October 1-4, 2017 - Home / Homepageweb.ccsd.k12.wy.us/board/agendas/2017/121217/AdvancED... · 2017-12-06 · external facilitator. The initial meeting involved a review of the previous

October 1-4, 2017

» Results for: Campbell County School District #1 1000 W. Eighth St. Gillette, WY 82717

© Advance Education, Inc. www.advanc-ed.org 2

Accreditation Engagement Review Report

Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

AdvancED Performance Accreditation and the Engagement Review .................................................................. 3 AdvancED Continuous Improvement System ..................................................................................................... 4 Continuous Improvement Journey Narrative ..................................................................................................... 4

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results ................................................................................................................ 5 Leadership Capacity Domain .............................................................................................................................. 5 Learning Capacity Domain.................................................................................................................................. 6 Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................................. 7

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results .................................................................... 7 eleot® Narrative ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Findings ............................................................................................................................................................... 10 Powerful Practices ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Opportunities for Improvement ....................................................................................................................... 12 Improvement Priorities .................................................................................................................................... 13

Accreditation Recommendation and Index of Educational Quality™ (IEQ™) ........................................................ 14

Conclusion Narrative ........................................................................................................................................... 14

Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................................... 16

Team Roster ........................................................................................................................................................ 16



Introduction

AdvancED Performance Accreditation and the Engagement Review Accreditation is pivotal to leveraging education quality and continuous improvement. Using a set of rigorous research based standards, the accreditation process examines the whole institution—the program, the cultural context and the community of stakeholders—to determine how well the parts work together to meet the needs of learners. Through the AdvancED Accreditation Process, highly skilled and trained Engagement Review Teams gather first-hand evidence and information pertinent to evaluating an institution’s performance against the research-based AdvancED Performance Standards. Using these Standards, Engagement Review Teams assess the quality of learning environments to gain valuable insights and target improvements in teaching and learning. AdvancED provides Standards that are tailored for all education providers so that the benefits of accreditation are universal across the education community.

Through a comprehensive review of evidence and information, our experts gain a broad understanding of institution quality. Using the Standards, the review team provides valuable feedback to institutions that helps to focus and guide each institution’s improvement journey. Valuable evidence and information from other stakeholders, including students, also is obtained through interviews, surveys and additional activities.

As a part of the Engagement Review, stakeholders were interviewed by members of the Engagement Review Team to gain their perspectives on topics relevant to the institution's learning environment and organizational effectiveness. The feedback gained through the stakeholder interviews was considered with other evidences and data to support the findings of the Engagement Review. The following chart depicts the numbers of persons interviewed representative of various stakeholder groups.

Stakeholder Groups Number Superintendent 1 Board Members 7 Administrators 36 Instructional Staff 77 Support Staff 5 Students 132 Parents / Community Members 23 Total 281

Once all of the information is compiled and reviewed, the team develops the Engagement Review Report and presents preliminary results to the institution. Results from the Engagement Review are reported in four ratings represented by colors. These ratings provide guidance and insight into an institution's continuous improvement efforts as described below:

Color Rating Description Red Needs Improvement Identifies key areas that need more focused improvement

efforts Yellow Emerging Represents areas to enhance and extend current improvement

efforts Green Meets Expectations Pinpoints quality practices that meet the Standards



Color Rating Description Blue Exceeds Expectations Demonstrates noteworthy practices producing clear results

that exceed expectations

AdvancED Continuous Improvement System The AdvancED Continuous Improvement System (CIS) provides a systemic fully integrated solution to help institutions map out and navigate a successful improvement journey. In the same manner that educators are expected to understand the unique needs of every learner and tailor the education experience to drive student success, every institution must be empowered to map out and embrace their unique improvement journey. AdvancED expects institutions to use the results and the analysis of data from various interwoven components for the implementation of improvement actions to drive education quality and improved student outcomes. While each improvement journey is unique, the journey is driven by key actions. AdvancED identifies three important components of a continuous improvement process and provides feedback on the components of the journey using a rubric that identifies the three areas to guide the improvement journey. The areas are as follows:

Commitment to Continuous Improvement Rating The institution has collected sufficient and quality data to identify school improvement needs.

Meets Expectations

Implications from the analysis of data have been identified and used for the development of key strategic goals.

Meets Expectations

The institution demonstrates the capacity to implement their continuous improvement journey.

Exceeds Expectations

Continuous Improvement Journey Narrative Campbell County School District #1 provided evidence of an extensive history of systematic continuous improvement. Among the artifacts reviewed by the Engagement Review Team was a strategic plan that was developed in 2012. In October, 2015, the system began a new strategic planning process with the assistance of an external facilitator. The initial meeting involved a review of the previous strategic plan and the establishment of a schedule to complete the new plan. The consultant conducted vetting sessions that involved over 500 stakeholders, both internal and external. Participants were asked to provide input related to the system’s motto, mission, vision, beliefs, and goals. Over 23 pages of feedback were provided by the stakeholders. The strategic planning committee reviewed the feedback and drafted a strategic plan that included two goals related to improving student achievement and support for the well-being of the students and staff. After review by stakeholders and the Board of Trustees, the current strategic plan was adopted in May, 2016. Along with the stakeholder input, the use of data was an important part of the strategic planning process. For the student achievement goal, standardized assessments such as the Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students (PAWS), Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), and ACT were systematically analyzed to determine strengths and areas where improvement was needed. The Engagement Review Team learned that Wyoming has adopted a new state assessment for implementation this year called the Wyoming Test of Proficiency and Progress (WY-TOPP). This assessment will be integrated into the continuous improvement process as data become available. WY-TOPP data will eventually replace the PAWS and MAP data for continuous improvement planning purposes. For the goal related to the well-being of students and staff, several survey instruments are utilized to collect data. The Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Prevention Needs Assessment, and the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire are administered to students in order to identify areas of need and set benchmarks for measuring progress toward meeting the goal. Data related to participation in staff wellness programs were also collected and analyzed as a component of the goal. The data sources mentioned in the previous paragraph were carefully analyzed and measureable objectives were established. For the student achievement goal, the following measureable objectives were identified.



x Students will demonstrate proficiency or growth as measured by district assessments. x District grade levels will exceed the state average in content areas measured by the Wyoming state

assessment. The survey data collected to measure student social and emotional needs and staff participation in wellness programs were analyzed and measureable objectives were established. The following measureable objectives were established for the goal related to support for the well-being of the students and staff.

x The district will provide comprehensive programs and services to support students in social, emotional, and physical well-being.

x The district will provide wellness programs and services to support all staff. For implementation purposes, the system developed a strategic plan monitoring document that includes several strategies intended to assist the system in achieving the identified goals and objectives. The monitoring document provides detailed information related to specific activities, timelines for implementation, and the implementation status for each activity. The monitoring document is reviewed by the Board of Trustees twice a year and adjustments to the plan are made based upon the data collected. The Engagement Review Team thought that the monitoring component of the strategic planning process was excellent and identified a Powerful Practice related to the entire strategic planning process.

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results The AdvancED Performance Standards Diagnostic is used by the Engagement Review Team to evaluate the institution’s effectiveness based on AdvancED’s Performance Standards. The diagnostic consists of three components built around each of the three Domains: Leadership Capacity, Learning Capacity and Resource Capacity. Point values are established within the diagnostic and a percentage of the points earned by the institution for each Standard is calculated from the point values for each Standard. Results are reported within four ranges identified by the colors representing Needs Improvement (Red), Emerging (Yellow), Meets Expectations (Green), and Exceeds Expectations (Blue). The results for the three Domains are presented in the tables that follow.

Leadership Capacity Domain The capacity of leadership to ensure an institution’s progress toward its stated objectives is an essential element of organizational effectiveness. An institution’s leadership capacity includes the fidelity and commitment to its purpose and direction, the effectiveness of governance and leadership to enable the institution to realize its stated objectives, the ability to engage and involve stakeholders in meaningful and productive ways, and the capacity to implement strategies that improve learner and educator performance.

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

1.1 The system commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching and learning, including the expectations for learners.

Meets Expectations

1.2 Stakeholders collectively demonstrate actions to ensure the achievement of the system’s purpose and desired outcomes for learners.


1.3 The system engages in a continuous improvement process that produces evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and professional practice.

Meets Expectations



Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

1.4 The governing authority establishes and ensures adherence to policies that are designed to support system effectiveness.


1.5 The governing authority adheres to a code of ethics and functions within defined roles and responsibilities. Emerging

1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve professional practice and organizational effectiveness.


1.7 Leaders implement operational processes and procedures to ensure organizational effectiveness in support of teaching and learning.

Meets Expectations

1.8 Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the system’s purpose and direction.


1.9 The system provides experiences that cultivate and improve leadership effectiveness.

Meets Expectations

1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement. Emerging

1.11 Leaders implement a quality assurance process for its institutions to ensure system effectiveness and consistency. Emerging

Learning Capacity Domain The impact of teaching and learning is the primary expectation of every system and its institutions. The establishment of a learning culture built on high expectations for learning, along with quality programs and services, which include an analysis of results, are all key indicators of the system’s impact on teaching and learning.

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

2.1 Learners have equitable opportunities to develop skills and achieve the content and learning priorities established by the system.

Meets Expectations

2.2 The learning culture promotes creativity, innovation and collaborative problem-solving. Emerging

2.3 The learning culture develops learners’ attitudes, beliefs and skills needed for success.


2.4 The system has a formal structure to ensure learners develop positive relationships with and have adults/peers that support their educational experiences. Emerging

2.5 Educators implement a curriculum that is based on high expectations and prepares learners for their next levels.


2.6 The system implements a process to ensure the curriculum is aligned to standards and best practices.


2.7 Instruction is monitored and adjusted to meet individual learners’ needs and the system’s learning expectations.

Meets Expectations

2.8 The system provides programs and services for learners’ educational future and career planning. Emerging

2.9 The system implements processes to identify and address the specialized needs of learners.


2.10 Learning progress is reliably assessed and consistently and clearly communicated. Exceeds Expectations

2.11 Educators gather, analyze, and use formative and summative data that lead to demonstrable improvement of student learning.




Learning Capacity Standards Rating

2.12 The system implements a process to continuously assess its programs and organizational conditions to improve student learning.

Meets Expectations

Resource Capacity Domain The use and distribution of resources align and support the needs of the system and institutions served. Systems ensure that resources are aligned with its stated purpose and direction and distributed equitably so that the needs of the system are adequately and effectively addressed. The utilization of resources includes support for professional learning for all staff. The system examines the allocation and use of resources to ensure appropriate levels of funding, sustainability, and system effectiveness.

Resource Capacity Standards Rating 3.1 The system plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning

environment, learner achievement, and the system’s effectiveness. Exceeds

Expectations 3.2 The system’s professional learning structure and expectations promote collaboration

and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational effectiveness. Exceeds

Expectations 3.3 The system provides induction, mentoring, and coaching programs that ensure all

staff members have the knowledge and skills to improve student performance and organizational effectiveness.


3.4 The system attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the system’s purpose and direction.


3.5 The system integrates digital resources into teaching, learning, and operations to improve professional practice, student performance, and organizational effectiveness.


3.6 The system provides access to information resources and materials to support the curriculum, programs, and needs of students, staff, and the system.


3.7 The system demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long-range planning and use of resources in support of the system’s purpose and direction.


3.8 The system allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the system’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and organizational effectiveness.


Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results The eProve™ Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) is a learner-centric classroom observation tool that comprises 28 items organized in seven environments aligned with the AdvancED Standards. The eleot provides useful, relevant, structured, and quantifiable data on the extent to which students are engaged in activities and/or demonstrate knowledge, attitudes, and/or dispositions that are conducive to effective learning. Classroom observations are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes. Results from eleot are reported on a scale of one to four based on the degree and quality of the engagement.

eleot® Observations

Total Number of eleot® Observations 62



Environments Rating Equitable Learning Environment 2.92 Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs 2.55 Learners have equal access to classroom discussions, activities, resources, technology, and support 3.63

Learners are treated in a fair, clear and consistent manner 3.60 Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human characteristics, conditions and dispositions

1.92

High Expectations Environment 2.88 Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher 3.13

Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable 3.18 Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work 2.56 Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing) 2.77

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their learning 2.74 Supportive Learning Environment 3.32 Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful 3.19 Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative feedback) 3.10 Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers and/or other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks 3.52

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher 3.47 Active Learning Environment 2.86 Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other and the teacher predominate 3.05 Learners make connections from content to real-life experiences 2.37 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities 3.40 Learners collaborate with their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments 2.61

Progress Monitoring and Feedback Environment 2.72 Learners monitor their own learning progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored 2.55

Learners receive/respond to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or revise work 3.15

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content 2.98 Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed 2.21 Well-Managed Learning Environment 3.32 Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and each other 3.53 Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others 3.48

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity to another 3.08 Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted time or disruptions 3.19 Digital Learning Environment 2.01 Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning 2.13 Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for learning 2.27

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and/or work collaboratively for learning 1.63

eleot® Narrative The Engagement Review Team conducted 62 classroom observations during the onsite Engagement Review using



the eleot® instrument. The team observed classrooms at all grade levels and in all content areas, including elementary school special classes and high school vocational classes. The Supportive Learning and Well-Managed Learning Domains were the highest rated domains. The Digital Learning Domain was the lowest rated domain. The system shared eleot® data that were collected by the system’s administrators. The chart below provides a comparison between the eleot® ratings of the Engagement Review Team and the eleot® ratings of the system administrators.

Domain Area Engagement Review Team Campbell County #1 Equitable Learning 2.92 3.20 High Expectations 2.88 2.93 Supportive Learning 3.32 3.32 Active Learning 2.86 2.95 Progress Monitoring 2.72 2.69 Well-Managed Learning 3.32 3.16 Digital Learning 2.01 1.98

The ratings were very consistent with the largest difference occurring in the Equitable Learning Domain. An analysis of the ratings for this domain revealed that the Engagement Review Team did not observe as much differentiation of instruction as the system administrators. The team also did not observe as many opportunities for students to learn about differences in backgrounds and culture as the system administrators. As previously mentioned, the Engagement Review Team rated the Supportive Learning Domain as one of the two highest rated domains. Team members noticed one common attitude among students when interviewing them in the classroom and during polling. The students expressed that learning and going to school were happy experiences for them. Students reported that they liked their teachers and felt they could get help with their work at any time. The students knew expectations and were not afraid to take risks when answering questions. Teachers circulated among students to provide feedback or create situations where students could conference with the teacher regularly on longer-term projects. In one classroom, for example, students worked on internet-based social studies reports while the teacher conferenced with each student about his or her long-term project. Teachers moved around the room during student practice times to help individuals and groups better understand content. In several classrooms, students used accommodations such as "standing desks" to address their learning styles. One student had a sign language professional interpret the teacher's instructions. Another student, during an interview poll, said, "It is amazing how much our teachers respect us!" Given that respect is more often considered as respect for the teacher, this perspective was a refreshing example of how this system values mutual respect. This statement confirms in a very humble way that the staff creates supportive learning environments that put students first. The Well-Managed Learning Domain also was rated highly by the Engagement Review Team. Students consistently spoke and interacted respectfully with one another and with teachers. The students followed classroom rules and transitioned seamlessly from one activity to another. It was common to see processes in place such as lining up, using wait time, and checking for compliance before students moved from one activity to another. In a lunchroom, for example, students waited in a grade level line after eating until their classroom teacher arrived to lead them back to classes. Such procedures were common in all schools visited. The system has placed an emphasis on implementing strategies to enhance student engagement. Based upon the observations of the Engagement Review Team, students were usually on task and engaged most of the time. While inventories and polls from students indicated collaboration was common, the team witnessed collaborative activities in many of the classrooms observed. Teachers used strategies such as shoulder buddies or think-pair-share in most schools. The Engagement Review Team also noticed components of the system’s instructional framework such as posted objectives and individual goals in many classrooms. During deliberations, team members cited several specific examples of robust student engagement. The most



common theme mentioned by team members was that students were “doing” things. In one elementary classroom, students were studying the characteristics of the cockroach. The teacher simply asked the students to use Google to find interesting facts about cockroaches. Students enthusiastically used iPads to complete the task and report back to the entire class. In another elementary classroom, students were grouped according to their performance scores and each student went to an intervention based upon their need. One group was creating an electronic book while other groups were doing level-based guided reading. In a high school language arts class, the teacher had given an assignment for students to work on a “show, not tell” writing assignment. She then used her iPad and was able to see what students were writing and giving verbal feedback to them. In elementary mathematics classes, the Engagement Review Team observed the use of problem-solving using the Math in Focus program. Students worked collaboratively on real-world problems and application of knowledge. STEM concepts such as inquiry-based learning was observed in a science classroom where students were studying sound waves and then were instructed to design and engineer their own “instrument.” Students were highly engaged in this activity as they tested their hypotheses and worked to build their instruments. One team member described an excellent example of collaborative learning in an elementary language arts class. All 26 students were engaged in a "draft, revision, publication" process for personal narratives related to a common topic. Students were paired randomly to help each other edit their work. They used a common 6-traits writing rubric to guide them in the editing process using common editing tools available to them on iPads. As students worked on editing their own work, their partners helped by pointing out errors in mechanics and figurative language. The teacher conferenced with individual students during this activity without concern about issues of behavior or off-task activity. This lack of concern was due in part to the advanced preparation done by the teacher and the perception that this activity was normal and regular for this classroom. In summary, the Engagement Review Team found very supportive and well-managed learning environments throughout the system. The team found that classrooms had an atmosphere of mutual respect between the students and teacher as well as among the students. Students appeared to feel safe in each classroom and demonstrated positive attitudes toward learning. Students in all classrooms exhibited high levels of engagement. Students seemed to know the expectations of the teachers and strived to meet them. The students were positive about their learning during interview polls and seemed to have no issues taking risks when learning new material. Analysis of eleot® data coupled with interview polling results confirmed that collaboration, active learning, and supportive learning were integral components of the classroom learning environment.

Findings The chart below provides an overview of the institution ratings across the three Domains.

NeedsImprovementEmerging

MeetsExpectationsExceedsExpectations

Rating Number of Standards

Needs Improvement 0

Emerging 6

Meets Expectations 7

Exceeds Expectations 18



Powerful Practices Powerful Practices reflect noteworthy observations and actions that have yielded clear results in student achievement or organizational effectiveness and are actions that exceed what is typically observed or expected in an institution.

Powerful Practice #1 The district has a coherent, systematic stakeholder-driven strategic planning process and a model for resource allocation that results in a clear system-wide focus on ensuring success for all students and ultimately achieving the district mission and vision. Primary Standard: 1.3 (related Standards 1.8, 3.7, 3.8) Evidence: Teaching Effectively, Learning Successfully has been the system motto for many years and is a recognizable trademark of quality for the system. Artifacts provided by the system included the current strategic plan and the system’s previous strategic plan. The vision, mission, beliefs, and goals for the system were established using an external facilitator to conduct stakeholder meetings across the district. Over 500 stakeholders provided input during the development of the current strategic plan. Processes are in place to ensure that Improvement plans at each school are aligned with the system’s strategic plan. The strategic plan and goals are periodically revised and updated. The strategic plan is accompanied by an extensive monitoring document that details the strategic objectives, measures, and progress toward reaching these district goals. Interviews with the superintendent and the district leadership team validated the ongoing use of the strategic plan and monitoring document to guide and direct system processes.

Powerful Practice #2 The system has developed and implemented a comprehensive, systematic process for aligning curriculum and assessments that includes quality assurance measures for evaluating the effectiveness of instruction. Primary Standard: 2.5 (related Standards 2.6, 2.11) Evidence: A thorough review of the system’s curriculum mapping and district assessment system was conducted by the Engagement Review Team. The review process revealed that multiple systems are in place to continuously inform the system’s curriculum and assessment program. Curriculum facilitators (under the direction of the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction) lead the curriculum planning, implementation, and monitoring process utilizing the backwards design protocol to ensure alignment to the Wyoming Content and Performance Standards. Horizontal and vertical alignment analyses are completed using Rubicon Atlas and tools developed by Karen Hess, a recognized international leader in developing practical approaches for using cognitive rigor and learning progressions as the foundation for formative, interim, and performance assessments. The system’s formative and summative assessment results are formally reviewed and evaluated by content area teachers and curriculum facilitators. District technologists mine data based upon requests from teacher teams. Assessment results are then analyzed at the system level where effect sizes are calculated to measure the effectiveness of instruction. Throughout this process, the team was able to validate that changes in the curriculum, instruction, and assessments are made based on the data provided with these analyses. Interviews with facilitators, teachers, and principals validated that these protocols are fully embedded in the system.

Powerful Practice #3 Operating from a deliberate and unwavering focus on its students, the system has established a community-wide culture of shared commitment to the development of the “whole child” including a sound mind, strong body, and excitement about their potential. Primary Standard: 2.9 (related Standard 2.3)



Evidence: A goal in the system strategic plan is the provision of comprehensive programs and services to support students in their social, emotional, and physical well-being. The strategies include: a social norming component focused on educating, engaging, and empowering students; a formalization of the referral process; targeted support for students needing interventions; bullying and suicide prevention; and, the development of lifelong health and wellness skills through the curriculum. The strategic plan monitoring document clearly demonstrates the thoughtful, collaborative approach to designing, implementing, and monitoring each strategy and associated actions. The results included in the monitoring document provide evidence of the value and impact of the district’s work in this area. Of particular note is the implementation of the Kid Clinic, the Olweus Bullying Program, and Suicide Prevention programs. Transportation, intake, and referral data indicated the district is providing critically needed medical and behavioral health services for all students through the Kid Clinic. Reductions in bullying rates clearly provide evidence of the impact of the Olweus program. School-based programs such as PRIDE and Doghouse further provide evidence of the system’s emphasis on the development of the whole child. The development of the comprehensive “Special Education Best Practices Guide” has led to a systematic process for identifying and supporting the special learning needs of students. The district has recently implemented a co-teaching initiative to allow increased inclusion and promote equity. Early results are promising. Classroom observation data indicated strong levels of support and equity in well-managed classrooms that promote positive attitudes about learning and establish learning environments in which students can and do set achievement goals. Survey results, inventories, and interview polls clearly reflect a student-focused culture. The Engagement Review Team consistently heard statements such as “every day is a good day,” “I love my school,” “I have everything I need,” “my teachers know, respect, and care about me,” and, “the school/district will do whatever it takes to help my child.”

Opportunities for Improvement Opportunities for Improvement are those actions that will guide and direct institutions to specific areas that are worthy of additional attention.

Opportunity for Improvement #1 Implement and assess the effectiveness of a formal and systematic process in which each school in the system utilizes adult mentors and advocates to develop positive relationships with every student to support their total educational experience. Primary Standard: 2.4 Evidence: After reviewing artifacts, collecting evidence, and observing schools and classrooms, the Engagement Review Team learned that the system places an emphasis on meeting the needs of students who are struggling and are in need of mental health and counseling services. There are pockets of schools in which students have a student advisor or advocate, but the team did not find evidence of a formal structure in which this was expected or assessed at a system level. Though positive relationships with adults and peers were observed, the team did not find systematic and formal protocols and procedures to ensure that students frequently and regularly meet with their adult advocates. The Engagement Review Team did learn that guidance counselor assignments have been changed at the two high schools so that counselors will follow the same students throughout the students’ high school careers. This process is intended to enhance student/counselor relationships and improve student advocacy at these two schools.



Improvement Priorities Improvement priorities are developed to enhance the capacity of the institution to reach a higher level of performance and reflect the areas identified by the Engagement Review Team to have the greatest impact on improving student performance and organizational effectiveness.

Improvement Priority #1 Develop and implement formal, systematic processes to evaluate the effectiveness of the organization’s programs including academic initiatives and all programs that support student learning. Primary Standard: 1.11 Evidence: The Engagement Review Team found artifact evidence that formal monitoring processes to increase organizational effectiveness existed for state mandated planning of technology, facilities, maintenance, transportation, and finance. Interviews with system leadership indicated a formal quality assurance process was in place for the strategic plan through reporting to the Board of Trustees and some informal quality assurance processes were in place through discussions in administrative cabinet meetings and updates to the Board of Trustees. System inventory results, however, indicated that 58 percent of teachers reported sporadic or irregular involvement "in a formal process to verify the success of programs at my school, which are implemented to meet the educational, emotional and personal success of students." Leadership interviews also indicated a lack of formal monitoring processes in place for major initiatives such as changes to the counseling program, the move to two high schools, a move from a block to seven-period schedule, and STEM labs in all schools. When asked through interviews if a quality assurance process existed regardless of which program or initiative was being contemplated, the superintendent, district leaders, and building principals indicated no formal structure was in place to regularly monitor and improve processes or evaluate programs.

Improvement Priority #2 Evaluate the effectiveness of the current academic and career planning services provided to students and implement strategies to increase the student use of counseling services in support of students’ academic, social/emotional, and career planning needs. Primary Standard: 2.8 Evidence: During interviews with system leaders, the Engagement Review Team confirmed that all schools in the system are provided with counseling services. Most elementary schools have a full-time counselor. The exceptions are the small rural schools that receive part-time services. Each of the junior highs has one counselor for each grade and there are four counselors at each high school. A new student assignment process has been implemented at the high schools this year that involves students staying with the same counselor for all four years of high school. The counseling staff currently provides a variety of services including academic counseling, career counseling, social/emotional counseling, and several counselors assist with the implementation of the system’s anti-bullying program. In spite of the capacity to provide services, the Engagement Review Team learned during the system overview that middle and high school students ranked “exploration and planning for college and careers” among their five lowest survey items. Further review of the middle/high school AdvancED survey results indicated that at the time of the survey, over half the students reported they had never visited the counseling office and over one third of the high school students had not worked with the counselors for college or career planning. During visits to the schools, the team learned that counseling services tend to be site-based. A review of artifacts did not reveal a formal, comprehensive plan for providing academic and career services consistently throughout the system. During a conversation with the Director of Student Support Services, the team was informed that the system is planning to begin implementation of a new career exploration and planning program called Career Cruising for students in grades 7-12.



Accreditation Recommendation and Index of Educational Quality™ (IEQ™) The Engagement Review Team recommends to the AdvancED Accreditation Commission that the institution earns the distinction of accreditation for a five-year term. AdvancED will review the results of the Engagement Review to make a final determination, including the appropriate next steps for the institution in response to these findings. AdvancED provides the Index of Education Quality™ (IEQ™) as a holistic measure of overall performance based on a comprehensive set of standards and review criteria. A formative tool for improvement, it identifies areas of success as well as areas in need of focus. The IEQ is comprised of the Standards Diagnostic ratings from the three Domains: 1) Leadership Capacity; 2) Learning Capacity; and 3) Resource Capacity and the results of eleot classroom observations. The IEQ results are reported on a scale of 100 to 400 and provides information about how the institution is performing compared to expected criteria.

Institution IEQ 346.63

Conclusion Narrative Campbell County School District #1 consists of 23 schools located in and around Gillette, Wyoming. Through interviews, a review of evidence, observations, and deliberations, the Engagement Review Team identified several themes related to the system’s continuous improvement efforts. A word the team heard consistently during conversations with stakeholders was collaboration. Professional learning communities (PLCs) have existed within the system for several years. The PLCs have helped create a culture of collaboration within the schools that is truly embedded in the work of teachers and administrators. There is also a strong sense of collaboration between the school and system leaders. Meetings are held on a regular basis for the purpose of giving administrators the opportunity to share ideas with other administrators and coordinate programs throughout the system. In addition to the collaboration observed within the system, the Engagement Review Team also validated a high level of collaboration with external stakeholders and other agencies/organizations within the community. Community members were very involved in the development of the system’s strategic plan with over 500 stakeholders providing input related to the mission, vision, and goals. Rich partnerships within the community have led to the development of programs and services that further support students. The Engagement Review Team was especially impressed with the Kid Clinic that operates in collaboration with the local hospital. Other examples include the dual and concurrent credit programs with Gillette College and the collaboration with Youth Emergency Services (YES) House, the Campbell County Sheriff’s Office, and the Child Developmental Center. Programs such as Blessing in a Backpack and cooperative agreements with local recreations centers reach students outside of the classroom and engage them with the greater community. Along with stakeholder collaboration, another strength noted by the Engagement Review Team was the high level focus on the “whole child.” Teachers and administrators place a priority on student learning and meeting the needs of each student. This priority can be observed in the classroom, but the priority is also visible in meeting the social and emotional needs of students. As previously mentioned, the system has established a Kid Clinic in cooperation with the local hospital to meet the physical and mental health needs of students. To ensure accessibility, the system even provides transportation to the Kid Clinic. The system has also adopted anti-bullying and suicide prevention programs in response to student needs that were identified using data collected on surveys and inventories. The Engagement Review Team identified the system’s curriculum development and student assessment programs as major strengths. A systematic process for curriculum alignment has been implemented and, equally important,



common formative assessments have been developed to support teaching and learning. One unique aspect of the system’s assessment system is the inclusion of a process for teachers to provide feedback related to the effectiveness of formative assessment items. One member of the Engagement Review Team commented that “this program could be a model for other school districts!” The use of data is integral to the system’s instructional process. Teachers use data during PLC meetings to identify student strengths and areas in need of improvement. While standardized student performance data is a part of the system’s district assessment plan, teachers commented that formative assessments are more important for informing instruction on a daily basis. The system has implemented several initiatives to improve student learning. Effective this year, the system opened a second high school. While the decision to open the second high school was somewhat controversial in the community, system and school leaders are convinced that this decision was correct. Previously, 9th graders attended the two junior highs and 10th graders were housed on a completely separate campus. The new configuration has created two high schools with each school providing services to students in 9th-12th grade. Along with the new high school configuration, the system also changed from a block schedule to a seven-period schedule. With the changes, system and school leaders anticipate improved student academic performance. Two other initiatives have been implemented over the past few years that have had an impact on teaching and learning. The Math in Focus program is now being used in primary and intermediate classrooms. The program encourages the development of problem-solving skills and inquiry-based learning. The system is also in the process of implementing a balanced reading program to improve literacy instruction. Both programs were adopted after data analysis indicated a need for change in these areas. While it is too early to fully assess the impact of the programs, standardized assessment scores are trending up in most schools. The system places an emphasis on professional development to ensure effective program implementation and overall improvement in classroom instruction. Professional development activities are designed to meet organizational goals such as implementation of the new mathematics and reading programs while also meeting the individual needs of teachers, administrators, and other staff members. As with other aspects of system operations, professional development is driven by data analysis and training is systematically tracked for staff members. An integral component of the system’s professional development program is the induction and mentoring process for new staff members. This program is very systematic and provides support for up to three years. Another strength identified by the Engagement Review Team involves the development, implementation, and monitoring of the system’s strategic plan. The team reviewed the previous strategic plan as well as the current plan and concluded that the process used to develop the plans validated the system’s commitment to continuous improvement. The current plan includes two goals related to improving student achievement and focusing on the well-being of the students and staff. A strategic plan monitoring document has been developed to ensure the plan is implemented with fidelity and the monitoring document is reviewed by the Board of Trustees twice a year. The engagement of a significant number of stakeholders in the development of the strategic plan, the identification of goals based upon data analysis, and the systematic monitoring process provided evidence that the strategic planning process was a strength of the system. Along with a number of strengths, the Engagement Review Team also identified some areas where there is room for improvement. The team did not find evidence of a formal, systematic process to ensure all students have adult advocates in support of the students’ academic and social/emotional needs. Some schools offer advisory programs, but there did not appear to be a comprehensive, system-wide program for student advocacy. Students in all schools are provided guidance services, but surveys indicated that few students, particularly at the middle/high school levels, utilize these services. The system has already taken steps to improve in this area. With the opening of the second high school, counselors are now assigned to students based upon their last name and not by grade level. This model will allow counselors to work with the same students throughout the students’ high school careers. The Engagement Review Team encourages the system to assess the effectiveness of this strategy to meet the advocacy needs of students. Another area identified for improvement by the Engagement Review Team was related to career planning. The



team did not find evidence of a systemic career planning curriculum. This is not to imply that career education and counseling does not occur. Through interviews with school leaders, however, the team learned that career planning tends to be site-based and not consistently implemented in all system schools. The Engagement Review Team confirmed that steps are being taken to improve in this area. A new program called Career Cruising is in the process of being implemented in the next few weeks for students in grades 7-12. As with other initiatives, the team encourages the system to assess the effectiveness of this program to meet the career planning needs of students. The final area identified for improvement by the Engagement Review Team is related to the need for systemic monitoring and evaluation processes for programs, initiatives, and changes in procedure to determine effectiveness of implementation. Through interviews and a review of artifacts, the team confirmed that there are some program evaluation strategies already in place. However, the strategies did not seem to be consistent or, in some cases, intentional. The process for monitoring the system’s strategic plan could be a model for assessing the effectiveness of other programs, both instructional and non-instructional. The development of a systematic quality assurance process by the leadership for all departments, driven by goals that complement the goals in the strategic plan, will establish a climate of accountability for all classrooms, schools, departments, and the system as a whole. The Improvement Priorities identified by the Engagement Review Team are intended to address the overarching priorities the system should address to improve student learning and overall organizational effectiveness. Campbell County School District #1 exemplifies a commitment to continuous improvement. What other systems strive to do by process seems to happen naturally in this system. The strength of each member of the leadership team galvanizes the systemic efforts of the school district. Given that improvement processes are somewhat dependent upon the expertise of staff members, the development of more systematic and formal processes for quality assurance will enhance the sustainability of improvement initiatives beyond the longevity of each member of the leadership team. The evaluation of academic and career planning services and the implementation of strategies to increase student use of counseling services will provide additional support for students and complement other system initiatives related to meeting the needs of the “whole child.” Addressing the Improvement Priorities in a comprehensive manner will make a good school district even better!

Next Steps The results of the Engagement Review provide the next step to guide the improvement journey of the institution in their efforts to improve the quality of educational opportunities for all learners. The findings are aligned to research-based criteria designed to improve student learning and organizational effectiveness. The feedback provided in the Accreditation Engagement Review Report will assist the institution in reflecting on their current improvement efforts and to adapt and adjust their plans to continuously strive for improvement. Upon receiving the Accreditation Engagement Review Report the institution is encouraged to implement the following steps: x Review and share the findings with stakeholders. x Develop plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the Engagement Review Team. x Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution’s continuous improvement

efforts. x Celebrate the successes noted in the report x Continue your Improvement Journey

Team Roster The Engagement Review Teams are comprised of professionals with varied backgrounds and professional experiences. All Lead Evaluators and Engagement Review Team members complete AdvancED training and eleot®



certification to provide knowledge and understanding of the AdvancED tools and processes. The following professionals served on the Engagement Review Team:

Team Member Name Brief Biography Steve Epperson Dr. Steven Epperson earned a B.S. in mathematics from Eureka College, an

M.S.E. in educational administration from Illinois State University, and completed his doctoral work in educational organization and leadership at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He taught middle school and high school mathematics for 16 years before becoming a school administrator. Epperson served as a high school principal for three years before working as a school district superintendent for 13 years. Dr. Epperson retired as Superintendent of Roselle School District 12 in 2007. After retirement, he served as Interim Director of University Laboratory High School in Urbana, IL for two years. Epperson currently provides consulting services for Ideal Environmental Engineering and serves as an adjunct professor in school finance at the University of Illinois. He has extensive experience with AdvancED through his work as an educational consultant and leading Engagement Reviews throughout the United States.

Mark Mathern Mark Mathern retired as the Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, Natrona County School District, Casper, Wyoming. After nine years as a classroom teacher, Dr. Mathern worked for four years as a school administrator in a high school of 1500 and for five years as a K-12 principal in a rural school of 150 students. In 2000, he joined the curriculum and instruction division and in 2008 became its Associate Superintendent. Dr. Mathern has worked with the North Central Association and AdvancED on accreditation and school improvement efforts including presenting at Wyoming’s School Improvement conferences regarding accreditation processes. In addition, he has been an evaluator with accreditation teams in Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Idaho, Georgia, North Dakota, and for DoDEA schools. He is a Lead Evaluator for multiple types of schools and systems. Dr. Mathern has a BA from North Dakota State University in Classical Languages, an MA from the University of Wyoming in Educational Administration, and an Ed.D. from Seton Hall University. His area of study centered on parent access to and use of electronic grade book information as possible influences on student achievement. Currently, Mark also serves as Vice-President of Membership for Greater Wyoming Council of the Boy Scouts of America and President of Casper Cross Roads Ministries, a non-profit dedicated to helping women transitioning from distressful situations.



Team Member Name Brief Biography Jody Rakness Jody Rakness is the Curriculum Director/Grants Manager for Washakie County

School District No. 1 in Worland, Wyoming. In this position, she oversees curriculum and instruction, writes and manages consolidated and competitive grants, oversees continuous improvement efforts, and works with the Administrative Team and Instructional Facilitators to monitor the progress and success of district and school improvement efforts to ensure the cohesive alignment of continuous improvement efforts district wide.

Jody is an NCA Ambassador, Quality Assurance Review Team Chair/Member, and External Team Chair/Member. She has worked with AdvancED/NCA Accreditation in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) both as an external team member and external team chair.

Prior to her position as Curriculum Director/Grants Manager, Jody served as the District Leadership Coordinator. She has taught at the college, high school, and middle school levels in the areas of Business Education, Social Studies, and Computer Technology.

Jason Moss Jason Moss has been involved in education for 10 years. He has taught both elementary ELL (English Language Learners), high school Spanish and high school Social Studies classes. For the past several years he has served as a K-8 and K-12 principal in two different schools in Wyoming. He is bilingual in Spanish and English and loves the opportunity to converse and work with children and their parents in ESL programs, a passion he would like to continue throughout the rest of his career. He has participated on AdvancED review teams in the states of Michigan, Colorado, and Wyoming. His obtained his Master’s degree in Educational Leadership and is pursuing his Ed.D. in the same field from the University of Wyoming. His holds two undergraduate degrees in Secondary Education and Spanish Language and Literature from Idaho State University.

Elaine Baumann Dr. Elaine Baumann has worked with AdvancED since 2013. She served as the Operations Office Director for Minnesota and Wisconsin for the past three years and now serves as a Lead Evaluator. Dr. Baumann has more than 40 years of experience as a secondary school teacher and administrator. She is currently an adjunct faculty member at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls and St. Mary’s University in Minnesota. She received a Bachelor’s Degree in Education from the University of Wisconsin-River Falls as well as a Masters and Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Dr. Baumann also served on the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators Associate Principal’s Commission and the Wisconsin School Music Association Board of Directors.



Team Member Name Brief Biography Julie Garofalo Ms. Garofalo has over 40 years of experience in corporate and academic

environments. For over 30 years she has been engaged in teaching and administrative roles from elementary through graduate and adult professionals, and has significant administrative experience in secondary and higher education. She holds a BA in Economics and a Masters in Business Administration with concentrations in Finance and Human Resource Management. Ms. Garofalo's areas of expertise include strategic planning, information systems technology, systems analysis/development/ implementation, management, continuous improvement, instructional coaching, curriculum development/implementation, college planning, academic advising, and student support services. She has served as a Lead Evaluator since the inception of AdvancED, is certified to lead school, early learning, and STEM reviews, and has participated in over 90 Engagement Reviews. Ms. Garofalo served as the Illinois Team Staffing coordinator from 2014 – 17, and is the recipient of the 2014 Illinois AdvancED Quality Performance and the 2015 AdvancED Quality Leadership Awards. She currently serves as School Quality Specialist for AdvancED North USA.

Bill Pannell Bill Pannell is the Wyoming accreditation supervisor for the Wyoming Department of Education (WDE). Pannell has served in this role since 2012. Prior to his role as accreditation supervisor, Pannell worked in Career Technical Education at the WDE for nine years. Pannell has 12 years of teaching experience in Wyoming and Montana, and has served on multiple AdvancED teams across Wyoming. Prior to coming to the WDE, Pannell was also a district co-leader for a Wyoming school district for North Central Association (NCA) accreditation, which is now AdvancED.

Documents

October 1-4, 2017 - Home / Homepageweb.ccsd.k12.wy.us/board/agendas/2017/121217/AdvancED... · 2017-12-06 · external facilitator. The initial meeting involved a review of the previous