Report to the North Carolina General Assembly

Transcription

1 Public Schools of North Carolina State Board of Education Department of Public Instruction Report to the North Carolina General Assembly High School Accreditation SL (HB 342) Date Due: --- Report # 4 DPI Chronological Schedule,

2 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION The guiding mission of the North Carolina State Board of Education is that every public school student will graduate from high school, globally competitive for work and postsecondary education and prepared for life in the 21st Century. WILLIAM C. HARRISON Chairman :: Fayetteville WAYNE MCDEVITT Vice Chair :: Asheville WALTER DALTON Lieutenant Governor :: Rutherfordton JANET COWELL State Treasurer :: Raleigh JEAN W. WOOLARD Plymouth REGINALD KENAN Rose Hill KEVIN D. HOWELL Raleigh SHIRLEY E. HARRIS Troy CHRISTINE J. GREENE High Point JOHN A. TATE III Charlotte ROBERT TOM SPEED Boone MELISSA E. BARTLETT Roxboro PATRICIA N. WILLOUGHBY Raleigh NC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION June St. Clair Atkinson, Ed.D., State Superintendent 301 N. Wilmington Street :: Raleigh, North Carolina In compliance with federal law, NC Public Schools administers all state-operated educational programs, employment activities and admissions without discrimination because of race, religion, national or ethnic origin, color, age, military service, disability, or gender, except where exemption is appropriate and allowed by law. Inquiries or complaints regarding discrimination issues should be directed to: Dr. Rebecca Garland, Chief Academic Officer :: Academic Services and Instructional Support 6368 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC :: Telephone: (919) :: Fax: (919) Visit us on the Web :: 2

3 High School Accreditation A Suggested Framework for North Carolina s READY Accountability Model Session Law ; HB 342 empowered the State Board of Education to accredit schools in North Carolina, upon request of a local board of education. This report is an examination of what accreditation is, and how the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction may proceed with a General Assembly directive to implement an accreditation process. It provides a framework and suggested guidelines for accrediting high schools in North Carolina. 3

4 Recommendations for a High School Accreditation Framework 1. The SBE will approve an accreditation policy and framework design; it is understood that any local board requesting an accreditation review will confirm the high school s complete compliance with GS 115C, including adherence to all school health and safety regulations. 2. The State Board of Education will direct the Department of Public Instruction staff and their respective contractors to conduct the accreditation reviews. 3. The accreditation review will focus on high schools. 4. The accreditation policy that is currently in place for LEAs will remain in effect. 5. The accreditation framework will have both quantitative and qualitative components. 6. The components will be based on the READY HS accountability indicators approved by the NC State Board of Education (Dec. 2011). 7. The accreditation cycle will consist of a shortened one, two, or three years for nonaccredited or provisionally accredited schools, and a regular five-year cycle for fully accredited schools. 8. The SBE may approve NCDPI to conduct a pilot in order to study the feasibility of the framework and process outlined within this report. 9. The local education agency (LEA) shall compensate the State Board for the actual costs of the accreditation process. 10. The undergirding purpose of accreditation is to drive continuous improvement of the teaching/learning process and the systems supporting that process. 4

5 Introduction During the 2011 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly, a high school accreditation bill was passed that empowered the North Carolina State Board of Education to accredit high schools (NCGS , HB 342). The amended section is stated as follows: SECTION 3. G.S. 115C-12 is amended by adding a new subdivision to read: " 115C-12. Powers and duties of the Board generally. The general supervision and administration of the free public school system shall be vested in the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education shall establish policy for the system of free public schools, subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly. The powers and duties of the State Board of Education are defined as follows:... (38) Power to accredit schools. Upon the request of a local board of education, the State Board of Education shall evaluate schools in local school administrative units to determine whether the education provided by those schools meets acceptable levels of quality. The State Board shall adopt rigorous academic standards for accreditation after consideration of (i) the standards of regional and national accrediting agencies, (ii) the Common Core Standards adopted by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and (iii) other information it deems appropriate. The local school administrative unit shall compensate the State Board for the actual costs of the accreditation process." The law stipulated that upon request of a local board, the State Board of Education shall evaluate schools to determine whether the education provided meets acceptable levels of quality. The accreditation standards are to be rigorous and in keeping with other accrediting agencies standards, as well as priorities set by the State Board of Education. The law further stipulated that the local district must compensate the State Board for costs incurred with the process. The purpose of this report is to propose a framework for accrediting schools. Accreditation is the process whereby schools and/or school districts (public and private) undergo a quality assurance process that includes self-reflection and outside peer review or audit. The goal of accreditation is continuous improvement, usually translated as higher student achievement. The process typically relies on outsiders, either from an accrediting agency, or governmental organization, to review the data, cite evidence of quality, and garner input from staff, students, parents, and community to assess how well the school measures up to its goals and standards. 5

6 Guiding Questions The accreditation process answers the following questions: 1. In what ways is your school engaged in continuous improvement? (Self-Assessment) 2. Do you have a way of improving yourself and is everyone working towards that end? (Process) 3. Can you demonstrate that? (Fidelity of implementation) 4. To what degree are the processes and outcomes meeting state-defined standards of quality? (Quality Review) Accreditation Designations There are three designations of accreditation. They are 1) Fully Accredited, 2) Provisionally Accredited or 3) Non-Accredited as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 (only for illustration purposes) is an inverted triangle displaying the assumptions that the majority of high schools will be fully accredited, a lesser amount as provisionally accredited and only a few as non-accredited. It is in the best interest of the State Board, parents, school personnel, business community and students that all schools are fully accredited. Moreover, the use of the proposed accreditation process contained in this report is to drive program improvement and student growth. These designations are determined based upon a three-year review of data, and the status of fully accredited will remain in effect for a cycle of five years. The designation of provisionally accredited will require a site visit review within the five-year cycle, and a non-accredited status will require multiple site visits, targeted interventions based on the data, and an annual review of the data. More severe sanctions may be imposed at the will of the State Board if a school is determined to be non-accredited. Figure 1: Accreditation Designations Fully Accredited Provisionally Accredited Non-Accredited 6

7 Historical Overview of Accreditation Agencies Historically, several agencies in the United States accredited schools within six regions. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, or SACS, accredited many schools throughout North Carolina. In the upper Midwest, the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA CASI) accredited schools throughout the region (19 states), the Navaho nation, and overseas schools under the US Department of Defense (NCA CASI History). In April 2006, NCCASI, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (SACS CASI), and National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE) joined to form AdvancED, which is now one of the world s largest educational accrediting organizations (NCA CASI History). AdvancED represents tens of thousands of schools and districts across the United States and 69 countries worldwide (NCA CASI History). According to AdvancED, 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. The accreditation process is also known in terms of its ability to drive effectively student performance and continuous improvement in education (AdvancEd, 2011). Membership in accrediting councils, like SACs, or AdvanceEd, is voluntary, and districts and schools must pay an application fee in addition to annual membership fees. AdvanceEd fees for a single school are $350 non-refundable application fee plus $625 annual accreditation fee (AdvancEd, 2011). Several North Carolina districts and schools participate in the AdvancEd accreditation process. See the application for accreditation and list of schools and districts in Appendix A. In North Carolina, State Board Policy GCS B-000 (1998) requires that school districts be accredited on the basis of the State s accountability system, the ABCs of Public Education; the accreditation is determined annually. The current criteria for district accreditation are as follows: Upon identification of more than half the schools in a local school district as low-performing under state law 115C , the district will be designated Not Accredited. Otherwise, the system is accredited (North Carolina State Board of Education Policy Manual). The U.S. Department of Education does not accredit public schools in the U.S., although the Department does publish and maintain a list of accrediting agencies for colleges and universities. Some states, such as Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, and Virginia, accredit schools through their respective State Education Agency. North Carolina: READY! In September 2006, the SBE adopted the following mission statement: Every public school student will graduate from high school, globally competitive for work and postsecondary education, and prepared for life in the 21st century. 7

8 To support that mission, the SBE s goals and strategies reflect a vision for a new generation of standards, assessments, and accountability such that: Every student excels in rigorous and relevant core curriculum that reflects what students need to know and demonstrate in a global 21st century environment. Every student s achievement is measured with an assessment system that informs instruction and evaluates knowledge, skills, performance, and dispositions needed in the 21st century. Every teacher and administrator will use a 21st century assessment system to inform instruction and measure 21st century knowledge, skills, performance, and dispositions. Every education professional will use data to inform decisions. The SBE established a Blue Ribbon Commission on Testing and Accountability and charged the Commission with conducting a comprehensive review of the current assessment and accountability system and offering recommendations for modifications to the current testing program as well as identifying next steps for meaningful change. The SBE asked that the Commission s work be visionary and in depth, searching for credible and practical solutions that will serve us well in public education. The Commission s findings and recommendations helped to isolate the major next steps needed to transform our approach to standards, assessments, and accountability in North Carolina. The Commission s recommendations for dramatic changes in testing and accountability called for: deepening the curriculum and defining more specifically the essential content standards in the core subjects and reflecting 21st century skills in both content standards and aligned assessments; moving to a system that includes formative assessments (not only inclusive of summative assessments or end of grade and course tests) which will equip teachers and administrators with data and feedback needed to align instruction to individual student s needs; revising the K 8 accountability model and transforming the high school accountability model to focus on graduation rates and student readiness for college and work, not just on performance in core subject areas; and providing much greater transparency for educators, parents and the public about expectations, assessments, and results. Following the Commission s report, the SBE developed its Framework for Change: The Next Generation of Assessments and Accountability (June 2008), which identified a series of strategies for moving forward. The Framework for Change (June 2008) states that the central foci of a new accountability model should continue to be student achievement and academic growth. In September 2010, North Carolina was the recipient of a federal Race to the Top stimulus grant, based on a state-proposed Scope of Work and LEA partnership agreements. The Race to the Top grant funding enabled North Carolina to continue its innovative work in accountability, curriculum re-visioning, teacher effectiveness, support to low-performing schools, and a 8

9 longitudinal data systems - all aimed at increasing teacher and leader effectiveness in order to raise student achievement. The Race to the Top funds and efforts undergirded Governor Perdue s College and Career Ready, Set, Go educational platform and formalized the policies and practices that the State Board of Education and the NC Department of Public Instruction would implement. Also in 2010, the NC State Board of Education adopted the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics. Subsequently, North Carolina became a governing state in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). SBAC is one of two national consortia which are creating assessment items to be aligned with Common Core standards for English/Language Arts and mathematics. Both actions indicated a strong commitment to rigor and increased expectations for student achievement. To that end, a new HS accountability model was also developed. READY High School Accountability Model Accountability at the student and school level is important to educators, parents, and the business community. Through the use of multiple accountability measures of growth and performance, information is gleaned about how high schools are performing across North Carolina. North Carolina has had an accountability model in place since the 1980s. North Carolina is one of very few states that had both a state accountability model focused on student growth (known as the ABCs) as well as adherence to federal mandates that focused outcomes on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measures of absolute performance. In 2011, the State Board adopted a new accountability model emphasizing growth and performance from multiple measures. The new READY high school accountability model takes into account the lens of students, cohorts of students, and schools and emphasizes the key indicators of student readiness. It balances goals of limited testing, measuring student performance and outcomes of public schools and complies with federal requirements for student testing and school accountability. The new READY high school accountability model will become effective with the School Year, with the first public reporting during the fall of 2013 once standards on the new assessments have been approved by the State Board of Education. This new READY high school accountability model approved by the State Board of Education contains six indicators. They are as follows: End-Of-Course (EOC) Assessments o % of students proficient on Algebra I/Integrated Math I, Biology and English II assessments. Academic Rigor o % of students who successfully complete higher-level math classes Algebra II or Integrated Math III Post-Secondary Readiness o % of students who score college ready on the ACT a measure defined as well enough for students to have a 75% chance of earning a C or higher in their first creditbearing college course. North Carolina employs the ACT as the statewide postsecondary readiness measure for high school accountability. 9

10 Cohort Graduation Rate o 4 year: % of students who begin as high school freshman and graduate four years later (e.g. freshman in who graduate in ) o 5 year: % of students who begin as high school freshman and graduate five years later (e.g. freshman in who graduate in ) WorkKeys o % of graduates earning a Career Readiness Certificate (CRC) at the silver level or above on the WorkKeys Assessment NC Graduation Project - Optional o Schools that implement the North Carolina Graduation Project (according to defined standards of quality) These six components will be collected and reported on annually. The new READY high school accountability model, replacing the former ABCs model, will contain Performance indicators, Process indicators, and Growth indicators. This model recognizes schools for academic growth and includes both a mixture of state and national measures to determine the degree to which schools and teachers are covering the North Carolina Standard Course of Study, which includes Common Core standards for English/Language Arts and Mathematics and Essential Standards for all other content areas. The process of accrediting high schools will be predicated upon the READY accountability model indicators. Accreditation Indicators & Benchmarks Upon the request of a local board of education, the SBE will direct the NCDPI to conduct an accreditation review of high school(s) within the school district. If the high school(s) meets the standards set forth in the State s READY Accountability Model for achievement at or above the state average on four of the five required indicators, including disaggregated data for subgroup performance, as well as meeting the standards of quality on other value-add indicators included in the Accreditation Rubric, the school shall receive Full Accreditation status. Any indicators not defined within the acceptable confidence intervals based on three years of data may trigger the need for NCDPI to conduct an on-site visit. Data are collected annually. Three years of data for each indicator are reviewed with regard to accreditation. Any indicator below the state average can trigger the need for a site visit (within a confidence interval based on the annual assessment measures). More than 3 indicators below state bar results in Provisionally-Accredited. If a school does not improve the indicators that resulted in a status of Provisionally- Accredited within 2 years, the school will be designated as Non-Accredited. A school is accredited for five years. 10

11 Table 1: Accreditation Status based on READY High School Accountability Model State Average HS Accountability Indicators Non-Accredited Provisionally Accredited Fully Accredited Performance Composite (aggregate of all Below and above taken EOCs) Growth Below Expected Below Expected Expected Cohort Graduation 4 year: Below 60 % 4 year: % 80 and above % Rate Future-Ready Core Rigor ACT (Post-Secondary Readiness Measure) WorkKeys (Career Readiness Certificate) Value Add Measures Below state average Below State Below State No evidence of any of the following school or district plans being implemented based on defined standards of quality for each: - NC Graduation Project - Academically/ Intellectually Gifted Plan - Technology Plan - School Improvement Plan - Health Program Plans State Average: % of students successfully completing Algebra II or Integrated Mathematics III On par with State On par with State Limited evidence of one or more of the following plans being implemented: On par or greater than State On par or greater than State On par or greater than State (CRC at Silver level or above) Evidence of multiple and aligned plans being implemented based on defined standards of quality 11

12 Process Flow for Accreditation The cycle of activity typically involves the school and state collecting data. Upon the request by the LEA Superintendent to the State Board to accredit, the school conducts its own selfassessment while DPI conducts a desk audit of relevant data. A self-assessment responds to the first guiding question, In what ways is your school engaged in continuous improvement? A high school can submit a Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) or other commensurate selfassessment. If the high school does not have a self-assessment, it may complete a template provided by DPI. The data are then presented to an outside team of experts who review the selfassessment alongside the state accountability data and determine preliminary accreditation status. If it is determined that the school is at or above the state average of all high school indicators, the expert team would recommend full accreditation. The status is acted upon by the State Board of Education. The status is good for five years. Interim checks will be conducted annually to ensure that expectation levels continue to be met. If the expert team determines that at least one of the indicators is below the annual confidence interval set by the Accountability Division, the team contacts DPI and the LEA to schedule an on-site visit. Team members observe classrooms and hold focus sessions with staff, curriculum leaders, administrators, parents, students, and community members. The team looks for evidence indicating how the school is improving and if the school is adhering to rigorous standards. The team considers whether the school has a meaningful strategic plan for improvement based on quantitative and qualitative indicators and looks for alignment between the self-study and those identified measures. The on-site review culminates in a presentation of preliminary findings to the school leadership team prior to the team s exit. A final report indicating accreditation status will be completed by NCDPI and sent to the principal and LEA superintendent. If the school meets the defined standards, then it is declared accredited for another cycle. If there are shortcomings found, the school may be provisionally accredited, during which certain standards must be met within a given time period, usually one or two years, and then another review will determine if the school is to be fully accredited. In the case of serious breaches of State expectations and/or regulations and/or in instances where student performance falls well below standard, the school may be declared as non-accredited. Schools designated as Provisionally Accredited would enter a two- or three-year probationary cycle, and NCDPI staff would conduct an on-site visit and comprehensive needs assessment. If a school were designated in a lower tier status, the NCDPI staff would closely monitor progress within the school with the expectation that there would be progress toward meeting school improvement goals and increased student growth during the probationary period. The school could move from Provisional to Fully Accredited or from Non-Accredited to Provisionally Accredited by meeting the school performance and growth benchmarks for achievement by the end of the first, second, or third year in the accreditation cycle. Alternatively, the school may show improvement in other indicators that form part of the Accreditation rubric that may be used for evaluation. 12

13 If, after the two-year accreditation cycle ends and the school has shown no progress toward improving student performance and/or there is no evidence of academic growth, the school may be designated as Non-Accredited. A Non-Accredited school must be given intensive intervention. Table 2 illustrates the steps outlined here in the accreditation process. A local board, through the district superintendent, requests an Accreditation review, and one of the first things that will occur is a meeting between NCDPI leaders and the superintendent. The cost of the Accreditation review would be borne by the LEA. Table 2: Process Flow for Accreditation Step What Occurs Considerations 1 LEA Superintendent requests an accreditation review 2 NCDPI staff confirms receipt of LEA request 3 NCDPI staff contacts liaison in Accountability Division to pull relevant data indicators (3 years) and alerts trained state review team (subcontractor) of the LEA request 4 Sub-contractor contacts LEA 5 Sub-contractor reviews trend data of relevant school and LEA since last accreditation cycle 6 After reviewing data, subcontractor contacts LEA Superintendent or designee for preliminary conversation about reviewed data (clarification, additional questions, etc.) and notifies DPI contact of preliminary accreditation status (full, provisional, or non) 7 Subcontractor sends LEA self-study to complete If LEA has undergone an LEA CNA or other self-study, it may submit in lieu of DPI template. 8 Team conducts site visit if it is determined that a minimum of one of the five indicators did not meet the minimum confidence interval, as established by the Accountability Division. State review team consists of trained personnel, usually in teams of 3-4 to review data, and if needed, conduct site visit. 9 Team interviews stakeholders, conducts document reviews, focus groups, and classroom observations 13

14 10 Team reviews data, determines accreditation status and writes findings and recommendations. Team shares with LEA Superintendent preliminary report for member check for accuracy. 11 NCDPI team reviews data, determines accreditation status, and presents recommendation to SBE Full-Accreditation (5 years) Provisional Accreditation (2.5 years with monitoring, technical assistance, and review of data at 2.5 years-midpoint) Non-Accredited (annual review) 12 SBE accepts accreditation team s recommendation 13 LEA is notified of SBE decision Other Indicators There may be other indicators within the READY high school accountability model that could be considered as additional data points for review. For example, if a school has reduced its achievement gap among subgroups over a period of three years but yet falls below the state benchmark on the indicator of post-secondary readiness, the review team could determine that a site visit is not needed or is delayed for one year. Other quantitative and qualitative indicators should be considered in the accreditation process in order to ensure a holistic process. Moreover, by including other indicators, a continuous improvement cycle is safeguarded while recognizing the uniqueness of each school. Data Considerations At the outset, when a local board requests a school review, the school s historic data should be readily available for access at NCDPI. The only instance where the school should have to provide additional data may be during the on-site review when particular questions may require more specific information. Under no circumstances should data collection or retrieval prove burdensome to the school site staff. It is critical, however, that the NCDPI reviewers possess and use basic data interpretation skills in reviewing the school s data. Each reviewer, for example, must possess basic data literacy; know that correlation is not causation; and know how to interpret EVAAS data, performance composites, and student growth data. Data sources are critical when it comes to selecting those indicators for inclusion in an accreditation rubric. It is recommended that no data should be collected for accreditation purposes that have already been collected by the State agency for some other purpose, such as the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). 14

15 Estimated Projected Costs The estimated projected cost of $10,625 per high school includes services provided by two to three subcontractors, including but not limited to travel, lodging, report writing, a three-day site visit or desk review, equipment, an annual data audit, and supplies as well as a one-time application fee. The estimated projected costs are based on actual costs associated with the accreditation process, based on an average North Carolina teacher s salary. The projected costs are commensurate with other accreditation agencies (e.g. AdvancEd). Conclusion Accreditation is a form of quality assurance. It is conducted by the State agency, outside agency, either governmental, or independent. Reviewers are usually experienced educators or administrators and typically the process is framed by a protocol that rates the school according to established criteria. The framework presented here outlines the process that NCDPI can use to accredit high schools. It incorporates aspects of absolute achievement (the school s performance composite) and student growth, as well as other indicators such as the cohort graduation rate and post-secondary readiness measures. The protocol can include other indicators, such as evidence that the school is narrowing achievement gaps among subgroup populations. An on-site review and a self-study (e.g. comprehensive needs assessment) would form the qualitative component of the process outlined above. 15

16 Definitions 1. Accreditation a quality assurance review for a high school that combines qualitative and quantitative components. 2. Accreditation Cycle the number of years between the designations of a school s accreditation status. 3. Rubric an outline of the protocol for determining the accreditation status of the school. 4. Comprehensive Needs Assessment the process used to determine the strengths and weaknesses within five dimensions of the school s operation, i.e., instructional excellence and alignment, leadership capacity, professional capacity, planning and operational effectiveness, families and communities. The CNA is currently employed as part of the review process in the Division for School and District Transformation. 5. Fully Accredited an accreditation status that means the school meets most of the minimum performance, growth, and/or other indicator benchmarks approved by the State Board of Education for the accreditation cycle. 6. Provisionally Accredited an accreditation status that means the school failed to meet the minimum benchmark level for some, but not all, of the standards and other indicators approved by the State Board of Education for the accreditation cycle. 7. Non-Accredited an accreditation status that means the school failed to meet ALL of the minimum benchmarks for the standards and other indicators approved by the State Board of Education for the accreditation cycle. The school will be reviewed annually to show improvement to become Provisionally or Fully Accredited. 8. Other Accreditation Indicators other indicators approved by the State Board of Education for inclusion in the accreditation rubric. 9. On-site review the qualitative component of the accreditation process, including a team visit and the high school s self-assessment. 16