Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
brings together three of the largest U.S. accreditation agencies (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SAC); North Central Association (NCA); Northwest Accreditation Commission (NWAC) Purpose of AdvancED: to assure the public that a school, college, or university adheres to a set of established quality standards; quality assurance system Why does DoDEA engage in the accreditation process?
Evaluate, verify, and improve education for all children
in all; Performance Level Ratings: 1-4 ratings used for evaluation; During an External Review each indicator receives a score and an average is calculated for the entire Standard Standard 1: Purpose and Direction Standard 2: Governance and Leadership Standard 3: Teaching and Assessing for Learning Standard 4: Resources and Support Systems Standard 5: Using Results for Continuous Improvement
determine the committee structure for CSI at HES Leadership Team meets monthly; combination of grade level chairs, Standard committee chairs, administration, CSI Co-Chairs and FEA faculty representative Developed 7 committees to span over the AdvancED Standards; Indicators were closely examined to help further delineate the committees
Internal Climate/External Climate (Standard 1) Professional Development (Standard 3) Classroom Based Assessment (Standard 3) Instructional Design (Standard 3) Resources and Behavioral Supports (Standard 4) Data Team (Standard 5) Leadership Team (Standard 2)
(HES action plan) Complete a yearly summary of improvement plan, yearly data, and school updates (HES School Profile, Executive Summary) Complete a school-wide Self-Assessment using the AdvancED Standards and indicators (Ongoing and essential 2 years prior to External Review) Yearly examination and documentation of student performance data (HES data collection, data review and School Profile) Every 5 years: External Review Complete and document progress on any Required Actions from External Reviews
Self-Assessment Process
Faculty input with Smart Response System (Spring 2012 and Spring,
2013) Examination of Strengths and Areas for Growth based on SelfAssessment responses: Fall, 2012 Fall, 2013: Standards committees used the data from the faculty input and worked to develop a single rating for each Standard indicator; a narrative response was generated by the committees for the indicators and Standards Fall, 2013: Committee work compiled by CSI Co-Chairs into a first draft document in preparation for submission to the KDSO and AdvancED January, 2013 (Today): Self-Assessment at-a-glance: Entire faculty will have an opportunity to review the entire Self-Assessment during round robin session on the January 10th CSI Day Future: Final draft to be submitted to KDSO and AdvancED
Indicator 2.1 Rating: Level 3 The governing body establishes policies and supports practices that ensure effective administration of the school Evidence: Student and staff handbooks, Governing body policies and procedures, Communication to stakeholders regarding policy revision.
Indicator 2.2 Rating: Level 3 The governing body operates responsibly and functions effectively.
Evidence: Communication plan; staff compliance records, proof of legal counsel; assurances and certifications; governing body training plan; historical compliance data; governing code of ethics; governing body policies on roles and responsibilities
Indicator 2.3
Rating: Level 3
has the autonomy to meet goals for achievement and instruction and manage day-to-day operations effectively.
Evidence: Roles and responsibilities of leadership; School improvement plan; maintenance of consistent academic oversight, planning and resource allocation.
Indicator 2.4
Rating: Level 3
Evidence: Examples of collaboration and shared leadership; Examples of decisions aligned with the schools statement of purpose; examples of decisions in support of schools continuous improvement plan; Monthly Management Council meetings; quarterly School Advisory Council minutes; administration participation in weekly common planning; weekly meetings with FEA teacher representatives
Indicator 2.5
Rating: Level 2
Evidence: Minutes from meetings with stakeholders; Involvement of stakeholders in school improvement plan; weekly administration in CP, meeting with FEA representatives; PTO Administration meetings; Quarterly EDIS meetings; IAC attendance; Monthly Mental Health Consult Group
Indicator 2.6
Rating: Level 3
Evidence: Governing body policy on supervision and evaluation; Job specific criteria, administrative review of assessment data throughout the year; support of individual faculty professional growth plans (PGPs); regular staff and faculty observations; end of year formal ratings are reviewed with all staff on critical elements
Kaiserslautern District resources Consistent implementation and communication of governing policies and procedures to staff and students Professional growth plans and regular classroom observations by administration Regular participation by administration in stakeholder collaboration Distributed leadership of CSI process with teacher leaders