Report of the External Review Team for Brookings … · External Review Team for Brookings School District ... Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot ... learner-centric

Report of theExternal Review Team

forBrookings School District

2130 8 Street SBrookingsSD 57006

US

Dr. Klint WillertSuperintendent

Date: November 30, 2014 - December 3, 2014

Document Generated On January 14, 2016

Copyright (c) 2016 by Advance Education, Inc. AdvancED™ grants to the Institution, which is the subject of the External Review Team Report, and its

designees and stakeholders a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license and release to reproduce, reprint, and distribute this report in

accordance with and as protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States of America and all foreign countries. All other rights not expressly

conveyed are reserved by AdvancED™.


AdvancED Brookings School District

© 2016 Advance Education, Inc. All rights reserved unless otherwise granted by written agreement. Page 2

Table of Contents Introduction 4

Results 10

Teaching and Learning Impact 10

Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for Learning 11

Standard 5 - Using Results for Continuous Improvement 12

Student Performance Diagnostic 12

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot™) 14

eleot™ Data Summary 16

Findings 19

Leadership Capacity 22

Standard 1 - Purpose and Direction 23

Standard 2 - Governance and Leadership 23

Stakeholder Feedback Diagnostic 24

Findings 24

Resource Utilization 26

Standard 4 - Resources and Support Systems 26

Findings 27

Conclusion 29

Accreditation Recommendation 32

Addenda 33

Individual Institution Results (Self-reported) 33

Team Roster 34

Next Steps 36

About AdvancED 37

References 38






IntroductionThe External Review is an integral component of AdvancED Performance Accreditation and provides the

institution with a comprehensive evaluation guided by the results of diagnostic instruments, in-depth review of

data and documentation, and the professional judgment of a team of qualified and highly trained evaluators. A

series of diagnostic instruments examines the impact of teaching and learning on student performance, the

capacity of leadership to effect continuous improvement, and the degree to which the institution optimizes its

use of available resources to facilitate and support student success. The results of this evaluation are

represented in the Index of Education Quality (IEQ™) and through critical observations, namely, Powerful

Practices, Opportunities for Improvement, and Improvement Priorities.

Accreditation is a voluntary method of quality assurance developed more than 100 years ago by American

universities and secondary schools and designed primarily to distinguish schools adhering to a set of

educational standards. Today the accreditation process is used at all levels of education and is recognized for

its ability to effectively drive student performance and continuous improvement in education.

Institutions seeking to gain or retain accreditation must meet AdvancED Standards specific to their institution

type, demonstrate acceptable levels of student performance and the continuous improvement of student

performance, and provide evidence of stakeholder engagement and satisfaction. The power of AdvancED

Performance Accreditation lies in the connections and linkages between and among the conditions, processes,

and practices within a system that impact student performance and organizational effectiveness.

Standards help to delineate what matters. They provide a common language through which an education

community can engage in conversations about educational improvement, system effectiveness, and

achievement. They serve as a foundation for planning and implementing improvement strategies and activities

and for measuring success. AdvancED Standards were developed by a committee comprised of talented

educators and leaders from the fields of practice, research, and policy who applied professional wisdom, deep

knowledge of effective practice, and the best available research to craft a set of robust standards that define

institutional quality and guide continuous improvement. Prior to implementation, an internationally recognized

panel of experts in testing and measurement, teacher quality, and education research reviewed the standards

and provided feedback, guidance and endorsement.

The AdvancED External Review Team uses AdvancED Standards, associated indicators and criteria related to

student performance and stakeholder engagement to guide its evaluation. The Team examines adherence to

standards as well as how the institution functions as a whole and embodies the practices and characteristics

expected of an accredited institution. The Standards, indicators and related criteria are evaluated using

indicator-specific performance levels. The Team rates each indicator and criterion on a scale of 1 to 4. The

final scores assigned to the indicators and criteria represent the average of the External Review Team

members' individual ratings.

The External Review is the hallmark of AdvancED Performance Accreditation. It energizes and equips the

institution's leadership and stakeholders to achieve higher levels of performance and address those areas that








-

-

-

-

may be hindering efforts to reach desired performance levels. External Review is a rigorous process that

includes the in-depth examination of evidence and relevant data, interviews with all stakeholder groups, and

extensive observations of learning, instruction, and operations.

Use of Diagnostic ToolsA key to examining the institution is the design and use of diagnostic tools that reveal the effectiveness with

which an institution creates conditions and implements processes and practices that impact student

performance and success. In preparation for the External Review the institution conducted a Self Assessment

that applied the standards and criteria for accreditation. The institution provided evidence to support its

conclusions vis a vis organizational effectiveness in ensuring acceptable and improving levels of student

performance.

an indicator-based tool that connects the specific elements of the criteria to evidence gathered by the

team;

a student performance analytic that examines the quality of assessment instruments used by the

institution, the integrity of the administration of the assessment to students, the quality of the learning

results including the impact of instruction on student learning at all levels of performance, and the

equity of learning that examines the results of student learning across all demographics;

a stakeholder engagement instrument that examines the fidelity of administration and results of

perception surveys seeking the perspective of students, parents, and teachers;

a state-of-the-art, learner-centric observation instrument, the Effective Learning Environments

Observation Tool (eleot™) that quantifies students' engagement, attitudes and dispositions organized

in 7 environments: Equitable Learning, High Expectations, Supportive Learning, Active Learning,

Progress Monitoring and Feedback, Well-Managed Learning, and Digital Learning. All evaluators

must be trained, reach acceptable levels of inter-rater reliability, and certified to use this research-

based and validated instrument.

The External Review Team's findings and critical observations are shared in this report through the IEQ™

results as well as through the identification of Powerful Practices, Opportunities for Improvement, and

Improvement Priorities.

Index of Education QualityIn the past, accreditation reviews resulted in an accreditation recommendation on status. Labels such as

advised, warned, probation, or all clear were used to describe the status of a school relative to the AdvancED

Standards and other evaluative criteria. Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, AdvancED introduced a new

framework to describe the results of an accreditation review. Consistent with the modern focus of accreditation

on continuous improvement with an emphasis on student success, AdvancED introduced an innovative and

state-of-the-art framework for diagnosing and revealing institutional performance called the Index of Education

Quality (IEQ™). The IEQ™ comprises three domains of performance: 1) the impact of teaching and learning

on student performance; 2) the capacity of leadership to guide the institution toward the achievement of its








vision and strategic priorities; and 3) use of resources to support and optimize learning. Therefore, your

institution will no longer receive an accreditation status. Instead, your institution will be accredited with an

IEQ™ score. In the case where an institution is failing to meet established criteria, the accreditation will be

under review thereby requiring frequent monitoring and demonstrated improvement.

The three domains of performance are derived from the AdvancED Standards and associated indicators, the

analysis of student performance, and the engagement and feedback of stakeholders. Within each domain

institutions can connect to the individual performance levels that are applied in support of the AdvancED

Standards and evaluative criteria. Within the performance levels are detailed descriptors that serve as a

valuable source of guidance for continuous improvement. Upon review of the findings in this report and

building on their Powerful Practices, institutional leaders should work with their staff to review and understand

the evidence and rationale for each Opportunity for Improvement and Improvement Priority as well as the

corresponding pathway to improvement described in the performance levels of the selected indicator(s).

The IEQ™ provides a new framework that recognizes and supports the journey of continuous improvement. An

institution's IEQ™ is the starting point for continuous improvement. Subsequent actions for improvement and

evidence that these have had a positive impact will raise the institution's IEQ™ score.

Benchmark DataThroughout this report, AdvancED provides benchmark data for each indicator and for each component of the

evaluative criteria. These benchmark data represent the overall averages across the entire AdvancED Network

for your institution type. Thus, the AdvancED Network average provides an extraordinary opportunity for

institutions to understand their context on a global scale rather than simply compared to a state, region, or

country.

It is important to understand that the AdvancED Network averages are provided primarily to serve as a tool for

continuous improvement and not as a measure of quality in and of itself. Benchmark data, when wisely

employed, have a unique capacity to help institutions identify and leverage their strengths and areas of

improvement to significantly impact student learning.

Powerful PracticesA key to continuous improvement is the institution's ability to learn from and build upon its most effective and

impactful practices. Such practices serve as critical leverage points necessary to guide, support and ensure

continuous improvement. A hallmark of the accreditation process is its commitment to identifying with

evidence, the conditions, processes and practices that are having the most significant impact on student

performance and institutional effectiveness. Throughout this report, the External Review Team has captured

and defined Powerful Practices. These noteworthy practices are essential to the institution's effort to continue

its journey of improvement.








Opportunities for ImprovementEvery institution can and must improve no matter what levels of performance it has achieved in its past. During

the process of the review, the External Review Team identified areas of improvement where the institution is

meeting the expectations for accreditation but in the professional judgment of the Team these are

Opportunities for Improvement that should be considered by the institution. Using the criteria described in the

corresponding rubric(s) to the Opportunity for Improvement, the institution can identify what elements of

practice must be addressed to guide the improvement.

Improvement PrioritiesThe expectations for accreditation are clearly defined in a series of the rubric-based AdvancED Standards,

indicators and evaluative criteria focused on the impact of teaching and learning on student performance, the

capacity of the institution to be guided by effective leadership, and the allocation and use of resources to

support student learning. As such, the External Review Team reviewed, analyzed and deliberated over

significant bodies of evidence provided by the institution and gathered by the Team during the process. In the

professional judgment of the Team as well as the results of the diagnostic process, the Team defined, with

rationale, Improvement Priorities. The priorities must be addressed in a timely manner by the institution to

retain and improve their accreditation performance as represented by the IEQ™. Improvement Priorities serve

as the basis for the follow-up and monitoring process that will begin upon conclusion of the External Review.

The institution must complete and submit an Accreditation Progress Report within two years of the External

Review. The report must include actions taken by the institution to address the Improvement Priorities along

with the corresponding evidence and results. The IEQ™ will be recalculated by AdvancED upon review of the

evidence and results associated with the Improvement Priorities.

The ReviewThe AdvancED 5-person External Review Team assigned to the Brookings School District (BSD) arrived onsite

Sunday, 30 November, and conducted the oral/exit report in the district's auditorium to approximately 100+

BSD staff/administration at 2:45 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 December.

Prior to 30 November the Lead Evaluator made numerous phone and email contacts with team members to

ensure that all involved were completely understanding of the process and fully prepared for the visit (i.e. able

to access the Workspace, eleot certified, able to understand and use the workbook, etc.). Each team member

was also surveyed, as per the official welcome letter, to determine strengths and weaknesses, and therefore

assignments. Most importantly, the Lead Evaluator was in continual and frequent contact with the district's

primary contact person and the BSD's superintendent to also ensure that all would be ready and that there

would be no misunderstandings regarding such important issues/events such as: needed evidence, the often

edited visit schedule, system-wide presentations, interviews, classroom observations, etc. All of this pre-visit

preparation culminated in a smoothly run External Review Team visit that began with a Sunday evening dinner

followed by the Superintendent's Overview.

All visiting team members had access to the system-wide accreditation report and the individual building (5)








reports prior to arriving onsite. The first team work session, 30 November at 4:30 p.m., included in-person

introductions and general discussions including team member comments regarding their first impressions of all

accreditation reports. Later that evening, after dinner with eight district personnel and the Superintendent's

Overview, the team reconvened its work session until approximately 9:30 p.m. This session was devoted to

processing the evening's information as presented by the superintendent, and confirming the next day's

agenda.

The first full day of the visit, Monday, 1 December, was devoted to hearing presentations from and having

discussions with system-wide personnel. The superintendent was available for follow-up discussions and all

building principals with their leadership teams, as well as system-wide administration (curriculum director,

special education director), were also available to present information on and discuss major issues including

the stakeholder feedback and student performance data documents.

On the afternoon of Monday, 1 December, the visiting team divided itself with three members visiting Hillcrest

Elementary School while two members visited Medary Elementary School. On Tuesday morning, 2 December,

the entire visiting team visited Brookings High School. During the afternoon of Tuesday, 2 December, the

team divided again with three members visiting Camelot Intermediate School and two members visiting

Mickelson Middle School. By the conclusion of all site visits 45 eleot classroom observations were completed.

Brookings School District was thoroughly prepared for the External Review Team's visit. All accreditation

reports (a system-wide report and 5 building reports) were completed in a thorough manner and submitted in a

timely fashion. Visiting team members reviewed all reports prior to arriving on site and were most impressed

with what was eventually confirmed to be an honest and forthright attempt to accurately portray the current

reality of the Brookings School District and its individual schools. Ultimately, the External Review Team's

report, in many regards affirmed what the Brookings School District said about itself.

In the days and weeks leading up to the visit the team's Lead Evaluator and the BSD primary contact

exchanged many emails and had numerous phone conversations. As previously mentioned, this open line of

communication ensured that BSD was fully prepared to receive the External Review Team. This preparation

included ensuring that all stakeholders, including parents and students, not only participated in the requisite

surveys, but also knew when the team would be arriving and what was the purpose of the visit. Upon arrival

on site each team member received a flash drive which contained pertinent district and building evidence. The

district's primary contact was always available to assist in understanding the evidence provided and to provide

additional evidence when and if needed.

Interviews in all buildings with all staff members revealed a very professional commitment to the process

including anecdotal comments praising the self-assessment, the indicators, the ratings, and most importantly,

the discussions that developed around them. All personnel expressed an understanding of and hope that this

process, and the visiting team report to follow, will ensure that the BSD continues on the path of continuous

improvement.








Stakeholders were interviewed by members of the External Review Team to gain their perspectives on topics

relevant to the institution's effectiveness and student performance. The feedback gained through the

stakeholder interviews was considered with other evidences and data to support the findings of the External

Review. The following chart depicts the numbers of persons interviewed representative of various stakeholder

groups.

Stakeholder Interviewed Number

Superintendents 1

Board Members 4

Administrators 11

Instructional Staff 97

Support Staff 8

Students 37

Parents/Community/Business Leaders 23

Total 181








ResultsTeaching and Learning ImpactThe impact of teaching and learning on student achievement is the primary expectation of every institution.

The relationship between teacher and learner must be productive and effective for student success. The

impact of teaching and learning includes an analysis of student performance results, instructional quality,

learner and family engagement, support services for student learning, curriculum quality and efficacy, and

college and career readiness data. These are all key indicators of an institution's impact on teaching and

learning.

A high-quality and effective educational system has services, practices, and curriculum that ensure teacher

effectiveness. Research has shown that an effective teacher is a key factor for learners to achieve their highest

potential and be prepared for a successful future. The positive influence an effective educator has on learning

is a combination of "student motivation, parental involvement" and the "quality of leadership" (Ding & Sherman,

2006). Research also suggests that quality educators must have a variety of quantifiable and intangible

characteristics that include strong communication skills, knowledge of content, and knowledge of how to teach

the content. The institution's curriculum and instructional program should develop learners' skills that lead them

to think about the world in complex ways (Conley, 2007) and prepare them to have knowledge that extends

beyond the academic areas. In order to achieve these goals, teachers must have pedagogical skills as well as

content knowledge (Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voxx, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U.,

Krauss, S., Nuebrand, M., & Tsai, Y., 2010). The acquisition and refinement of teachers' pedagogical skills

occur most effectively through collaboration and professional development. These are a "necessary approach

to improving teacher quality" (Colbert, J., Brown, R., Choi, S., & Thomas, S., 2008). According to Marks, Louis,

and Printy (2002), staff members who engage in "active organizational learning also have higher achieving

students in contrast to those that do not." Likewise, a study conducted by Horng, Klasik, and Loeb (2010),

concluded that leadership in effective institutions "supports teachers by creating collaborative work

environments." Institutional leaders have a responsibility to provide experiences, resources, and time for

educators to engage in meaningful professional learning that promotes student learning and educator quality.

AdvancED has found that a successful institution implements a curriculum based on clear and measurable

expectations for student learning. The curriculum provides opportunities for all students to acquire requisite

knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Teachers use proven instructional practices that actively engage students in

the learning process. Teachers provide opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills to real

world situations. Teachers give students feedback to improve their performance.

Institutions with strong improvement processes move beyond anxiety about the current reality and focus on

priorities and initiatives for the future. Using results, i.e., data and other information, to guide continuous

improvement is key to an institution's success. A study conducted by Datnow, Park, and Wohlstetter (2007)

from the Center on Educational Governance at the University of Southern California indicated that data can

shed light on existing areas of strength and weakness and also guide improvement strategies in a systematic

and strategic manner (Dembosky, J., Pane, J., Barney, H., & Christina, R., 2005). The study also identified six










key strategies that performance-driven systems use: (1) building a foundation for data-driven decision making,

(2) establishing a culture of data use and continuous improvement, (3) investing in an information management

system, (4) selecting the right data, (5) building institutional capacity for data-driven decision making, and (6)

analyzing and acting on data to improve performance. Other research studies, though largely without

comparison groups, suggested that data-driven decision-making has the potential to increase student

performance (Alwin, 2002; Doyle, 2003; Lafee, 2002; McIntire, 2002).

Through ongoing evaluation of educational institutions, AdvancED has found that a successful institution uses

a comprehensive assessment system based on clearly defined performance measures. The system is used to

assess student performance on expectations for student learning, evaluate the effectiveness of curriculum and

instruction, and determine strategies to improve student performance. The institution implements a

collaborative and ongoing process for improvement that aligns the functions of the school with the expectations

for student learning. Improvement efforts are sustained, and the institution demonstrates progress in improving

student performance and institution effectiveness.

Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for LearningThe system's curriculum, instructional design, and assessment practices guide and ensure teacher

effectiveness and student learning across all grades and courses.

Indicator Description Review TeamScore

AdvancEDNetworkAverage

3.1 The system's curriculum provides equitable and challenginglearning experiences that ensure all students have sufficientopportunities to develop learning, thinking, and life skills thatlead to success at the next level.

2.80 2.69

3.2 Curriculum, instruction, and assessment throughout the systemare monitored and adjusted systematically in response to datafrom multiple assessments of student learning and anexamination of professional practice.

2.00 2.55

3.3 Teachers throughout the district engage students in theirlearning through instructional strategies that ensureachievement of learning expectations.

2.60 2.54

3.4 System and school leaders monitor and support theimprovement of instructional practices of teachers to ensurestudent success.

2.00 2.70

3.5 The system operates as a collaborative learning organizationthrough structures that support improved instruction and studentlearning at all levels.

2.80 2.57

3.6 Teachers implement the system's instructional process insupport of student learning.

3.00 2.48

3.7 Mentoring, coaching, and induction programs supportinstructional improvement consistent with the system's valuesand beliefs about teaching and learning.

1.00 2.67










Standard 5 - Using Results for Continuous ImprovementThe system implements a comprehensive assessment system that generates a range of data about student

learning and system effectiveness and uses the results to guide continuous improvement.

Student Performance DiagnosticThe quality of assessments used to measure student learning, assurance that assessments are administered

with procedural fidelity and appropriate accommodations, assessment results that reflect the quality of



3.8 The system and all of its schools engage families in meaningfulways in their children's education and keep them informed oftheir children's learning progress.

3.00 2.97

3.9 The system designs and evaluates structures in all schoolswhereby each student is well known by at least one adultadvocate in the student's school who supports that student'seducational experience.

3.00 2.46

3.10 Grading and reporting are based on clearly defined criteria thatrepresent the attainment of content knowledge and skills andare consistent across grade levels and courses.

2.00 2.57

3.11 All staff members participate in a continuous program ofprofessional learning.

2.00 2.60

3.12 The system and its schools provide and coordinate learningsupport services to meet the unique learning needs of students.

3.00 2.63



5.1 The system establishes and maintains a clearly defined andcomprehensive student assessment system.

2.00 2.67

5.2 Professional and support staff continuously collect, analyze andapply learning from a range of data sources, includingcomparison and trend data about student learning, instruction,program evaluation, and organizational conditions that supportlearning.

2.00 2.48

5.3 Throughout the system professional and support staff aretrained in the interpretation and use of data.

1.00 2.14

5.4 The school system engages in a continuous process todetermine verifiable improvement in student learning, includingreadiness for and success at the next level.

2.00 2.45

5.5 System and school leaders monitor and communicatecomprehensive information about student learning, schoolperformance, and the achievement of system and schoolimprovement goals to stakeholders.

2.40 2.85










learning, and closing gaps in achievement among subpopulations of students are all important indicators for

evaluating overall student performance.

Evaluative Criteria Review TeamScore

AdvancED NetworkAverage

Assessment Quality 2.00

Test Administration 4.00 3.62

Equity of Learning 3.20 2.52

Quality of Learning 3.00 3.06










Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot™)Every learner should have access to an effective learning environment in which she/he has multiple

opportunities to be successful. The Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot™) measures the

extent to which learners are in an environment that is equitable, supportive, and well-managed. An

environment where high expectations are the norm and active learning takes place. It measures whether

learners' progress is monitored and feedback is provided and the extent to which technology is leveraged for

learning.

Observations of classrooms or other learning venues are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes per

observation. Every member of the External Review Team is required to be trained and pass a certification

exam that establishes inter-rater reliability. Team members conduct multiple observations during the review

process and provide ratings on 30 items based on a four-point scale (4=very evident; 3=evident; 2=somewhat

evident; and 1=not observed). The following provides the aggregate average score across multiple

observations for each of the seven learning environments included in eleot™ as well as benchmark results

across the AdvancED Network.

External Review Team members visited all five schools in the Brookings School District (BSD) and observed a

total of 45 classrooms including at least one classroom in each grade level. While 6 of the 7 domain ratings

(Domains A, B, C, D, F and G) were close to but below the AEN average ratings, Domain E, Progress

Monitoring and Feedback Environment, was rated above the AEN average (2.80 v 2.76). Domain G, Digital

Learning Environment, was rated the lowest overall and the lowest overall in relation to its corresponding AEN

eleot™ Results

Review Network

A. E

quita

ble

Lear

ning

B. H

igh

Expe

ctat

ions

C. S

uppo

rtive

Lea

rnin

g

D. A

ctiv

e Le

arni

ng

E. P

rogr

ess

Mon

itorin

g an

d

Feed

back

F. W

ell-M

anag

ed L

earn

ing

G. D

igita

l Lea

rnin

g

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Per

form

ance

Lev

els

2.53 2.68 2.78 2.81 2.95 3.052.76

2.95 2.80 2.762.96 3.11

1.491.88










Domain 7 (1.49 v 1.88). Domain B, Active Learning Environment, was rated the second lowest overall and,

more importantly, the second lowest in relation to its corresponding AEN Domain B (2.76 v 2.95). These

numerical values are very consistent with the overall visiting team observations of classrooms and interviews

with classroom teachers.

All classroom observations revealed that BSD students are well behaved and appear to be most comfortable

interacting with their teachers. These same observations also revealed that BSD teachers are well prepared

and quite willing to work with students on their understanding of the classroom lessons. Teachers expressed

clear expectations and in some cases not only asked questions, but follow-up questions as well. The ratings

for domains A, B, C, E, and F confirm these observations. Accordingly, and as previously noted, all five of the

ratings for these domains are either very close to their corresponding AEN rating or above it. However, many

of the classes observed revealed a preponderance of traditional instruction including little integration of

technology into the curriculum. The ratings for Domain D (Active Learning Environment) and G (Digital

Learning Environment) reflect these observations and helped inform the team's deliberations regarding

Standards 3 and 5, and in particular, Indicators 3.3, 3.4, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. Students, while quiet and attentive,

were often not involved, "engaged", in the lesson, neither being asked for or volunteering comments on the

material being discussed. Observations throughout the grade levels also revealed a lack of opportunities for

students to collaborate with each other and/or to use classroom technology in any original or authentic way.

Forty five eleot classroom observations reveal good and professional classroom instruction system-wide. But,

these same observations, along with a review of documents and stakeholder interviews, also reveal a need for

comprehensive professional development planning that includes opportunities for classroom teachers to

engage in discussions regarding the implications of student performance data. Specifically, a review of

system-wide accreditation reports reveals an often repeated belief that there is a need to focus on the

development of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) because "...we do not have Professional learning

communities..." that would provide the necessary arena for professional discussions. The introduction and

availability of PLCs will promote discussions regarding student engagement and the effective and efficient

integration of technology into the K-12 curriculum.










eleot™ Data Summary

A. Equitable Learning %

Item Average Description

Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.22 Has differentiated learning opportunitiesand activities that meet her/his needs

8.89% 35.56% 24.44% 31.11%

2. 3.29 Has equal access to classroomdiscussions, activities, resources,technology, and support

40.00% 51.11% 6.67% 2.22%

3. 2.98 Knows that rules and consequences arefair, clear, and consistently applied

31.11% 40.00% 24.44% 4.44%

4. 1.62 Has ongoing opportunities to learnabout their own and other'sbackgrounds/cultures/differences

11.11% 6.67% 15.56% 66.67%

Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 2.53

B. High Expectations %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.96 Knows and strives to meet the highexpectations established by the teacher

31.11% 37.78% 26.67% 4.44%

2. 3.04 Is tasked with activities and learning thatare challenging but attainable

26.67% 51.11% 22.22% 0.00%

3. 2.53 Is provided exemplars of high qualitywork

13.33% 40.00% 33.33% 13.33%

4. 2.91 Is engaged in rigorous coursework,discussions, and/or tasks

28.89% 42.22% 20.00% 8.89%

5. 2.47 Is asked and responds to questions thatrequire higher order thinking (e.g.,applying, evaluating, synthesizing)

17.78% 35.56% 22.22% 24.44%











C. Supportive Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.07 Demonstrates or expresses thatlearning experiences are positive

31.11% 48.89% 15.56% 4.44%

2. 3.20 Demonstrates positive attitude about theclassroom and learning

35.56% 51.11% 11.11% 2.22%

3. 2.96 Takes risks in learning (without fear ofnegative feedback)

33.33% 35.56% 24.44% 6.67%

4. 3.04 Is provided support and assistance tounderstand content and accomplishtasks

40.00% 33.33% 17.78% 8.89%

5. 2.47 Is provided additional/alternativeinstruction and feedback at theappropriate level of challenge for her/hisneeds

17.78% 31.11% 31.11% 20.00%


D. Active Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.96 Has several opportunities to engage indiscussions with teacher and otherstudents

35.56% 33.33% 22.22% 8.89%

2. 2.33 Makes connections from content to real-life experiences

26.67% 15.56% 22.22% 35.56%

3. 3.00 Is actively engaged in the learningactivities

28.89% 44.44% 24.44% 2.22%











E. Progress Monitoring and Feedback %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.64 Is asked and/or quizzed about individualprogress/learning

20.00% 33.33% 37.78% 8.89%

2. 2.78 Responds to teacher feedback toimprove understanding

17.78% 51.11% 22.22% 8.89%

3. 3.00 Demonstrates or verbalizesunderstanding of the lesson/content

28.89% 48.89% 15.56% 6.67%

4. 2.73 Understands how her/his work isassessed

17.78% 46.67% 26.67% 8.89%

5. 2.84 Has opportunities to revise/improvework based on feedback

22.22% 53.33% 11.11% 13.33%


F. Well-Managed Learning %

Item Average DescriptionV

ery

Evi

den

t

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.29 Speaks and interacts respectfully withteacher(s) and peers

44.44% 42.22% 11.11% 2.22%

2. 3.31 Follows classroom rules and works wellwith others

42.22% 46.67% 11.11% 0.00%

3. 2.91 Transitions smoothly and efficiently toactivities

35.56% 35.56% 13.33% 15.56%

4. 2.11 Collaborates with other students duringstudent-centered activities

17.78% 20.00% 17.78% 44.44%

5. 3.20 Knows classroom routines, behavioralexpectations and consequences

37.78% 44.44% 17.78% 0.00%











FindingsImprovement PriorityDevelop and implement a system wide, comprehensive professional development plan to train teachers in the

process of collecting, analyzing, and using student performance data to inform classroom instruction and

curriculum review.

(Indicator 3.11, Indicator 5.2, Indicator 5.3)

Evidence and Rationale

A review of the system's and building's accreditation reports, interviews with stakeholders, and as evidenced

by the 45 eleot observations indicate the need to provide professional training for the faculty and staff in

analyzing, interpreting, and using student performance data. In fact, the system's accreditation report self-

assessed 5.3 at a Level 1. The focus on data driven decision-making has increased in the BSD, but interviews

reveal that many teachers feel they have not been properly trained to effectively implement changes in their

instruction based on their interpretation of student performance data. Nor are there currently opportunities for

teachers system-wide to engage in professional discussions (PLCs) regarding enhancing student engagement

and verifying student performance and learning.

A review/revision of the current system-wide and aligned building professional development plans that includes

a staff members' "needs assessment" will greatly help BSD develop and implement a comprehensive multi-

faceted professional development that promotes data driven decision-making.

Improvement PriorityDevelop and implement a system wide, formalized, comprehensive process to utilize student assessment data

to verify student learning and adjust curriculum and instruction.

G. Digital Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 1.67 Uses digital tools/technology to gather,evaluate, and/or use information forlearning

8.89% 17.78% 4.44% 68.89%

2. 1.42 Uses digital tools/technology to conductresearch, solve problems, and/or createoriginal works for learning

8.89% 4.44% 6.67% 80.00%

3. 1.38 Uses digital tools/technology tocommunicate and work collaborativelyfor learning

8.89% 2.22% 6.67% 82.22%











(Indicator 3.2, Indicator 5.1, Indicator 5.4)


A review of documents, reports, and interviews with stakeholders reveal the need for the development and

implementation of a system-wide method for student performance data collection. This need is spoken to

directly in the system's self-assessment: "We don't have a formalized plan to use data", "We are currently

struggling with the flux of data sources at the state level", "Lack of data retreats." This need is heightened as

the state is transitioning from one type of testing to another and therefore has not recently provided BSD with

the usual student performance data used to verify student learning. While some teachers in each building are

collecting some student performance data and making needed adjustments to meet their students’ needs,

there is currently no embedded process to ensure that this important professional task is taking place system-

wide.

Developing a system-wide process will assist teachers as they review and revise their classroom strategies to

ensure student engagement.

Improvement PriorityDevelop, implement and monitor a formalized system-wide process for inducting, mentoring, coaching and

retaining staff.

(Indicator 3.7)


A review of accreditation reports and interviews across the system disclosed that there is no formalized

process to teacher induction, mentoring, coaching and retaining of staff. Interviews with first year teachers as

well as experienced teachers new to the system or transferring from one building to another all indicate that

there is only minimal formal and informal support. Data from Central Office indicate that the past two years

have had 30-40 employees either new to the system or to their school assignment.

Although recruitment and retention does not currently appear to be an issue, the retention of employees is

always better ensured when an organization provides a formal induction, mentoring, and coaching process that

is supported by informal collegiality.

Improvement PriorityDevelop, implement, and monitor a system-wide plan that ensures the understanding and consistent

application of the new teacher evaluation plan.

(Indicator 2.6, Indicator 3.4)


A review of documents (building and system accreditation reports) and stakeholder interviews reveal a wide

variety of opinions regarding the current teacher evaluation system, whether or not it is consistently applied

and whether or not it is used to develop more effective classroom instruction. One report indicates that a

"...uniform evaluation model needs to be established and consistently implemented across the system," while










still another report indicates that "Our staff evaluation processes are consistently implemented and focus on

improving professional practice and student success." A third opinion states that "...an evaluations schedule

and policies regarding teacher evaluations are in place; however, the time administrators have to devote to

teacher evaluations is a concern."

Brookings School District (BSD), like many others across the state and the country, is doing its best to be in

compliance with their state's laws, regulations and mandates as they appear. Along with meeting these

demands BSD has also adopted the Danielson Model for teacher evaluations. It is currently being

implemented throughout the district, but not to the same degree in each of the five, soon to be six, buildings.

Therefore, understanding how important a consistently applied teacher evaluation system is to classroom

instruction and student performance, there is a real need to focus on developing, implementing, and monitoring

a system-wide plan that ensures the understanding and consistent application of the teacher evaluation plan.

Opportunity For ImprovementDevelop, implement and monitor a system-wide grading and reporting process with defined criteria that is

consistent across grade levels and courses.

(Indicator 3.10)


A review of school accreditation reports and interviews with staff verify and support a need for a system-wide

grading and reporting philosophy and related processes. Interviews with staff members from different buildings

reveal varying degrees of disparity regarding how student performance is graded and reported. Although

some staff indicated an interest in implementing standards-based grading (an example of a grading and

reporting process), this does not appear to be a current initiative of the district.

Adopting and implementing systemic grading and reporting processes will lead to system-wide cohesiveness

and ensure greater stakeholder understanding of and support for their own educational programming.










Leadership CapacityThe capacity of leadership to ensure an institution's progress towards its stated objectives is an essential

element of organizational effectiveness. An institution's leadership capacity includes the fidelity and

commitment to its institutional 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 enact strategies to improve results of student learning.

Purpose and direction are critical to successful institutions. A study conducted in 2010 by the London-based

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) reported that "in addition to improving performance,

the research indicates that having a sense of shared purpose also improves employee engagement" and that

"lack of understanding around purpose can lead to demotivation and emotional detachment, which in turn lead

to a disengaged and dissatisfied workforce."

AdvancED has found through its evaluation of best practices in more than 32,000 institutions around the world

that a successful institution commits to a shared purpose and direction and establishes expectations for

student learning that are aligned with the institutions' vision and supported by internal and external

stakeholders. These expectations serve as the focus for assessing student performance and overall institution

effectiveness.

Governance and leadership are key factors in raising institutional quality. Leaders, both local administrators

and governing boards/authorities, are responsible for ensuring all learners achieve while also managing many

other facets of an institution. Institutions that function effectively do so without tension between the governing

board/authority, administrators, and educators and have established relationships of mutual respect and a

shared vision (Feuerstein & Opfer, 1998). In a meta-analysis of educational institution leadership research,

Leithwood and Sun (2012) found that leaders (school and governing boards/authority) can significantly

"influence school conditions through their achievement of a shared vision and agreed-on goals for the

organization, their high expectations and support of organizational members, and their practices that

strengthen school culture and foster collaboration within the organization." With the increasing demands of

accountability placed on institutional leaders, leaders who empower others need considerable autonomy and

involve their communities to attain continuous improvement goals. Leaders who engage in such practices

experience a greater level of success (Fink & Brayman, 2006). Similarly, governing boards/authorities that

focus on policy-making are more likely to allow institutional leaders the autonomy to make decisions that

impact teachers and students and are less responsive to politicization than boards/authorities that respond to

vocal citizens (Greene, 1992).

AdvancED's experience, gained through evaluation of best practices, has indicated that a successful institution

has leaders who are advocates for the institution's vision and improvement efforts. The leaders provide

direction and allocate resources to implement curricular and co-curricular programs that enable students to

achieve expectations for their learning. Leaders encourage collaboration and shared responsibility for school

improvement among stakeholders. The institution's policies, procedures, and organizational conditions ensure

equity of learning opportunities and support for innovation.










Standard 1 - Purpose and DirectionThe system maintains and communicates at all levels of the organization a purpose and direction for

continuous improvement that commit to high expectations for learning as well as shared values and beliefs

about teaching and learning.

Standard 2 - Governance and LeadershipThe system operates under governance and leadership that promote and support student performance and

system effectiveness.



1.1 The system engages in a systematic, inclusive, andcomprehensive process to review, revise, and communicate asystem-wide purpose for student success.

2.60 2.67

1.2 The system ensures that each school engages in a systematic,inclusive, and comprehensive process to review, revise, andcommunicate a school purpose for student success.

2.00 2.69

1.3 The school leadership and staff at all levels of the systemcommit to a culture that is based on shared values and beliefsabout teaching and learning and supports challenging, equitableeducational programs and learning experiences for all studentsthat include achievement of learning, thinking, and life skills.

2.80 2.87

1.4 Leadership at all levels of the system implement a continuousimprovement process that provides clear direction for improvingconditions that support student learning.

2.00 2.64



2.1 The governing body establishes policies and supports practicesthat ensure effective administration of the system and itsschools.

3.00 2.96

2.2 The governing body operates responsibly and functionseffectively.

2.00 2.99

2.3 The governing body ensures that the leadership at all levels hasthe autonomy to meet goals for achievement and instruction andto manage day-to-day operations effectively.

1.80 3.20

2.4 Leadership and staff at all levels of the system foster a cultureconsistent with the system's purpose and direction.

3.00 3.00

2.5 Leadership engages stakeholders effectively in support of thesystem's purpose and direction.

2.00 2.69










Stakeholder Feedback DiagnosticStakeholder Feedback is the third of three primary areas of evaluation in AdvancED's Performance

Accreditation model. The AdvancED surveys (student, parent, and teacher) are directly correlated to the

AdvancED Standards and indicators. They provide not only direct information about stakeholder satisfaction

but also become a source of data for triangulation by the External Review Team as it evaluates indicators.

Institutions are asked to collect and analyze stakeholder feedback data, then submit the data and the analyses

to the External Review Team for review. The External Review Team evaluates the quality of the administration

of the surveys by institution, survey results, and the degree to which the institution analyzed and acted on the

results.

FindingsImprovement PriorityDevelop, implement, and monitor a system-wide plan that ensures the understanding and consistent




A review of documents (building and system accreditation reports) and stakeholder interviews reveal a wide

variety of opinions regarding the current teacher evaluation system, whether or not it is consistently applied

and whether or not it is used to develop more effective classroom instruction. One report indicates that a

"...uniform evaluation model needs to be established and consistently implemented across the system," while

still another report indicates that "Our staff evaluation processes are consistently implemented and focus on

improving professional practice and student success." A third opinion states that "...an evaluations schedule

and policies regarding teacher evaluations are in place; however, the time administrators have to devote to

teacher evaluations is a concern."

Brookings School District (BSD), like many others across the state and the country, is doing its best to be in



2.6 Leadership and staff supervision and evaluation processesresult in improved professional practice in all areas of thesystem and improved student success.

2.00 2.78

Evaluative Criteria Review TeamScore


Questionnaire Administration 4.00 3.43

Stakeholder Feedback Results and Analysis 3.00 3.12










compliance with their state's laws, regulations and mandates as they appear. Along with meeting these

demands BSD has also adopted the Danielson Model for teacher evaluations. It is currently being

implemented throughout the district, but not to the same degree in each of the five, soon to be six, buildings.

Therefore, understanding how important a consistently applied teacher evaluation system is to classroom

instruction and student performance, there is a real need to focus on developing, implementing, and monitoring

a system-wide plan that ensures the understanding and consistent application of the teacher evaluation plan.

Powerful PracticeThe system leadership supports and cultivates a culture of shared values and equitable learning experiences

consistent with the system’s purpose and mission.



All stakeholder group interviews (leadership, teachers, students and parents) revealed that the system

supports and provides extra-curricular opportunities that meet the needs of all students and provide an

equitable opportunity for all to participate. There is a notable strong participation and pride in the Fine Arts.

After school educational programming provides assistance for at risk students and also those who would

benefit from enrichment. It was noted that at the K-3 level there is a strong interest in reinstating gifted

education and support. Additionally, and perhaps most notably, all system-wide stakeholder interviews

revealed a strong community-wide embracing of the values and beliefs consistent with the Brookings School

District established purpose and mission. This strong system-wide support will help ensure forward the

continual development, implementation and support for equitable and challenging learning opportunities for all

BSD students.










Resource UtilizationThe use and distribution of resources must be aligned and supportive of the needs of an institution and the

students served. Institutions must ensure that resources are aligned with the stated mission and are distributed

equitably so that the needs of students are adequately and effectively addressed. The utilization of resources

includes an examination of the allocation and use of resources, the equity of resource distribution to need, the

ability of the institution to ensure appropriate levels of funding and sustainability of resources, as well as

evidence of long-range capital and resource planning effectiveness.

Institutions, regardless of their size, need access to sufficient resources and systems of support to be able to

engage in sustained and meaningful efforts that result in a continuous improvement cycle. Indeed, a study

conducted by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (Pan, D., Rudo, Z., Schneider, C., & Smith-

Hansen, L., 2003) "demonstrated a strong relationship between resources and student success... both the

level of resources and their explicit allocation seem to affect educational outcomes."

AdvancED has found through its own evaluation of best practices in the more than 32,000 institutions in the

AdvancED Network that a successful institution has sufficient human, material, and fiscal resources to

implement a curriculum that enables students to achieve expectations for student learning, meets special

needs, and complies with applicable regulations. The institution employs and allocates staff members who are

well qualified for their assignments. The institution provides a safe learning environment for students and staff.

The institution provides ongoing learning opportunities for all staff members to improve their effectiveness and

ensures compliance with applicable governmental regulations.

Standard 4 - Resources and Support SystemsThe system has resources and provides services in all schools that support its purpose and direction to ensure

success for all students.



4.1 The system engages in a systematic process to recruit, employ,and retain a sufficient number of qualified professional andsupport staff to fulfill their roles and responsibilities and supportthe purpose and direction of the system, individual schools, andeducational programs.

2.00 2.98

4.2 Instructional time, material resources, and fiscal resources aresufficient to support the purpose and direction of the system,individual schools, educational programs, and systemoperations.

3.00 2.98

4.3 The system maintains facilities, services, and equipment toprovide a safe, clean, and healthy environment for all studentsand staff.

3.00 3.05

4.4 The system demonstrates strategic resource management thatincludes long-range planning in support of the purpose anddirection of the system.

3.00 2.67










FindingsOpportunity For ImprovementUtilize a system-wide technology team to create, implement, and regularly evaluate a comprehensive district

technology plan.



A review of system documents and interviews with stakeholders revealed that while there seems to be a

relatively sound technology infrastructure with supporting equipment in place, there is a lack of a

comprehensive, system-wide technology plan. To fully leverage 21st century technology to support learning

and student performance the system must develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the integration of

technology into the curriculum. Proactive system-wide technology plans are aligned with the system's mission

and vision and based upon stakeholder input.

These plans ensure that technology supports and strengthens existing curricula and promotes meaningful,

engaging learning for all students.

Powerful PracticeThe district constructs and maintains educationally efficient buildings and provides appropriate support

services, including educational equipment and safe, clean facilities, for the school system stakeholders.

(Indicator 4.3)


Facility tours, classroom observations, and stakeholder interviews revealed that there is a commitment to the

construction and maintenance of quality school facilities and learning environments. Current and nearly

completed school facilities confirm that the governing body and system-wide leadership have a vision to keep

up with projected student growth. The team also observed that each school building entered had a secure



4.5 The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates theeffectiveness of information resources and related personnel tosupport educational programs throughout the system.

2.00 2.82

4.6 The system provides a technology infrastructure and equipmentto support the system's teaching, learning, and operationalneeds.

2.60 2.64

4.7 The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates theeffectiveness of support systems to meet the physical, social,and emotional needs of the student population being served.

2.60 2.65

4.8 The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates theeffectiveness of services that support the counseling,assessment, referral, educational, and career planning needs ofall students.

3.00 2.64










entrance and visitor check-in procedure to keep students and staff safe. It was also clear that each building

was clean and well maintained. The emergency packets/crisis manuals located in classrooms are a great

resource to each staff member in the case of an emergency. Interviews with both teachers and staff, as well

as the viewing of various documents, revealed that support programs such as Special Education and the

Encore classes do a great job of providing additional support to students and provide a great supplement to the

core curriculum.










ConclusionBrookings School District (BSD), a community of approximately 23,000 residents, is located along the I-29

corridor and is home to South Dakota State University. Currently, there is a system-wide K-12 enrollment of

3,300 students supported by a full time staff of 410 including 236 instructional and administrative staff. There is

a Superintendent, a Business Manager, a Director of Special Education, and a Director of Instruction. BSD

has two, soon to be three, elementary schools, an intermediate school, a middle school, and a high school. All

schools, even those approximately 45 years old, are well maintained and fully functioning. It is clear that the

BSD governing body and all other system-wide stakeholder groups understand the importance of providing an

inviting educational environment for staff and students alike. In fact, high school student surveys reveal that

they "…felt safe at Brookings High school and that the atmosphere or environment is what they "liked" best

about our building…"

BSD has developed and lives by a strong mission statement that is supported by a strong set of beliefs. The

mission statement and beliefs were developed as a result of school personnel, parent, and community

stakeholder input. It is being reviewed as a part of the current BSD strategic planning process.

BSD prides itself on providing a comprehensive and multi-faceted educational program for all of its students,

including those in need of special services. The system's Accreditation Report indicates that "…we provide

junior kindergarten, customized and project based learning, Project Lead the Way, STEM courses, AP

Courses, dual credit, a variety of CTE courses, and online courses. We also have an outstanding special

education program with behavior specialists in each building, plus credit recovery options, and an alternative

school (The South Dakota "Little Red Schoolhouse" award for the Alternative Learning Center)." A review of

documents, classroom observations, and stakeholder interviews verified this statement with the one caveat

that project based learning, while offered and utilized by some teachers in some buildings, is not embedded

system-wide.

BSD has a long and justifiably proud tradition of educational excellence. Its' most recent academic

achievements include the highest ACT scores in South Dakota (approximately 80% of eligible BSD students

take the exam), 9 National Merit Semi-Finalists out of 40 from the entire state, and a Blue Ribbon designated

school. These are significant achievements and clearly indicate that BSD has an abundance of student and

professional talent. As previously mentioned, a reoccurring theme throughout the visit was the willingness of

students to seek out teachers for academic support and correspondingly, the willingness of teachers

throughout the system to be available to help and support their BSD students. Classroom observations and

interviews with students and parents confirmed these team observations and perceptions. Students were

observed staying after classes to have questions answered and information clarified, and many teachers were

observed moving throughout their classrooms to talk to individual students. However, there were very few

classroom observations of students actively engaged in student collaboration or with any type of technology.

Specifically, while teachers were observed delivering organized lesson plans, very few of these plans included

activities designed to engage students beyond the asking and answering of a question. A related theme that

also emerged is that while there is no formal system-wide embedded process to ensure that every BSD

student is known well by an adult in his/her school, all students interviewed expressed the belief that they had












a number of adults (teachers, counselors, administrators) in their respective buildings to seek and confide in

when necessary.

Interviews with staff and administration in each building reveal that there is a system-wide understanding of the

importance of having a comprehensive professional development plan. Additionally, interviews also reveal that

some BSD staff members are involved in the gathering, analyzing, and using student performance data to

inform classroom instruction and curriculum review. However, interviews and a review of accreditation reports

also reveal that system-wide personnel believe there is much work to be done including the need to "…design

a professional learning community template that best fits our staff and the needs of our students", "…(develop)

a systematic response to data from multiple assessments…," and while "…most staff members participate in a

program of professional learning that is aligned with the school purpose and direction…there is no formal

professional development program…" Specifically, staff member interviews reveal a need for a formal,

system-wide, monitored process to train BSD teachers in data driven decision making including the use of

multiple data points. This is of particular importance in light of the current lack of available state gathered and

distributed student performance data as the state transitions from Dakota STEP to Smarter Balanced

assessments. Therefore, visiting team members affirm these system-wide self-assessments and believe that

developing a comprehensive professional development plan will ensure that the good work that is currently

taking place among some staff in some buildings will be embedded system-wide and therefore help a

successful school system become even better.

BSD, like many school systems throughout the state and country, is grappling with either enhanced or

completely new teacher evaluation systems. Interviews with building personnel reveal that a new teacher

evaluation system based on the Danielson model is currently being introduced throughout the system. The

visiting team agrees with one building's accreditation report as it states that "…as we continue to transition to

the new "teacher effectiveness" model our staff will need extended professional development on Student

Learning Objects (SLO's), how to implement them, and evaluate how they affect the instruction."

The current BSD budget is fiscally sound and includes set aside monies for necessary facilities enhancements.

But, this does not mean that there is enough money to speak to all of the system's needs. As is the case with

the vast majority of public school systems nationwide, there never is enough money. Therefore, the challenge

is to develop and utilize comprehensive and pertinent needs assessment instruments to identify stakeholder

needs and concerns. This type of formalized process will lead to the most efficient use of limited resources.

A review of the building accreditation reports, the system accreditation report and stakeholder interviews reveal

an almost unanimous belief that there is a need to establish a professional development plan/program that is

based on system-wide and/or building level needs as opposed to current educational trends. Interviews

confirm that these building and system-wide needs also include a desire for teacher training regarding the new

evaluation system. Also, as previously established, while there are teachers committed to data driven decision

making, there does not appear to be an embedded, system-wide commitment to the concept, to the needed

training, or to a formal process. Interviews with staff and administration concede that having three different

Directors of Instruction over the past five years has had an adverse affect on the system's ability to establish












-

-

-

-

and commit to important professional development and curriculum review. Additionally, interviews reveal a

system-wide optimism because the current director has been able to bring stability to the position and its

important responsibilities. The challenge for BSD is to leverage these stakeholder beliefs and desires into

action by formalizing and broadening what is happening in some buildings to all buildings system-wide.

Finally, interviews also reveal a type of system-wide planning paralysis brought about by state level uncertainty

(i.e. funding, regulations, testing, etc.) and BSD's decision to simultaneously commit to the AdvancED process

as well as strategic planning. Accordingly, there is a system-wide understanding of the critical need to identify

commonalities from these processes in order to develop and implement a coherent long-range plan.

The External Review Team has developed four Improvement Priorities, all of which emphasize a common

theme - develop and implement system-wide processes. As noted earlier, the visiting team was impressed

with the forthrightness of all of the self-assessments and has essentially confirmed what BSD has said about

itself - that there are many good, professional best practices being utilized by professional staff, to one degree

or another, throughout the schools in the system. However, and as accurately referred to in the accreditation

reports, there is a lack of developed, implemented, and embedded processes system-wide. The visiting team

believes that by implementing the Improvement Priorities and thereby focusing on developing and

implementing system-wide processes based on building and system-wide needs assessments, BSD will better

position itself to serve all students throughout the system in a more consistent manner.

Improvement PrioritiesThe institution should use the findings from this review to guide the continuous improvement process. The

institution must address the Improvement Priorities listed below:

Develop and implement a system wide, comprehensive professional development plan to train teachers

in the process of collecting, analyzing, and using student performance data to inform classroom

instruction and curriculum review.

Develop and implement a system wide, formalized, comprehensive process to utilize student

assessment data to verify student learning and adjust curriculum and instruction.

Develop, implement and monitor a formalized system-wide process for inducting, mentoring, coaching

and retaining staff.

Develop, implement, and monitor a system-wide plan that ensures the understanding and consistent













Accreditation RecommendationIndex of Education QualityThe Index of Education Quality (IEQ™) provides a holistic measure of overall performance based on a

comprehensive set of indicators and evaluative criteria. A formative tool for improvement, it identifies areas of

success as well as areas in need of focus.

The IEQ™ comprises three domains: 1) the impact of teaching and learning on student performance; 2) the

leadership capacity to govern; and 3) the use of resources and data to support and optimize learning.

The overall and domain scores can range from 100-400. The domain scores are derived from: the AdvancED

Standards and indicators ratings; results of the Analysis of Student Performance; and data from Stakeholder

Feedback Surveys (students, parents, and staff).

The IEQ™ results include information about how the institution is performing compared to expected criteria as

well as to other institutions in the AdvancED Network. The institution should use the information in this report,

including the corresponding performance rubrics, to identify specific areas of improvement.

Consequently, the External Review Team recommends to the AdvancED Accreditation Commission that the

institution earn the distinction of accreditation for a five-year term. AdvancED will review the results of the

External Review to make a final determination including the appropriate next steps for the institution in

response to these findings.

External Review IEQScore


Overall Score 249.27 282.79

Teaching and Learning Impact 241.90 274.14

Leadership Capacity 251.67 296.08

Resource Utilization 265.00 286.32












AddendaIndividual Institution Results (Self-reported)

Other System InstitutionsThe following institutions did not utilize ASSIST to complete the Accreditation Report for this External Review.

Therefore self-reported results are not included as part of this report. Some institutions appearing below may

have been required to submit the Accreditation Report outside of ASSIST.

Institution Name Teaching andLearning Impact

LeadershipCapacity

ResourceUtilization

Overall IEQScore

Brookings High School 233.33 272.73 200.00 238.46

Camelot Intermediate School 238.10 272.73 242.86 248.72

George Mickelson MiddleSchool

257.14 290.91 271.43 269.23

Hillcrest Elementary School 223.81 290.91 257.14 248.72

Medary Elementary School 271.43 290.91 271.43 276.92

Institution Institution

Dakota Prairie Elementary














Team Roster

Member Brief Biography

Mr. Richard Parkin Rich Parkin is the Associate Director for AdvancED's Northeast Region. Richretired from a public school district after 35 years of service as a classroomteacher, assistant principal, principal, and district curriculum specialist. He hasalso been an adjunct professor working with aspiring principals as they pursuetheir certificates and graduate degrees. Rich holds a Bachelors of Science, aMasters of Education and K-12 administrator certifications. Rich becameinvolved in the accreditation process over 35 years ago and has since workedwith schools in all phases of the candidacy and accreditation process. He hasworked with schools in the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Middle East, andthroughout the United States consulting directly with them as they attempt toachieve continuous improvement through the accreditation process. Rich hasworked with public, private, faith based, and corporate schools of all grade levels,including distance learning and supplemental educational organizations.

Mr. Michael W Radke Mike Radke is currently serving his fourth year as the assistant principal forHuron High School in Huron, South Dakota. He is also the Director of Careerand Technical Education and Alternative Education for the Huron School District.Mike earned his bachelors and master's degrees from Northern State Universityand is currently working on his specialist degree through the University of SiouxFalls.

Dr. Drew Moore Drew Moore began his teaching career as an elementary music teacher inShreveport, Louisiana. In 1978 he moved to the Middle Laboratory School atNorthwestern State University adding multiple subjects to his teaching repertoireand began working in accreditation through the Southern Association of Collegesand Schools (SACS) which accredited his school. Professional experiencesinclude public school education, media director at a residential high school forthe gifted in math, science, and performing arts; instructor for the local universityand university laboratory school administrator. Retired after thirty-three years inpublic and higher education, he now chairs and serves as Team Member onExternal Review Teams at the school, district, distance learning, and corporatelevels. Drew also serves on the Louisiana State AdvancED/SACS committeeand the AdvancED Accreditation Commission. Degrees include: Bachelor ofMusic Education, Master’s in Music, Specialist Degree in Public SchoolAdministration and Doctorate in Education Technologies from NorthwesternState University in Louisiana and additional graduate work at Memphis StateUniversity in Tennessee and Louisiana State University- Shreveport.

Mrs. Angie Bickett Angie is currently teaching third grade at Jolley Elementary School in Vermillion,South Dakota. She has been employed by the Vermillion Public School for 17years, and has been an active member on several district committees. Angieholds degrees from Dakota State University in Madison, SD and the University ofSouth Dakota in Vermillion, SD.

Ms. Jean Chrostoski Jean is currently the Superintendent of Goshen County School District inTorrington, WY. She is completing her third year at the district. Jean came toWyoming with 18 years in the superintendency in rural central Illinois, in additionto 10 years as a building principal.Jean is a former Jr.Sr. High School teacher, taught for the correctional system inthe evening, and held duties as special ed director, athletic director, andtransportation director.She holds degrees from Eastern Illinois University, Southern Illinois Universityand Illinois State University with major emphasis in Speech Communication,Journalism, and Educational Administration.














Member Brief Biography

Kirk Easton I am in my first year as the superintendent in the Lennox School District inLennox, SD. My last 12 years where spent as the high school principal andsuperintendent in the Warner School District in Warner, SD. Prior to Warner, Itaught at the Topeka Juvenile Correctional Facility in Topeka, KS for 7 years. Ihave earned degrees at Black Hills State University in Spearfish, SD; WashburnUniversity in Topeka, KS; and the University of Sioux Falls in Sioux Falls, SD.














1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Next StepsReview and discuss the findings from this report with stakeholders.

Ensure that plans are in place to embed and sustain the strengths noted in the Powerful Practices

section to maximize their impact on the institution.

Consider the Opportunities for Improvement identified throughout the report that are provided by the

team in the spirit of continuous improvement and the institution’s commitment to improving its capacity

to improve student learning.

Develop action plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the team. Include methods for

monitoring progress toward addressing the Improvement Priorities.

Use the report to guide and strengthen the institution's efforts to improve student performance and

system effectiveness.

Following the External Review, submit the Accreditation Progress Report detailing progress made

toward addressing the Improvement Priorities. Institutions are required to respond to all Improvement

Priorities. The report will be reviewed at the appropriate state, national, and/or international levels to

monitor and ensure that the system has implemented the necessary actions to address the

Improvement Priorities. The accreditation status will be reviewed and acted upon based on the

responses to the Improvement Priorities and the resulting improvement.

Continue to meet the AdvancED Standards, submit required reports, engage in continuous

improvement, and document results.














About AdvancEDAdvancED is the world leader in providing improvement and accreditation services to education providers of all

types in their pursuit of excellence in serving students. AdvancED serves as a trusted partner to more than

32,000 public and private schools and school systems – enrolling more than 20 million students - across the

United States and 70 countries.

In 2006, the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA CASI),

the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (SACS

CASI), both founded in 1895, and the National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE) came together to form

AdvancED: one strong, unified organization dedicated to education quality. In 2011, the Northwest

Accreditation Commission (NWAC) that was founded in 1917 became part of AdvancED.

Today, NCA CASI, NWAC and SACS CASI serve as accreditation divisions of AdvancED. The Accreditation

Divisions of AdvancED share research-based quality standards that cross school system, state, regional,

national, and international boundaries. Accompanying these standards is a unified and consistent process

designed to engage educational institutions in continuous improvement.














-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

ReferencesAlwin, L. (2002). The will and the way of data use. School Administrator, 59(11), 11.

Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voxx, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S.,

Nuebrand, M., & Tsai, Y. (2010). Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the

classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (2012). Shared purpose: the golden thread?

London: CIPD.

Colbert, J., Brown, R., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the impacts of teacher-driven

professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 134-154.

Conley, D.T. (2007). Redefining college readiness (Vol. 3). Eugene, OR: Educational Policy

Improvement Center.

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school

systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on

Educational Governance, USC.

Dembosky, J., Pane, J., Barney, H., & Christina, R. (2005). Data driven decision making in

Southwestern Pennsylvania school districts. Working paper. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Ding, C. & Sherman, H. (2006). Teaching effectiveness and student achievement: Examining the

relationship. Educational Research Quarterly, 29 (4), 40-51.

Doyle, D. P. (2003). Data-driven decision making: Is it the mantra of the month or does it have staying

power? T.H.E. Journal, 30(10), 19-21.

Feuerstein, A., & Opfer, V. D. (1998). School board chairmen and school superintendents: An analysis

of perceptions concerning special interest groups and educational governance. Journal of School

Leadership, 8, 373-398.

Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 42 (62), 61-89.

Greene, K. (1992). Models of school-board policy-making. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28

(2), 220-236.

Horng, E., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal time-use and school effectiveness. American

Journal of Education 116, (4) 492-523.

Lafee, S. (2002). Data-driven districts. School Administrator, 59(11), 6-7, 9-10, 12, 14-15.

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The Nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-

analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48 (387). 388-423.

Marks, H., Louis, K.S., & Printy, S. (2002). The capacity for organizational learning: Implications for

pedagogy and student achievement. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Organizational learning and school

improvement (p. 239-266). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

McIntire, T. (2002). The administrator's guide to data-driven decision making. Technology and

Learning, 22(11), 18-33.

Pan, D., Rudo, Z., Schneider, C., & Smith-Hansen, L. (2003). Examination of resource allocation in

education: connecting spending to student performance. Austin, TX: SEDL.














Documents

Report of the External Review Team for Brookings … · External Review Team for Brookings School District ... Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot ... learner-centric