School  Accreditation Engagement Review

318751

Cognia Continuous Improvement System

Cognia defines continuous improvement as "an embedded behavior rooted in an institution's culture that constantly focuses on conditions, processes, and practices to improve teaching and learning." The Cognia 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. Cognia 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.

The findings of the Engagement Review Team are organized by the ratings from the Cognia Performance Standards Diagnostic and the Levels of Impact within the i3 Rubric: Initiate, Improve, and Impact.

 

Initiate

The first phase of the improvement journey is to Initiate actions to cause and achieve better results. The elements of the Initiate phase are defined within the Levels of Impact of Engagement and Implementation. Engagement is the level of involvement and frequency of stakeholders in the desired practices, processes, or programs within the institution. Implementation is the process of monitoring and adjusting the administrations of the desired practices, processes, or programs for quality and fidelity.

Standards identified within Initiate should become the focus of the institution's continuous improvement journey toward the collection, analysis, and use of data to measure the results of engagement and implementation. Enhancing the capacity of the institution in meeting these Standards has the greatest potential impact on improving student performance and organizational effectiveness.

 

Improve

The second phase of the improvement journey is to gather and evaluate the results of actions to Improve. The elements of the Improve phase are defined within the Levels of Impact of Results and Sustainability. Results come from the collection, analysis, and use of data and evidence to demonstrate attaining the desired result(s). Sustainability is results achieved consistently to demonstrate growth and improvement over time (a minimum of three years). Standards identified within Improve are those in which the institution is using results to inform their continuous improvement processes and to demonstrate over time the achievement of goals. The institution should continue to analyze and use results to guide improvements in student achievement and organizational effectiveness.

 

Impact

The third phase of achieving improvement is Impact, where desired practices are deeply entrenched. The elements of the Impact phase are defined within the Level of Impact of Embeddedness. Embeddedness is the degree to which the desired practices, processes, or programs are deeply ingrained in the culture and operation of the institution. Standards identified within Impact are those in which the institution has demonstrated ongoing growth and improvement over time and has embedded the practices within its culture. Institutions should continue to support and sustain these practices that yield results in improving student achievement and organizational effectiveness.

Cognia Performance Accreditation and the Engagement Review

Accreditation is pivotal in leveraging education quality and continuous improvement. Using a set of rigorous research-based standards, the Cognia 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 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 Cognia Performance Standards. Review teams use these Standards to assess the quality of learning environments to gain valuable insights and target improvements in teaching and learning. Cognia 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, which helps to focus and guide each institution's improvement journey. Valuable evidence and information from other stakeholders, including students, also are obtained through interviews, surveys, and additional activities.

 

Cognia Standards Diagnostic Results

The Cognia Performance Standards Diagnostic is used by the Engagement Review Team to evaluate the institution's effectiveness based on the Cognia Performance Standards. The diagnostic consists of three components built around each of three Domains: Leadership Capacity, Learning Capacity, and Resource Capacity. Results are reported within four ranges identified by color. The results for the three Domains are presented in the tables that follow.

 

Color	Rating	Description
Red	Insufficient	Identifies areas with insufficient evidence or evidence that indicated little or no activity leading toward improvement
Yellow	Initiating	Represents areas to enhance and extend current improvement efforts
Green	Improving	Pinpoints quality practices that are improving and meet the Standards
Blue	Impacting	Demonstrates noteworthy practices producing clear results that positively impact the institution

Under each Standard statement is a row indicating the scores related to the elements of Cognia's i3 Rubric. The rubric is scored from one (1) to four (4). A score of four on any element indicates high performance, while a score of one or two indicates an element in need of improvement. The following table provides the key to the abbreviations of the elements of the i3 Rubric.

 

Element	Abbreviation
Engagement	EN
Implementation	IM
Results	RE
Sustainability	SU
Embeddedness	EM

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 institution commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching and learning, including the expectations for learners.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	4	SU:	4	EM:	4
1.2	Stakeholders collectively demonstrate actions to ensure the achievement of the institution's purpose and desired outcomes for learning.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	4	SU:	4	EM:	4
1.3	The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and professional practice.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	3	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	3
1.4	The governing authority establishes and ensures adherence to policies that are designed to support institutional effectiveness.										Impacting
	EN:	3	IM:	4	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	3
1.5	The governing authority adheres to a code of ethics and functions within defined roles and responsibilities.										Improving
	EN:	3	IM:	3	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	3
1.6	Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve professional practice and organizational effectiveness.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	3
1.7	Leaders implement operational processes and procedures to ensure organizational effectiveness in support of teaching and learning.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	4
1.8	Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the institution's purpose and direction.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	3	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	4
1.9	The institution provides experiences that cultivate and improve leadership effectiveness.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	4
1.10	Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement.										Impacting
	EN:	3	IM:	3	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	4

Learning Capacity Domain

The impact of teaching and learning on student achievement and success is the primary expectation of every institution. An effective learning culture is characterized by positive and productive teacher/learner relationships, high expectations and standards, a challenging and engaging curriculum, quality instruction and comprehensive support that enable all learners to be successful, and assessment practices (formative and summative) that monitor and measure learner progress and achievement. Moreover, a quality institution evaluates the impact of its learning culture, including all programs and support services, and adjusts accordingly.

 

Learning Capacity Standards											Rating
2.1	Learners have equitable opportunities to develop skills and achieve the content and learning priorities established by the institution.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	4	SU:	4	EM:	4
2.2	The learning culture promotes creativity, innovation, and collaborative problem- solving.										Initiating
	EN:	2	IM:	2	RE:	2	SU:	1	EM:	2
2.3	The learning culture develops learners' attitudes, beliefs, and skills needed for success.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	4
2.4	The institution has a formal structure to ensure learners develop positive relationships with and have adults/peers who support their educational experiences.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	3	SU:	2	EM:	4
2.5	Educators implement a curriculum that is based on high expectations and prepares learners for their next levels.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	4
2.6	The institution implements a process to ensure the curriculum is aligned to standards and best practices.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	4
2.7	Instruction is monitored and adjusted to meet individual learners' needs and the institution's learning expectations.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	4	SU:	4	EM:	4
2.8	The institution provides programs and services for learners' educational futures and career planning.										Improving
	EN:	3	IM:	3	RE:	3	SU:	2	EM:	3
2.9	The institution implements processes to identify and address the specialized needs of learners.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	3	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	3
2.10	Learning progress is reliably assessed and consistently and clearly communicated.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	4	SU:	4	EM:	4

 

Learning Capacity Standards											Rating
2.11	Educators gather, analyze, and use formative and summative data that lead to the demonstrable improvement of student learning.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	4	SU:	3	EM:	4
2.12	The institution implements a process to continuously assess its programs and organizational conditions to improve student learning.										Improving
	EN:	3	IM:	3	RE:	3	SU:	3	EM:	3

 

Resource Capacity Domain

The use and distribution of resources support the stated mission of the institution. Institutions ensure that resources are distributed and utilized equitably, so the needs of all learners are adequately and effectively addressed. The utilization of resources includes support for professional learning for all staff. The institution examines the allocation and use of resources to ensure appropriate levels of funding, sustainability, organizational effectiveness, and increased student learning.

 

Resource Capacity Standards											Rating
3.1	The institution plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning environment, learner achievement, and the institution's effectiveness.										Improving
	EN:	3	IM:	3	RE:	3	SU:	2	EM:	4
3.2	The institution's professional learning structure and expectations promote collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational effectiveness.										Improving
	EN:	3	IM:	3	RE:	2	SU:	2	EM:	3
3.3	The institution provides induction, mentoring, and coaching programs that ensure all staff members have the knowledge and skills to improve student performance and organizational effectiveness.										Improving
	EN:	3	IM:	3	RE:	2	SU:	2	EM:	3
3.4	The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution's purpose and direction.										Improving
	EN:	4	IM:	3	RE:	3	SU:	2	EM:	3
3.5	The institution integrates digital resources into teaching, learning, and operations to improve professional practice, student performance, and organizational effectiveness.										Improving
	EN:	3	IM:	3	RE:	3	SU:	2	EM:	3
3.6	The institution provides access to information resources and materials to support the curriculum, programs, and needs of students, staff, and the institution.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	4	SU:	4	EM:	3
3.7	The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long-range planning and use of resources in support of the institution's purpose and direction.										Impacting
	EN:	4	IM:	4	RE:	4	SU:	4	EM:	4

 

Resource Capacity Standards											Rating
3.8	The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the institution's identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and organizational effectiveness.										Improving
	EN:	4	IM:	3	RE:	3	SU:	2	EM:	3

 

Assurances

Assurances are statements that accredited institutions must confirm they are meeting. The Assurance statements are based on the type of institution, and the responses are confirmed by the Accreditation Engagement Review Team. Institutions are expected to meet all Assurances and are expected to correct any deficiencies in unmet Assurances.

 

Assurances Met
YES	NO	If No, List Unmet Assurances by Number Below
X

 

Accreditation Status and Index of Education Quality®

Cognia will review the results of the Accreditation Engagement Review to make a final determination concerning accreditation status, including the appropriate next steps for your institution in response to these findings. Cognia provides the Index of Education Quality (IEQ) as a holistic measure of overall performance based on a comprehensive set of standards and review criteria. This formative tool for improvement identifies areas of success and areas in need of focus. The IEQ comprises the Standards Diagnostic ratings from the three Domains: Leadership Capacity, Learning Capacity, and Resource Capacity. The IEQ results are reported on a scale of 100 to 400 and provide information about how the institution is performing compared to expected criteria. Institutions should review the IEQ in relation to the Findings from the review in the areas of Initiate, Improve, and Impact. An IEQ score below 250 indicates that the institution has several areas within the Initiate level and should focus their improvement efforts on those Standards within that level. An IEQ in the range of 225–300 indicates that the institution has several Standards within the Improve level and is using results to inform continuous improvement and demonstrate sustainability. An IEQ of 275 and above indicates the institution is beginning to reach the Impact level and is engaged in practices that are sustained over time and are becoming ingrained in the culture of the institution.

Below is the average (range) of all Cognia Improvement Network (CIN) institutions evaluated for accreditation in the last five years. The range of the annual CIN IEQ average is presented to enable you to benchmark your results with other institutions in the network.

 

Institution IEQ

350.50

CIN 5 Year IEQ Range

278.34 – 283.33

Insights from the Review

The Engagement Review Team engaged in professional discussions and deliberations about the processes, programs, and practices within the institution to arrive at the findings of the team. These findings are organized around themes guided by the evidence, with examples of programs and practices, and suggestions for the institution's continuous improvement efforts. The Insights from the Review narrative should provide contextualized information from the team’s deliberations and analysis of the practices, processes, and programs of the institution organized by the levels of Initiate, Improve, and Impact. The narrative also provides the next steps to guide the institution’s improvement journey in its 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 its current improvement efforts and to adapt and adjust their plans to continuously strive for improvement.

 

 

The Engagement Review Team (team) identified several themes through the analysis of artifacts and extensive stakeholder interviews. The themes present strengths and opportunities to support the continuous improvement journey for Team Success, A School of Excellence.

Team Success, A School of Excellence, lacks opportunities for students to use critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving skills. The school is commended for its data-driven focus and student achievement; however, more opportunities for creativity, innovation, and collaborative problem-solving will support continued student growth and achievement. Through stakeholder interviews and a review of the evidence, the team found limited student participation in projects and collaborative problem-solving activities. Teachers shared, “next year, we will have dual-enrollment, honors, and technical classes for our students. This will provide more hands-on learning for our

students.” Teachers would benefit from professional development focused on instructional opportunities that will consistently integrate critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving into daily instruction. The school's self-rating and leadership interviews indicate “inquiry and project-based learning activities” as an “area of growth.”

While student achievement scores indicate growth and high student achievement, little evidence supports students are presented with lessons to develop creativity, innovation, and collaborative problem-solving skills. The implementation of curricula structures to engage students in critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving skills with a consistent evaluation of implementation will continue to progress Team Success, A School of Excellence, toward continuous improvement.

The school fosters a collaborative and supportive culture with a commitment to high expectations. During stakeholder interviews and the review of evidence, it is evident that all stakeholders are data-focused and use data to monitor student progress and learning. The use of formative and summative data is deeply ingrained in the school’s process, “we have data chats, we review lesson plans and provide feedback, and we make sure our students are aware of their progress.” The school meets with internal and external stakeholders to discuss data during data chats and parent-teacher and student-teacher conferences. A student shared, “Every week we take a test, they look at our progress, and then we go over our progress every other week. We can do this one- on-one, or we can do it in group.” Teachers shared, “We constantly review data and make instructional decisions for academic groupings and the reteaching of standards,” which is one example of how data are used to impact instruction.

In addition, the team determined the governing board and leadership consistently use data to

determine which resources to use for “academic excellence.” “We ensure that we maintain academic excellence, and we use our data-driven approach to maintain that excellence.” Data are used to establish priorities and measure progress. One board member shared, “We look at data, attendance, graduation rates, teacher retention, and student progress.”

Student interviews and the review of evidence indicate students consistently monitor their academic progress. Stakeholder interviews revealed, “We go over our data every other week with the teacher.”

Team Success, A School of Excellence, is encouraged to continue fostering a collaborative and supportive culture committed to high expectations as a component of its continuous improvement journey.

The school provides limited elective and extracurricular opportunities for students at all levels. Students are provided the opportunity to participate in elective and extracurricular activities; however, students shared that there are limited elective and extracurricular opportunities available. Students shared, “We would like to have more electives. We only have certain electives we can choose from,” and also shared, “The only sport offered is soccer. We would like to have more sports for girls. The sports are more for the boys, and there is only a little bit of stuff for the girls.” “In elementary, there isn’t anything for them.” Additional elective and extracurricular opportunities for all students will ensure students gain experiences, such as team building, discipline, and coping with disappointment, which will help them matriculate from high school into the real world.

The school is not formalizing a process to systemically implement and consistently monitor the mentoring and coaching program for effectiveness. Stakeholder interviews and reviewed evidence indicate that an informal mentoring and coaching program exists, including the implementation of some onboarding and orientation procedures. Stakeholder interviews revealed that “as a new teacher, I have been mentored since I started, and I was able to shadow another teacher. I also get feedback on my lesson plans.”

The team found that although there is no evidence of a formal mentoring and coaching program, there exists an informal mentoring program. Leadership shared, “We assign mentors to teachers.” During interviews and the review of the evidence, it was determined the school does not have a systematic process for ensuring new teachers are consistently mentored by high-performing teachers at all levels. Although mentoring, induction, and coaching are implemented informally, these practices are not monitored to ensure the quality and fidelity of the supports in place. The team encourages that these practices be monitored to ensure the effectiveness of the intended purposes and outcomes.

The team encourages Team Success, A School of Excellence, to consistently implement and monitor mentoring, induction, and coaching practices with the goal of improving professional practices and organizational effectiveness. These elements impact teacher efficacy and improve teacher and student performance. By formalizing these processes, mentoring, coaching, and induction could become embedded and sustainable practices in the school’s culture.

In conclusion, the ratings of the Standards and the verification of Assurances provide information used throughout team deliberations. The team gathered substantial material from the review of the school’s evidence and stakeholder interviews. The team recognizes the school for its engagement in the continuous improvement process and encourages Team Success, A School of Excellence, to use the insights from this review as it moves forward in its continuous improvement journey.

Next Steps

Upon receiving the Accreditation Engagement Review Report, the institution is encouraged to implement the following steps:

 

• Review and share the findings with
• Develop plans to address the areas for improvement identified by the Engagement Review
• Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution's continuous improvement
• Celebrate the successes noted in the
• Continue the improvement

Team Roster

The Engagement Review Teams are comprised of professionals with varied backgrounds and expertise. To provide knowledge and understanding of the Cognia tools and processes, all Lead Evaluators and Engagement Review Team members are required to complete Cognia training. The following professionals served on the Engagement Review Team:

 

Team Member Name	Brief Biography (Lead Evaluator Only)
Karla Hutchinson, Lead Evaluator	Karla Hutchinson is an experienced educator with over 20 years of experience. She has served as a classroom teacher, dean, curriculum resource teacher, and elementary school principal. Currently, she is the supervisor of pre-K ESE, Discipline, and Truancy in Alachua County Public Schools. She has a Bachelor of Science in elementary education and a Master of Education and Educational Specialist degree in educational leadership. Since 2020, Mrs. Hutchinson has been a team member or Lead Evaluator for numerous Cognia Engagement Reviews.
Dr. Jila Rezaire	Principal

References and Readings

AdvancED. (2015). Continuous Improvement and Accountability. Alpharetta, GA: AdvancED. Retrieved from https://source.cognia.org/issue-article/continuous-improvement-and-accountability/.

Bernhardt, V., & Herbert, C. (2010). Response to intervention and continuous school improvement: Using data, vision, and leadership to design, implement, and evaluate a schoolwide prevention program. New York: Routledge.

Elgart, M. (2015). What a continuously improving system looks like. Alpharetta, GA: AdvancED. Retrieved from https://source.cognia.org/issue-article/what-continuously-improving-system-looks/.

Elgart, M. (2017). Meeting the promise of continuous improvement: Insights from the AdvancED continuous improvement system and observations of effective schools. Alpharetta, GA: AdvancED. Retrieved from https://source.cognia.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/11/CISWhitePaper.pdf.

Evans, R. (2012). The Savvy school change leader. Alpharetta, GA: AdvancED. Retrieved from https://source.cognia.org/issue-article/savvy-school-change-leader/.

Fullan, M. (2014). Leading in a culture of change personal action guide and workbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kim, W., & Mauborne, R. (2017). Blue ocean shift: Beyond competing. New York: Hachette Book Group. Park, S, Hironaka, S; Carver, P, & Nordstrum, L. (2013). Continuous improvement in education. San

Francisco: Carnegie Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/carnegie-foundation_continuous-improvement_2013.05.pdf.

Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change. New York: Teachers College.

Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: George Braziller, Inc.