Facilitators of District Improvement Lisa Guzzardo Asaro Deane Spencer November 2013

2 Today’s Outcomes MDE Updates MI-CSI Logo Program Evaluation Diagnostic Strategy Implementation Guides Matrix 1 Gain Connections between SI and Professional Learning Communities FSI: Materials and website Heighten awareness regarding MI’s Scorecard system Raise awareness of new data reports available on MI School Data

3 MI-CSI Handout

4

5 Continuous School Improvement Process Gather Study Plan Do Get Ready Collect Data Build Profile School Data Profile Analysis (SDA) School Process Profile (SPP) Analyze Data School Data Analysis (SDA) School Process Profile Analysis (SPP) Set Goals Set Measurable Objectives Research Best Practice Develop School Improvement Plan Implement Plan Monitor Plan Evaluate Plan Comprehensive Needs Assessment School Improvement Plan Handout

MDE Program Evaluation Tool REQUIRED Spring 2015 All Schools ASSIST

Strategy Implementation Guide Tool One

Gradual Release Doug Fisher Shared how to construct a Strategy Implementation Guide using the GRADUAL REALEASE of Responsibility Model

10 Connector Activity Effective Use of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model By Dr. Douglas Fisher Professor of Language and Literacy Education at San Diego State University Share the 6 Thinking Lenses Each participant reads the entire article Each participant jots down thoughts provoked for each lens Focusing on one ‘Thinking Lens’ at a time, contribute your responses. Assign a spokesperson to share three highlights or main ideas about this text Source: Gregory, G.H. & Kuzmich, L. (2007). Teacher teams that get results: 61 strategies for sustaining and renewing professional learning communities (p. 75). Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin. For more information or to purchase this book, please visit Handout

Tool Two

14 Presenters Lisa Guzzardo Asaro and Tesha Thomas Where School Improvement Meets Professional Learning Communities Handout

15

Handout March - June Tool Three

Handout March - June

This work helps schools respond to the MDE evaluation tool

Reviewing Results: Deconstructing a Goal Coming in JANUARY Choose one high leverage strategy from last year’s plan. What did your leadership team discover about Readiness? Knowledge and skills? Opportunity to implement? Implementation with fidelity? How did the results impact your new school improvement plan at the strategy and activity level? Program Evaluation

21 FSI Materials Distributed October 2013 SI Placemats Two Books –Never Underestimate Your teachers Instructional Leadership for Excellence in Every Classroom by Robyn R. Jackson A new model for understanding teaching as a combination of skill and will and explains the best ways to support individual teachers’ ongoing professional learning. –Engaging Teachers in Classroom Walkthroughs by Donald Kachur, Judith A. Stout, and Claudia L. Edwards Practical guide to the planning and implementation of brief, but focused classroom observations that involve teachers in every step of the process. Data Reference Points Manual FSI website will hold all templates and resources for this series

22 FSI Website Facilitators of School Improvement –Calendars –Logistics –Series Handouts by Stage and Step –Agendas and Power Points –MDE websites –Data: MI School Data and Data Director –MDE URLs

23 NOTEWORTHY Save the Dates Michigan Interim Assessment Pilot Smarter Balanced Practice Test Phase 2

24 Handout

25 Smarter Balanced Smarter Balanced recently released Practice Test Phase 2 SBAC states that Pace 2 updates include expanded accommodations to cover all grades and the addition of mathematics performance tasks and associated scoring rubrics.

26 Michigan Interim Assessment Project (MIAP) 2 nd opportunity to participate in the MIAP for Science and Social Studies 1 st opportunity to participate in the MIAP for grades K-2 in the subjects of ELA and Mathematics. This pilot window is October and November. There will be another opportunity this Spring. Assessment questions: Accountability questions:

27

28 Accountability Scorecard Presenter Dr. Jim Gullen RESOURCES: 2013 MI Schools Accountability Scorecards Guide MISD County-wide Talking Points 2013 Accountability Facts and Tough Questions developed by Doug Greer at Ottawa ISD Handout Located at

A Little More On “Bottom 30%” This subgroup behaves differently than the others…

Suppose we ranked our students by test scale score: If we have 20% Proficient (2 students) they would be from the highest scoring students… If we had 50% Proficient, they would be from the highest scoring students…. Lowest Score Highest Score Bottom 30%

In fact, the “Bottom 30” subgroup will have 0% proficient until our overall proficiency rate >70%. How does this impact our AMOs?

Suppose our AMO is 33% In our example, that would be 1 student in the Bottom 30% subgroup. Since all non-Bottom 30% students would have to be proficient before we can get to that student, 33% translates into 80% overall! Lowest Score Highest Score Bottom 30%

How does this relate to schools? The percentage of Michigan schools that have AMOs for below 70% are: –58% in Reading –89% in Writing –95% in Math –98% in Social Studies –99.8% in Science For those schools, they can meet their AMOs for all students and the other subgroups and still not be able to meet it for Bottom 30%.

School Assessment Planner

Assessment Planner Example