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

2. 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

3. 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.  

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.
Culture and Climate
Technology
School Improvement Research and Resources

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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.”

16. 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
Source:
How Systems Thinking Applies to Education

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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

26. 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)

27. 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

28. 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.