Presented by NEASC
Director George Edwards, with panelists Jake McCandless (Pittsfield Supt.), Jon
Sills (Bedford Supt.), and Joel Stembridge (Newton South Principal), the
session offered “progress being made developing [NEASC] reforms and the
timeline for their implementation.”
Resulting from significant
outreach by districts around the state, it was clear NEASC had become too
accountability based. Districts were focused on compliance vs. being
self-reflective so real change wasn’t necessarily taking place based on the
process. It also became clear that school leaders could have power even in the
top-down, mandate-driven “milieu”. Real change happened because Supts. and
school leaders were invited to cooperate to build new processes that would be
helpful to schools. In one example, Bedford, NEASC was asked to:
o
Focus on and
support school improvement goals as identified by school/district and aligned
with the standards.
o
Be less
prescriptive and more flexible.
o
Focus on a
schools’ capacity for continuous self-reflect and growth (school councils,
SIP’s, what do schools want to work on?). Where in the standards does that fit?
Broad vs. prescriptive way to get there. Develop a standard on engagement.
o
Emphasize
formative feedback and continual planning and improvement – visit will be more
about how to move forward on goals.
o
Develop
manageable recommendations based on the standards.
o
Provide clear
guidelines for achieving those recommendations.
Joel Stembridge noted that
Newton South has suspended participation until the new work is out but sees
“good things” happening at NEASC like:
o
It’s now more
of a counterpart to simplistic test-driven oversight (include nurses, SEL, etc.) –
using a whole school approach.
o
NESC provides
PD for teachers with tie-ins for curriculum + assessment.
o
Every good
institution is self-reflective (looking at external standards).
Concerns
remain:
o
Accreditation
isn’t a “one size fits all” process; there is now movement but there hasn’t
been movement on rubrics. They’ve asked NEASC about the purpose of rubrics
(they are one way but not the only way – research shows this) / instead maybe
show how faculty works together to improve curriculum and not be overly
prescriptive).
o
The process took
up so much time. Hard to engage in other critically important initiatives.
o
At the end of
self-study, they had a big report but lots of recommendations (he rec’d 87
recommendations). WAY too hard. Can NEASC identify big picture recommendations
and de-emphasize others (?).
NEASC came to the
conclusion that their process was too prescriptive, took too much time,
required schools to stop other work, caused high schools to be out of sync with
other district schools, was redundant with other mandated processes, was too
expensive, and was a “one size fits all” proposition.
Efforts to date by NEASC
to address concerns included meetings with school leadership in all NE states
(2013); summer chairs workshop (2014/2015), committee to revise standards
(2014), committee to revise rating guides (2014), review and revise
pre-self-study and self-study process (ongoing), review and revise accreditation
visit protocol (ongoing), review/revise standards (late fall/early winter.
The standards review will
focus on being less prescriptive/more flexible, including focus on school
improvement, greater emphasis on goals vs. specific strategies, using indicators
as guidance, and encompassing a “growth mindset.” Initial revisions to
standards include making targeted revisions (summer, 2014). Comprehensive
revision will begin this late fall/early winter. (Standards went beyond identifying
goals, but also said how to meet the goals, so looked especially at standard 5
revisions (indicators 2 + 3). How would schools address equity and achievement
gap? Looked at indicator 3 – student relationship with a faculty member
(advisory indicator). They are working to give flexibility to develop local
initiative and provide changes in language for all rating guides to adopt more
formative language (e.g. “not yet meeting the standard vs. “fails” and also
change what qualifies as “not meeting the standard”). Completion of revisions
expected by the end of summer 2016 (and will be a natural extension of the
self-study redesign). There will be time for schools to respond to changes.
Common core and state
crosswalks have been developed. An on-line accreditation portal is being implemented
(for uploading self-study and evidence like links to curriculum docs, the visiting
committee report, and the follow-up process) and will be phased in from fall,
2015-2017.
Accreditation redesign
protocols look like:
o
Shortened
self-study (1 year).
o
Differentiated
use of staff. In the past every staff member needed to work on self-study. Now:
schools decide how to use staff (i.e. ok to use just some staff and will vary
among schools).
o
Use of existing
artifacts as evidence: measures to determine student achievement (like DDMS’s)
that state is already requiring + comprehensive program reviews for SPED.
o
Focus on
school/district priorities: some schools for whom some standards that are
non-issue – some schools are brand new – so why do a facilities study? Maybe do
more on areas that need focus that they’ve already identified.
o
Smaller
visiting committees. Before = 16 committee members and larger. In a small school
w/20 teachers, sent team of 9 as pilot. Looking for the right number since it
has big impact on cost to schools.
o
Fewer
recommendations focused on standards using indicators as guidance.
Other notes:
o
Pilot schools
include Reading and Burlington.
o
NEASC is currently
working with a number of districts that are interested in a district-wide
approach to accreditation (accrediting each of its schools K-12). It could look
different in districts depending on the size of the district/# of schools.
o
Cost: annual
membership dues are $2600-5K with average cost for 10 year visits about $15-25K.
Having the portal and smaller visiting committees will reduce these costs.
o
Exploring how
to helpful districts escrow money for visit so yearly expenses are similar and
planned in advance for budgeting.
o
Training is
enormous part of what needs to be done (especially on-going training for chairs).
Challenge = all are volunteers so they have to leave families/work; looking at making
training more convenient by using on-line platforms. Focus is consistency,
outreach to Supts.
o
Some districts
have piloted DESE “Planning for Success” program, a focused /strategic
long-range process with 1 year action planning. Benefit to process is it’s not
exhaustive – gets past planning to actual work quickly. Efficient. Creates
momentum from data. How is that alignment act as an integrated part of the NEASC
site visit?
