introduction - home - hobbs municipal schoolshobbsschools.net/userfiles/servers/server_6/file... ·...

1

New Mexico Public Education Department300 Don Gaspar Ave,

Santa Fe, NM87107

New Mexico Public Education Department300 Don Gaspar Ave,

Santa Fe, NM87501

June

2012

Instruc

tional

New

Mex

ico

Publ

ic E

duca

tion

Depa

rtm

ent

Prepared for the New Mexico Public Education Department (NMPED)

By

New Mexico Public Education Department, Priority Schools Bureau with The Southwest Comprehensive Center, Center on Instruction, and RMC Research Corporation

September 2011

Revised June 2012By

The Southwest Comprehensive Center and The New Mexico Public Education Department, Priority Schools Bureau

Copyright NoticeThis manual is copyright free, so no permission is needed to cite or reproduce it for non-profit purposes. If material from it is included in another non-profit publication, cite as follows:

Some information in this document was adapted from “New Mexico—ESEA Flexibility Request November 14, 2011” which is a copyright-free document published by the New Mexico Public Education Department.

NotesThis document is available at www.ped.state.nm.us Click on the A–Z directory to locate it under “Priority Schools Bureau.”

Prepared for the New Mexico Public Education Department, by the Southwest Comprehensive Center at WestEd with funds from the U.S. Department of Education under cooperative agreement number S283B050049. The content does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention or visual representation of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the federal government.

June

2012

Instruc

tional

http://www.ped.state.nm.us/

Acknowledgements

The editors wish to acknowledge the support and assistance of following individuals who contributed to this New Mexico Instructional Audit Handbook:

Norma Binder, School Improvement, Curriculum and Instruction, Bernalillo Public Schools.

Debbie Cooper, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Instruction, Hobbs Independent Schools.

Becca Ferguson, Dean of Students, Carrizozo High School, Carrizozo Public Schools.

Crystal Herrera, Special Education Teacher, Hawthorne Elementary School, Albuquerque Public Schools.

Diane Katzenmyer-Delgado, Principal, Atalya Elementary School, Santa Fe Public Schools.

Jacque Mangham, Principal, Lybrook Elementary School, Jemez Mountain Public Schools.

Grace Marquez, Principal, Gadsden Elementary School, Gadsden Independent Schools.

Patti Nesbitt, Principal, Carrizozo High School, Carrizozo Public Schools.

Felicia Sena, Principal, Cesar Chavez Elementary School, Santa Fe Public Schools.

Susie Yturralde, Director, Bilingual Education and Multicultural Programs, Gadsden Independent Schools.

Table of Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................1

New Mexico A-F School Grading Accountability System Matrix of Requirements for Schools 2012-2013.............................................................................................................5

New Mexico Instructional Audit Process............................................................................7

Pre-Visit: In Advance of the Site Visit.................................................................................8

Day One: First Day of the Site Visit..................................................................................10

Day Two: Second Day of the Site Visit..............................................................................12

Day Three: Third Day of the Site Visit..............................................................................13

Post-Visit: Offsite Report Writing.....................................................................................15

NMPED │ Student Success Division │ Priority Schools Bureau │ Instructional Audit

Introduction

Conducting an instructional audit can be the first step toward developing a systems-wide

approach to ensuring all students benefit from high-quality instruction McREL, (Mid-continent

Research for Education and Learning).

This New Mexico Instructional Audit (NMIA) is part of New Mexico’s A-F School Grading

Accountability System of school and district support. Its purpose is to improve instruction at the

classroom level through examining systems that both support and monitor teachers and other

instructional personnel. The audit generates data that inform the Educational Plan for Student

Success (Web EPSS), the school’s improvement plan, which is required for every school in the

state.

The state’s current system of school and district support is designed to help schools and

districts meet state mandates as outlined in the approved “New Mexico ESEA Flexibility

Request” (February 15, 2012). These mandates are as follows:

Implementation of the college-and-career-readiness standards (Common Core State

Standards);

Development and administration of annual, statewide, aligned, high-quality

assessments that measure student growth;

Implementation of the state-developed A-F School Grading Accountability System, Table

1 (pp. 6-8); and

Development and adoption of guidelines for local teacher and principal evaluation and

support systems.

The state’s support system includes:

Differentiated technical assistance;

Opportunities for professional development;

Annual budget reviews;

Data driven decision making;

Resources for best practices and research-based programs; and

Page | 1


A number of tools to assist schools and districts in analyzing and determining their

strengths and opportunities for improvement.

The New Mexico Instructional Audit is one of the tools, and serves as an independent

examination of the operations and systems that support and relate to instruction. It serves as

the mechanism for examining the systems in place and is supported by the school leadership to

increase teacher effectiveness and enhance student learning through professional dialogue. It

provides a means by which an auditor or auditors can compile data for feedback to a school

about the instructional practices that were observed during the school visitation.1

Curriculum and instruction were selected because they are at the core of the educational

process. If some aspect of curriculum and/or instruction is problematic, students will not be

achieving at the desired level. The audit is based on 13 indicators related to research and best

practices for teaching and learning. The indicators state that all teachers and other instructional

staff must:

1. Implement research-based strategies, interventions, and programs that ensure quality

teaching and learning that meet student academic needs;

2. Effectively employ a continuous improvement process in the classroom with students;

3. Use data derived from short-cycle, other formative assessments, and summative

assessments to refocus or modify instruction at the classroom or individual level to help

all students meet high standards;

4. Consistently implement the district policy for allocating and protecting instructional

time in all core subject areas;

5. Demonstrate appropriate content knowledge for effective and accurate instruction;

6. Employ effective teaching strategies including differentiated instruction to meet the

learning needs of all students;

7. Provide specific and timely feedback to students on an ongoing basis, with students

using feedback to improve performance;

8. Offer students multiple opportunities for demonstrating proficiency;

1 The New Mexico Curriculum Audit is a companion piece. It examines whether a district is able to demonstrate its control of programs, resources, and personnel related to curriculum. Available from the Priority Schools Bureau fall 2013, the Curriculum Audit is to be used in districts with a disproportionate number of low-performing schools.

Page | 2


9. Implement curriculum and classroom assessments that are aligned with the Common

Core State Standards (CCSS);

10. Maintain positive, respectful classroom climates and use effective classroom

management strategies that are consistent with school and district policies to meet the

learning needs of all students;

11. Maintain a culture of respect where relationships, trust, communication, and

collaboration are valued with the entire school community;

12. Ensure that the school is a safe and orderly environment conducive to learning; and

13. Ensure that the school has a culturally respectful environment.2

The process involves a team typically comprised of PED staff, an external consultant, who

serves as the team leader, along with a district representative, conducting a three-day site visit 3

to the school and gathering data through interviews with the school leadership, teachers,

students, and parents. The questions in the interviews are divided into three categories, as

appropriate, for each group being interviewed. These categories are:

strengthening the school instructional program,

ensuring that teachers provide effective instruction, and

using data to inform instruction.4

In addition the auditors will review numerous documents and visit a sample of classrooms to

conduct classroom observations.

At the end of the visit, the team will compile its data and determine findings, which will be

shared with the principal and school leadership team on the last day of the site visit at an exit

meeting. Shortly after the visit, the team leader will write a formal report and send it to the

School Principal and superintendent within 10 days to two weeks.

The principal, with support and input from the district representative and school personnel

will review the findings and determine responses. The Instructional Audit Report provides a 2 New Mexico Public Education Department. (2009). New Mexico CLASS school self-assessment. Santa Fe: Author. The 13 indicators also align with the Seven Turnaround Principles listed in the “New Mexico ESEA Flexibility Request.”3 Number of auditors and length of audit may depend on size of school.4 This is an adaptation of Denton and Vaughn’s three components of quality classroom instruction. See Denton C. A. & Vaughn, S. (2010). Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Perspectives from research. In T.A. Glover & S. Vaughn (Eds.). The promise of response to intervention: Evaluating current science and practice, (pp. 78-112). New York: Guilform Press. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED509983)

Page | 3


section to be used as a worksheet by the school in determining how to address report findings.

Once the school has responded to the findings, the report is to be uploaded into the filing

cabinet of the Web EPSS using the document title NMIA Report [name of district/school] 2012-

2013. The school will revise its 2012-2013 Web EPSS to reflect the changes that address the

findings in the report. The Instructional Audit tag will be available to denote which action steps

link to findings. The school will revise its Web EPSS to reflect the findings within 10 days to two

weeks.

Page | 4


New Mexico A-F School Grading Accountability SystemMatrix of Requirements for Schools 2012-2013

TITLE I SCHOOLS Reward (5%) Strategic (10%) Focus (10%) Priority (5%)

Definition Overall grade of “A” and graduation rate of 85% or higher, or

High progress as demonstrated by a high annual growth in graduation rates, or

High growth for both Q1 and Q3 students (may still demonstrate minimal average status).

School Q1 to state Q3 gap that is among the largest 25% in state and whose overall grade is a “C” or lower.

School is not a Priority school and graduation rate less than 60% regardless of overall grade, or

School Q1 to state Q3 gap among the largest 25% in state and has a Q1 growth grade of D or F.

Tier I SIG schools or, Overall grade of “F” and graduation

rate less than 60%, or Lowest overall grade points

(multiple F’s) not previously identified.

Implications for Title One

Set Aside

Must set aside up to 20% of the district Title I award to implement 4 of the 7 Turnaround Principles

Must set aside up to 20% of the district Title I award to implement 4 of the 7 Turnaround Principles

Requirements Focus on performance of subgroups

Focus on performance of subgroups

Choose 4 of the 7 Turnaround Principles to implement


Required to include 4 of the 7 Turnaround Principles to include:o Strengthening the school’s

instructional program, ando Using data to inform

instruction for continuous improvement

Alignment of tools to proven strategies that are research based

Complete tools listed below (8-31-12)

Instructional Audit (completed by LEA Team)


Required to include all 7 of the Turnaround Principles to implement proven strategies that are research based


Complete tools listed below (8-31-12)

Instructional Audit (completed by NMPED Team)

Web EPSS Requirements



Required to include 4 of the 7 Turnaround Principles to include:o Strengthening the school’s

instructional program, ando Using data to inform

instruction for continuous improvement


Required to include all 7 Turnaround Principles


Page | 5


Tools Literacy Reflective Summary Math Reflective Summary School and Systems Reflective

Summary

Literacy Reflective Summary Math Reflective Summary School and Systems Reflective

Summary

New Mexico A-F School Grading Accountability SystemMatrix of Requirements for Schools 2012-2013

A Grade B Grade C Grade D Grade F Grade

Definition Overall grade of A and not a Reward or Strategic School.

Overall grade of B and not a Reward or Strategic School.

Overall grade of C and not a Strategic, Focus or Priority School.

Overall grade of D and not a Strategic, Focus or Priority School.

Overall grade of F and not a Strategic, Focus or Priority School.

Requirements

Focus on performance of subgroups Required to include 4 of the 7 Turnaround

Principles to include:o Strengthening the school’s instructional

program, ando Using data to inform instruction for

continuous improvement Alignment of tools to proven strategies that

are research based Complete tools listed below (8-31-12) Instructional Audit (completed by LEA Team) School Budgets reviewed in spring 2013

Focus on performance of subgroups Required to include all 7 of the Turnaround

Principles to implement proven strategies that are research based


Complete tools listed below (8-31-12) Instructional Audit (completed by NMPED

Team) School Budgets reviewed in spring 2013

Web EPSS Requirement

s




Focus on performance of subgroups Required to include 4 of 7 Turnaround

Principles (see under requirements)

Focus on performance of subgroups Required to include all 7 Turnaround

Principles

Tools Literacy Reflective Summary Math Reflective Summary School and Systems Reflective Summary

Literacy Reflective Summary Math Reflective Summary School and Systems Reflective Summary

7 TURNAROUND PRINCIPLES7 Turnaround

Principles1. Providing Strong Leadership by: (1) reviewing the performance of the current principal; (2) either replacing the principal if such a change is necessary to ensure strong

and effective leadership; or demonstrating to the SEA that the current principal has a track record in improving achievement and had the ability to lead the turnaround effort; and (3) providing the principal with operational flexibility in the areas of scheduling, staff, curriculum, and budget.

2. Ensuring that teachers are effective and able to improve instruction by: (1) reviewing the quality of all staff and retaining only those who are determined to be effective and have the ability to be successful in the turnaround effort; (2) preventing ineffective teachers from transferring to these schools; and (3) providing job-embedded, ongoing professional development informed by the teacher evaluation and support systems and tied to teacher and student needs.

3. Redesigning the school day, week or year to include additional time for student learning and teacher collaboration.4. Strengthening the school’s instructional program based on student needs and ensuring that the instructional program is research-based, rigorous, and aligned with

Page | 6


State academic content standards.5. Using data to inform instruction for continuous improvement, by providing time for collaboration on the use of data.6. Establishing a school environment that improves school safety and discipline and addressing other non-academic factors that impact student achievement, such as

students’ social, emotional, and health needs.7. Providing ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.

Page | 7


New Mexico Instructional Audit Process

In New Mexico, the audit process involves a three-day site visit5 to the Priority, Focus, D,

and F schools. The PED will be sending teams to audit the Priority and F Schools during the fall

of 2012. Districts are responsible for auditing the remaining D and Focus schools during this

same time frame.

Auditors are there to take a snapshot of instructional practices in place at the school across

classrooms, not to assess individual teachers. This audit process is built on a framework that

examines the systems that have been put in place by those in key leadership positions at the

school (i.e., the principal, assistant principal) to ensure that research-based instructional

practices are fully implemented in all classrooms. To this end, the framework provides auditors

with the tools to assess the practices of the administrators and the teachers. The auditors will

review the data on the frequency of observations, coaching, professional development, and

other actions taken by the leadership to ensure fidelity to the curriculum and high-quality

instruction throughout the school. Document review, both prior to and during the site visit, is

also part of the NMIA.

During the three days on site, the auditors will conduct classroom observations and

individual or group interviews with key personnel including the principal, teachers, students,

and parents. Document reviews, individual and/or group interviews, classroom visits, and

observations make up the data-gathering phase of the instructional auditing process. Auditors

ask specific interview questions in order to determine how well the school is meeting Denton

and Vaughn’s (2010) three criterion (adapted) (see page three of this document). They review

documents looking for specific items and features that indicate, for example, whether or not

the school has an instructional monitoring system in place that supports teachers and other

instructional staff in mastering the art and science of teaching by demonstrating the use of

research-based instructional practices.

During the site visits, auditors look for specific evidence to show that teachers and other

instructional staff demonstrate competency in the area of instructional practice. Competency is

determined through a process that compares documentation collected by the leadership with

observations made by the auditors. The entire process, including preparation, document 5 Number of auditors and length of audit may depend on size of school.

Page | 8


review, site visitation and observations, exit interview, and report writing should take

approximately five to seven days, depending on the size and location of the school and

complexity of the data that were collected.

The auditors will closely follow the content and templates for the audit process found in the

appendices and described below. A sample agenda (see Appendix A) is provided for guidance

purposes. If followed, it ensures optimal use of time by both auditors and school personnel. A

list of all the tasks the auditors are responsible for is found in Appendices B, C, and D.

The audit is designed to yield maximum benefit to all of the individuals whose practices are

being examined. Auditors will take notes throughout the process, organizing them according to

the three criteria (adapted) put forth by Denton and Vaughn (2010) and cited on page three of

this document. For the auditors’ convenience, each of the three criteria appearing in the

document review is used as an organizing element that ties the criteria to the document under

review. The elements are used in most of the templates found in the appendices.

Pre-Visit: In Advance of the Site Visit

The three-person auditing team will consist of an external consultant, approved, and

trained by the Public Education Department (PED), a PED staff member, and a representative

from the district whose school is being audited. The consultant will serve as team leader. The

district representative will serve as a member of the audit team and may conduct classroom

observations, review documents, and participate in the debriefing meetings at the end of each

day. This district representative would preferably be someone with experience and expertise in

curriculum and instruction, knowledge of federal programs, and experience as a school

administrator.

In advance of the site visit to the school, all auditors (including the district representative)

must successfully complete the professional development sessions required by the PED.

Auditors should become familiar with New Mexico’s documents and procedures for the

instructional audit, as well as the school they will be auditing. School and the NMPED websites

contain useful information about school operations, especially performance on state-required

assessments. To access the NMPED Assessment and Accountability website click the following

Page | 9


link: http://www.ped.state.nm.us/AssessmentAccountability/AcademicGrowth/NMSBA.html.

To access New Mexico School Report Cards click here:

http://webapp2.ped.state.nm.us/SchoolData/SchoolGrading.aspx

The team leader shall contact and send a letter to the district superintendent and principal

of the Priority or F school that will be audited as soon as possible after the NMPED has

determined the school, district, and the names of the auditors. Team leaders will then work

with their team members and schools to set the dates for the site visit. (For a sample letter, see

Appendix E.) In the letter, the team leader indicates the specific documents the team intends to

review before and during the site visit. The letter should indicate when the team plans to

conduct the entrance meeting, principal interview, and exit interview and specify when they

would like to conduct individual/group interviews and classroom observations. The principal or

his/her designee is expected to make these and other arrangements in coordination with the

district representative and team leader.

The team leader should feel free to personalize the letter, as long as the communication

remains clear about the general schedule and purpose of the site visit. The letter should also

list any special needs that the audit team may have such as a room to work in and access to

electrical outlets. If there is need for an interpreter this should be coordinated between the

team leader and the School Principal.

Pre-Visit: Document Review

Document reviews are a primary source of data in the auditing process. Auditors review

specific documents to formulate and inform findings and recommendations related to specific

indicators. The guidelines found in Appendices F should be used to review specific documents

prior to the visit. Observations and findings from the review of documents should be recorded

and summarized in the NM Audit of Instructional Practices “Document Review Summary” form

found in Appendix H.

Day One: First Day of the Site Visit

Page | 10

http://webapp2.ped.state.nm.us/SchoolData/SchoolGrading.aspx

http://www.ped.state.nm.us/AssessmentAccountability/AcademicGrowth/NMSBA.html


Morning

Entering the School: The auditing team meets briefly with the principal and reviews the

three-day schedule including resolution of any logistical issues. If necessary, the auditing team

presents the principal with a short list of any additional documents that they may need (10

minutes).

Staff Meeting (before school begins): All staff should be invited to attend a brief (15 minute

maximum) gathering so that the principal can introduce the auditors, who will give school staff

an overview of the schedule and process that will be followed. The purpose of this meeting is

to make certain that all staff know that they will not be personally evaluated and that any

classroom observations are meant to give the auditors an overview of the programs and

processes used to plan and deliver instruction to the students – not an assessment of the

teacher’s performance. The purpose of the NMIA is to improve instruction at the classroom

level through examining systems that both support and monitor teachers and other instruction

personnel.

Principal Interview: This is a one-on-one interview with the principal and team leader (one

hour).6 The team leader reiterates that the audit is intended to help the school identify

problems related to the systems that support effective instruction, which are or are not in place

in the school, and provide the school the opportunity to address these problems, with the

ultimate goal of improving student achievement. To begin the questioning, the team leader

may ask any questions he or she may have based on the pre-visit document review, then will

proceed to ask the questions contained in Appendix I. Note that some may have already been

answered by the pre-visit document review or may not be relevant to a particular school. The

team leader will need to screen the questions beforehand or during the interview. He or she

may also need to ask probing questions that are not listed.

The principal is interviewed alone to provide him or her the opportunity to speak freely.

High-performing schools have principals who are strong leaders in the areas of curriculum and

instruction. Interview questions address all three of the audit criteria. The criterion to which

each question relates appears as a header preceding a bank of questions found below. A note

6 If one of the auditors is free, he or she may take notes while the team leader interviews the principal and school leadership team.

Page | 11


taking/reporting template for this interview is found in Appendices J, the Principal Reporting

Form. Each of the cells will expand as the auditors enter their notes and observations into the

templates.

Group Interview with School Leadership Team: The team leader interviews the school

leadership team as a whole (45 minutes). The auditor asks questions from Appendix K that

allow comparison between the responses of the principal. Responses should be recorded on

the sheet found in Appendices L, the School Leadership Team Reporting Form.

Afternoon

Interviews with Teachers and Other Instructional or Support Staff: Auditors should

interview as many teachers as possible in the time available (45 minutes each). For elementary

schools, at least one teacher per grade level is the minimal requirement. Other staff might

include the librarian, music teacher, art teacher, or physical education teacher. Counselors may

also be selected. (Questions will need to be adapted for other instructional staff and

counselors.) At the secondary level there should be at least two teachers for the core subjects

and other instructional personnel and counselors as time allows. The auditor may conduct a

group interview with two or more teachers if scheduling does not permit individual interviews.

Interview questions address all three of the audit criteria. The criterion to which each

question relates appears as a header preceding a bank of questions found below. Questions

may need to be tailored to the individual teacher. A note taking/reporting form for this

interview is found in Appendix N.

Group Interview with Parents: This is a group interview with parents that is designed to last

approximately 30 minutes. The group should be small (about 6-8) with parents of children at

different grade levels. Parents of special education students and multilingual/multicultural

students will be included. If there is need for an interpreter, the team leader and School

Principal will coordinate this in advance of the site visit.

The interview setting needs to be tightly constructed. The purpose of the interview is to

provide the auditor with the “big picture” regarding the learning climate of the school.

Page | 12


Teachers are not to be mentioned by name, nor should an attempt be made to describe a

situation that would identify an individual. A one-page guide for conducting a group interview

may be found in Appendix W.

Interview questions address all three of the audit criteria. The criterion to which each

question relates appears as a header preceding a bank of questions found below. Questions

may need to be tailored to the group of parents chosen. A note taking/reporting form for this

interview is found in P.

Group Interview with Students: As the ones most personally touched by the instruction they

receive, students need to have input into the instructional audit. A group interview of 5-7

students at the elementary level and 7-10 students at the secondary level (approximately 30

minutes) is ideal. The elementary students should be a mixed group from the school’s highest

grade level when appropriate. The secondary school students will be a heterogeneous group

from a mix of grades. Interview questions address two of the three of the audit criteria; there

are no questions on ensuring that teachers provide effective instruction. Appendix W contains a

one-page guide for conducting a group interview. The criterion to which each question relates

appears as a header preceding a bank of questions found below. A note taking/reporting

template for this interview is found in Appendix R.

Day Two: Second Day of the Site Visit

Morning and Afternoon

Conduct Classroom Observations: Classroom observations provide formative assessment

data that answers the question, “How are we doing?” in regards to the implementation of

quality teaching and learning. The Classroom Observation tool provides a structure for the

audit team when observing classrooms. (See Appendix S for the instrument and Appendix T for

a form for reporting data from the observations.)

It is recommended that for the content area(s) (reading/language arts, math) in which

the school did not meet the Student Growth Targets (SGT) in Math 45% and/or Reading 52.3%,

that at least 12-36 classrooms should be observed dependent upon the size of the school.

Page | 13


Other content classes and federal program classrooms such as ELL/Bilingual and Special

Education should be observed as well as intervention programs and elective classes if time

allows. Selection of classrooms for observations should be based on the elements of the report

card that indicate improvement as needed to include subgroup data. Optimally the NMIA team

should observe somewhere between 12-36 classrooms dependent upon the size of the school.

This determination will be made by the team based on what the school’s data reflects as areas

of concern.

Continue Teacher Interviews: (See Day One.)

At the end of both Day One and Day Two, the auditors meet to review the day, resolve any

issues that have come up, review/edit their notes, and plan for the next day. A “Data Organizer

for Instructional Auditors” is provided in Appendix U as a mechanism for summarizing and

comparing key points, quotes, and other important data that are gathered throughout the

process.

Day Three: Third Day of the Site Visit

Morning

Triangulation of Data and Draft Report: During this time the auditors should compile and

review all the data that have been gathered through reviewing documents, interviewing key

school staff and stakeholders, and visiting classroom. They may use the templates provided in

Appendix G and Appendix U to help organize the collected data.

The core of the audit is to provide the findings in a way that is credible and useful. A finding

must be substantiated with at least three separate data sources, which is known as

triangulating the data. By the end of their time in the school, auditors will begin to see

common patterns and themes related to instructional issues. For example, the classroom

observation instrument showed that few teachers were providing feedback to their students on

any kind of regular basis. Student and parent interviews confirmed that students often did not

know what they were expected to do to improve. If there are at least three data points (or two

that are very strong) in agreement, observations should become a finding in the Instructional

Audit Report.

Page | 14


The major findings of the audit, with the data that support them, are the focus of the exit

interview that is conducted. These findings and data sources can be jotted down in note form

for auditors to use during the exit interview, but they should not be copied or distributed to

participants or formalized in any way.

Early Afternoon

Exit Interview: In keeping with the “no surprises” policy of all good auditing processes, the

auditors should meet with the principal and as many of the school leadership team members as

available in the afternoon of the final day of the site visit7 (approximately 45 minutes). The

purpose is to verbally deliver and discuss the preliminary findings of the audit. Auditors should

encourage participants in the exit interview to ask clarifying questions about the findings,

paying particular attention to any findings that appear to be based on inaccurate or incomplete

information. Auditors must assure personnel that the final written audit report will be

consistent with findings presented during the exit interview.

Clearly, the final written report will include much more detail, but it should not contain any

major findings that are not addressed in the exit interview. District and school participants

should also be told when to expect the NMIA report. The exit interview provides the district

and the school the opportunity to question findings and conclusions.

The team leader will explain that the principal will receive the report within 10 days to two

weeks as will the superintendent. School and district officials will also have 10 days to two

weeks to respond to the findings in the section provided in the NMIA Report. The school will

then upload the NMIA Report to the school’s Web EPSS filing cabinet using the document title:

[School name] Instructional Audit Report 2012-13] and revisions are made to the School’s Web

EPSS using the “Instructional Audit” tag to identify the changes in the plan. Once this is done,

the School Principal will email the Priority Schools Bureau, ([email protected]) indicating

that the report is now uploaded to the Web EPSS.

Post-Visit: Offsite Report Writing7 The superintendent should also be invited to attend.

Page | 15

mailto:[email protected]


The team leader is responsible for writing the NMIA report and tracking it through to its

finalization. He or she has all of the notes that the other auditors have taken to help in writing

the NMIA report, which is done after the auditors conclude their visit. The report consists of

four sections:

Identifying information about the school, audit, and auditors;

A brief description of the process the auditors used (e.g., numbers of people

interviewed by role group, list of documents reviewed);

A findings section with evidence listed; and

A section for the school response to each finding.

See Appendix X for the NMIA report template. The NMIA report should be written with the

following audiences in mind: the board of education, the district and school staff, and the

public. Because the district and the school should be encouraged to make the audit report

public, quotations should be used sparingly, with no attribution to named individuals; instead,

the source of the quote should be identified by the category of his/her position (e.g.,

administrator). The job of the team leader is not to affirm or deny hypotheses or even to solve

the school’s instructional problems, but to identify problems relating to instruction and the

management of instruction.

The team leader will formulate a report with findings. The report format will focus on

aspects of instruction that the school does well, another third on priorities that need immediate

attention, and the final third on findings that can be addressed but not with urgency. Evidence

will support all findings.

After the team leader has completed a draft of the report, he/she sends it to a Priority

Schools Bureau representative who will be identified at that time. After this review and

approval, the team leader sends the report along with a cover email, (see Appendix Y), to the

School Principal with a copy to the Superintendent, and PSB staff member who was a part of

your team, ensure to add a delivery and read receipt. This is to be done within 10 days to two

weeks of completing the site visit in the district.

Page | 16


The Team Leader shall keep all protocols, notes, and documents from the site visit for at

least one month beyond the date the NMIA Report is sent to the School Principal and District

Superintendent. This is done in the event there are questions about the report findings that

need clarifying. At the end of a months’ time the Team Leader shall shred all documents.

Upon receiving the report, the district and the school have 10 days to two weeks for review

and respond to the findings. For each finding the school needs to provide a response. The

expectation is that the school addresses all findings, utilizing the cells provided in the report

template and incorporates the revisions into its 2012-2013 Web EPSS.

The completed report is then uploaded into the filing cabinet of the school Web EPSS,

and the School Principal will notify the Priority Schools Bureau at the following email address:

[email protected]

Page | 17

mailto:[email protected]


Page | 18

introduction - home - hobbs municipal schoolshobbsschools.net/userfiles/servers/server_6/file... ·...

Documents