Michigan Integrated Continuous Improvement Process (MICIP) Overview and Mindset


Hello everyone. Thank you for joining us today. My name is Ben Boerkoel and I am the MICIP
lead for professional learning. Our goal today is to give you a high-level
overview of the Michigan Integrated Continuous Improvement Process (or MICIP) and the shifts in mindset
that we hope MICIP will enable. This is the first in a series of professional
learning opportunities that will also address an overview of the MICIP Process, dig deeper
into the individual MICIP Processes and the Whole Child, and then address the MICIP Platform. We invite you to use this presentation however
it works for you. That might be in one sitting, or in multiple
sittings. It is intended that this PowerPoint be interspersed
with opportunities for reflection. Again we invite you to pause the presentation
and use those opportunities as they work for you. By the time we are finished today we hope
that you will understand these three ideas. First, the three components of MICIP; secondly,
the three mindset shifts that MICIP should enable; and finally, how the mindset shifts
can impact continuous improvement. Next we’d like you to view this video clip,
and while doing so reflect on the following: What thoughts or questions come to mind? If you were to support the child in this video, what might
you need to consider? Teacher: OK, so we’ve been talking about, how do we inspire others and help change the world? So let’s talk about that word, “inspire.” What does that mean? What does inspire mean? You can think about it for a second if you need to…”inspire;” go ahead. Student: we would be giving someone [voices fade] [sounds of lawnmower] [sounds of students whispering] [sounds of fan followed by ringing and fade out] There are probably a number of thoughts running
through your mind. One might be that if we only look through
an academic lens, as we consider this child, and not through other lenses, we may be failing this child. We will come back to these ideas later on
in the PowerPoint. So why are we undertaking the MICIP journey? On this slide you see six outcomes that we’re hoping for as a result of MICIP. And each line has a key word or phrase that we will also be addressing throughout this presentation. Outcome number one: equitable opportunities,
environments and support resulting in students that are healthy, safe, engaged, challenged,
and supported. Key ideas in this first outcome are those
of equity, as well as characteristics of a child that later you will see as the tenets
of the whole child. Outcome number two: a continuous process of
improvement that informs the way we work on a daily basis rather than being an annual
event and a way to meet compliance requirements. The key phrase in this statement is the Continuous process of improvement. Outcome number three: improvement processes
that are integrated rather than isolated. The key word in this statement is “integrated.” Outcome number four: continuous improvement
targets that reflect areas that influence academic achievement, rather than just academics
by themselves. Key ideas in this statement have to do with
those areas that influence academic achievement in addition to academics. Outcome number five: improvement plans that
consider systems to support high-quality implementation of actions and high levels of student outcomes. The key word in this statement is “systems.” And finally, understanding students through
lenses that consider both assets and needs. The key idea here is assets AND needs. As previously mentioned, MICIP stands for Michigan’s Integrated Continuous Improvement Process. First, you will notice that we no longer talk
about district or school improvement; we are now talking about the same continuous improvement process for all. Rather than it being an “annual event”,
continuous improvement is characterized by the ongoing adjusting of plans as a result
of monitoring and evaluation to bring about maximum levels of fidelity
of implementation by adults as well as maximum student impact. Secondly, while several things about the process
are consistent with past practice, there are some new features that can be highlighted by the word “Integrated.” Districts will now only be required to complete
one comprehensive needs assessment that can be used for multiple purposes rather than
the multiple comprehensive needs assessment documents they may have been required to complete
in the past. Districts will only need to report information once so it can be used multiple times rather than having to report it in multiple places. In addition, data that is already available
to the state will prepopulate the platform, and districts that use the data hubs will
also have that data available to them. Certain documents that were once submitted
as isolated reports are now integrated into the process. The program evaluation tool just being one
of those. The Michigan Department of Education is intent
on collaborating to support a district’s continuous improvement efforts so rather than
having to deal with multiple isolated offices at the department, districts can now deal
with fewer but integrated offices. On this slide you see the MDE Vision, then
the MICIP Visions, and the MICIP Goal. Take just a minute to read these to yourself. You see that we have arrows going in both
directions. On one hand, the MDE Vision drives both the
MICIP Vision, which drives the MICIP Goal; while on the other hand, the MICIP Goal supports
the MICIP Vision, which in turn supports the MDE Vision. So we have the key ideas of both drivers and
supports. And again, you will see in both the vision
and the goal statements some key phrases that are repeated throughout this PowerPoint. The MICIP Objective allows us to accomplish
the MICIP Goal and realize the MICIP Vision. Again, you will see and hear the bolded words
frequently as you learn about MICIP. Also note the questions that these objective
statements are intended to answer. If you have previously been engaged in learning
communities, it’s likely that you recognize the questions. So again, you see these bolded words: streamlined, integrated, needs, plan, funding, monitoring and evaluating. At the bottom of this slide you the the statement
that is sometimes referred to as the MICIP “elevator speech.” And again, you’ll see several key phrases:
assessing whole child, developing plans, and coordinating funding. When we talk about MICIP, we are referring
to three things: a mindset, a process, and a platform. In the next few slides, we’ll briefly talk
about each of these. The MICIP Mindset consists of three things:
First, moving from annual to continuous improvement, including smaller cycles of continuous improvement
within the larger cycle; ensuring that systems are in place to support actions; and addressing and leveraging the characteristics of the Whole Child. We have already briefly addressed the first
part of the mindset, that of moving from annual or episodic to continuous improvement. We will return to the other two after we finish
the MICIP overview. The second MICIP component is the process
– needs, plans, funds. Presently the districts often begin with their
funding sources and work to build a plan that allows them to use those funds. In MICIP, the district would assess the district’s
whole child needs and develop an integrated continuous improvement plan to address those needs, braiding multiple funding sources such as: Local and Regional funds,
State Aid, School Nutrition funds, Other state categorical funds, IDEA funds, Perkins funds,
Federal title funds, 31A, and more. This slide also points out the need to have
finance people as on-going members of the continuous improvement team. So what are the benefits of approaching the
work through the lens of needs-plans-funds? While there may be others, this slide identifies
at least four. First, bringing together that pre-populated
data in one location to facilitate a needs assessment process. We want districts to spend their time analyzing
data rather than primarily gathering data. Secondly, provide a continuous improvement
process focused on the whole child. As we spoke about with the video, we cannot
only consider academic or cognitive needs. We need to consider other kinds of needs and
assets as well. Third, provide evidence-based practice guidance. And finally, provide alignment across compliance
requirements resulting in time savings – allowing greater focus on improved student outcomes. We will come back to each of these bullets
throughout this presentation. Going back to bullet 4, we know that compliance
will always be part of the process; it’s the price we pay for the funding that we receive. However, it’s also important to note that
in MICIP, compliance becomes an outcome rather than being a driver. The Michigan Integrated Continuous Improvement
Process includes the Continuous Improvement Cycle. You might be familiar with the former model
– Gather, Study, Plan, Do. As we were beginning the MICIP process, we
did some research about what previously worked well, and what previously was a challenge. Our research found that districts were spending
much time gathering, some time studying, a bit of time planning, and much less time doing,
at least doing what was in their plan. Often, districts created a plan and then went
about doing what they always did, possibly but not necessarily connected to the plan. We took what we learned and used it to improve
the cycle. In the new cycle, districts participate in:
Analyzing whole child data including cognitive, physical, behavioral, social, and emotional; Engaging
in root cause analysis to identify reasons for gaps (both of those as part of the Assess
Needs process); then designing an action plan that addresses prioritized needs and includes
system supports; Creating a rigorous monitoring and evaluation process for implementation fidelity and student impact; and Implementing and adjusting the plan based on data, with a goal of continuous improvement. It’s also important to note that the entire
cycle is contextualized in the district vision, mission and beliefs. While in the graphic the process may appear to be linear (as designated by arrows) it is, in fact, very iterative, moving back and
forth between components and engaging in multiple smaller cycles in the context of the larger
cycle. The next levels of professional learning will
get into each of these individual processes that are part of the whole cycle. So in addition to mindset and process, we
now come to the MICIP platform. MICIP is meant to be a vehicle for continuous
improvement, a vehicle to help us look at our assets and needs, write a plan, and identify
the resources to support that plan. Prior to the invention of the car, many of
those looking to improve transportation were looking for better breeds of horses. However, when people like Henry Ford and others thought about continuous improvement, they didn’t just want a better horse, they wanted a whole new means of transportation. In the same way, our own continuous improvement
process has led us to understand that the old bronco will no longer do; we need a whole
new version. Simply put, the MICIP Platform is intended
to do two things: First, facilitate a conversation around the elements of continuous improvement; and provide a place for districts to record their thinking around continuous improvement that will lead to a continuous improvement plan and produce any other reports that are
needed to support that overall plan. So we have reviewed the three components of
MICIP. How would you describe them to someone who
was new to the work? Then, reflect on your current work and how
it aligns to MICIP using the questions on the slide. We invite you to pause for this reflection. As previously mentioned, the MICIP Mindset
consists of three things: moving from annual to continuous improvement; ensuring having
systems in place to support actions; and addressing and leveraging the characteristics of the
Whole Child. Next we’d like to consider the mindset of
systems. On this slide you see MDE’s definition of
systems: A system is a series of interdependent and aligned processes and people working together
toward a common goal to bring desired results. You’ll notice that we have underlined a
couple of key descriptors: interdependent – processes and people cannot function at
their highest levels without each other; and being aligned to a common goal – processes
and people must all be about the same thing and everyone must clearly understand what
the goal is and what it means. In the world of education, systems can refer
to several things. This slide shows examples of systems and subsystems
– each of which have people and processes – that support the strategies and activities
described in the continuous improvement action plan. Each of these pieces could be considered systems
in themselves, but they are also subsystems of the larger district system. One of the theories of action driving MICIP
is the belief that, one reason we have not realized the results we had hoped for from
the previous continuous improvement process, is that while districts have implemented many
actions, the systems necessary to support them haven’t been in place at all, or haven’t
been consistently implemented, or are not aligned. We can also have a system of organizations;
in the educational setting it can refer to the various levels of the educational cascade,
including the classroom, grade level/department, school, the district, the intermediate school
district/ regional service agency, the Michigan Department of Education and the community; a kind of a vertical alignment. Based on this definition, we ask ourselves to what extent all these levels interact with each other and are aligned to each other
in working toward a common goal. Being able to do this begs the question of
whether there even is a common goal and/or a common understanding of that goal. This goal can be identified in something as
broad as a state department or district vision statement or in something as fine-grained
as learning outcomes across grade spans or within classes of the same grade. It can also be defined in terms of how supports are offered between various levels as well as how effectively the various levels communicate with each other. Finally, we can have a system of stakeholders
within an educational setting – more of a horizontal alignment – such as the leadership, educators, bus drivers, finance office, food service people and so on, at a district level or early childhood, career and technical education, health services, nutrition services, social
and emotional health services, and others, at an MDE or service agency level. Each of these stakeholders has a role in supporting the systems and subsystems identified two slides previous. As before, we ask ourselves to what extent
all stakeholders interact with each other and are aligned to each other in working toward
a common goal. MDE has been working to create a more systems
approach to continuous improvement for the past number of years, including when it developed
the District and School Improvement Frameworks. A key consideration in their development was
taking this “systems approach” based on the concept of “systems thinking.” The framework addresses four strands, or systems
– Teaching for Learning, Leadership for Learning, Professional Learning, and School, Family
and Community Relations – with each strand being broken down into two or three standards that could represent subsystems. Districts that are AdvancED/Cognia Accredited
use another but similar set of standards. The Multi-tiered Systems of Supports is still
another example of a systems approach. If systems such as these are not in place,
it is likely that a district will not be able to achieve its academic targets. MICIP suggests that, if a district chooses
to implement a strategy for which there is no system support, the district needs to build
that system before or at least at the same time as it is implementing the action or,
if that cannot be done, consider choosing another strategy. Michigan has developed tools to help in the
identification of data around the extent to which systems such as these are implemented,
including the District Systems Review for this Framework, the MTSS Practice Profile,
and the Blueprint and the Evidence of Practice. Districts that are AdvancED/Cognia Accredited
use the AdvancED/Cognia Diagnostics. As you think about the various definitions
of systems, consider the questions on this slide. Systems also have certain characteristics. This slide shows how those characteristics
align with the continuous improvement components and cycle. First, every system has a purpose. As mentioned earlier, it is critical that
the system not only has a purpose but that it is also a shared purpose and that everyone who is part of the system has the same understanding of that purpose. Secondly, it is critical for all parts of
a system to be present and functioning for the system/subsystem to be supported. Think back to the examples of an instructional
system, curriculum system, assessment system, student support system, and so on. A gap in any of these is likely to weaken
the entire system. Thirdly, the parts of a system must be arranged
in a specific way for the system to carry out its purpose. It is critical that the system is functioning
in a coherent, aligned manner. One of the key questions embedded in the MICIP
planning process is the extent to which a proposed new strategy aligns with the rest
of what is already being done in a district. Another key part of MICIP addresses how districts
are using their resources, including whether they are using those that are most restricted first before using those that are less restrictive. Fourthly, systems change in response to feedback. A system that is responsive to its stakeholders is much more likely to be able to sustain itself. One of the “mantras” of MICIP is that
the day implementation begins, monitoring also begins. As mentioned earlier, MICIP is not only one
process or cycle, it is a series of repeated cycles. And one of the theories of action behind MICIP
is that, if we embed more regular and rigorous monitoring and adjusting into the continuous
improvement process, the chances that we will achieve the results that we hoped for will
be greatly increased. And finally, systems maintain their stability
by making adjustment based on feedback. Very related to the fourth bullet. If one component of a system is out of sync,
the system can respond and adjust through communication and feedback to come back into
balance. Therefore, connected to the process of monitoring
you will also find the process of adjusting. The intent is that the entire continuous improvement
plan is a series of cycles of implementing, monitoring, and adjusting based on data and,
eventually, evaluating. Think about your own setting and reflect on
these questions related to systems. Focusing on systems thinking does at least
four things: First, it supports the design of more enduring
solutions to problems, solutions that may be more complex to implement but that will
bring greater results over time. It also encourages the involvement of more
stakeholders both in identifying as well as owning and implementing solutions. Second, it takes the “long view” toward
problem solving. It encourages us to address root causes rather
than just causal theories, best guesses, or the first things that come to mind. Third, it encourages the alignment of subsystems
and requires all parts of the system at both the macro and the micro levels to work together
to implement solutions. And finally, it helps with the identification
of unintended consequences of decisions. There may be times when ramifications on the
system may not be clear until a plan is implemented. Using systems thinking will allow those to
surface and be addressed before they become barriers. So what is the impact of using a systems approach
on the Continuous Improvement Process? In addition to those mentioned earlier, here
are a few more and there are likely others. First of all, in terms of setting the stage
before we actually engage in the process itself. Engaging with systems requires a broader range
of stakeholders on the continuous improvement team that represent the various systems. In terms of Assess Needs, it includes data
around the level of systems support and implementation, including and in addition to the data around
the actions. In terms of the Plan, if systems to support
actions are not already in place, it’s critical to include building those systems
in the action plan itself. And finally, with Implement, Monitor, and
Evaluate, it’s critical to not only monitor and evaluate actions, but also to monitor
and evaluate the system support while monitoring those actions. So as we think about continuous improvement
work over this next year, how might embracing the mindset of systems impact the way we think
about continuous improvement even before we roll out the new platform? Here are some questions for consideration. First, who is involved in your continuous
improvement team, and do they represent the various systems needed to support the continuous improvement work? Secondly, do you have a definition of systems
and, if so, what is it? What data do you have around the effectiveness
of your systems? And if you are lacking data, what else might
you need to collect? Third, as you think about the amount of continuous improvement you have experienced in your setting in the past, how might the presence or lack of systems have impacted those results? And finally, what is your relationship with
other parts of the vertical system, including the Department of Education, the service agency, the school, grade level, classrooms, and
the community? And if there are some gaps, what might be
done to enhance those relationships and address those gaps. In conclusion on this section on systems,
reflect on these two questions. As you think about continuous improvement, what might be other advantages of focusing on systems? And how else might considering systems impact
the continuous improvement process? The final mindset component on which we want
to focus is that of the Whole Child. ASCD, formerly the Association of Supervision
and Curriculum Development and an MDE partner in this work, asked educators across the country
and world this question: Imagine a child at age 25. Describe that child. What characteristics, skills, attributes and
attitudes would you want them to possess? These wordles show just a few of the results. In a wordle the size of the word is related
to the number of times that response was given. What do you notice about the results? One of the things you might have noticed is
that many of the words are related to what we would call non-academic factors. Research continues to show that these factors contribute to and provide a solid foundation for academic success. Michigan has adopted this definition of The
Whole Child. While in the past we have focused primarily
on the academic, or cognitive, aspect of the child, we now realize the importance of also
addressing the behavioral, social, physical, and emotional aspects since they impact the
cognitive aspect. We also realize the importance of involving
all stakeholders, including the home, the school and the community. By addressing all of these we come closer
to the goal of having children who are healthy, safe, engaged, supported and challenged. This model is often referred to as the WSCC model: Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child. The WSCC model was collaboratively developed
by education and public health practitioners. It is a broad ‘Framework’ for addressing
both academic and non-academic areas and calls for a collaborative approach to learning and health, across the community, across the school, and across sectors to meet the needs and reach the potential of each child. It places responsibility on all who are part
of the school to see themselves as responsible for both learning and health and visually
highlights the relationship between the component parts. Let’s briefly look at the individual components. Notice that the child is in the center and
is the focal point of this model. We want each child to perform at the highest
levels on all measures of student outcomes. As an academic-focused institution, we consider
both the academic and non-academic factors that impact student achievement, with the
intent of leveraging assets to address challenges that will result in high levels of performance
on all indicators of student success. The five tenets surrounding the child are
the ultimate goal, the “what” we want for all children that are necessary to maximize
positive student outcomes. For each of these tenets there is a set of
indicators that helps a district understand to what extent it is supporting efforts to
address that tenet and where gaps might be. Before those tenets can be achieved, we need
to address the how. To support and achieve these outcomes we need
to have high-quality systems in place that address policies, processes and practices
in both learning and health. From an educational perspective this includes
systems such as those previously identified in the district systems framework including
teaching for learning, leadership for learning, professional learning, and school, family,
and community relations; as well as the subsystems identified in the first slide in the systems section. This support also includes critical physical
and emotional health components and supports represented by the blue circle. These can serve as some of the root cause
factors negatively impacting student success. By addressing these factors we can frequently
positively impact not only these, but other areas of student success as well. But the school district cannot and should
not address these by itself; rather it needs the support of the entire community by bringing
strategic community members and parents to the table in the entire framework and process. From a practical sense, for this to be true,
we need to broaden the scope of who we traditionally have on our district improvement teams. If we flip the WSCC model on its side and
view it from the “outside in,” it might look like this. This view shows the individual components
of the model as well as their interactive roles. All this work begins with and is the responsibility
of the entire community. One of the benefits of using the Whole Child
approach is that educators no longer need to feel that addressing gaps is solely their
responsibility. Ensuring maximum student outcomes – including
educational outcomes – requires systems and supports to address all
dimensions of health and safety. A student who is not healthy and safe will
not do well academically. Learning and health systems with their policies,
processes and practices, need to be in place to support both students and staff. Having all these pieces in place will increase
the chances that the student is healthy, safe, engaged, supported and challenged, and assist
that student in reaching the highest level of outcomes, including educational outcomes. Similarly, you may be familiar with Maslow’s
Hierarchy in the upper right-hand corner of the slide. Maslow’s research tells us that, unless
the needs at the bottom of the pyramid are addressed, a human being cannot function at the highest level. Again, in the educational setting, this means that unless these needs are met, students will not be able to achieve at the highest level of capacity. In the earlier slide we talked about the white circle as being systems to support and coordinate policy, process and practice. The WSCC model refers to these as School Improvement Components. As previously mentioned, in Michigan we use
the District Improvement Framework as one of our primary definitions of systems. You’ll notice the close alignment between
the components in the WSCC model and the strands of the Framework. Moving forward it is our intent to use the
Framework rather than the components from the WSCC as our definition of systems when speaking about the whole child and the continuous improvement process. This belief statement from ASCD summarizes
the intersection of the Whole Child and education. Take a minute and read it for yourself. As you reflect on the previous few slides
about the definition and characteristics of systems in the earlier section, and now the
definition of the Whole Child, how does the Whole Child model also model a systems approach? Let’s take another look specifically at
what research says about the impact of non-academic factors on student achievement. First, when students’ basic nutritional needs are met, they are able to attain higher achievement levels. Secondly, students who get regular physical
activity through recess and regular physical education show improved behavior, improved
mood, better focus, and reduced stress. Providing students access to physical, mental, and oral health care improves attendance, behavior, and achievement. The development of connected and supportive
school environments benefits teaching and learning, helps to engage students, and enhances
positive learning outcomes. And finally, a positive social and emotional
climate increases academic achievement, reduces stress, and improves positive attitudes towards
self and others. So, what are the advantages of building the
foundation of continuous improvement on the Whole Child? Many of these align with previous parts of
our conversation. First, it widens the view of student success
beyond solely academic factors. Second, components and tenets promote long-term
development and success of all children. Brain science indicates that the more parts
of a child’s brain we can engage, the more likely material will be retained and truly internalized. It recognizes other factors that are areas
for support or improvement that may otherwise impede academic success. It requires community support that creates
a common vision and efforts in supporting all Michigan children. And it supports leveraging assets in some
areas to address challenges in others. So as you can see, there are many advantages
of building the foundation of continuous improvement on the Whole Child. So as we think specifically about the elements
of the Continuous Improvement process, or the individual processes, what is the impact
of using the Whole Child mindset? First, in terms of setting the stage, similar
to systems, it requires a broader range of stakeholders on the continuous improvement
team representing some of those other whole child factors. As part of the assess needs process, it requires
a consideration of a broader range of data than maybe we considered previously, and a
consideration of whole child factors in identifying the root cause of academic challenges. In terms of the plan, it will lead to plans
that use whole child factors to leverage assets; tier one instruction that includes addressing
whole child factors, in addition to academic factors; a plan that requires greater engagement
by families and community in supporting the implementation of the plan. And finally, in terms of implement, monitor,
and evaluate; it requires more rigorous communication plans since a broader range of stakeholders
will be involved in taking responsibility for the process; and a wider range of data
monitoring processes around both non-academic and academic data. Similarly, as we think about continuous improvement
work over this next year, how might embracing the mindset of the Whole Child impact the
way we think about continuous improvement even before we roll out the new platform? Consider the answers to these questions. The first relates to your vision and the vision
of your organization in terms of whether it embraces the whole child. The second talks about the level of understanding
and support there is at the leadership level for addressing the whole child. And third, about that understanding and support
in terms of your continuous improvement team, and who is on your team. And, what kind of professional learning might
be needed to fill any of the gaps for leadership for continuous improvement. The fourth looks at what kinds of non-academic
data you already have, and if there are gaps, what kinds of non-academic data you might
need to consider collecting. And then, finally, since the relationship
with the community is such a critical component of the whole child, examining your relationship
with the community and as you consider these additional factors, how might you be able
to leverage more community support and engagement for your work. Again, as we conclude this section on Whole
Child, what might be other advantages of focusing on the whole child, and how else might it
impact the continuous improvement process? A few concluding ideas as we wrap up this
presentation. First of all, in terms of the roll out plan,
the department’s goal is to have the MICIP platform functional by spring of 2021, with
a limited roll out in the new system starting in fall 2020. In the meantime, all entities using or supporting
this process, including schools, districts, service agencies, and the Department of Education,
will be engaged in professional learning regarding the mindset shifts and the processes. Eventually, they will also learn about the
technical requirements of the platform. In the current year, districts and schools
will again submit their plans using the ASSIST platform or their current processes. Over the next year eighteen months, MDE will
be supporting MICIP with multiple professional learning opportunities beginning with Overview
and Mindset, an overview of the Process, digging deeper into individual Processes and the Whole
Child as well as into other focus topics, and finally moving on to the platform. We are also being very intentional about the
sequence of the learning, beginning first with the Department, moving next to ISDs/ESAs,
and then training districts and schools. Watch for the details of these trainings,
including in the Thursday MDE communications and also through the MICIP web site. Shifting to a new way of thinking regarding
continuous improvement will likely result in changes in roles and behaviors for all
those engaged in the process, including the Michigan Department of Education, service
agencies, and districts. In the light of this shift, the Department
has already begun making changes. Here are just a few ways that is happening. First, changing our internal processes to match our whole child promise. Not allowing every program and office to “do
their own thing” based on their various grant streams or plans, but trying to bring all
these offices into consistent processes. We have combined two of our larger offices
at the department together to create the Office of Educational Supports; which we hope will result in less siloed and duplicative plans and no more stand-alone “school improvement” supports, rather those supports will be integrated. The Department is investing in “whole child”
resources, and making sure that whole child has an agency-wide focus. The entire MICIP process is not “owned” by
one program office, rather it is integrated across all offices at the Department. As a result of MICIP, the assessment and accountability
outcomes are just one part of identifying needs, but not the whole story. We have also created the Partnership District
Model, which embodies cross office, collaborative work with districts and communities. And are using that model to expand the way
that we deal with all districts and all schools and communities. Thinking about this shift, how might the ISDs/ESAs
and districts work differently, independently, and with each other? These are some questions to consider both
in terms of your own organization, as well as in terms of other organizations that you
might interact with. As previously mentioned, the MICIP website
will be the “go-to” place for all questions related to MICIP, including professional learning. You see the address on this slide (www.michigan.gov/mde-micip). So having experienced this training, how well do you understand these three components of MICIP: The mindset, process, platform; the
three mindset shifts that MICIP should enable – continuous improvement, systems, and whole child – as well as the mindset shifts that can impact continuous improvement? And returning to where we started, think about
the child you saw in the video and reflect on this question: How might what you learned
to day inform the way you could support the child in the video or support those who support
such a child? As you discuss these ideas within your agencies
or your districts, we’d appreciate hearing the results of your conversation. We’d especially like to hear about how we
might collaborate to support these efforts. You can send us your answers to these questions
through a short survey at this link (https://bit.ly/2kqqMGg). Thank you again for joining us today. For more information you can contact either
myself, or Terry Nugent who is the MICIP Lead.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *