Approving the Guidelines for Conducting Academic Reviews of Schools Rated Accredited with Warning
Resolution Number 2002-21
July 25, 2002
RESOLVED that the Board of Education approves the processes developed by the Department of Education as described in the document entitled Guidelines for Conducting Academic Reviews of Schools Accredited with Warning.
GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING ACADEMIC REVIEWS OF SCHOOLS RATED ACCREDITED WITH WARNING
PHASE 1 ACADEMIC REVIEWS
On November 30, 2000, the Board approved guidelines for Phase 1 Academic Reviews. Phase 1 Academic Reviews are conducted in schools rated Accredited with Warning for the first time. This Academic Review process focuses on the following four areas:
- Curriculum alignment with the Standards of Learning;
- Use of instructional time and school scheduling practices;
- Use of data to make instructional and planning decisions;
- Professional development opportunities for staff.
Schools use the results of the Academic Review to prepare three-year school improvement plans. The proposed revisions to the Phase 1 Academic Review maintain the focus on the four areas of review described above, continue to rely on interviews, document review, and classroom observations as means of gathering data, and continue to result in a final report detailing areas of strength, areas for improvement, and suggestions for school improvement planning.
The proposed revisions incorporate the following into the process:
- Orientation to the Academic Review process;
- A self-study whereby school staff assess the degree of curriculum alignment, effective use of instructional time and school scheduling, effective use of data to make decisions, and opportunities for professional development;
- A section of the final report entitled “Essential Actions” detailing specific activities the school is expected to conduct; and
- Extended on-site visits to analyze classroom instructional practices and to provide at least two days of additional follow-up technical assistance to facilitate the school’s completion of “essential actions” detailed in the final report.
PHASE 2 ACADEMIC REVIEWS
On July 26, 2001, the Board approved guidelines for Phase 2 Academic Reviews. Phase 2 Academic Reviews are conducted in schools rated Accredited with Warning in the same content area(s) for a second consecutive year.
The Review focuses on the same four areas of review as in the Phase 1 Academic Review, but does so within the context of the implementation of the school’s three-year school improvement plan and the implementation of an instructional model/program, if the school is warned in English and/or mathematics.
Specifically, the school is assessed on:
- The format and content of the school improvement plan;
- The degree to which the plan has been implemented;
- The degree to which the implementation of strategies have had a positive effect on student achievement; and, for schools warned in English and/or mathematics;
- The degree to which the plan reflects the implementation of an instructional model/program;
- The degree to which the instructional model/program has been implemented; and the degree to which the implementation of the model/program has had a positive effect on student achievement.
The proposed revisions to the Phase 2 Academic Review maintain the focus on the areas of review described above, continue to rely on interviews, document review, self-studies, and classroom observations as means of gathering data, and continue to result in a final report detailing areas of strength, areas for improvement, and recommendations.
The proposed revisions incorporate the following into the process:
- Orientation to the Academic Review process;
- A section of the final report entitled “Essential Actions” detailing specific activities the school is expected to conduct; and
- Extended on-site visits to evaluate classroom practices and to provide at least four days of additional follow-up technical assistance to facilitate the school’s completion of “essential actions” detailed in the final report.
PHASE 3 ACADEMIC REVIEWS
Phase 3 Academic Reviews will be conducted in schools rated Accredited with Warning in the same content area(s) for a third consecutive year. The process will rely on data collections by teams of experienced educators who will focus on the systems, policies and practices in place that support curriculum alignment, use of data, effective use of instructional time, professional development, and school improvement and instructional model/program implementation. Data collections will be gathered on forms provided by the department of education. An analysis of the data will result in an initial report detailing areas of strength, areas for improvement, recommendations, and essential actions the school will be expected to conduct. Status reports will be prepared throughout the year, and a final report will be prepared toward the end of the school year. Each review will be “prescriptive” in nature. That is to say that the specific activities conducted during the review and the make up of the team will depend on the specific needs of the school, as determined through self-study and “pre-visit” activities conducted by the lead reviewer. Follow-up technical assistance and monitoring will be part of the review process.
“Prescriptive Review” Process
The Phase 3 Academic Review will consist of an orientation to the review process, a “pre-visit” by a lead reviewer to assess the needs of the school, self studies conducted by the school, an on-site visit by a review team, and, at a minimum, monthly follow-up technical assistance to facilitate the school’s completion of essential actions detailed in the final report.
The lead reviewer will visit the school as early as practicable to:
· Review school improvement plan implementation and instructional model/program implementation for schools rated Accredited with Warning in English and/or mathematics;
- Conduct classroom observations;
- Conduct preliminary interviews;
- Determine self-assessments to be completed by the school;
- Schedule the academic review on-site;
- Determine academic review team member composition.
The on-site review will be designed to gather information about the following, as determined by the preliminary analysis of the lead reviewer:
1. School self-evaluations
a) School Improvement Plan Implementation b) Instructional Model/Program Implementation c) School Climate/Culture Survey d) Role of Principal Survey e) Classroom Teacher Survey f) Curriculum Alignment g) Use of Time & Scheduling h) Using Data i) Professional Development j) School Instructional Audit k) NCLB Status Report l) CSR Self Study m) IDEA Compliance
2. School Level Practices
a) School scheduling practices b) School data analysis c) School staff development practices d) School decision / planning practices e) Community building practices
3. Division Level Practices
a) Division policies b) Curriculum c) Division practices impacting instruction
4. Instructional Practices
a) Classroom instructional methodology b) Grade level c) Department d) Alignment of objectives and assessments with written curriculum
5. Monitoring Systems
a) School improvement plan implementation b) Instructional model/program implementation c) Student achievement data d) Staff development e) Classroom instruction 6. Allocation of Resources a) Staffing b) Fiscal c) Instructional materials d) Time
Review Team Members
Each team will consist of, at a minimum, a lead reviewer (independent contractor or DOE staff member), at least one DOE staff member, at least one independent contractor, a representative from the school division’s central office, the school principal, and a “distinguished principal” fro m a successful school with demographics similar to that of the warned school. At least one team member will have expertise in the area(s) of warning. Additional members may include a classroom teacher, a representative of special education services, and a representative from Title 1, based upon need as determined by the lead reviewer. School division superintendents may, with good cause, request that a team member be replaced.
Results of the Review
A report of initial findings will outline the issues that drove the prescriptive review and will describe data gathered and analyzed. The report will include areas of strength, areas for improvement, and essential activities that the school must conduct.
Technical assistance will be provided to the school to assist the school in the planning, coordinating, conducting, monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the activities. The lead reviewer and/or the “distinguished principal” will provide this technical assistance. The lead reviewer will prepare monthly status reports. These reports will describe the degree to which the school has implemented and monitored the effect of essential activities. Toward the end of the school year, review team members involved in any aspect of the review process will reconvene to prepare a final report that describes the efforts of the school to improve student achievement.
LOCALLY-DEVELOPED ACADEMIC REVIEWS
The Board of Education will not waive the requirement of an academic review for schools accredited with warning. The Board may approve the use of locally-developed academic reviews upon the request of local school boards provided the locally-developed reviews meet or exceed the requirements for reviews conducted by the Department of Education as outlined in these guidelines. Individuals who conduct locally developed reviews may not be employees of the Department of Education and their qualifications must meet or exceed those of individuals who serve as independent contractors for the Department for the purpose of conducting academic reviews.
Requests for approval of locally developed reviews submitted to the Board must include, at a minimum, the following documentation:
- A listing of individuals who will conduct the review.
- The scope of the review.
- Dates of the review.
- Certification from the division superintendent that the review will meet or exceed the requirements for academic reviews adopted by the Board.
Requests for approval of locally developed reviews must be submitted to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, who, by authority of the Board of Education, shall review and approve or disapprove those requests.
Upon completion of the locally developed review, the division superintendent shall submit a copy of the final report provided by the reviewer to the Office of Accreditation, Department of Education, and comply with the remaining provisions of 8 VAC 20-131-310 of the accrediting standards.
Signature:
Mark C. Christie, President
Board of Education
Adopted in the Minutes of the Virginia Board of Education
July 25, 2002