advanced engagement review report (preliminary)

February 25-28, 2018

Results for: Troup County School System 100 North Davis Road

LaGrange, GA 30241

© Advance Education, Inc. www.advanc-ed.org 2

Accreditation Engagement Review Report

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

AdvancED Performance Accreditation and the Engagement Review .................................................................. 3

AdvancED Continuous Improvement System ..................................................................................................... 4

Continuous Improvement Journey Narrative ..................................................................................................... 4

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results ................................................................................................................ 6

Leadership Capacity Domain .............................................................................................................................. 6

Learning Capacity Domain.................................................................................................................................. 7

Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................................. 7

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results .................................................................... 8

eleot® Narrative ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Findings ............................................................................................................................................................... 10

Powerful Practices ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Opportunities for Improvement ....................................................................................................................... 11

Improvement Priorities .................................................................................................................................... 11

Accreditation Recommendation and Index of Educational Quality™ (IEQ™) ........................................................ 13

Conclusion Narrative ........................................................................................................................................... 13

Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................................... 14

Team Roster ........................................................................................................................................................ 15



Introduction

AdvancED Performance Accreditation and the Engagement Review Accreditation is pivotal to leveraging education quality and continuous improvement. Using a set of rigorous

research based standards, the 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 AdvancED 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 AdvancED Performance Standards. Using these Standards, Engagement Review Teams assess the

quality of learning environments to gain valuable insights and target improvements in teaching and

learning. AdvancED 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 that helps to

focus and guide each institution’s improvement journey. Valuable evidence and information from other

stakeholders, including students, also is obtained through interviews, surveys and additional activities.

As a part of the Engagement Review, stakeholders were interviewed by members of the Engagement Review Team

to gain their perspectives on topics relevant to the institution's learning environment and organizational

effectiveness. The feedback gained through the stakeholder interviews was considered with other evidences and

data to support the findings of the Engagement Review. The following chart depicts the numbers of persons

interviewed representative of various stakeholder groups.

Stakeholder Groups Number

Superintendent 1

Board members 7

Administrators 57

Instructional Staff 140

Support Staff 14

Students 152

Parents/Community/Business Leaders 50

Total 421

Once all of the information is compiled and reviewed, the team develops the Engagement Review Report and

presents preliminary results to the institution. Results from the Engagement Review are reported in four ratings

represented by colors. These ratings provide guidance and insight into an institution's continuous improvement

efforts as described below:

Color Rating Description

Red Needs Improvement Identifies key areas that need more focused improvement efforts

Yellow Emerging Represents areas to enhance and extend current improvement efforts

Green Meets Expectations Pinpoints quality practices that meet the Standards



Color Rating Description

Blue Exceeds Expectations Demonstrates noteworthy practices producing clear results that exceed expectations

AdvancED Continuous Improvement System The AdvancED 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.

AdvancED 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. AdvancED identifies three important

components of a continuous improvement process and provides feedback on the components of the journey using

a rubric that identifies the three areas to guide the improvement journey. The areas are as follows:

Commitment to Continuous Improvement Rating

The institution has collected sufficient and quality data to identify school improvement needs.

Exceeds Expectations

Implications from the analysis of data have been identified and used for the development of key strategic goals.

Meets Expectations

The institution demonstrates the capacity to implement their continuous improvement journey.

Meets Expectations

Continuous Improvement Journey Narrative The Troup County School System (TCSS) has a comprehensive data collection and analysis program that includes

both academic and non-academic measures. Some of the key data collected and analyzed include reading

inventory Lexile measures, Read 180, System 44, iRead, guiding reading, student and staff attendance, Positive

Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS), discipline referrals, system common assessments, teacher developed

assessments, informal and formal classroom walk-through data, WE surveys, climate and culture surveys, Georgia

Milestones, College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI), graduation, dropout, and attendance rates, and

teacher retention rates. Many of these data sets are included as a part of the system’s Continuous System

Improvement Plan (CSIP) that contain targets each year through 2023.

In the Troup County School System, data analysis is on-going and serves to provide leadership and teachers areas

of strength and areas needing improvement. As an example, in its October 2017 data review session, one of the

pieces of evidence was the reading inventory screening Lexile results. Personnel identified remediation strategies

and then monitored student testing data to measure the impact of the remediation strategies.

Nonacademic data such as student attendance rates and discipline referral data were also examined as a measure

of the system’s culture of success. Programs to address these issues (e.g., PBIS, Tiger Time, Calloway Connections,

Granger Clubs) are monitored to determine what is working, what is not working, and what needs to be revised.

System personnel provided multiple opportunities for both internal and external stakeholders to be involved in

data analysis and development of strategies to respond to the various data analysis. Stakeholder groups included

the Superintendent’s Advisory Task Force, Partners in Education, school councils, parent advisory council,

administrative team, curriculum and instruction team, comprehensive needs assessment team, the board of

education, Troup County Strategic Planning Committee and Get Reading, Troup. Each group focused on data that



align most closely with the group’s primary role and analyzed those data to assist in the development of strategies

and interventions to bring about continuous improvement.

An example of strong community involvement in continuous improvement is reflected in the opening of a TCSS

charter school. Four to five years ago several community stakeholders started observing that effective use of soft

skills (e.g., attendance, teamwork, problem solving, respect) was lacking in many TCSS graduates. Business and

community-based problem-solving conversations evolved into planning sessions which grew into a working

charter school named THINC College and Career Academy. Since its opening in August 2015 some TCSS juniors

and seniors and now sophomores are electing to attend THINC. The overwhelming majority of students attend

their home high school for half a day and THINC the other half of the day. This innovative program is financially

supported by TCSS and generous donations from several community businesses and service organizations.

Different stakeholder groups were interested in different data sets and these data sets were made available to the

groups in an on-going basis. The parent advisory council members were interested in data relative to parental

participation in the school, safety issues, and WE survey results. The curriculum and instruction teams and the

Get Reading group were more interested in the results from the reading inventory Lexile measures. The robust

nature of the TCSS data program provided the various stakeholder groups the most up-to-date data thereby

allowing for more current analysis.

During interviews with the board of education, the Career and College Readiness Performance Index (CCRPI) was

noted. The declining CCRPI was mentioned by a variety of stakeholders as a concern as well. In response to the

mixed student achievement results, including the CCRPI data, system personnel have implemented several

initiatives including components of the Rigor Relevance Framework developed by the International Center for

Leadership Education (ICLE). These initiatives seem to be working better in some schools than in others. Clearly

the fidelity with which improvement initiatives are enacted determines their impact. Given the varied eleot™

results, system personnel may want to closely monitor the implementation and impact of continuous

improvement initiatives at the school and classroom levels.

On-going vigilance will be required to address the declining CCRPI scores, the need to increase TCSS alumni

mastery of 21sts Century skills, and provide the resources needed in today’s classrooms. School and system

personnel seem eager, willing and capable to successfully meet these challenges. Nevertheless, it will require a

united board, system level staff, school-level staff and the entire community to provide the resources and learning

experiences required to meet the growing challenges today’s schools and students face.

Finally, continuous improvement requires financial resources that often require additional local dollars and thus

community support, which can be measured in many ways. Surveys provide some information while individual

interview and focus groups allow for individual and small group input. Comments at board meetings and

newspaper articles are another. In 2016, to keep the buildings up-to-date and to build additional facilities, the

school system presented the community with an Education Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (E-SPLOST).

The previous local option taxes had passed, but by ever shrinking margins. The system leadership felt that if the

community understood the needs, they would be supportive. Through a concerted effort by the system

leadership and other interested parties, the outcome was left in the hands of the voters. When all the votes were

counted, 63.5% of the voters had said “Yes” to the E-SPLOST and the students of TCSS are repeating the benefits.



AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results The AdvancED Performance Standards Diagnostic is used by the Engagement Review Team to evaluate the.

institution’s effectiveness based on AdvancED’s Performance Standards. The diagnostic consists of three

components built around each of the three Domains: Leadership Capacity, Learning Capacity and Resource

Capacity. Point values are established within the diagnostic and a percentage of the points earned by the

institution for each Standard is calculated from the point values for each Standard. Results are reported within four

ranges identified by the colors representing Needs Improvement (Red), Emerging (Yellow), Meets Expectations

(Green), and Exceeds Expectations (Blue). The results for the three Domains are presented in the tables that

follow.

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 system commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching and learning, including the expectations for learners.

Meets Expectations

1.2 Stakeholders collectively demonstrate actions to ensure the achievement of the system’s purpose and desired outcomes for learners.

Meets Expectations

1.3 The system engages in a continuous improvement process that produces evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and professional practice.


1.4 The governing authority establishes and ensures adherence to policies that are designed to support system effectiveness.

Emerging

1.5 The governing authority adheres to a code of ethics and functions within defined roles and responsibilities.

Needs Improvement

1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve professional practice and organizational effectiveness.

Emerging

1.7 Leaders implement operational processes and procedures to ensure organizational effectiveness in support of teaching and learning.

Meets Expectations

1.8 Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the system’s purpose and direction.


1.9 The system provides experiences that cultivate and improve leadership effectiveness.

Emerging

1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement.

Meets Expectations

1.11 Leaders implement a quality assurance process for its institutions to ensure system effectiveness and consistency.

Emerging



Learning Capacity Domain The impact of teaching and learning is the primary expectation of every system and its institutions. The

establishment of a learning culture built on high expectations for learning, along with quality programs and

services, which include an analysis of results, are all key indicators of the system’s impact on teaching and learning.

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

2.1 Learners have equitable opportunities to develop skills and achieve the content and learning priorities established by the system. Emerging

2.2 The learning culture promotes creativity, innovation and collaborative problem-solving.

Emerging

2.3 The learning culture develops learners’ attitudes, beliefs and skills needed for success.

Meets Expectations

2.4 The system has a formal structure to ensure learners develop positive relationships with and have adults/peers that support their educational experiences. Emerging

2.5 Educators implement a curriculum that is based on high expectations and prepares learners for their next levels.

Meets Expectations

2.6 The system implements a process to ensure the curriculum is aligned to standards and best practices. Emerging

2.7 Instruction is monitored and adjusted to meet individual learners’ needs and the system’s learning expectations.

Emerging

2.8 The system provides programs and services for learners’ educational future and career planning. Emerging

2.9 The system implements processes to identify and address the specialized needs of learners.

Emerging

2.10 Learning progress is reliably assessed and consistently and clearly communicated. Meets Expectations

2.11 Educators gather, analyze, and use formative and summative data that lead to demonstrable improvement of student learning.


2.12 The system implements a process to continuously assess its programs and organizational conditions to improve student learning.

Meets Expectations

Resource Capacity Domain The use and distribution of resources align and support the needs of the system and institutions served. Systems

ensure that resources are aligned with its stated purpose and direction and distributed equitably so that the needs

of the system are adequately and effectively addressed. The utilization of resources includes support for

professional learning for all staff. The system examines the allocation and use of resources to ensure appropriate

levels of funding, sustainability, and system effectiveness.

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

3.1 The system plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning environment, learner achievement, and the system’s effectiveness.

Emerging

3.2 The system’s professional learning structure and expectations promote collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational effectiveness. Emerging

3.3 The system provides induction, mentoring, and coaching programs that ensure all staff members have the knowledge and skills to improve student performance and organizational effectiveness.

Emerging



Resource Capacity Standards Rating

3.4 The system attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the system’s purpose and direction.

Meets Expectations

3.5 The system integrates digital resources into teaching, learning, and operations to improve professional practice, student performance, and organizational effectiveness.

Emerging

3.6 The system provides access to information resources and materials to support the curriculum, programs, and needs of students, staff, and the system.

Emerging

3.7 The system demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long-range planning and use of resources in support of the system’s purpose and direction.


3.8 The system allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the system’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and organizational effectiveness.

Meets Expectations

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Results The eProve™ Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) is a learner-centric classroom observation tool that comprises 28 items organized in seven environments aligned with the AdvancED Standards. The eleot provides useful, relevant, structured, and quantifiable data on the extent to which students are engaged in activities and/or demonstrate knowledge, attitudes, and/or dispositions that are conducive to effective learning. Classroom observations are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes. Results from eleot are reported on a scale of one to four based on the degree and quality of the engagement.

eleot® Observations

Total Number of eleot® Observations 55

Environments Rating

Equitable Learning Environment 2.77

Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs 2.00

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions, activities, resources, technology, and support

3.31

Learners are treated in a fair, clear and consistent manner 3.51

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human characteristics, conditions and dispositions

2.25

High Expectations Environment 2.89

Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher

3.02

Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable 3.18

Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work 2.51

Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)

2.96

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their learning 2.80

Supportive Learning Environment 3.40

Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful 3.38

Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative feedback) 3.38

Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers and/or other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks

3.45



eleot® Observations

Total Number of eleot® Observations 55

Environments Rating

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher 3.36

Active Learning Environment 2.87

Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other and the teacher predominate 3.05

Learners make connections from content to real-life experiences 2.56

Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities 3.18

Learners collaborate with their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments

2.71

Progress Monitoring and Feedback Environment 2.86

Learners monitor their own learning progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored

2.60

Learners receive/respond to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or revise work

3.22

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content 3.11

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed 2.51

Well-Managed Learning Environment 3.20

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and each other 3.45

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others

3.27

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity to another 3.04

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted time or disruptions 3.02

Digital Learning Environment 1.79

Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning 1.85

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for learning

1.87

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and/or work collaboratively for learning

1.64

eleot® Narrative In order to observe in the maximum number of schools possible, the Engagement Review Team divided into two-member and singleton teams. As a part of the eleot™ observation process, twelve schools plus THINC were visited and included 2 unannounced school visits on Monday afternoon, 5 announced school visits on Tuesday morning and 6 unannounced school visits on Tuesday afternoon. A total of 55 eleot observations were conducted with an overall average of 2.86 on a 4-point scale. Knowing that TCSS have been involved with the Rigor and Relevance Framework for some time, team members expected to experience many classrooms in which Quadrant D (gather knowledge and solve complex problems) activities were taking place. To be sure there were classrooms in which students were problem solving including the middle school “forensic” classroom in which students were conducting an experiment to learn how fast a dead person’s body temperature drops, elementary students were building cubes in order to predict how perimeter and area impacted volume, and art students were exploring the impact that light and viewing angle have on the brain’s perception of the objects being observed. Unfortunately, Quadrant D expectations were not so obvious in several classrooms as the team experienced many classrooms that reflected more Quadrant A behaviors (recall and basic understanding). These differing classroom experiences are reflected in the eleot results. While the overall average for Equitable Learning was a 2.77 on a 4-point scale, learners engaged in differentiated learning activities averaged a 2.0. This reflects an often-noted teaching strategy of lecture or discussion with the



whole class with limited if any differentiation provided. The High Expectations Environment averaged 2.89 on a 4-point scale with student engagement in challenging but attainable activities averaging 3.18. The dichotomy of activities was reflected in classrooms in which students were either fully engaged with problem solving activities or were quietly sitting listening to the teacher. While students were sometimes involved in challenging work, there was often no differentiation of expectation or instruction regardless of the students’ academic level. Some Quadrant D instruction was noted, but many learners were not given the opportunity to be self-directed in their learning based on their teacher providing too much guidance and direction. Team members noted the easy interactions that principals and teachers had with students. Conversations seemed genuine and caring. Both student and parent groups noted a caring attitude in the TCSS employees. When asked what their favorite thing was about the school, many students answered, “the teachers.” This culture of caring is reflected in the highest learning environment, Supportive Learning. Each item within this environment averaged a 3.36 or higher with the support that learners receive from their teacher and peers averaging a 3.45 on a 4-point scale. The Progress Monitoring Environment was the third highest of all the environments. This is not surprising given the focus on data collection and analysis the team observed at the system level. Students were also observed self-monitoring as reflected in the statements, “I believe my factors are wrong,” “Can you look to see what I did wrong?” “I’m still confused.” Daily and weekly formative assessments are supplemented with summative assessments. The analysis of these various assessments often suggested a need to modify instructional strategies and use different instructional resources. Based on student learning results, school personnel also used Response to Intervention (RtI) to provide additional and focused support for students. As is almost always the case and averaging 1.79 on a 4-point scale, the Digital Learning Environment was the lowest of all the environments. But, team members noted that in some classrooms, the use of digital tools would not have enhanced or extended student learning. Yet, there were more than a few opportunities to enhance instruction with the adequate amount of digital tools available.

Findings The chart below provides an overview of the institution ratings across the three Domains.

NeedsImprovementEmerging

MeetsExpectationsExceedsExpectations

Rating Number of Standards

Needs Improvement 1

Emerging 16

Meets Expectations 10

Exceeds Expectations 4



Powerful Practices Powerful Practices reflect noteworthy observations and actions that have yielded clear results in student achievement or organizational effectiveness and are actions that exceed what is typically observed or expected in an institution.

Powerful Practice #1 The Troup County school system has developed consistent and deliberate strategies that provide meaningful roles for stakeholders’ input into numerous major decisions (e.g., budgeting process, system’s mission and vision statement, facility planning and system branding). Primary Standard: 1.8 Evidence: The Troup County School System had in place several strategies and opportunities for stakeholders to provide input in meaningful ways. In addition to surveys, parent/teacher organizations and parent teacher conferences allowed for authentic two-way communication. TCSS had a Superintendent’s Advisory Council (SAC) that played a critical role in many major decisions. Composed of about 60 internal and external stakeholders, the SAC was actively involved in helping prioritize the budget requests. During the budget-development process, various departments submitted requests for the following fiscal year. The requests included expected expenditures and a rationale for the requested expenditures. These requests were organized for a SAC meeting which often occurred on Saturday and lasted for several hours. By the end of the meeting the items were prioritized, and the list was presented to the board for their review, possible revision, and action. The SAC also played an active role in calendar development, reviewing the system’s mission and vision statements, and in providing input into public relations decisions such as the recently revised branding proposal. Recently, system personnel decided it was time for a new logo. The previous logo had used for many years and did not portray a forward-thinking image. Rather than hire an outside advertising company to develop a new logo, the opportunity was given to the students. Several options were considered, and a focus group provided additional input before the new logo was selected. Finally, system personnel had several ways of informing stakeholders of system events including the superintendent’s newsletter, social media, tweets, parents’ advisory councils, the system’s webpage, Infinite Campus, and Remind 101 (a real-time messaging system). One parent seemed to sum up the consensus of the group when she said, “If someone says the school system doesn’t keep them up to date, they must not be paying attention. The system is constantly communicating and providing us with chances to be involved.”

Opportunities for Improvement Opportunities for Improvement are those actions that will guide and direct institutions to specific areas that are worthy of additional attention.

Opportunity for Improvement #1 Develop, implement and monitor a formal and systemic process that provides each learner with at least one adult advocate who interacts frequently and consistently with the learner, supports the learner’s educational experiences, and encourages respectful relationships with other system adults and the learner’s peers. Primary Standard: 2.4 Evidence: Interviews with parents, students, and teachers indicated that relationships are a priority for the Troup County School System. Parents trust that the system is educating “the whole child” by instilling sound academic skills coupled with effective soft skills in a nurturing environment. During interviews, parents eagerly reported, “My



child wants to attend school each day.” “My child’s teacher cares about my child.” The efforts of the Positive Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS), Tiger Time, Cavalier Connections, and Granger Clubs, organized efforts in each middle and elementary school to assign guidance counselors, homeroom teachers, and administrators to learners helps to ensure that schools are filled with caring adults. However, in interviews with teachers and administrators, it was acknowledged that there is no systemic or systematic program in place that ensures that each child has an adult advocate. WE Survey results indicated that there is a 20% discrepancy between the way teachers and students see their connection to one another. For example, in grades 6-12, 93.1% of teachers agreed that “staff respects students.” On the other hand, 70.2% of 6-12 students agreed that “My teachers care about me.” In a report “Journey to Excellence” written by personnel with the International Center for Leadership in Education, it was reported that students did not believe that their teachers knew them well. This finding underscores what happens when an advocacy program is disjointed and not systemic versus a formalized program whereby each student is assigned an adult who actively and continually serves as the learner’s advocate.

Improvement Priorities Improvement priorities are developed to enhance the capacity of the institution to reach a higher level of performance and reflect the areas identified by the Engagement Review Team to have the greatest impact on improving student performance and organizational effectiveness.

Improvement Priority #1 Develop, implement and monitor a process that ensures all members of the governing body operate within the parameters of their legally defined roles and responsibility, adhere strictly to the code of ethics and provide leadership the autonomy required for effective day-to-day operations. Primary Standard: 1.5 Evidence At its January 2018 meeting the board of education affirmed its own code of ethics. The code provides best practice guidance on several issues. These include governance, chain of command, autonomy for the superintendent and leadership to administer the program, and a directive to “not undermine the authority of the local superintendent or intrude into responsibilities that properly belong to the local superintendent or school administration.” Since the chairman of the board was scheduled to be out of town during the on-site visit of the Engagement Review, the Lead Evaluator conducted a telephone interview with the board chair on Thursday, February 22 before the on-site visit was scheduled to begin on Sunday, February 25, 2018. Other board members were interviewed on Monday, February 26. Board members expressed strengths as well as a variety of improvement goals for the system. During the on-site visit, the team asked several questions to various system personnel concerning the Standards found in the Leadership Capacity Domain. While the most often observed behavior was forthright and unrestrained, a number of stakeholders expressed concern regarding the autonomy given to the superintendent and the leadership team by the board. Personnel from the Georgia School Board’s Association (GSBA) provided training for all current board members. A portion of that training states that superintendent expects the board to “make all employees of the system responsible to the superintendent, refrain from any direct dealings with them,” and “Refer applications, complaints, and other communication concerning administrative matters (oral and written) to the superintendent.” There are multiple instances where this is not happening.



A review of various artifacts reflected directives were given to some employees by individual board members. There was no evidence that the directives were on behalf of the entire board. Additionally, other artifacts reflected evidence of meetings called by a board member were teachers were encouraged to meet and voice their concerns. Again, there was no evidence that this was sanctioned by the board. In its System Quality Factor Report system personnel reported that “many of the governing authority” demonstrate an understanding of its roles and responsibilities. This suggests that a least some members of the governing authority do not always demonstrate an understanding of its roles and responsibilities. Direct contacts by board members with individual employees are not illegal but do undermine the authority of the superintendent and put employees in awkward positions. While individual board members have no authority when acting alone, it is impossible for a school employee to not recognize that the individual is also a member of the board of education. Therefore, strict adherence to the board’s code of ethics is always best practice.

Accreditation Recommendation and Index of Educational

Quality™ (IEQ™) The Engagement Review Team recommends to the AdvancED Accreditation Commission that the institution earns the distinction of accreditation for a five-year term. AdvancED will review the results of the Engagement Review to make a final determination, including the appropriate next steps for the institution in response to these findings.

AdvancED provides the Index of Education Quality™ (IEQ™) as a holistic measure of overall performance based on

a comprehensive set of standards and review criteria. A formative tool for improvement, it identifies areas of

success as well as areas in need of focus. The IEQ is comprised of the Standards Diagnostic ratings from the three

Domains: 1) Leadership Capacity; 2) Learning Capacity; and 3) Resource Capacity and the results of eleot classroom

observations. The IEQ results are reported on a scale of 100 to 400 and provides information about how the

institution is performing compared to expected criteria.

Institution IEQ 309.51

Conclusion Narrative The Troup County School System has many impressive educational practices in place. The THINC College and Career Academy is but one example. The TCSS comprehensive and robust data collection, analysis and application process is another as well as its recently enacted PBIS program. All these programs are designed to improve student learning, provide opportunities for student growth, and supply information for decision-makers to move the system in the right direction. However, when one digs beneath the surface one learns that some of these programs were borne out of some discontent with the system’s student performance. As noted previously in this report, some citizen and business stakeholders were not pleased with the soft skills often exhibited by some of the TCSS alumni. Alumni did not always understand the importance of collaboration, good attendance or proper communication. But, rather than point to the school system and say “Fix it” a school/ business partnership was formed that ended with the creation of a charter school and ultimately THINC College and Career Academy. Currently for sophomore, junior, and senior students in all three of TCSS high schools, the program seeks to expand to include freshman students as well. All sophomores, juniors and seniors are welcome to attend. But, some students find that the more traditional high school is a better fit for them. Thirty percent of a student’s grade attending THINC is determined by the student’s attainment of soft skills and 70% is determined by the student’s understanding of academic course work. Given that there are few models to emulate, TCSS personnel find themselves in a unique position to be trailblazers in developing an often-sought-after graduate, one with academic credentials and an ability to effectively demonstrate soft skills.



An on-going challenge for TCSS is reflected in the system’s CCRPI. While there are pockets of improvement, this is not the norm. Scores have been declining and, thus far, improvement strategies have not proven successful. A major response to this downward spiral has been the implementation of the Daggett Rigor and Relevance Framework. Substantial investments of time, human, and fiscal resources have been invested in this program. Preliminary results seem inconclusive. Engagement Team members were charged with noting the infusion of fundamental components of the Framework. Eleot observations reflect many classrooms are being led by teachers who understand and embrace the Rigor and Relevance Framework. Nevertheless, there are classrooms where this is not the case. Therefore, student achievement results may not be as much a reflection of the program as it is of the fidelity with which the program is being enacted. Where Quadrant D activities are obvious, students are solving problems, thinking at deeper levels and collaborating with peers. System personnel are strongly encouraged to not only examine student achievement data at the system and school level, but at the individual classroom level as well. The previously mentioned data collection and analysis program is one that should be emulated by others. Too often school systems collect and analyze their data, but too few actually implement strategies designed to bring about improvement. Those systems that do implement strategies to bring about improvement often fail to measure the impact on the newly implemented strategies. Not so with TCSS. The TCSS data program is robust, comprehensive, and completes the cycle. The TCSS data program provides decision-makers detailed information regarding a multitude of data sets including the CCRPI. Yet, data analysis has not been enough for TCSS personnel to turn around the CCRPI slide. Strong consideration must be given to drilling down as far as possible to uncover additional improvement strategies. During interviews some educators suggested home life was a major contributing factor in bringing down the CCRPI. To be clear, the types of experiences students have at home do make the educators’ jobs easier or more difficult and cannot be dismissed. Nonetheless, TCSS has the primary responsibility for educating its students and therefore focusing on areas over which the system has control is encouraged. When parents and students were asked if they had a magic wand and could change anything to make TCSS better, there was a contemplative sigh and an often, “Gosh, I’m not sure.” Stakeholders mainly focused on positive attributes of TCSS. Perhaps the majority of stakeholder comments were best summarized by a student who stated, “If I could change anything, I’d bring more students to Troup. More students should experience what I experience each day at school. Every school is not like this.” This is not to suggest that TCSS is without its challenges as described elsewhere in this report. However, given the number of innovative practices and talented and skilled educators who serve the students of Troup County it seems likely that TCSS is on its way to educating “all students in a challenging and safe learning environment, so they will become productive citizens in a diverse and changing world.”

Next Steps The results of the Engagement Review provide the next step to guide the improvement journey of the institution in their 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 their current improvement efforts and to adapt and adjust their plans to continuously strive for improvement. Upon receiving the Accreditation Engagement Review Report the institution is encouraged to implement the following steps:

Review and share the findings with stakeholders.

Develop plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the Engagement Review Team.

Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution’s continuous improvement efforts.



Celebrate the successes noted in the report

Continue your Improvement Journey

Team Roster The Engagement Review Teams are comprised of professionals with varied backgrounds and professional experiences. All Lead Evaluators and Engagement Review Team members complete AdvancED training and eleot® certification to provide knowledge and understanding of the AdvancED tools and processes. The following professionals served on the Engagement Review Team:

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Dr. David Barnett, Team Lead After serving 42 years in education, Dr. David Barnett retired in July 2016 from his position as Founding Dean for the Patton College of Education at the University of Pikeville in Pikeville, KY. Prior to accepting the Dean’s position, Barnett worked thirteen years as a faculty member at Morehead State University (MSU) in Morehead, KY. His responsibilities at MSU also included department chair, assistant dean, and director of the doctoral program. Prior to moving to higher education, Barnett served in the public schools for twenty-seven years. His P-12 experience spans several roles including middle school math teacher, P-12 instructional supervisor, federal programs coordinator, finance officer, assistant superintendent, and school district superintendent. He holds several teaching and administrative certificates. He completed his doctorate in educational leadership at the University of Kentucky in 1986. Barnett serves on the Kentucky board for AdvancED. He has led or served on teams in 14 states, China, Kuwait, and Dubai. Barnett also serves as a founding board member for The Way, a Christian organization that financially supports an elementary school in Phnom Penh for children who live on or near the city dump. The Way also supports an orphanage located on the Meng Kong River about two hours north of Phnom Penh.

Lisa Saxon, Associate Lead Mrs. Lisa Saxon is an instructional leader currently employed by the Habersham County Board of Education. There she serves as the administrator over high school curriculum and instruction. She has also worked for the Georgia Department of Education in Teacher-Leader Effectiveness where she was an evaluation system specialist. Prior to the Georgia Department of Education, Mrs. Saxon worked for 18 years as a teacher and administrator in Hall County. Mrs. Saxon completed post-graduate research in Multiple Intelligence and Student Self Efficacy. Her goal is to use leadership skills to enhance the effectiveness of classroom instruction to maximize student achievement and promote the educational and social development of all.

Dr. John Jackson, Team Member Dr. John Jackson is currently completing his 40th year in the education profession. He currently serves as superintendent for the Floyd County Schools in Rome, GA. He has also served as superintendent in the Oconee County, Greene County and Rome City school systems. During his career in public education, Dr. Jackson has served in various other roles ranging from high school science teacher, principal, curriculum director, assistant superintendent for operations, and deputy superintendent. His experience includes work in rural, suburban and small city school systems. He has also served as an adjunct graduate school professor and an administrator at the University of North Georgia. Dr. Jackson’s educational preparation began in Lake Charles, Louisiana where completed high school and college, and received three of his degrees (B.S., M.Ed. and Ed.S.) from McNeese State University. He also holds a doctorate in educational leadership from Louisiana State University.



Team Member Name Brief Biography

Penny Christian, Team Member Ms. Christian is employed as an instructional coach at Moundville Elementary School. She started this position in August 2017. Prior to that she was the curriculum/instructional coach for Hale County Middle/High School, and a social studies Instructor at Francis Marion High School in Perry County for three and half years. Previously, she taught at Robert C. Hatch in Perry County for 22 years. Ms. Christian is a graduate of the University of Alabama. She has a bachelor’s and master’s degree in Secondary Education Social Studies. In Alabama, she has an A and B teaching certificate. Ms. Christian is an ACCESS teacher. She has served on numerous AdvancED school and district teams both in state and out of state. She is trained to be a lead evaluator in the state of Alabama. She is from Tuscaloosa County in Alabama. In July 2016, Ms. Christian became a member of the Alabama Council for AdvancED. Presently she lives in Uniontown, Alabama

Kim Bridwell, Team Member Kimberly Bridwell is an Elementary School Counselor for the Greene County School District in Greensboro, Georgia. In that position, she is responsible for ensuring that students have access to the resources necessary for academic and social development. Her other duties include monitoring student attendance, participating on the Building Leadership Team, serving as the Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS Coach), and she is the school’s 504 Coordinator. Prior to becoming an elementary school counselor, she was a middle school counselor, and an alternative school counselor for the district. Her previous experience includes working at The University of Georgia as a Financial Aid Counselor. Mrs. Bridwell earned her M.Ed in School Counseling from The University of Georgia. She also has a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Management from Albany State University, and an Associate’s Degree in Marketing from Athens Technical College. Mrs. Bridwell has served on an AdvancED Engagement Review Team and is a member of the AdvancED Leadership Team for the Greene County School District.

Kim Parker Pace, Team Member Kimberly Parker Pace is currently completing her 25th year as a public school educator. All 25 years of her career have served rural school districts. She presently serves as an instructional coach, reading intervention instructor, Advanced Placement Coordinator, and AVID District Director in the Sumter County School System. Previously, she served as a first, third and fourth grade instructor for nine years and ARI (Alabama Reading Initiative) Literacy Coach for 15 years. She is a member of several education professional organizations and has served many of them on state and national levels. Ms. Parker Pace’s educational background includes a in B. S. Elementary Education, M.Ed in Elementary Education and a M.Ed in Instructional Leadership from The University of West Alabama (formerly known as Livingston University). She carries a passion for quality education for all which she uses daily in her interactions with students and educational colleagues.

advanced engagement review report (preliminary)

Documents