huntsville city schools huntsville, alabama · effective learning environments observation tool®...

November 12-15, 2017

» Results for:

Huntsville City Schools

Huntsville, Alabama

Accreditation Engagement Review Report

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

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 ................................................................................................................ 5

Leadership Capacity Domain .............................................................................................................................. 5

Learning Capacity Domain.................................................................................................................................. 6

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results .................................................................... 7

eleot®

Narrative .................................................................................................................................................. 9

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

Opportunities for Improvement ....................................................................................................................... 10

Improvement Priorities .................................................................................................................................... 10

Accreditation Recommendation and Index of Educational Quality™ (IEQ™) ........................................................ 12

Conclusion Narrative ........................................................................................................................................... 12

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

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

http://www.advanc-ed.org/



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

Leadership 60

Governing board 5

Parents 58

Students 37

Teachers 28

Support staff 2

Total 191

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.

Meets

Expectations

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

Emerging

The institution demonstrates the capacity to implement their continuous improvement

journey. Emerging

Continuous Improvement Journey Narrative According to the newly-named superintendent of Huntsville City Schools (HCS), “Leading and healing go hand in

hand.” As the third superintendent in the 2016-17 school year, he determined the following priorities: (1) recruit

and retain teachers; (2) develop more collaborative leadership; and (3) determine the academic needs through

an instructional audit. Hired in March 2017, the superintendent has filled several key leadership positions and

overseen the completion of construction for Grissom High School and Morris P-8 School. While he has stated his

three priorities, his few months as superintendent has not provided enough time for him to clearly articulate to

all stakeholders the specific strategies necessary to achieve them. In recent months, he has added the

collaborative principal meetings, an advisory group of teachers, and the initial stages of the instructional audit.

External stakeholders were vocal in their support of his “healing spirit.”

The system’s 2017-18 Alabama Continuous Improvement Plan (ACIP) has 23 goals with some of those having up to

nine objectives. A review of the ACIP revealed many of the goals to be from 2012-17, and the Engagement Review

Team (the Team) discovered limited evidence of the system’s evaluation of their efforts during these years.

Interviews revealed a sense of frustration among leadership concerning the number of initiatives/goals. With

principals and teachers often moving from one school to another, the lack of clearly-defined systemic goals has

resulted in inconsistencies with instructional practices and expectations.

As stated in the ACIP, “HCS believes that comprehensive school reform must include a ‘whole system’ approach to

innovations that will improve student learning. This must be a coordinated approach that organizes all resources

and support in a system that gives educators the learning experiences they need to make a measurable difference

for both schools and students.” While the system and all schools have continuous improvement plans (ACIP’s), the

Team found that each entity has been operating somewhat independently rather than as a “whole system.”

Principals explained that their plans are based on needs specific to their schools. When asked about the system’s

focus, most principals did not have an immediate answer. In schools and at the system level, many leaders are in

the first year in their positions. Interview polls revealed that 34 of 61 leaders have three or less years of

experience in their current positions. Continuous improvement measures are neither systemic nor systematic.

Therefore, Huntsville City Schools needs an updated systematic continuous improvement process to be used




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. Emerging

1.2 Stakeholders collectively demonstrate actions to ensure the achievement of the

system’s purpose and desired outcomes for learners. Emerging

throughout the system.

The Team learned during interviews that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

approved a Consent Order to provide HCS a pathway to ensure equitable educational opportunities for all

students. Because of the Consent Order in 2011, the board identified meeting the requirements of the

desegregation order among the goals of the superintendent. Since then, much of the emphasis at the system

level has been on meeting the following “Green Factors” as mandated by the Consent Order: (1) student

assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities.

While some system goals such as facilities overlap with these court-ordered factors, the Team did not find

sufficient focus on quality of instruction in classrooms. Based on the system’s estimate of approximately 200

teachers leaving HCS each year, many new hires have not received sufficient focused training to meet the

instructional needs of their students. The superintendent stressed to the Team a sense of urgency to recruit and

retrain highly-qualified teachers through showing the staff more trust and appreciation. He also has already

implemented monthly meetings with the principals to allow sharing of concerns and successes at their schools.

According to him, these meetings are not “top down.”

Interviews of system leaders revealed a focus on data, but the Engagement Review Team (Team) could not find

evidence of clearly defined plans on the use of data. During the system’s overview on Sunday afternoon, the Team

heard that system and school leaders participate in a “self-monitoring” strategy to determine progress on 12

indicators. While this activity provides a plethora of data, the Team found much of the focus to be on the Green

Factors instead of the ACIP. For example, many indicators deal with the numbers and ethnicity of students in high

level courses, reinforcing the Team’s perception of the Consent Order driving continuous improvement.




Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

1.3 The system engages in a continuous improvement process that produces evidence,

including measurable results of improving student learning and professional

practice.

Emerging

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. Emerging

1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve

professional practice and organizational effectiveness.

Meets

Expectations

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.

Meets

Expectations

1.9 The system provides experiences that cultivate and improve leadership

effectiveness.

Meets

Expectations

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

Emerging

1.11 Leaders implement a quality assurance process for its institutions to ensure system

effectiveness and consistency.

Meets

Expectations

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.

Emerging

2.6 The system implements a process to ensure the curriculum is aligned to standards

and best practices. Meets

Expectations

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. Meets

Expectations

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

learners.

Meets

Expectations




Learning Capacity Standards Rating

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.

Emerging

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.

Meets

Expectations

3.2 The system’s professional learning structure and expectations promote collaboration

and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational effectiveness. Meets

Expectations

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.

Meets

Expectations

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

purpose and direction. Emerging

3.5 The system integrates digital resources into teaching, learning, and operations to

improve professional practice, student performance, and organizational

effectiveness.

Meets

Expectations

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. Emerging

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.

Emerging

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 79

Environments Rating

Equitable Learning Environment 2.69

Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs 2.24

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

support 3.03

Learners are treated in a fair, clear and consistent manner 3.20

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

2.29

High Expectations Environment 2.64

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

and/or the teacher 2.72

Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable 2.82

Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work 2.63

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

2.58

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their learning 2.44

Supportive Learning Environment 2.85

Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful 2.76

Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative feedback) 2.80

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

content and accomplish tasks 2.89

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher 2.95

Active Learning Environment 2.48

Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other and the teacher predominate 2.61

Learners make connections from content to real-life experiences 2.27

Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities 2.78

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

2.25

Progress Monitoring and Feedback Environment 2.49

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

progress is monitored 2.14

Learners receive/respond to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve

understanding and/or revise work 2.77

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content 2.73

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed 2.33

Well-Managed Learning Environment 2.97

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and each other 3.03

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations

and work well with others 3.11

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity to another 2.81

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted time or disruptions 2.91

Digital Learning Environment 1.79 Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning 2.05

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

works for learning 1.68




eleot® Observations

Total Number of eleot® Observations 79

Environments Rating

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

1.63

eleot® Narrative On Monday afternoon and Tuesday, the Team observed classes across all grade levels (K-12) and core content

courses in 21 of the schools. They completed 79 eleots in the schools, using the ratings of Very Evident, Evident,

Somewhat Evident and Not Observed, based on what occurred during the 20-minute observations.

The Environments with the highest scores are Well-managed Learning with a score of 2.97 and Supportive Learning

with a score of 2.85. Team members witnessed students speaking and interacting respectfully with their teachers

and each other in most classrooms. In one sixth grade classroom, a student new to the school entered the room

and was immediately greeted by a group of girls who smiled and said, “Sit with us.” Team members witnessed a

few classrooms with behavioral issues, but in most cases students were polite and obviously knew the

expectations. The Student Climate and Culture Survey shows the following: Grade 6– 12 students state the best

words that describe their general interaction with adults at their school are the following: respectful, helpful,

supportive, and trusting, validated by the classroom observations.

Next, Equitable Learning had an overall rating of 2.69. Rated at 3.20, Item A-3 (Learners are treated in a fair and

consistent manner), was very evident in most classrooms. Observers saw teachers working with students and

providing extra help when necessary. The lowest scoring item in this Environment is A-1 based on the lack of

differentiation. In most classrooms, students were doing the same activities, even if they were moving from one

station to another. In one classroom, however, the teacher was using the interactive board to provide extra

support for a small group instruction. In another classroom, the teacher pulled a small group aside for extra help

because of reading difficulties.

High Expectations has an overall rating of 2.64. All items in this Environment received ratings between 2.44 and

2.82. The Team rarely observed students engaged in challenging activities. Much questioning was at the recall

level.

Progress Monitoring is next at 2.49, followed by Active Learning at 2.48. Team members did not observe frequent

use of rubrics or hear from students about how their work would be assessed. Most students were compliant but

not often totally engaged in the activities. Students were often sitting in groups but not collaborating on their

projects in many cases. The Student Inventory reveals that Grade 3 - 12 students state they do not use a rubric or

scoring guide to help them complete an assignment. The Inventory also indicates that Grade 6 - 12 students do not

work on real-life problems in class.

The classroom observations in 21 diverse schools allowed the Team opportunities to compare the eleot results

with interviews, inventories, surveys and improvement plans. Supporting the Team’s rating of “emerging” on

Standards 2.1, 2.2 and 2.9, the Team noticed inconsistencies in the quality of instructional practices from school to

school, as well as classroom to classroom. In many classrooms, team members observed all students doing the

same activities in the same way. Team members saw limited differentiated learning opportunities and activities.

While the system is attempting to increase student achievement among all groups, “equitable and challenging

learning experiences” are inconsistent from class to class. According to administrators and teachers, the system is

using eleot to monitor instruction, but the Team did not hear about changes in instructional strategies based on

eleot results.



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

Needs

Improvement Emerging

Meets

Expectations Exceeds Expectations

Opportunities for Improvement Opportunities for Improvement are those actions that will guide and direct institutions to specific areas that are

worthy of additional attention.

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.

Opportunity for Improvement: Guide teachers in utilization of data to design curriculum appropriately to meet

individual needs and improve student learning.

Primary Standard: 2.11

Evidence: Interviews of teachers revealed a shortage of experienced teachers in many classrooms. Discussions

with a variety of teachers indicated an abundance of data but little focused training on the use of data to guide

instruction, supported by the low rating of 2.24 on the use of differentiated learning opportunities. During

interviews, 44 system leaders “expect teachers to use data to differentiate instruction.” However, eleot ratings do

not support this expectation. Leaders also believe professional learning communities (PLC’s) are contributing to

improved classroom instruction, but teachers revealed during their interviews the lack of systemic expectations

and training for effective PLC’s. Although HCS students are performing at or above the state level on average, data

from 2013-17 show significant achievement gaps between black/white students, SPED/non-SPED students, and

poverty/non-poverty students. Observations and interviews did not reveal strategies designed to close these gaps.

Improvement Priority: Ensure the system engages in an up-to-date continuous improvement process that

produces current evidence, including current or future measurable results for improving student learning and

professional practice.


Evidence: Based on the review of artifacts, the Team found a lack of clearly-focused goals, strategies, activities

and measures. Much of the current plan contains information and data sources from 2012 without clear measures

for success of each goal. Containing 23 goals, the plan is not clearly communicated to all stakeholders and does not

provide a systemic approach for the schools. One person interviewed said, “There are too many goals to be able to

focus on what is best for student achievement.” Principals and other members of leadership teams in the schools

have little familiarity with the system’s plan. According to them, they develop their improvement plans based on

the needs of the school. Parents interviewed had no familiarity with the system’s plan or goals and no involvement

with the development of the goals.

Rating Number of Standards

Needs Improvement 0

Emerging 14

Meets Expectations 17

Exceeds Expectations 0



Improvement Priority: Ensure that all members of the governing board comply with the code of ethics and

function within defined roles and responsibilities in order to best serve the needs of Huntsville City Schools.


Evidence: Interviews revealed the belief that all board members want what is best for the children but sometimes

have trouble leaving personal agendas behind. Currently under mediation with the Alabama School Board

Association, the board has members who do not understand their roles. The Team heard from board members

many examples of violations of their roles and responsibilities. For example, one person said, “The new

superintendent is giving us a chance to heal, but some board members are tying his hands.” Another board

member said, “The board is committed to education but lose focus by bringing their own agendas to meetings.”

After watching videos of three separate board meetings, the Team was aware of the contentious tone of meetings.

Interviews with teachers and parents revealed that some board members visit classrooms to observe and email or

call teachers to gather information. Some board members also become involved in day-to-day operations of the

system by asking for personnel files or other reports at the system level without consulting the superintendent.

Interviews revealed sufficient training about roles and responsibilities, but the evidence indicates a lack of

adherence to roles and responsibilities. One board member said, “The superintendent should be the one setting

the culture and we need to be supportive.”

Improvement Priority: Adopt systemic instructional best practices with focused staff development, monitoring,

and support to teachers on the implementation of these practices.


Evidence: Interviews, surveys, inventories and classroom observations revealed a lack of consistency in

instruction. According to system leadership, the last few years have seen teachers leaving HCS in record numbers.

With the constant turnover with teachers and leaders, teachers new to the system have not received sufficient

focused and continual professional development and support. Teachers indicated the lack of a systemic approach

on professional learning communities. One grade level mentioned they “talk in the hall” while another grade level

has meetings weekly to discuss lesson plans and strategies. According to them, the implementation is determined

by the grade levels in some schools.

Improvement Priority: Develop and implement a system-wide, formalized process for long-term advising and/or

mentoring every student to support academic progress and personal development.


Evidence: Student surveys and interviews indicate students have few or no particular adults with whom they have

developed a strong positive long-term relationship or few or no particular adults who give support of their

educational experiences. Interviews also indicated that learners have limited access to meetings with an assigned

adult mentor beyond the classroom. Interviews revealed that implementation of activities to develop these

relationships are determined school by school. High schools see their “Power Hour” as a way for students to

develop a strong positive relationship with an adult, but the Team learned that the assignment is for one year only,

insufficient time to develop a strong, lasting relationship; furthermore, the number of students assigned to a

teacher during Power Hour is not conducive to the development of a strong relationship with each student.

Improvement Priority: Develop and implement a comprehensive and long-range strategic plan to include resource

management of professional learning, technology, finance and human resources to support the system’s purpose

and direction.


Evidence: Based on artifacts and interviews with 191 stakeholders, the Engagement Review Team learned of a

deficit of $3,300,000 in the General Fund. This deficit will require specific long-range planning in order to manage

all resources effectively. According to finance personnel, the system is taking immediate measures to reduce this

deficit through reductions in personnel and nonessential programs. Long-term planning should be focused to

address the following areas. The technology one-to-one (1:1) initiative pursued in 2013 is an expensive proposition,

costing the system an estimated five million dollars per year to maintain. Establishing a stable, long-term

technology program



299.52

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.

Conclusion Narrative Interviewing 191 stakeholders and visiting schools throughout the system, the Team found a pervasive desire to

“inspire, develop and engage all students in becoming career and college ready.” Overwhelmingly, stakeholders

believe in the potential of Huntsville City Schools and often said to the Team, “I love our schools.” They are very

proud of the system’s innovation through “alternative courses and curriculum, collaborative corporate

partnerships and exposure of students to practical application in technical and/or virtual laboratories.” While

interviewing and observing in HCS, the Team found the system to be in a state of transition with several key

leadership positions filled within the past few months. Without a doubt, all internal and external stakeholders

“embrace and share the system’s vision and mission.” However, the Team found little collaboration in the

development, review, and revision of the vision and mission. During interviews, external stakeholders were not

familiar with the development of the mission or the strategic plan. Two parents said they were a part of the focus

group in the superintendent search. The system remains committed to a vision and mission statement previously

established but must ensure that it remains in alignment with their ideals. As part of the continuous improvement

process, the system must review and validate the statement with stakeholders at regular intervals. With the many

changes in leadership, the system must ensure that the direction and priorities of the system are transparent to all

stakeholders.

The Team found a lack of a systemic approach in processes to conduct progress monitoring of the effectiveness

and fidelity of implementation of strategies and activities to improve outcomes of learners. Consistent, systemic

processes and protocols such as common grading, common adopted instructional materials, common formative

assessment, and positive behavioral systems will provide valid data sets that can be used for informed decision

making throughout the system.

Although the system shared an abundance of data with the Team, there was no clearly-defined evidence of a

“widely-communicated plan with clearly identified and specific goals, strategies, activities, and measures based on

identified needs,” the lack of which led to an Improvement Priority. The system’s improvement plan deals mainly

with goals from 2012-17. Based on interviews and artifacts, the Team learned that the system has been under a

Consent Order for several years, which has driven their continuous improvement process. Furthermore, the Team

and continued financial support of the 1:1 technology initiative will require strategic prioritization in order to attain

system objectives.

Institution IEQ



found limited awareness of the system’s goals among stakeholders.

The communication between the five-member elected board and the superintendent is open and focuses on

student engagement and improvement. However, the governing board does not function as a self-policing

cohesive unit that protects, supports, appreciates and respects the position of the superintendent. According to

interviews, some board members do not have a clear distinction between their role as a board member and their

role as a community member. The lack of a clear focus on the priorities of the system and the role of school board

members resulted in an Improvement Priority.

The results of staff evaluation are analyzed by the human resources department and shared with the system to

determine the areas of weakness. Professional development is then created to address the areas in need of

improvement. Interviews revealed that student surveys concerning their teachers are no longer used as a

summative evaluation but are used formatively.

The current leadership recognizes the need for consistency and is exploring best practices to ensure equity of

resources across the system. Students and teachers feel they have what they need for success. With the current

lack of systemic approaches in many areas, the success of each school is determined by the effectiveness of the

principal.

The Team heard from parents and teachers that the system provides opportunities for two-way communication.

However, the majority of external stakeholders shared their main involvement is through surveys. School level

Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) are often responsible for communication with other parents. The

superintendent has recently organized an advisory council of teachers. Interviews revealed that teachers already

feel they have a voice in system decisions. Leaders implement a quality assurance process for its institutions to

ensure system effectiveness and consistency but needs to clearly communicate results to all stakeholder groups.

Seventy-nine eleot observations revealed well-behaved students in most classrooms with an average score of 2.97

of 4.00. Learners also demonstrated knowledge of and adherence to classroom rules and behavioral expectations

in most classes. Students in classrooms, the halls, and the cafeteria were well-behaved and respectful to Team

members. However, the Team did not find frequent use of personalized learning opportunities. Team members

who observed at both the secondary and elementary levels reported more examples of differentiated learning in

the elementary grades. Based on observations, personalized learning opportunities are “not a regular part of the

institution’s teaching and learning culture.” The system provides schools with many types of data, but interviews

and Team observations found limited evidence that data are used to drive individual instruction. Parents

mentioned programs to meet the needs of their children with special needs, and the Team observed students

being pulled from classes for intervention. The Team also learned about excellent magnet schools created to meet

the interests of students, but admission is based on a lottery system, thus limiting enrollment. Parents are

especially pleased with the increase in the number of Pre-K classes to 59 system wide. Those with children in the

program stressed the growth they are seeing due to the inclusion of “typical” children with special needs children.

Team members heard from several leaders about the “across the board” decline in student performance on

assessments during 2016-17. Although possible reasons were given, the Team heard of no valid evaluation of the

declines. One reason concerned the changes in leadership, and another focused on the change from computer to

pencil and paper.

HCS provided the necessary hardware for digital textbooks/learning at the beginning of the 2012-13 school year to

ensure personalized learning; the system estimates the cost at $20.7 million over six years (2012-18).

Observations in classrooms revealed an abundance of technology including interactive boards and 1:1 computers.

Although 1:1 technology has existed in the schools for many years, students are not consistently engaged in

conducting research, solving problems, collaborating or communicating. Observations also revealed a lack of

consistency in programs being used in the classroom. Some teachers said they use programs or apps they learned

about while teaching in other school systems. According to system leaders, the technology has been available for

years; however, many teachers in the system are relatively new and have not been sufficiently trained in using the

technology effectively to personalize student learning.



Interviews with parents and teachers revealed unanimous concerns about digital curriculum. Several said it is not

always meeting the needs of the students. Several parents talked about their elementary children spending three

to four hours on homework each night. One of their greatest concerns with digital learning is Excel Math.

While the Team found “congenial and supportive relationships between teachers and students,” student surveys

indicate most have not established a long-term relationship with an identified adult to fully support their

educational experiences, an issue resulting in an Improvement Priority for the system. While Team members were

in the schools, they often heard principals speaking to students in the hall and calling them by name indicating a

supportive culture; however, no formal systemic structure exists for “frequent and consistent access to a particular

adult.” Each school determines its approach to adult advocates.

The Team heard from the central office and in the schools about the visibility of the system’s leadership, who

conduct “Wednesday Walk-throughs” in the schools. The use of eleots will help the system leadership determine

the areas in which professional development is needed, once the observations have become more systematic.

Although various staff development is offered by the system and by the schools, interviews with teachers and

administrators indicate there is little coordination of focused staff development on best practices for instruction

and/or behavior. In most classrooms students were compliant and somewhat engaged. Much of the work was at

the recall level with activities involving worksheets. Occasional questioning involved “what if” and “why,” but in

many classrooms, students answered with one-word answers. Collaboration with a partner or group was

sometimes occurring but rarely for problem-solving or inquiry-based activities.

HCS has made large commitments to the area of resource capacity. Capital improvements of almost $300,000,000

are notable over the last five years. Six new state-of-the-art schools have been constructed and a one-to-one (1:1)

technology initiative has placed technology in abundance in all schools. Student, parent, teacher and administrator

interviews indicated that the new facilities raised morale in all stakeholders. Specifically, a sense of safety and

space was mentioned by stakeholders as additional benefits of the new facilities. Educational effectiveness

research consistently recognizes the importance of a safe learning environment.

A strong systemic professional development program will provide teachers with needed skills to improve student

learning. More confidence with classroom instruction and management has the potential to improve teacher

morale and therefore improve student achievement and teacher retention. The professional development plan

needs to be comprehensive and include all employees. This plan needs to specify means of evaluation and

program effectiveness tied directly to system goals for student achievement. Of special concern is the eleot score

of 1.79 with the Digital Learning Environment. Observations revealed that the technology was primarily used to

gather evidence, in essence, as a textbook, highlighting a need for staff development in student engagement using

technology. Teachers need training on how to incorporate student use of technology into instruction to engage in

higher-order and problem-solving skills.

The Team learned from the superintendent, human resource department and principals that the teacher turn-

over rate is significant. Up to 200 new teachers are hired annually. The low teacher pay scale is identified as one

reason for low teacher retention. The human resource department indicated that a compensation analysis for

the Huntsville area is being conducted to determine potential financial solutions. This will require strategic long-

term financial planning to accommodate the added compensation increases.

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

Judy Wesley, Lead Evaluator Judy Wesley, a lead evaluator for AdvancED, currently leads teams throughout

the United States and Latin America. Retired from Marion School District One

in Marion, SC, she is still a dedicated educator serving as a field consultant for

AdvancED. Mrs. Wesley started her career as a high school English teacher with

a bachelor’s from Campbell University in North Carolina. During her 34 years in

MSD 1, she also served as tennis coach, director of federal programs, director

of assessments, and grant writer. After retiring from the school system in 2004,

she worked with Francis Marion University as a supervisor of student teachers.

She also has worked with the SC Department of Education to assist low- performing schools.

Nancy Golson, Associate Lead Nancy Golson, Lead Scientist of Red Crayon Associates, consults with and trains

school systems and organizations in a process of improvement. Dr. Golson

retired from Auburn City Schools, Auburn, Alabama, after serving as director of

special education, system improvement, and curriculum director, and

elementary principal. Previously, in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, in

Charlotte, North Carolina, she was a district curriculum specialist, principal and

teacher. She also taught at Johnson C. Smith University and Queens University.

Dr. Golson received her Ph.D. in Education and Administration from the

University of South Carolina and her MS and BS from Auburn University,

Auburn, Alabama. Dr. Golson’s favorite publication is Red Crayon Finds Her

Home, a children’s book Dr. Golson wrote as principal of Dean Road

Elementary. The story is about moving to a new town, being very lonely, and

finding her home at a very special school. Dr. Golson has served on many

system and school AdvancED accreditation teams, frequently serving as lead

evaluator. As System Improvement Director, she coordinated Auburn City Schools through its first systems AdvancED accreditation.




Richard Dennis Richard Dennis is the superintendent for the Elmore County Public School

District in Wetumpka, Alabama. In this role, he serves as the chief executive

officer for a district with 14 schools and over 11,000 students. Mr. Dennis holds

MA and BS degrees in English Education as well as certification in educational

leadership and administration. He has approximately 28 years’ experience in

public education as a middle school teacher and high school principal. He has

served on several AdvancED Engagement Reviews and on the AdvancED Leadership Team for the Elmore County Public School District.

Angela Landry Angela Landry is the principal at Prattville Intermediate School in Prattville,

Alabama. She is in her ninth year as principal and is responsible for the

educational success of 640 fifth and sixth grade students. She holds a master’s

degree in Educational Administration from Virginia Tech. She also has a BA

degree in Elementary Education from Southeastern Louisiana University. Ms.

Landry has twenty-seven years’ experience as a teacher, curriculum specialist,

assistant principal and principal in grades K-6.

Rita McDonald Rita B. McDonald is a retired educator. She earned the degree of Educational

Specialist with a focus on Curriculum and Instruction and a Master’s of

Education in Supervision and Administration. She holds a Bachelor of Science

degree in Education for vocational home economics and high school education.

She also earned certification in elementary education. Her degrees and

certification were earned at Middle Tennessee State University. For about

thirty-three years, Mrs. McDonald served as a teacher in fourth and fifth

grades at Elkton School in Giles County, Tennessee. During her years of

working with the school system, her many experiences and duties included

coordinating and presenting professional development programs for several

Tennessee schools and serving as curriculum coordinator as new programs

became available in her county. Mrs. McDonald has served on AdvancED

Engagement Reviews and on AdvancED Leadership Teams for more than

twenty-five years.

Dot Riley Dr. Dot Riley received an Ed.D. in Educational Leadership from the University of

Alabama at Birmingham. She retired in 2010 from the Hoover City School

System where she served as the principal of Trace Crossings School for

seventeen years. In this position she developed and implemented a school-

wide decision-making model, and led a dynamic faculty which included eight

Presidential Award winning teachers, nine National Board Certified Teachers,

and three Alabama Teacher of the Year award winners. Prior to becoming

principal, Dr. Riley had sixteen years’ experience as a classroom teacher in

elementary schools in Alabama, Georgia and Texas. She served as an Adjunct

instructor at the University of Montevallo and the University of Alabama at

Birmingham. For three years she served as an Academic Specialist for the

Council for Leaders in Alabama Schools. Dr. Riley has worked with SACS/CASI

and AdvancED as a review team member, facilitator, team chair, and lead

evaluator for over 40 schools and systems.




Michael South Michael South is the principal of Forest Hills Elementary for the Florence City

School District in Florence, Alabama. Dr. South holds an Ed.D. in Educational

Leadership from Samford University of Birmingham, Alabama. He also has his

Ed.S. in Educational Leadership from the University of North

Alabama. Additionally, he holds an MS in Elementary Education and a BS in

Bible. Dr. South has experience as a teacher, assistant principal, federal

programs coordinator and principal in K-4 education. He has served on one

AdvancED Engagement Review.

Peter Straker Before coming to Dr. Straker's present job, most of his life has been spent in

Great Britain where he was born. He was employed for 15 years in the Royal

Navy as an Electrical Air Engineer. Whilst serving he gained a British Diploma in

Aeronautical Electrical Engineering. After leaving the Navy, he completed his

Bachelor of Education in Secondary Mathematics at Leeds Metropolitan

University in Yorkshire, England, and taught mathematics in an inner-city

school in London, England, for 3 years. Whilst there, he gained a Master of

Science in Computing and Mathematics Education from South Bank University

London. He relocated to Florida in 1997 and since that time he has had

experience as a mathematics teacher, technology specialist, middle school

administrative dean, new high school planning administrator, high school

assistant principal and high school principal. Presently he is a doctoral adjunct

professor and doctoral dissertation committee member; his current position in

his district is administrator on assignment for school improvement and district

accreditation. Dr. Straker has been a team member of AdvancEd for school and

district accreditation since 2004. His academic credentials are as follows:

Bachelor of Education Secondary Mathematics, Master of Science in

Mathematics Education and Computing, Educational Specialist Degree in

Education Leadership, and Doctor of Education in Education Leadership. Dr.

Straker's experiences within a school system include Professional Learning

Communities, school safety, grant management, testing, Advanced Placement,

IB, FTE, CTE, differentiated accountability reporting and compliance,

curriculum, scheduling, technology, budget, PLC's, facilities, athletics,

assessment, human resources, school improvement, and data analysis.


huntsville city schools huntsville, alabama · effective learning environments observation tool®...

Documents