A Model for Managing the Self-Study Regional School District No. 8—RHAM High School Hebron, CT.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Preparation of the Self-Study and Documentation
Advertisements

Migrant Education Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Academic Program and Unit Review at UIS Office of the Provost Fall 2014.
School Improvement Plan 6 Main Areas
The Anatomy of Systemic Support for Immersion Programs.
Accreditation Visitations Accreditation is… Accreditation is not…
School Site Council Guidelines Roles and Responsibilities Adapted from: Administrator’s Guide to School Site Councils Prepared by California.
WRITING THE NEASC SELF-STUDY NARRATIVE APRIL – MAY 2014.
On-Site School Review All-Staff Meeting An asset-building model of school improvement... Presenters: ___________________________ The High-Performing School.
Webinar #1 The Webinar will begin shortly. Please make sure your phone is muted. (*6 to Mute, #6 to Unmute) 7/3/20151.
Gifted Program Review Spring Process  In February 2013 a team of 41 individuals met to develop questions: parent, teachers, psychologists and administrators.
Coaching for School Improvement: A Guide for Coaches and Their Supervisors An Overview and Brief Tour Karen Laba Indistar® Summit September 2, 2010.
Medical School Preparation for LCME Accreditation The University Toledo College of Medicine August 24, 2011 Barbara Barzansky, PhD, MHPE LCME Secretary,
Report to the Board of Education October 15, 2007.
The District Technology Plan The District Technology Plan Melanie & David Dillard Melanie & David Dillard
Three Easy Steps to Your On-Site Review David Gray, MDE Sara Shriver, MAS/FPS.
Florida Catholic Conference Accreditation Program
Introduction to Home/School Compacts
Reviewing the 2015 AmeriCorps Applications & Conducting the Review AmeriCorps External Review.
Pomona Unified School District Standard Practices for Data Analysis Silvia San Martin Teacher Specialist Research and Assessment.
Do it pro bono. Strategic Scorecard Service Grant The Strategy Management Practice is presented by Wells Fargo. The design of the Strategic Scorecard Service.
Pontotoc City School District. Pontotoc City School District believes LEARNING is a priority, a need, and a desire. To be successful, we must nurture.
Program Overview The College Community School District's Mentoring and Induction Program is designed to increase retention of promising beginning educators.
On-Site School Review Leadership Meeting An asset-building model of school improvement... Presenters: ___________________________ The High-Performing School.
Module 4 Evaluating Services to Binational Migrant Students Designing an Implementation and Outcome Evaluation of State and Local Binational Services 1.
Florida Catholic Conference Accreditation Program School Improvement Plan Process.
1 HRSA Division of Independent Review The Review Process Regional AIDS Education and Training Centers HRSA Toni Thomas, MPA Lead Review Administrator.
T WO FOR O NE P ROGRAM R EVIEWS Beth Sumner Assistant Superintendent Trigg County Public Schools Kentucky Association of Assessment Coordinators October.
National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment Developmental Reviews at King Saud University and King Faisal University.
South Western School District Differentiated Supervision Plan DRAFT 2010.
On-line briefing for Program Directors and Staff 1.
NEW ENGLAND ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES NEASC.
Why must we do Data Teams? We know the implementation of DT benefit STUDENTS -helps teachers identify exceeding/proficient students and plan for targeted.
EDU 385 CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT Week 1 Introduction and Syllabus.
RTI Implantation Guide Overview Fall Before we begin… Student Intervention Planning is not a pre-referral process. It is the process of collaborating.
NEASCNEASC Standards Committees Kick-off Today’s Topic: Overview of the NEASC Game Plan and instructions for today’s work.
SACS-CASI Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement FAMU DRS – QAR Quality Assurance Review April 27-28,
Curriculum & Instructional Projects at the Florida Center for Reading Research Research Symposium November 6, 2006 FCRR.
Semester Conversion CPP Academic Senate March 12 th by F.A.Neto Semester Conversion Director 3/12/20141FAN.
Curriculum Focused Visit In Search of Standards. People’s minds are changed by observation and not through argument. (Will Rogers) What gets monitored.
Tier I: Implementing Learning Walks & Instructional Rounds OrRTI Conference Tara M. Black, M.Ed. May 9,
On Site Review Overview. 2 The On Site Review Process.
TECHNOLOGY USE PLAN INFORMATIONAL LETTER: 7 POLICY CODE: IJND Technology Planning Guidelines July 26, 2002.
On Site Review Process Office of Field Services.
On Site Review Process Office of Field Services Last Revised 8/15/2011.
“Developing an Implementation Map: Mapping / Mapping ” Dr. Ann Johnson
 Definition of a quality Audit  Types of audit  Qualifications of quality auditors  The audit process.
Project 3 Supporting Technology. Project Proposal.
SACS Leadership Retreat 9/23/ Western Carolina University SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation Frank Prochaska Executive Director, UNC Teaching.
School-Wide Rubrics An Overview. Our Expectations NEASC required for accreditation Developed by a 20+ member leadership team with representation of many.
How to Prepare for an Ohio TAV/TRV September 21, 2006 D.D. Davis, Mill Creek, Youngstown.
On Site Review Process. 2 Overview of On Site Review Materials and Process.
Accreditation Update and Institutional Student Learning Outcomes Deborah Moeckel, SUNY Assistant Provost SCoA Drive in Workshops Fall 2015
The Periodic Review Report and Middle States Accreditation PRR Workshop April 9, 2008.
Monitoring Afghanistan, 2015 Food Security and Agriculture Working Group – 9 December 2015.
Accreditation Overview Winter 2016 Mallory Newell, Accreditation Liaison Office.
Welcome New IRB Member! This brief presentation covers: Your Role in the IRB: What to Know The IRB Review Process Resources Human Research Protections.
Overview and Update.  LBUSD is currently facing a unique set of challenges and opportunities. It is imperative that we look intensely and thoroughly.
FOCUS GROUP Meetings: March 25 th & 27 th. How are the service learning projects connected to our Vision & Mission? PAIR SHARE.
Achieving More with An Assessment Inventory Neil GuptaWorthington City Schools Cathy HeidelbergEducational Service Center of Central Ohio Devin AndersonBuckeye.
Why a writing plan? Consistency among k-12 writing instruction Need to address state expectations for writing Data indicated very few students were exceeding.
East Longmeadow Public Schools SMART Goals Presented by ELPS Leadership Team.
Nevada Department of Education Office of Educational Opportunity Nevada Comprehensive Curriculum Audit Tool for Schools NCCAT-S August
Making an Excellent School More Excellent: Weston High School’s 21st Century Learning Expectations and Goals
Dutchess Community College Middle States Self-Study 2015
Taught Postgraduate Program Review
Overview of the Teacher Work Sample (TWS)
DISTRICT ACCREDITATION QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW
FY19 Federal Grant Monitoring: Titles I, II, IV
Guide to the Single Plan for Student Achievement
Presentation transcript:

A Model for Managing the Self-Study Regional School District No. 8—RHAM High School Hebron, CT

RHAM High School Statistics  1,107 student population  100 certified staff  Rural, eastern Connecticut  1,107 student population  100 certified staff  Rural, eastern Connecticut

Structures in Place at RHAM  Monthly two-hour delayed opening  Two Steering Committee co-chairs with 45 minutes per day  Monthly Steering Committee Meetings  Available Teacher-share drive on school network  Monthly two-hour delayed opening  Two Steering Committee co-chairs with 45 minutes per day  Monthly Steering Committee Meetings  Available Teacher-share drive on school network

First steps Website (Google sites allow for confidentiality) account Survey staff for committee preference (provided in NEASC materials) Identify Committee Chairs within groupings Contacting parents for committee involvement Website (Google sites allow for confidentiality) account Survey staff for committee preference (provided in NEASC materials) Identify Committee Chairs within groupings Contacting parents for committee involvement

RHAM NEASC website

The Indicators (Prior to beginning process) Categorization of each indicator’s sources of evidence i.e. Administration, Guidance, Nursing, Curricular Departments Categorization of each indicator’s sources of evidence i.e. Administration, Guidance, Nursing, Curricular Departments

Standard 2: Curriculum Indicator 5: Effective curricular coordination and vertical articulation exist between and among all academic areas within the school as well as with sending schools in the district. k. A description of the school’s curriculum review cycle, including the time devoted to the development, review, and evaluation of the curriculum. (District Curriculum Coordinator) l. A description of time faculty spend in collaboration activities (e.g. PLCs, Critical Friends Groups, Common Planning Time, et. al.) within content areas, across content areas, and with sending schools for the purpose of articulation of the curriculum. (Dist. Curriculum Coordinator AND Curricular Departments) m. A sample of district K-12 curriculum guides (Dist. Curriculum Coordinator) Indicator 5: Effective curricular coordination and vertical articulation exist between and among all academic areas within the school as well as with sending schools in the district. k. A description of the school’s curriculum review cycle, including the time devoted to the development, review, and evaluation of the curriculum. (District Curriculum Coordinator) l. A description of time faculty spend in collaboration activities (e.g. PLCs, Critical Friends Groups, Common Planning Time, et. al.) within content areas, across content areas, and with sending schools for the purpose of articulation of the curriculum. (Dist. Curriculum Coordinator AND Curricular Departments) m. A sample of district K-12 curriculum guides (Dist. Curriculum Coordinator)

Time Spent in Departments (Month 2-4) Departments meet to gather evidence to satisfy indicator requirements Narrative and concrete evidence Determine where gaps in evidence exist Solved through Survey Monkey, meetings with specialists, etc. Staff Endicott Survey taken individually during month 3 Instructions for Student Endicott Survey delivered during month 4 Departments meet to gather evidence to satisfy indicator requirements Narrative and concrete evidence Determine where gaps in evidence exist Solved through Survey Monkey, meetings with specialists, etc. Staff Endicott Survey taken individually during month 3 Instructions for Student Endicott Survey delivered during month 4

Individual Evidence Collection (Month 4-5) MONTH 4  Each teacher received personalized evidence folder and checklist  Overview of evidence collection **Student Endicott Survey administered during two weeks MONTH 5  Individual time to gather evidence and fill out cover sheet  Collect evidence folders at the end of the month **Parent Endicott Survey administered—notification through Alert Now system MONTH 4  Each teacher received personalized evidence folder and checklist  Overview of evidence collection **Student Endicott Survey administered during two weeks MONTH 5  Individual time to gather evidence and fill out cover sheet  Collect evidence folders at the end of the month **Parent Endicott Survey administered—notification through Alert Now system

Individual Teacher Evidence Checklist

Middle

If you find evidence gaps  Electronic survey of staff  Second, more focused, evidence collection  Electronic survey of staff  Second, more focused, evidence collection

When evidence collection is finished…  Steering Committee disseminates all collected evidence into separate folders labeled with indicator numbers and letters

Analyzing the Evidence (month 6-7)  Meeting again as committees to review standard and indicators  Committee chairs assign indicators to pairs (if possible)  Read sample narrative to grasp end-result  Look through and begin to organize evidence  Groups determine and report gaps in evidence  Groups begin to determine the extent to which the school fulfills the indicator  Meeting again as committees to review standard and indicators  Committee chairs assign indicators to pairs (if possible)  Read sample narrative to grasp end-result  Look through and begin to organize evidence  Groups determine and report gaps in evidence  Groups begin to determine the extent to which the school fulfills the indicator

Writing the narrative (months 8-9)  Steering committee liaisons guide committees through the writing process (presentation made available electronically to all staff)  Writing begins  Steering committee liaisons guide committees through the writing process (presentation made available electronically to all staff)  Writing begins

Strengths and Needs (month 9)  Each indicator group reviews their narrative section to determine areas of strength and need.  Generate draft of all strengths and needs  Each indicator group reviews their narrative section to determine areas of strength and need.  Generate draft of all strengths and needs

Self-Study Narrative Revision  Steering committee compiles and revises entire draft for  Obvious grammatical issues  Consistency of formatting  Additions/subtractions based on changed practices  Gaps or inaccuracies in information  Steering committee compiles and revises entire draft for  Obvious grammatical issues  Consistency of formatting  Additions/subtractions based on changed practices  Gaps or inaccuracies in information

Committee revisions of drafts (months 10-12)  Drafts are reviewed collectively for  Additions/subtractions based on changed practices  Gaps or inaccuracies in information  Collective discussion in preparation for the final rating of standard  Strengths and needs list is refined  Committee groups swap drafts for reading only  Drafts are reviewed collectively for  Additions/subtractions based on changed practices  Gaps or inaccuracies in information  Collective discussion in preparation for the final rating of standard  Strengths and needs list is refined  Committee groups swap drafts for reading only

Executive Summaries  Prepared by steering committee and committee chairs

Rating standards and voting on strengths and weaknesses (month 13)  Committees meet to review their respective executive summary and, using the NEASC rating guide, agree on a final rating (which goes into the executive summary).  Using electronic surveying, faculty members independently review each standard’s list of strengths and needs and votes on which one (for each standard) is MOST significant.  Committees meet to review their respective executive summary and, using the NEASC rating guide, agree on a final rating (which goes into the executive summary).  Using electronic surveying, faculty members independently review each standard’s list of strengths and needs and votes on which one (for each standard) is MOST significant.

Voting (month 14)  Faculty reads each standard’s executive summary and votes (though individual survey) to approve or disapprove each standard’s section of the Self-Study Narrative.  Surveying allows for commentary to report reason for disapproval  Faculty reads each standard’s executive summary and votes (though individual survey) to approve or disapprove each standard’s section of the Self-Study Narrative.  Surveying allows for commentary to report reason for disapproval

If standard/s are not approved…  Steering committee looks at faculty commentary and revises drafts  Revote takes place during the next month’s delay  Steering committee looks at faculty commentary and revises drafts  Revote takes place during the next month’s delay