Education YES! Updates and Plans

1
Education YES! Updates and Plans

• Michigan Department of Education
• Office of Educational Assessment and
  Accountability
• Office of School Improvement
• November - December, 2006

2
School Improvement Framework

• Purposes of the School Improvement Framework
• Provide a common frame for continuous school
  improvement
• Provide a common vocabulary regarding school
  improvement
• Provide new, research-based indicators for
  Education YES!

3
School Improvement Framework

• 2005 2006
• Introduced School Improvement Framework
• Introduced Rubrics
• Conducted Rubric Pilot Study

4
School Improvement Framework

• 2006 -2007
• Revise Rubrics based on feedback
• Determine Education YES! Model
• Pilot Test new Education YES! Model

5
School Improvement Framework

• Determination of Evidence Bearing Indicators
• Brian McNulty
• Review of School Improvement Framework and
  Rubrics

6
School Improvement Framework

• 39 Evidence Bearing Indicators
• All 5 Strands
• Strand 1 11 Indicators
• Strand 2 10 Indicators
• Strand 3 6 Indicators
• Strand 4 5 Indicators
• Strand 5 7 Indicators

7
School Improvement Framework
Proposed Model
8
Accountability Components

• Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
• No Child Left Behind Act
• State Accreditation
• Education YES!
• Michigan Revised School Code

9
Education YES!
Achievement Change
Achievement Status
Indicators
10
Indicators 2002-2006
Instructional Quality Engagement Learning Opportunities
Extended Learning Opportunities Continuous Improvement Family Involvement
Teacher Quality/ Professional Development Continuous Improvement Student Attendance Graduation Rate
Teacher Quality/ Professional Development Curriculum Alignment Student Attendance Graduation Rate
Arts Education and Humanities Curriculum Alignment Four-Year Education Employment Plan
Arts Education and Humanities Performance Management Systems Four-Year Education Employment Plan
Advanced Coursework Performance Management Systems School Facilities
11
Education YES!

• Developed in 2002
• Used since 2002-03
• Time to start looking at changes, revisions, and
  improvements
• Student Achievement
• Indicators

12
Education YES! Updates

• Student Achievement
• Reporting of Student Progress
• Relationship of status and progress
• Indicators of School Performance
• School Improvement Framework (SIF)

13
SIF Strands

• Teaching for Learning
• Leadership
• Personnel and Professional Learning
• School and Community Relations
• Data and Information Management

14
Indicator Revision Schedule

• Fall 2005 - Rubric Development
• Winter 2005-06 - Editing
• Spring 2006 - Pilot Testing
• Fall 2006 Editing based on Pilot Testing
• Fall 2006 - Software Testing and Training
• Winter 2006-07 - Data Collection
• Spring 2006 Display self-ratings on School
  Report Card

15
Education YES! Plans 2006-07

• Statewide Pilot
• Indicators based on School Improvement Framework
• Display External Data
• Display Extra Credit
• Plan revisions for student achievement

16
Education YES! Plans 2007-08

• Revised School Report Card
• Credit for reporting self-rating, evidence and
  Action Plan
• External Data part of Ed YES
• Extra Credit
• Student Progress as part of student achievement

17
Indicators of School Performance

• Rubrics developed based on the School Improvement
  Framework
• 90 rubrics were pilot tested in the spring of
  2006
• 2006-07 reporting based on the new rubrics
• 39 rubrics have been selected for reporting in
  2006-07 by all schools
• All rubrics are available for school use

18
Sample Characteristic

• Strand 1 Teaching for Learning
• Standard 3 Assessment
• Benchmark A Aligned to Curriculum and
  Instruction
• Characteristic/Key Attribute 3. Multiple Measures
• Staff members view student assessment in the
  broad sense as an on-going process that includes
  aligned standardized assessments, daily informal
  assessments, periodic benchmark assessments as
  well as a variety of culminating assessments.

19
Sample Self-Rating
Getting Started Partially Implemented Implemented Exemplary Not Applicable
O O O O O
Teachers rely primarily on standardized assessments to monitor and evaluate student learning. Some teachers evaluate and monitor student learning through the use of more than one type of assessment (classroom-based, district, MEAP, MI-Access, student portfolios, and measures other than achievement.) Some formal assessments employed are aligned to the curriculum framework Most teachers evaluate and monitor student learning through the use of several types of assessments (classroom-based, district, MEAP, MI-Access, student portfolios, and measures other than achievement.) Most formal assessments employed are aligned to the curriculum framework All teachers consistently evaluate and monitor student learning through the systematic use of multiple types of assessments (classroom-based, district, MEAP, MI-Access, student portfolios, and measures other than achievement.) All formal assessments employed are aligned to the curriculum framework Describe in detail why this characteristic does not apply to your school.
Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence
20
Sample Evidence

• Most teachers rely on an array of assessments to
  determine student achievement, i.e. classroom
  based tests, MEAP, student portfolios and
  writing samples.
• Formal assessments are sometimes aligned to
  curriculum. Assessments being used are changing
  so this will improve.
• Data review meetings for all staff held monthly.
• Team meetings to review grade level data held
  weekly.
• Assessments used
• MEAP 3-8
• Textbook pre/post tests
• Scantron grades 3-8
• Terra Nova K-2
• Teacher-created assessments
• Dibels
• Harcourt Assessment
• IOWA

21
Suggested Data Sources
Suggested Data Source(s) Example(s) of Documentable/ Observable Results
Teacher and administrator surveys Description of range and types of assessments employed in the classroom and at the school
Formative and summative classroom assessments Listing of types employed and frequency of use
School improvement plan progress reports Description of assessments employed as well as short term and longitudinal data gathered description of data employed in instructional decision-making
22
Scoring Indicators 2006-07

• Schools will get credit for completing the
  self-rating and evidence
• School must report some text in the evidence for
  all reported characteristics
• Scoring methods will be documented prior to data
  collection
• Little penalty for Partially Implemented and
  Getting Started

23
External Data 2006-07

• All Levels
• Percent Highly Qualified Teachers
• Student Attendance Rate
• Parent Teacher Conference Attendance
• Instructional Staff turnover rate
• Percent of staff involved in Professional
  Development
• Percent of new teachers mentored
• Years of experience based on date of hire
• Percent of teachers working under permit

24
External Data 2006-07

• Elementary
• District offers school readiness program
• Middle Schools
• Percent of students taking Algebra 1
• High Schools
• Graduation and Dropout Rates
• Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment
• Percent Participating
• Percent Taking and Percent Passing AP exams

25
Possible Extra Credit

• Additional Data Collection and Use
• Surveys of parents, staff, students
• Peer Review
• Program Distinction
• Limit on effect of Extra Credit for Grade and
  Score

26
Education YES Plans

• 2006-07 is a Statewide Pilot
• 2007-08
• Link self-rating and evidence to Action Plan
• Additional External Data
• Extra Credit
• Student Progress related to Achievement Status

27
Contact Information

• Paul Bielawski
• Office of Educational Assessment and
  Accountability
• Michigan Department of Education
• PO Box 30008
• Lansing, MI 48909
• [phone]
• bielawp_at_michigan.gov