISD-level math fluency professional development and support   Identify bottom 30% of students Teachers track Focus students’ ability to practice math fluency skills for at least 15 minutes every day using daily logs Bimonthly walk- throughs using observation protocol Ongoing coaching and data use Daily teacher logs Increased time for students spent on practicing math fluency skills Increased time spent discussing math fluency between teachers and between teachers and principal Increased math fluency emphasis Increased percentage of all students mastering math fluency benchmarks by May 2016 Improved math fluency of the bottom 30% of students specifically Program Targets: Mathematics teachers in Ingham ISD and KRESA who teach in Focus schools participating in the NIC. All students in mathematics classrooms in Focus schools participating in the NIC, with an emphasis on the bottom 30 percent of students. Program Goal: All students will master fluency benchmarks by demonstrating appropriate strategies and recalling facts. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

(added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Measuring Outcomes. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

1. Teachers track Focus students’ math fluency practice. (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 1. Teachers track Focus students’ math fluency practice. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

2. Observe teachers every two weeks. (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 2. Observe teachers every two weeks. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

(added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 3. Focus NIC participants measure students’ performance on math fluency benchmarks. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Implement Continuous Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles. (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Implement Continuous Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Cycle 1 Jan. 11– Mar. 11 2016 Plan Do Study Act (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Plan: Identify bottom 30% of students on math fluency and develop plan to increase ability of teachers to improve math fluency. Plan Do Study Act Do: RocketMath/ Workstations Daily teacher logs Principals observations District math coach Professional development Cycle 1 Jan. 11– Mar. 11 2016 Act: Focus NIC will monitor student progress and adjust goals or practices as needed. Have Pubs refine these graphics. Study: Assess daily teacher logs, walk-throughs, and other metrics. Review challenges and lessons learned. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Cycle 2 April– May 2016 Plan Do Study Act (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Plan: Examine benchmark and assessment data to increase math fluency for bottom 30% of students and determine long-term goals, plans, and timeline of the Focus NIC. Plan Do Study Act Cycle 2 April– May 2016 Do: Assess teacher log data, walk-through assessments Discuss challenges and lessons learned Act: Focus NIC will monitor student progress and adjust goals or practices as needed. Have Pubs refine these graphics. Study: Examine midyear MAP and AIMSweb scores. Seek to develop alternate tools to assess student math fluency outcomes and develop long-term metrics and goals for Focus NIC. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Richmond Elementary* *Name changed to protect our participants. (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Richmond Elementary* *Name changed to protect our participants. Use “Richmond” as an example of what PDSA implementation looks like. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

How were students identified? (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 How were students identified? NWEA MAP math assessment results from December 2015. The results were sorted for each grade based on the Number and Operations category. Then, the bottom 30 percent (approximately) for each grade was identified. Those lists were given to classroom teachers and resource room teachers, who then tracked the math fluency practice. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Intervention participants (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Intervention participants Bottom 30 Percent of Students (Focus Students): 2nd grade – 25 students 3rd grade – 22 students 4th grade – 16 students 5th grade – 22 students Some of the students have individualized education programs and some are English language learners. Math teachers: 10 teachers Six 2nd- and 3rd-grade general education teachers, one 4th- and one 5th-grade departmentalized teacher, and two resource room teachers Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

(added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Feedback Teachers have been successful with their logs. However, there was a snow day during the first week. Also many teachers had substitutes on one or more days for a variety of reasons. It was an inconsistent first week. Teachers are supportive of the process. This first week coincided with the start of a math coach. There were many discussions on what constitutes math fluency practice. Success – The awareness of documented daily practice Challenge – Trying to verify practice when a substitute is in the room Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

What’s Next? Thinking about sustainability. (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 What’s Next? Thinking about sustainability. Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

How can you use these tools in your work? (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 How can you use these tools in your work? How can we involve this group in sustaining our efforts? Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Monica P. Bhatt Researcher REL Midwest (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon, Fixed Date and time) 9/28/2015 Monica P. Bhatt Researcher REL Midwest Presentation Title (added from Insert tab, Header & Footer icon)

Big Ticket Table Topics

Thank You for Your Participation Using the sticky notes at your tables, tell us: What you liked about this meeting What did not meet your needs to what you would suggest be changed for the next meeting Topics to include at our May 26 meeting AM Focus PM Priority

Food for Thought We do not learn from experience. We learn from reflecting upon experience. John Dewey This quote has been around a long time. I am hopeful that today, you shared your experience and heard from others about their experiences and that you will take the time to reflect on what you have done and learn from it so that the MI Excel SSoS can be an integral support for system improvement and ultimately student achievement.