Overview Overview of the School Improvement Framework 2.0 and the District Improvement Framework 2.0

School Improvement Framework 1.0 Coherent Plan For Improvement PA 25 Federal requirements State requirements Accreditation Common Vision The current School Improvement Framework (SIF 1.0) was adopted by the State Board of Education in 2005 to serve as a guide for continuous school improvement in schools and districts. The purpose of SIF 1.0 was to provide a common voice for school improvement and to create a better process for school improvement planning across Michigan.   Common Language

Historical Perspective SIF 1.0 combined school and district responsibilities in one document and is comprehensive, which turned out to be a blessing and a curse.  

Historical Perspective Brian McNulty After being written by Michigan educators and reviewed by Robert Marzano and Brian McNulty, nationally-known educational experts, there was good news and bad news from McNulty and Marzano – the good news was that is was very comprehensive and the bad news was that is was very comprehensive!   Robert Marzano

Time to Revisit As the years passed and feedback from practitioners in the field was gathered and reviewed, the Michigan Department of Education realized that it was time to revisit the school and district improvement frameworks.

Plan for Revision Because school improvement is not a one time event, but an ongoing process that needs to be embedded in the daily operations and culture of a school, the activities associated with the SI process need to be manageable for building and districts. If the process and related activities are manageable, schools and districts will be able to maintain the process.

A Balancing Act Process Content As a plan for revising the frameworks was developed, it was determined that making the frameworks manageable could be done by finding the right balance between the comprehensiveness of the content and the processes that make school improvement effective.

Revision Guidelines Separate the school and district framework language Streamline the content Eliminate repetition and obsolete language Rearrange for better organization and alignment Add essential or missing components Based on the feedback from the field, the following were used as guidelines to help focus the revision process for the school and district improvement frameworks: Separate the school and district framework language Streamline the content Eliminate repetition and obsolete language Rearrange for better organization and alignment Add essential or missing components

Shifting Landscape 21st Century Skills Online statewide assessments Common Core State Standards Technology in Education In addition to taking into consideration the feedback from the field, there have been many changes in education since 2005 that were not reflected in SIF 1.0. Some of these changes include 21st century skills, the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, Career and College Readiness Standards, online statewide assessments, and the integration of technology into education, just to name a few. Career and College Readiness Standards

Increased Emphasis Areas Collaboration Quality Instruction Professional Learning Teams Systems Structures of Support There is also new educational research released since 2005 that needed to be emphasized in the revised frameworks including: Collaboration Quality Instruction Systems Professional Learning Teams Structures of Support Culture and Climate and Technology The research used and additional resources can be found in the School Improvement Research and Resources document. http://media.mivu.org/mvu_pd/sifdif/SchoolImprovementResearchAndResources.pdf Culture and Climate Technology School Improvement Research and Resources

Coherent Plan For Improvement Purpose Federal requirements PA 25 State requirements Accreditation Common Vision The purpose of SIF 2.0 is the same as SIF 1.0 in that it will provide a common voice for school improvement across Michigan. Common Language Coherent Plan For Improvement

Purpose To guide discussion and increase understanding of research-based school improvement To develop, support and enhance school improvement planning The following were kept in mind during the revision process: To guide discussion and increase understanding of research-based school improvement. To develop, support and enhance school improvement planning To serve as a tool for peer assessment exchanges with other schools. To serve as the basis for the self-assessment tool for schools. The self-assessment tool helps schools identify the extent to which systems and processes are currently in place to support teaching and learning. We will go into more detail about the self-assessment tool later in this presentation. To serve as the basis for the self-assessment tool for schools To serve as a tool for peer assessment exchanges with other schools

A Systems Approach A key consideration in the development of SIF and DIF 2.0 was taking a “systems approach” based on the concept of “systems thinking.” Current research indicates that schools that are supported by their districts are more effective at teaching and learning. The two frameworks were developed so that they complement each other and work together as a system.

Identify consequences Why a Systems Approach? Enduring Solutions Long View There are several advantages to taking a systems approach. A systems approach: Supports the design of more enduring solutions to problems Encourages the “long view” toward problem solving Encourages alignment of subsystems Helps with the identification of ‘unintended consequences’ of decisions Alignment Identify consequences

Systems Thinking The discipline of systems thinking provides a different way of looking at problems and goals – not as isolated events, but as components of larger structure. ~Peter Senge, Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education According to Peter Senge, a systems scientist and well-known author of the book A Fifth Discipline, “The discipline of systems thinking provides a different way of looking at problems and goals – not as isolated events, but as components of larger structure.” http://www.amazon.com/Schools-That-Learn-Updated-Revised/dp/0385518226

How Systems Thinking Applies to Education What is a System? System: A collection of people and processes working toward a common goal to produce quality products or results. Element B Element A So, what is a system? There are many definitions of a “system,” but one definition of a system is “A collection of people and processes working toward a common goal to produce quality products or results.” The key concepts in this definition are “working toward a common goal” and that a system is not only a group of people, but a set of processes supporting the people in order to achieve the common goal. It is also important to understand that a system is not a collection of individual elements that never communicate or influence each other. In a system, not only does element A influence element B, but element B also influences element A. When a system is successfully implemented, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Likewise, schools influence the district, and the district influences and supports its schools. For more information on systems thinking in education, read “How Systems Thinking Applies to Education” at http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov92/vol50/num03/How-Systems-Thinking-Applies-to-Education.aspx Source: http://inschoolsolutions.com/improvement/systems.htm How Systems Thinking Applies to Education

Defining Characteristics of Systems Purpose Adjustment Parts Characteristics of Systems Beyond the definition of a system, a system has several defining characteristics. First, a system must have a purpose and there must be a reason for every subsystem within the system. Each subsystem should be clear on its role and purpose in achieving the overarching vision and mission of the overall system. Second, it is critical for all parts of a system to be present and functioning in order for the system to carry out its purpose optimally. Third, it is critical that the system is arranged in a specific way so that the system can carry out its purpose. The fourth characteristic of a system is having a feedback mechanism. Lastly, not only does a system need to receive feedback but it needs to be responsive to the feedback, making adjustments as necessary to come back into balance and maintain stability. Feedback Arrangement

SIF and DIF as a System So, as you work through the frameworks, remember that effective school improvement incorporates systems thinking, so neither the School Improvement 2.0 Framework or the District Improvement 2.0 Framework should be implemented in isolation. School improvement is not a singular event, but a process that must be consistently integrated into day-to-day activities and sustained over a long period of time.

Office of Field Services Office of Special Education Connections Professional Learning Policy Comprehensive Needs Assessment As part of the systems approach to SIF 2.0 and DIF 2.0, there has also been an intentional effort to integrate the 2.0 frameworks with other processes and initiatives. For example, as mentioned earlier the School and District Systems Reviews replace the 90/40 in the Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA). Another example of integration with other initiatives is the connection between Michigan’s Professional Learning Policy approved by the State Board of Education in January 2012 and the frameworks. The policy states, “Professional learning is not an isolated event or a set of events; rather, it is an ongoing support to, and driver of, the many other components of this system, including the continuous school improvement process, professional certification, educator evaluation, and the implementation of rigorous student content standards.” To support this policy, Strand III is now entirely dedicated to professional learning. As the frameworks are integrated into the daily routine of schools and districts, professional learning will receive the emphasis needed for improvement. Another example is the use of the MDE Program Evaluation Tool developed by the Office of Field Services in the School Improvement Process. In addition to the examples noted, conversations continue to occur with other MDE offices including the Office of Field Services, the School Reform Office and the Office of Special Education to ensure a common understanding of SIF 2.0 and DIF 2.0. Office of Field Services Office of Special Education School Reform Office

What’s New? So, what’s new in SIF 2.0? There were several structural changes made during the revision of SIF 1.0. In response to the feedback received, one of the major differences is that now the School Improvement Framework and District Improvement Framework are separate frameworks. Each framework has separate support documents, including systems reviews and other tools. DIF 2.0 was built to correspond to SIF 2.0. DIF 2.0 SIF 2.0 SIF 1.0

Before After SIF Structure Update 5 Strands 12 Standards 26 Benchmarks 90/40 Key Characteristics 4 Strands 10 Standards 0 Benchmarks 26 Indicators In keeping with the guidelines of the revision process to eliminate repetition, streamline the scope and rearrange for better organization and alignment, in SIF 2.0 the number of strands has decreased from five to four, and the number of standards has decreased from 12 to 10. There are no longer any benchmarks and the 40 or 90 key characteristics AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL have been replaced by 26 indicators labeled A-Z.

Relocation Strand III Strand V To better organize the content of SIF 2.0, Strand V on Data Management and Information Systems has been incorporated into the other strands and all of the information related to instruction that was formerly in Strand III has been relocated to Strand I. Strand V

Guiding Questions Guiding Questions Also, while rewriting and reorganizing, the revision team added a Guiding Question for each indicator to serve as a way to generate quality dialogue within school teams. Guiding Questions

Before After DIF Structure Update 5 Strands 12 Standards 26 Benchmarks 10 Indicators Similar changes were made in DIF 2.0. The number of strands has decreased from five to four and the number of standards has decreased from 12 to 10 to align with SIF 2.0. There are no longer any benchmarks in the District Improvement Framework and the 19 benchmarks have been replaced by 10 indicators labeled 1-10.

Guiding Questions Guiding Questions As with the SIF 2.0 indicators, the revision team added a guiding question for each indicator to serve as a way to generate quality dialogue within district teams. Guiding Questions

School and District Systems Reviews The new self-assessments are referred to as the School Systems Review (SSR) for SIF 2.0 and the District Systems Review (DSR) for DIF 2.0. School Systems Review (SSR) District Systems Review (DSR)

Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) Gather Study Analyze Data School Data Analysis (SDA) School Process Profile Analysis Plan Develop Improvement Plan Do Implement Plan Monitor Plan Evaluate Plan Get Ready Collect Data Build Profile School Data Profile (SDP) School Process Profile (SPP) Set Goals Set Measurable Objectives Research Best Practices School Systems Review (SSR) District Systems Review (DSR) The School and District Systems Reviews will be integrated into the Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) of the School Improvement Process (SIP). Remember that the CNA consists of building a school profile in the Gather stage of the SIP and analyzing the profile data and summarizing the results in the Study stage of the SIP. The results of the CNA are then used to inform your School Improvement Plan. The SSR and DSR replace the School Data Profile (SDP) and the School Process Profile (DPP) in the Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA). More information on the SSR and DSR will be provided later in this course. Comprehensive Needs Assessment School Improvement Plan

Conclusion This presentation has provided an overview of the new and improved SIF 2.0 and DIF 2.0 and the importance of taking a systems approach to school and district improvement. The next presentation will go into more detail about the School Improvement Framework 2.0 and supporting documents and tools.