Howell Public Schools Continuous Improvement Model
Howell Public Schools utilizes the following Continuous Improvement Model,
which incorporates AdvancEd’s 5 Components of Continuous Improvement.
HPS Continuous Improvement Model Documentation of the AdvancEd 5 Components of Continuous Improvement
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
Component 5
Analyzing Data Gather-Report-
Study
Set Goals Measurable-Attainable
Plan Strategies-
Resources-Actions
Implement Benchmarks-Deliverables
Evaluate Monitor Success
Adjust
1. District Level: Annual Report
1. District Level: District Strategic Plan
1. District Level: District School Improvement Plan that includes a PD Plan
1. District and School Levels: State Assessments
1.District Level: HPS Evaluation of the District Improvement Plan (D.I.P.)
2.School Level: Student Data Profile
2. District Level: District School Improvement Plan
2. School Level: School Improvement Plans Some include a Title 1 Plan
2.District and School Levels: District Common Assessments
2.School Level: HPS Evaluation of each building’s School Improvement Plan (S.I.Ps)
3.District and School Levels: Documented data using District data warehouse tool (Data Director), analysis meetings, such as District PD days, staff meetings, PLCs
3.School Level: School Improvement Plans Some include a Title 1 Plan
3. School Level: Administrator Leadership Logs, PLC Meeting Notes
3. Classroom and Individual Student Levels: Progress Monitoring Assessments - DRA - SRI - SMI
The Continuous Improvement Process
The HPS Continuous Improvement Process incorporates the 5 components of the AdvancEd
Continuous Improvement Model. Action steps are taken at both the district and the school levels
with each of the components.
Component 1: Analyzing Data (Gather-Report-Study)
Gather
The district collects student achievement data and stores it in a program called Data Director.
The program is accessible to all teachers and administrators and encompasses state and district
assessment results. The district also collects demographic data, including attendance and
discipline, in our PowerSchool program. This program also identifies students who receive
services through programming such as English Language Learner (ELL), Title 1, At Risk,
special education, and homeless services. Again, all teachers and administrators have access to
this information for the students they are responsible for servicing. Finally, our school staff
utilizes state web sites, such as the OEAA secure site, the MI School Data site
(www.mischooldata.com) and others to gather information for individual or group analysis.
Report
Student achievement and other pertinent information, as designated by the Michigan Department
of Education (MDE) are published annually. A District Annual Education Report (AER) and
individual school AERs are published by September 1st of each year.
In addition, the district and school make periodic reports to parents via their monthly newsletter,
reporting out their MEAP and MME as they are released to the public. Schools also give parents
continuous feedback on their child’s achievement through 24-7 access to PowerSchool, our
online grading program, as well as through quarterly or semester report cards.
Study
At the district level, data is analyzed by the District Improvement Team. This team is composed
of school representatives (the building School Improvement Chairs and Principal), parents, a
School Board member and district level administrators. At the building level, data is studied by
the staff as a whole, as well as by their School Improvement Steering Committee, which has
parent and support staff representation.
At the school level, each of our ten schools has a Data Team Leader, a person assigned to help
with the technical aspects of Data Director and to assist with data collection for the School
Improvement Team, the administration and the staff. The Data Team Leader also assists the
building School Improvement Chair in collecting data for their annual Comprehensive Needs
Assessment, more recently called the Student Data Profile. The School Improvement Chair and
Data Team Leader then lead the staff in data analysis to complete the reflective questions within
that document. In addition, various groups, as well as individual staff, look at data throughout
the year. Specific data reports are generated for Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), for
grade level teams, for study groups, for individual staff, for departments or for whole staff
purposes.
Component 2: Set Goals (Measurable-Attainable)
The district has created a Strategic Plan with objectives that pertain to both academic and non-
academic goals. Each of these objectives has identified measurable benchmark data that is
collected on a quarterly basis and is projected on a web-based dashboard display. The Strategic
Plan is reviewed annually.
The district also sets specific student academic goals within its District Improvement Plan.
Howell Public Schools is AdvancEd District Accredited and works within that organization’s
continuous improvement framework. The district improvement team is currently using the AYP
Target Goal percentages in math and ELA, by grade level, as their measurable goals.
At the school level each building sets academic goals in their School Improvement Plans. Again,
they work with the AdvancEd District Accreditation framework. The school improvement teams
are also currently using the AYP Target Goal percentages in math and ELA, by grade level, as
their measurable goal. Five of the HPS elementary schools are Title 1 schools and contain a
Title 1 plan with their School Improvement Plan.
Component 3: Plan (Strategies-Resources-Action)
Documented plans at the district level include the HPS Strategic Plan and District Improvement
Plan. The documented plan for the individual schools is the School Improvement Plan, some of
which contain a Title 1 School Improvement Plan. Each of these are evaluated and revised
annually. Each contains measurable and attainable goals, strategies, assigned resources (in dollar
amounts) and action steps.
Currently the district is focusing on three strategies:
Improve Teaching and Learning
Improve Documenting and Using Results
Improve our Model of Continuous Improvement
These strategies come from the AdvancEd 5 Quality Standards. A number of Action Steps are
then created under each Strategy, and resources are determined for each Action Step.
The Actions or Activity Steps in our District and School Improvement Plans are based on
research, as well as on the needs shown to us through our data studies. The School Improvement
Teams are diligent in providing professional development for Activity Steps that require this, per
our PD Needs Assessment.
The Strategies, Action Steps and Resources are determined at the district level by the district
improvement team and at the school level by the school improvement team. School
improvement chairs and principals serve on the district improvement team, allowing
communications to flow up and down between the levels.
Component 4: Implement (Benchmarks-Deliverables)
The implementation of the School/District Improvement Plans is done through the building
school improvement teams and overseen by the district improvement team. A template school
improvement meeting agenda was created to ensure monthly school improvement meetings are
focused on this task. That template includes a statement of purpose at the top, followed by
agenda items of 1) Report from the building’s Title 1 and/or 31a representative 2) Implementing
the Plan 3) Review of data and 4) Research.
Agenda / Minutes
Meeting: School Improvement School:
Date:
Facilitator:
Time:
The charge of the School Improvement Team (SIT) is to meet monthly to implement their School
Improvement Plan (SIP), including their 31a (At Risk)/Title 1 Plan and the professional
development contained within their SIP. The SIT should include the Principal, School
Improvement Chair, Data Team Leader, Teacher Consultant and At Risk/Title 1 teacher, as well
as representatives from the stakeholder groups of classroom teacher(s), support staff, parents
(Title 1 parents if a Title 1 school), community members (optional) and students (if applicable).
Minutes should include a list of Attendees and their role in this space.
I. Welcome, Introductions, Review of Agenda
II. Report from 31a (At Risk) or Title 1 Representative
III. Implementing our School Improvement Plan, including professional development.
a. Issue, Activity Step or PD #1:
b. Issue, Activity Step or PD #2:
c. (Add as needed)
IV. Review of Data (optional) (Be sure to include this data dialogue in your Student Data Profile)
V. Discussion of ideas/research for next year’s SIP (optional)
VI. Next Steps and Adjourn
HPS has invested time and resources into providing strong foundational curriculum documents to
guide our teaching and learning and to provide the desired student proficiency through
designated benchmark assessments. That curriculum includes:
HPS Scope & Sequence of Essential Skills, with Power-Standards
Designated Marzano Instructional Strategies
Resources provided to teach the Standards in the HPS Scope & Sequence
District designated benchmark assessments, as well as utilization of the state assessments
Benchmark assessments and data are utilized at every level to better inform our stakeholders
regarding district, school, and individual academic student growth.
At the district level, benchmarks are identified as the state assessments (MEAP, MEAP
ACCESS, MI-ACCESS, ACT and MME), as well as our district created common
assessments.
At the school level, benchmarks are identified as the EXPLORE (grades 8 and 9), the PLAN
(grade 10), district created common assessments, MLPP, DRA, DIEBELS NEXT, and the
Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI).
Progress monitoring refers to benchmark assessments used for individual students or sub-
groups of students. Benchmark assessments include the DRA, DIEBELS NEXT, SRI and
the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI), as well as other teacher created formative
assessments.
Component 5: Evaluate (Evaluate-Monitor Success-Adjust)
Evaluate
Each spring the district improvement team sets aside two release days to evaluate the current
District Improvement Plan, make adjustments for the upcoming year, and outline a new plan.
Each Action Step is reviewed carefully by looking at available data and hearing reports from
leaders and implementers of that Step.
Using the MDE Sample Evaluation Plan as an inspiration, the district improvement team created
two evaluation templates. One is to be utilized to evaluate the District Improvement Plan
(D.I.P.) and the other, the individual School Improvement Plans (S.I.Ps).
The D.I.P evaluation template begins by comparing the target measurable data objective to the
actual measurable data objective for each of the Goals. This is documented by grade level. The
district improvement team will review their state achievement data, document their gains and
record their reflections in the comments column. The second part of the template requires the
district improvement team to evaluate each of the Action Steps within the plan. Components of
that evaluation included ranking the degree of implementation, documenting the method of
monitoring and evaluation, documenting the people responsible for the Action Step, making a
decision as to whether or not the Action Step should be continued in the upcoming year’s D.I.P.,
recording any comments regarding the Action Step and finally, assigning resources to the Action
Step for the upcoming year. The team will determine if data can be assigned to the Action Step,
and if so, will carefully review that data and utilize it in rendering their evaluation. Some Action
Steps are more easily tied to data than others.
The S.I.P. evaluation template mirrors the D.I.P. evaluation template. Because the S.I.P.s
contain the foundational Action Steps of the D.I.P., schools are asked to only evaluate the Action
Steps of the S.I.P. that differ from the D.I.P. They must also indicate if the Action Step pertains
to Title 1, as part of their inclusive Title 1 Improvement Plan. In this way, the School
Improvement Teams will be evaluating both their overall S.I.P. and their Title 1 Improvement
Plan.
HPS Continuous Improvement Model - Evaluation of District Improvement Plan (D.I.P.) TEMPLATE
Evaluation of District Improvement Plan for School Year of xxxx-xxxx Date Evaluation Completed by District Improvement Team: __________
Evaluation of Goals with Data Based Objectives
Chosen Objective: MDE AYP Targets
Growth Measurement
Comments
SUBJECT GOALS
Grade Level Data Objective was met Show % Prof & (Target %)
Grade Level Data Objective was not met Show % Prof & (Target %)
Grade Levels with Student Growth
ELA Reading
EXAMPLE: 3 MEAP 87% (86%) 4 MEAP 85% (85%) 5 MEAP 85% (84%) 6 MEAP 91% (83%) 7 MEAP 84% (82%) 8 MEAP 83% (82%) 11 MME 2011 74% (T=71%)
EXAMPLE: 3 MEAP 72% (86%) 4 MEAP 83% (85%) 5 MEAP 82% (84%) 6 MEAP 81% (83%) 7 MEAP 74% (82%) 8 MEAP 75% (82%) 11 MME 2011 70% (T=71%)
EXAMPLE: 3 75-72% -3% 4 76-83% +7% 5 77-77% Main. 6 76-81% +5% 7 68-74% +6% 8 60-75% +15% 11 MME 2010 to 2011 Maintain 0% growth
ELA Writing
4 MEAP 7 MEAP 11 MME
4 7 11
Evaluation of Goals with Data Based Objectives
Chosen Objective:MDE AYP Targets Growth
Measurement
Comments
SUBJECT GOALS
Grade Levels Objective was met (Target %)
Grade Levels Objective was not met (Target %)
Grade Levels with Student Growth
Math
3 MEAP 4 MEAP 5 MEAP 6 MEAP 7 MEAP 8 MEAP 11 MME
3 4 5 6 7 8 11 MME
Science 5 MEAP 8 MEAP 11 MME
5 8 11
Social Studies
6 MEAP 9 MEAP 11 MME
6 9 11
Non-Core Subjects
Evaluation of Strategies & Activity Steps
Implementation Not Evident Emerging Operational Highly Functional
Monitoring and Evaluation MEAP EXPLORE PLAN MME/ACT Common Assess DRA SRI Annual D.I.T. Eval
People Responsible
Continue or
Discontinue
Comments on Implementation & Suggestions
for the Upcoming
School Year
Resources Necessary for the Upcoming
School Year ($ amount)
STRATEGY Improve Teaching
& Learning
Activity Steps / Interventions Examples below from the 2011-12 DIP
ALL Learn and Implement Reading Apprenticeship
ELEM Learn Instructional Consultation Strategies (IC Teams)
HS Provide Credit Recovery Opportunities
MS & HS
Provide extended opportunities for learning, such as summer school
STRATEGY Improve
Documenting & Using Results
Activity Steps / Interventions
ALL
Develop an assessment process to systematically collect, analyze, and communicate multiple measures of data
ALL
Teach students to know, understand and be able to share their ELA data
Elem Engage Staff in Data Analysis
STRATEGY Improve
our Model of Continuous Improvement
Activity Steps / Interventions
ALL Create a Continuous Improvement Process
ALL
Provide PD in the AdvancEd School Improvement (S.I.) Process, as well as all state and federal mandates
September 24, 2012 Page 11
Monitor Success
Monitoring of the school and district improvement plans is done at the monthly school and district meetings.
At those times they review the data in accordance with the HPS Data Analysis Calendar. Teachers and staff
also sit on these teams and are involved in the monitoring of data and programming through their
professional learning communities. Data for this work is that of local and state assessments. Required data
review from the HPS Data Analysis Calendar includes the DRA 2, Dibels Next, SRI, Writing Prompts,
District Common Assessments, Explore, Plan and state assessments.
Adjust
The school improvement chairs and principals represent and are the voice of their building as they serve on
the district improvement team. This facilitates the constant flow of communications between the school and
district level. Adjustments may be made, therefore, during the school year, but are made more formally in
the spring.
During the spring district improvement release days, time is dedicated to evaluate the current District
Improvement Plan, make adjustments for the upcoming year, and outline a new plan. Each Action Step is
reviewed carefully by looking at available data and hearing reports from leaders and implementers of that
Step. Adjustments are then made, based on this evaluation.
SUMMARY
In summary, the HPS Continuous Improvement Model, created in the 2011-12 school year, will be reviewed
annually by the district improvement team and will be shared with an AdvancEd consultant for additional
feedback. It is assumed this is a living document and modifications will be made as recommended.
See following pages for an optional tool from the MDE.
Their MDE EVALUATION TOOL may be utilized by District Improvement Team presenters reporting on
their program, such as Reading Apprenticeship, IC, Summer School, etc.
September 24, 2012 Page 12
Michigan Department of Education EVALUATION TOOL
Prepared by [Insert team members]
Description Title: Brief description: Need being addressed: Reason for selection, including intended results: Research citation and brief summary: Impact: What was the program/strategy/initiative’s impact on students?
IN AN IDEAL PROGRAM/STRATEGY/INITIATIVE, the school’s achievement results on state or district wide assessments meet proficiency standards. Achievement gaps between each of the relevant subgroups and their counterparts have been narrowed as proposed in the School Improvement Plan’s measurable objectives. Interim assessment results indicate progress toward proficiency for all students to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.
a) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding achievement of the measureable
objective for all students when compared to baseline state and local data?
b) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding achievement of the measureable
objective for subgroups and their counterparts when compared to baseline state and local
data?
c) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding stakeholder (staff, parents, students)
satisfaction with the results?
Conclusion: If objectives were met, should the strategy/program/initiative be continued or institutionalized?
a) What is the evidence and what does it say regarding whether this was the right
program/strategy/initiative to meet your needs?
b) What is the evidence and what does it say regarding whether the benefits of the
program/strategy/initiative are sufficient to justify the resources it requires?
c) What adjustments if any might increase its impact while maintaining its integrity?
d) What is needed to maintain momentum and sustain achievement gains?
e) How might these results inform the School Improvement Plan?
If objectives were not met, consider the following analysis:
September 24, 2012 Page 13
1. Readiness: What was the readiness for implementing the program/strategy/initiative?
IN AN IDEAL PROGRAM/STRATEGY/INITIATVE, stakeholders are well-prepared to implement the program. They have read and can articulate the research foundation, and regularly use the terms in conversation with each other, students, and with parents. Staff, students and parents express a high level of interest in, support for and commitment to the program. Specific concerns have been identified and solutions have been planned/ implemented. Staff is able to seamlessly integrate the program within the context of other building/district initiatives.
a) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding stakeholder understanding of
the need as well as stakeholder ability to articulate the research regarding the choice of
the program/strategy/initiative?
b) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding stakeholders having a shared
vision and purpose for the work and a strong commitment to the
program/strategy/initiative?
c) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding how stakeholder concerns were
identified and addressed?
d) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding the ability of staff and
administrators to integrate the program/strategy/initiative with existing work?
Suggested Evidence for Question 1:
Meeting agendas/minutes
Books/papers about the program
Staff surveys
SI Plan elements
Professional development materials
Conference/workshop attendance
Data collection plan; data analysis work
Stakeholder survey results
Suggestion box ideas collected
SI team agendas
Focus group interviews
Given the evidence you’ve assembled, choose one overall self-assessment for Question 1:
What was the readiness for implementing the program/strategy/initiative?
Interest and/or commitment were low.
Some promising elements exist, but were mixed with major gaps in knowledge or confidence.
Support and commitment were generally high, but some concern or work remains.
Stakeholders were fully prepared to implement.
NEXT STEPS: What action steps are needed to increase readiness?
September 24, 2012 Page 14
2. Knowledge and Skills: Did staff and administrators have the knowledge and skills to implement the
program/strategy/initiative?
IN AN IDEAL PROGRAM/STRATEGY/INITIATIVE, personnel are able to clearly articulate what successful implementation looks and sounds like and how specific practices will change as a result of its implementation. Staff and administrators can articulate specific outcomes and specific criteria for evaluation. Personnel can demonstrate their ability to apply the knowledge and skills required to successfully implement with fidelity, and professional learning opportunities are provided to address gaps in knowledge and skills.
a) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding staff and administrators’ vision
for how practice would change as a result of the program/strategy/initiative?
b) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding administrator knowledge and
ability to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the program/strategy/initiative?
c) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding the sufficiency of opportunities
for staff to learn knowledge and skills identified as essential (the non-negotiable or
acceptable variations of the elements) to the program/strategy/initiative?
d) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding staff ability to apply the
acquired knowledge and skills?
Suggested Evidence for Question 2:
Minutes of professional conversations
Self-assessment checklists,
Staff surveys,
Superintendent or administrator observations/ walkthroughs
Professional learning agendas, sign-in sheets
program simulations, administrator observations Given the evidence you’ve assembled, choose one overall self-assessment for Question 2:
Did participants have the knowledge and skills to implement the program/strategy/initiative?
Participants were beginning to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills.
A solid start was documented, but many skill levels and much knowledge need to be acquired.
Much knowledge and skill were evident, but few skills (or some knowledge bases) still need work.
Participants had sufficient knowledge and skills to succeed.
NEXT STEPS: What action steps are needed to improve participants’ knowledge and skills?
September 24, 2012 Page 15
3. Opportunity: Was there opportunity for high quality implementation of the
program/strategy/initiative?
IN AN IDEAL PROGRAM/STRATEGY/INITIATVE, building and district administrators provide significant support for project implementation. Sufficient funds have been allocated and continue to be managed by building principal and or program director. Adequate resources are available for full implementation including time for staff collaboration in various forms. Clearly defined structures/protocols are in place to collect and review formative implementation data.
a) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding the sufficiency of administrative support to achieve the intended results?
b) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding the sufficiency of professional learning during implementation, e.g. modeling/coaching?
c) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding the sufficiency of resources – including financial and time - to achieve the intended results?
d) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding staff collaboration in support of the
program/strategy/initiative?
e) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding structures being in place to collect
and review implementation data?
Suggested Evidence for Question 3:
Agendas/minutes
Action plans
Email correspondence
Focus group and/or anonymous surveys
Budget sheets
Logs, school schedules
Inventories
Curriculum pacing guides
collaboration models (such as Professional Learning Communities, Collaborative Action Research, Lesson Study Teams)
Curriculum pacing guides
Staff meeting results
Protocols for reviewing formative assessment
Given the evidence you’ve assembled, choose one overall self-assessment for Question 3:
Was there opportunity for high quality implementation?
Opportunity and resources were just beginning to align in support of the program.
Basic resources and opportunities were available, but significant gaps need to be filled.
Many necessary resources were aligned with program goals, but more are needed.
Necessary support and resources (time, funding, and attention) were solidly in place.
NEXT STEPS: What action steps are needed to ensure opportunity for high quality implementation?
September 24, 2012 Page 16
4. Implementation with Fidelity: Was the strategy/program/initiative being implemented as
intended?
IN AN IDEAL PROGRAM/STRATEGY/INITIATVE, all personnel involved in the program implement
the strategies with fidelity according to the research, carrying out responsibilities by their
proposed timelines. They use clearly defined protocols to collect and review formative
implementation data to identify unintended consequences. Program leaders consider
adjustments guided by implementation data while maintaining the integrity of results.
a) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding the fidelity of implementation
of the non-negotiable or acceptable variations of the elements of the
program/strategy/initiative, including timelines and responsibilities?
b) What is the evidence and what does it show regarding unintended consequences that
may have occurred?
c) What do student achievement results suggest for implementing/modifying the
program/strategy/initiative? How might these affect the integrity of the results?
Suggested Evidence for Question 4:
Principal’s walkthroughs
Number of staff implementing with fidelity
Model lessons
Surveys
Coaching schedule
Agendas and minutes of common planning time/meetings
Focus group interviews
Debriefing following model lessons
Collegial observations/visits
Training agendas & material
Program Time Line
Lists of acquired resources
September 24, 2012 Page 17
Given the evidence you’ve assembled, choose one overall self-assessment for Question 4
Was the program implemented as intended?
Parts of the program were working, but others have yet to be implemented.
The overall design was in place, but variations in practice were evident and may be adversely affecting results.
Critical elements have been implemented, but work on consistency and depth remains.
All research-based elements have been implemented with fidelity following the proposed timelines.
NEXT STEPS: What action steps are needed to ensure faithful implementation of program plans?
If you have questions regarding this Tool, contact Shereen Tabrizi, Ph.D. Office of Field Services-MDE at [email protected]