Self-Assessment Workbook - SAMIS

Self-Assessment
Workbook
A Guide for Systems and Institutions

Seeking or Continuing Accreditation
c o g n i a ac c r e d i tat i o n
Table of Contents
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction to the Self-Assessment Workbook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Cognia Accreditation and Certification Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Essential Skills and Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Introduction to Accreditation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Engaging in Continuous Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Skills for Ongoing Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Data Collection, Analysis, and Synthesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Interaction—Enter your list of data sources here. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Required Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Student Performance Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Interaction—Enter your data sources, trend information, and comments here.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Interaction—Enter your ratings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Interaction—Enter your findings (answers to the prompts and question above) below or
create a separate document.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Interaction—Enter your priorities and theories of action (answers to the prompts and
question above) below or create a separate document.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Stakeholder Feedback Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Interaction—Complete the table for your data sources here.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Interaction—Enter your description of participants and method of collecting feedback here.. . . . . . 23
Interaction—Enter your ratings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
create a separate document.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
question above) below or create a separate document.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Learning Environment Observation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Interaction—Enter your findings (answers to the prompts and question above) below. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Interaction—Enter your findings (answers to the prompts and question above) below. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
question above) below or create a separate document to upload as an attachment.. 32
Completing the Self-Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Interaction—Enter your Executive Summary here.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
© 2022 Cognia, Inc. v22-7-5 i

Table of Contents, continued
Rubrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
How to Unpack the Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Key Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
How to Write the Key Characteristic Narratives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Standards Self-Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Key Characteristic 1: Culture of Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Interaction—Standard 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Interaction—List your data sources (cleaned) in the field below. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Interaction—Write your narrative in the box below. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Key Characteristic 2: Leadership for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Interaction—Standard 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Key Characteristic 3: Engagement of Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC ii

Key Characteristic 4: Growth in Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Interaction—Enter your responses here.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Assurances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
The Engagement Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
U.S. Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
International Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
The Review Protocol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Role of the Primary Contact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Key Responsibilities of Systems and Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Using Diagnostics and Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Developing the Schedule of Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
U.S. Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
International Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Keys to a Successful Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Continuing the Journey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
The Written Report of the Engagement Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Report Debrief with Head of Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Notice of Accreditation, Celebrating with the Community, and the IEQ™ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Acting on the Engagement Review Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Assurances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Executive Summary Exemplars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Key Characteristics Narratives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Poor Examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Narrative Exemplars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC iii

Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Analysis Exemplars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Evaluator Rubrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Evaluation of the Student Performance Analysis, Stakeholder Feedback Analysis, and Learning
Environment Observation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Evaluation of the Key Characteristic Narratives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Identifying Data Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Developing Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Writing Theories of Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Unpacking the Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
World Café: Deep Dive into the Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC iv

Preface
Cognia™ is a global nonprofit improvement organization dedicated to helping institutions and other education
providers grow learners, educators, and leaders. Cognia offers accreditation and certification, assessment, and
professional services within a framework of continuous improvement. Serving more than 36,000 public and
private institutions from early learning through high school in more than 85 countries, Cognia brings a global
perspective to advancing teaching and learning. Find out more at cognia.org.
We hope you find our ever-evolving accreditation policies, standards, and requirements relevant to the current
education landscape and to your system or institution. As you progress through this workbook, we hope you also
gain a realization that our accreditation and continuous improvement process is responsive to variations in the
purposes (missions/visions) of our educational institutions. Above all, we hope your accreditation experiences
through Cognia are relevant and meaningful on behalf of the learners you serve.
Cognia Accreditation represents the unified requirements for the North Central Association Commission on
Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA CASI), the Northwest Accreditation Commission (NWAC), and the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (SACS CASI).
Institutions and systems seeking to earn and maintain NCA CASI, NWAC, and SACS CASI accreditation must
continuously meet the Cognia Accreditation policies, standards, and requirements.
Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 1

Introduction to the Self-
Assessment Workbook
The Self-Assessment Workbook: A Guide for Systems and Institutions Seeking or Continuing Accreditation is
designed to provide you with comprehensive information about the Cognia approaches to accreditation and
continuous improvement and what they mean to your system or institution. The workbook gives you access
to information, resources, and tools for your system’s or institution’s continuous improvement journey through
the reflective Self-Assessment process and your participation in Cognia Accreditation Engagement Reviews.
It also provides space for your institution to draft your responses to standard ratings and narratives that will
be populated into the online Self-Assessment Diagnostics prior to your Accreditation Engagement Review.
Throughout the workbook you will find:
• Narrative descriptions of essential research, frameworks, policies, standards, requirements, and
approaches to continuous improvement. This detailed information sets the stage and rationale for
continuous improvement through accreditation.
• Step-by-step guidance on how to engage in the Self-Assessment process within your system or institution
community and how to prepare for a successful Accreditation Engagement Review.
• Activities to help you draft your responses to the various diagnostics you will be required to submit in
Cognia’s online platform. You can use this workbook to rate standards and assurances, craft your Executive
Summary, narratives, and analyses, and collect evidence. This will support your ability to quickly complete all
online diagnostics as they are made available once your review has been scheduled.
• Links to resources to assist you in your improvement journey as you pursue and maintain accreditation.
The links are routinely updated. While you may access this information at any time, Cognia encourages you to
download documents just before you need them to ensure you have the most recent version.
Headings and subheadings will help you navigate to information pertinent to your interests and needs at the time.
As always, Cognia welcomes your feedback and suggestions for making this handbook a more meaningful tool.
Accreditation may be conferred to an institution or a system. For system accreditation, all schools managed by
the system must be accredited or be in the accreditation process. The system is granted accreditation in addition
to the accreditation conferred upon each institution. Throughout this workbook, the term institution is used when
referencing either a system or a single institution.

Cognia Accreditation and
Certification Policies
The Policies and Procedures for Accreditation and Certification represent the unified policies and procedures
for accreditation and certification from Cognia and its accreditation divisions: the North Central Association
Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA CASI), the Northwest Accreditation Commission
(NWAC), and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School
Improvement (SACS CASI). Therefore, all references to Cognia in this workbook collectively refer to NCA CASI,
NWAC, and SACS CASI.
Cognia maintains policies that are available for public access on the Cognia website at cognia.org. As of July 1,
2015, any institution that is accredited by Cognia is awarded a seal that collectively reflects NCA CASI, NWAC,
and SACS CASI accreditation. Systems and institutions seeking accreditation are responsible for adhering to all
Cognia policies and procedures as a condition of ongoing accreditation, which is certified at the beginning of each
new accreditation term through Cognia Assurances.
Definitions
The Cognia Accreditation policies and procedures provide definitions for performance. This workbook aligns
with these definitions as information is presented about accreditation. The workbook reflects accreditation
only; information about certification is presented in documents unique to the specific certifications (e.g., STEM
Certification, Competency-Based Education Certification).
1. Accreditation. A voluntary method of quality assurance, developed more than 125 years ago by
American universities and secondary schools, that is designed primarily to recognize institutions
adhering to a set of educational standards and policies. Accreditation applies to an entire institution or
system.
2. Certification. A voluntary process of quality assurance that yields a documented recognition of
achievement of a defined process of program. Certification may apply to a process or program of an
institution or to an institution as a whole. Accreditation is a prerequisite or concurrent requirement for
certification.
3. Institution. Any educational unit such as a school, association, charter school authorizer, corporation, or
Education Service Agency (ESA) that is seeking accreditation or certification as a single entity.
4. System. Any organization such as a corporation, district, ESA, or system of institutions that is seeking
accreditation for the system as a whole, including the organization’s system level and all of the institutions
managed by the system.
The policies and procedures provide applicability requirements specific to systems and institutions and
procedural requirements for Cognia related to all aspects of accreditation recognition and management.
Resource
Policies and Procedures for Accreditation and Certification

Essential Skills and Knowledge
Introduction to Accreditation
Since its introduction into the education landscape in the late 1800s, accreditation has served as the standard
bearer for what a good school does to ensure that learners are ready and prepared for their future. In the first
100 years, accreditation focused on the accomplishments of an institution in its recent past as well as the
necessary inputs to ensure a good school. However, for the past 20 years, modern accreditation has focused on
where the institution is heading with respect to its mission and purpose. Today, accredited institutions commit to a
journey of ongoing improvement.
Accreditation is the most widely used improvement process in the world. It is distinctly different from other
improvement processes. Accreditation is a standards-based, ongoing improvement process that includes expert
third-party professional review and feedback. While traditional improvement processes focus on creating and
implementing an improvement plan, accreditation supports and guides the improvement journey through the
application of research-based Performance Standards coupled with evaluative feedback from professional
peers.
The accreditation process that your institution and community are about to embark on has three phases:
1) Reflection and Analysis, 2) Engagement, and 3) Progress and Feedback. This workbook will describe the
activities and resources offered to support your ongoing efforts as you cycle through the first two phases of
improvement. Another workbook is available to support your work in the third phase, Progress and Feedback.
Additionally, the workbook provides guidance on building your capacity and capability to leverage your skills
to gather and analyze data; collect and interpret evidence; and establish and sustain a culture of ongoing
improvement.
Today, accreditation is used at all levels of education and is recognized for its ability to effectively drive improved
learner performance and continuous improvement in education.
Systems and institutions seeking to achieve or maintain accreditation understand, honor, and embrace the concept
of continuous improvement. These systems and institutions are engaged every day in a process of continuous
improvement. They are dynamic and continuously evolving, with an unrelenting focus on becoming better on
behalf of the learners they serve. They operate in learning communities by demonstrating healthy cultures where
individuals collectively analyze practices and results, engage in professional learning and dialogue, take meaningful
action, and assume responsibility for results.
Accreditation requires systems and institutions to continuously meet the applicable Cognia policies, standards, and
requirements. Cognia refers to the collective efforts and actions of the institution to continuously meet accreditation
expectations as the improvement journey. This journey should progress in ways that are personalized, relevant, and
meaningful on behalf of the learners being served.
Periodically, Cognia will review the institution through on-site visitations that are specific to the purpose of the review.
Such reviews may include candidacy reviews, accreditation engagement reviews, monitoring reviews, or other
specialized reviews as outlined in the Policies and Procedures for Accreditation and Certification.

Engaging in Continuous Improvement
Cognia defines continuous improvement as “an embedded behavior rooted in an institution’s culture that
constantly focuses on conditions, processes, and practices to improve teaching and learning.” Accreditation
is a continuous improvement process that helps an institution improve teaching and learning. Using Cognia’s
Performance Standards, the institution examines its current effectiveness as well as its capacity and capability to
achieve its vision and goals for the future.
Cognia believes all institutions can improve, no matter how well they are currently performing. 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. Cognia expects institutions to use the results and analyses of data from diverse sources
to select and implement actions that drive improvement in education quality and learner performance. Cognia
recognizes that each institution’s improvement journey is unique, and that we can serve you best by providing key
findings specific to your institution.
Around the turn of the 21st century, accreditation transformed its focus and process from a ten-year evaluation
focused on the accomplishments of an institution’s past decade to a forward-focused process examining what
an institution is striving to accomplish in the next six years. Modern accreditation examines the current and
future capabilities and capacities of an institution in the context of its mission, purpose, and direction. The Cognia
Performance Standards define how a good institution behaves and provide the criteria to focus improvement
efforts that will lead to growing learners, teachers, and leaders.
Modern accreditation is a continuous improvement process. At least every six years, the institution formally
engages the Cognia Performance Standards to reflect and examine its progress toward its desired future as
expressed through its mission, purpose, and strategic direction. Cognia’s purpose-driven, strategic process is the
most widely used continuous improvement process in the world.
Skills for Ongoing Improvement

Cognia Accreditation is synonymous with the philosophy of continuous improvement. Cognia believes that using
our standards and key characteristics as a framework for your continuous improvement work is a major factor
in your ongoing success. The standards provide metrics to help evaluate your work. The key characteristics give
you a format to synthesize everything you know about your institution holistically.
The improvement process begins with creating a vision of the future and determining your current reality through
the process of collecting and analyzing data. You can learn much more about these processes from Cognia’s
book, “inFocus: A Guide for Strategic Thinking and Improvement Planning.” The section below is about collecting
and analyzing data. Once you have completed the data analysis process, you can more easily select improvement
goals. Then, use Cognia’s Strategies tool or any of the myriad of action planning processes available in the
literature to outline your next steps. Cognia offers professional development opportunities in all these areas. We
will not get into action plans here, but if you are not familiar with Strategies or with the action planning process,
contact your Cognia Representative.
Let us begin with some definitions. Here are Cognia definitions for some key terms.
You have lots of data in your institution. You may even be familiar with the phrase “data rich, information poor.”
Data can come from written or verbal sources, using data collection tools, or instruments. Data, in and of
themselves, are not particularly helpful. Why do we say that? Because by simply looking at data, you cannot
determine what you are doing to improve. When you look at one data point, or even multiple data points, but do
not connect them in some way, any inference of improvement may simply be a “chance occurrence.”
Many people fear the word analysis. Granted, the word is often associated with complex statistical and
mathematical equations; but for Cognia, it’s simply a process for thoughtful review and grouping seemingly
random data points in a way that make sense. One of the questions we want to answer when we analyze data is,

“Why did these results come out like they did?” In fact, if you ask the question “why?” five times, you are engaging
in what we call “root cause analysis” which helps you get to the essence of what the data are trying to tell. Be
thoughtful. Be honest with yourself. Listen to the data, even if they are telling you what you don’t want to hear.
The result of analysis is information. Information describes what you have been doing and how your actions have
affected student performance and organizational effectiveness. To be most effective, you should write down
your analyses in a narrative format. We cannot stress too much the importance of information—that is, a written
record of the results of your analyses of the data. Without a thorough analysis, any conclusion you reach will be an
educated guess at best.
Like the word analysis, synthesis frightens some people. However, synthesis is a simple process of using
information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Did you notice that “analysis” makes meaning of data
while “synthesis” makes meaning of information? When you think of it that way, you’ll realize you are moving from a
“micro” perspective to a “macro” perspective.
Synthesis is a process that helps you to arrive at findings. Findings are conclusive statements—based on facts—
that help you focus on what matters. And it’s not difficult! Simply say to yourself, “based on all the information we
analyzed and synthesized, we found that…” Many times, you will hear people say, “Based on the data…” Be careful
when using that phrase because you can arrive at erroneous findings if you don’t include the processes and
results of analysis, information, and synthesis. Findings help us determine areas where we perform well and areas
we need to improve.
Not all information or every finding can be called evidence. Evidence is ONLY—and we stress the word only
here—information that supports your findings. So many times, people will provide vast amounts of useless
data and information that are unrelated to the problem at hand. Perhaps they feel that the “quantity” of data or
information is more important than the “quality” of the information. Actually, it’s the opposite. A few high-quality
sources of information that clearly identify the problem and inform you about it can help you stay focused and
not get lost or overwhelmed in oceans of meaningless data and information. Be very selective when you choose
information to use as evidence.
How do all these words work together? You may want to think of this as a process that takes raw material (data)
and makes it into a useful product (evidence).

Data Collection, Analysis, and Synthesis
In continuous improvement work, and especially in accreditation preparation, many institutions collect data and
then stop. They think they’re done! Simply collecting and presenting raw data is virtually meaningless! Look at the
example below. By just looking at random puzzle pieces on the left, you can’t make much meaning of the puzzle.
But once you study all the pieces and arrange them in a logical order, those random puzzle pieces become a
meaningful picture.
Data Before Analysis and Synthesis Data After Analysis and Synthesis
You should use data collection, analysis, and synthesis techniques in all your improvement work. This process
is especially important as you try to complete your Self-Assessment of Cognia Assurances, Performance
Standards, Key Characteristics, and Reflection.
It is impossible to analyze and synthesize data if you do not understand the concept of sources of information. At
Cognia, we recommend looking at four categories of data. You may have multiple sources under each category.
The four categories we recommend are:
1. Documentation: Cognia defines “documentation” as written, printed, or electronic matter that is usually
widely distributed and serves as an official record. Examples of documents that may be sources of data are:
a. Institution handbooks (for faculty/staff, student, parent, etc.)
b. Strategic plans
c. Action plans (continuous improvement plan, professional development plan, technology plan)
d. Policies, procedures, processes
2. Observations: Cognia encourages both formal and informal observations. Some examples of
observations include:
a. Locally collected Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot) observations
b. Teacher observations
c. Other general observations (evaluations of meetings, general comments from stakeholders)
3. Perceptions: Perceptions are reality for stakeholders. Some examples of perception gathering
techniques include:
a. Surveys
b. Focus groups
c. Interviews
4. Performance: Cognia looks for two types of information in this category. While student performance
is the most important “outcome” for an institution, organizational performance supports student
performance. Here are some examples of data you may collect related to performance:
a. Organizational data (results of improvement or other initiatives, program evaluation, non-academic
performance metrics, efficiency studies)
b. Student academic performance data (formative and summative data, aggregated or individual)
c. Student non-academic performance data (attendance, disciplinary, participation in extracurricular
activities)

A few words here about program evaluation: There are two outcomes to consider when evaluating programs
or initiatives in your institution. The first is data concerning the implementation of the program or initiative.
Implementation data is often collected in the initial stages of the implementation of the program to inform
the quality and fidelity of the implementation, as well as to monitor and adjust the program goals. Because
implementation evaluation is generally done early in the process of program development and implementation,
the data is often more qualitative in nature and relies on more formative assessment data. The purpose of
implementation evaluation is to improve the program goals and plans to ensure successful outcomes.
The second form of data comes from the impact of the program. Impact data is collected as a measure of the
results of the program. This type of evaluation is more frequently conducted later in the program implementation
and often relies on more quantitative and summative data that measures the outcome or impact of the program.
It answers the question “Did the program work?”
Here is a key lesson to learn for your Accreditation Engagement Review: If you simply present raw data,
your team will not have the time to organize, analyze and interpret it. They may not even have time to access all
the random data you have provided! Learn this lesson well: For data to be useful to your Cognia Engagement
Review team and to the personnel in your institution for continuous improvement the analyses of those data
should be presented, not the raw results.
Five Steps for Data Analysis

Just like any standardized quality process, the data analysis process consists of certain steps:
1. Understand the purpose for your analysis.
2. Identify and evaluate data sources and collect data.
3. Clean all data and eliminate unnecessary data.
4. Analyze and synthesize the data.
5. Interpret findings, prioritize, and develop a theory of action.
You can use the five steps above and the additional information below to analyze any project. Because this
document is specific to Cognia Accreditation, we will be discussing this process as it relates to the standards
and key characteristics you are asked to evaluate for your Engagement Review. Therefore, the purpose of your
analyses is to find evidence to evaluate your institution against standards and key characteristics. We have taken
care of Step 1!
Some best practices we’ve discovered: Use documentation you already have whenever possible! You may find
that you need different data later, but start with what you have. Also, you should have an “analysis team” dedicated
to completing this work. That team could be your leadership team, improvement team, or people working in
professional learning communities. Finally, when the analysis is complete, make sure to share it with the broader
community, or at least the internal community.

Activity: Identifying Data Sources and Data Collection Instruments
As a group, discuss and list the data sources you already have, using the four categories described earlier
(Documentation, Observations, Perceptions, and Performance) as a general guide. When you finish, reflect on
what you have and where you need to add more collection instruments if necessary. Alternatively, you can use the
Activity below with a larger group.
Group Activity: Identifying Data Sources
Example:
Documentation Observations Perceptions Performance
Student Handbook eleot observations Cognia Family Survey Cognia Interim
Assessment
Faculty Handbook Teacher observations Cognia Learner Survey Cognia Formative
Assessments
Mission, Vision, and Values Cognia Educator Survey Disciplinary trend data
School Improvement Plan Classroom Surveys Attendance records
Community Survey
Interaction—Enter your list of data sources here.
Documentation Observations Perceptions Performance

Student Handbook ELEOT Observations Program Evaluation
Teachers Handbook
However you choose to record this information, keep it available, because you will use it later in the process.

Cleaning Data
Many statisticians have stated that “cleaning” data is perhaps the most important step in data analysis, and it can
also be the most time-consuming. Without proper attention to data cleaning, there are many mistakes that can be
made with data. Data are the foundation of all your subsequent work. If the foundation of a building is not well built,
the integrity of the entire building structure is at risk.
Evaluating data sources is a critical factor in achieving accurate analyses. There are two considerations
for evaluating data when cleaning. You will save time and reduce frustration if you pay attention to these
considerations before beginning your analysis and synthesis.
First, some data you have collected may not be even remotely related to the problem you are attempting to solve.
This part is easy: Just push it aside! If you do not, you and your colleagues will be overwhelmed and unable to
focus on the problem at hand.
Second, you must evaluate the data to ensure that it is specific, valid, and accurate. Unreliable data sources can
lead us to make conclusions about the data that may not hold up to later scrutiny. This can be a difficult and time-
consuming task, but it is worth the effort. Here are some common mistakes people make when evaluating their
data sources:
• Inadequate sample size. If the sample size of a study is too small, we cannot reasonably make
generalizations to the entire population of interest. For example, if your school has 1,000 students and you
only asked the student government group of 10 students how people feel about the school, the results will
most likely fail to reflect the views of the whole student body.
• Poor data collection methods. It is difficult to gather quality data when using subpar collection methods,
such as asking survey questions that are worded in a way to lead people toward certain responses.
• Anecdotal data. People sometimes present anecdotal data as equivalent to scientifically collected study
data, such as relying on product testimonials or word of mouth claims rather than a statistical method of
study. Be careful when you see a single comment beginning with “I think” or “I believe.” Be able to say, “I know,
and here’s how I know.”
• Collection of biased data. Sometimes people collect only data that support a certain agenda, so there is a
stake in the results making claims for or against that agenda. You must be a skilled “data consumer,” and look
for these clues to determine if there is a question about the reliability of the data source.
• Faulty logic. If data collection instruments are not carefully designed, they can lead to faulty responses
because they are confusing to the respondent. Asking people if a leader is friendly may not indicate whether
the institution has quality instruction. Survey questions can also be confusing. You may be familiar with the
term “double-barreled” questions. For example, if a survey item says, “The quality and quantity of our data
sources are sufficient for our needs.” What if people think the quantity is fine, but the quality is poor? How can
they answer the question accurately, and more importantly, what are the odds you will be able to make sense
of the responses?
• Interpretation of data. Too often, we draw hasty conclusions and generalizations based on incomplete data
or inaccurate data. It is also common to assign cause when the data only show correlation, or a relationship
between two things rather than a cause and effect. For example, let us say our data show more shark attacks
when ice cream sales at a beach are high. Do a lot of ice cream sales cause more shark attacks? That is
not something we could prove as a cause and effect. Why do the data support this relationship? A common
reason is what we call a confounding variable, which is another factor that has a relationship to both things
that are of interest. The confounding variable in this case is the number of people at the beach, which is
related to both more ice cream sales and more shark attacks, simply because there are more people at the
beach.
– Poorly represented data can be misleading and can result in an inaccurate interpretation
– Incorrect graph style—bar graph vs. line graph vs. circle graph
– Confusing visualization—clutter, no scale, overly stimulating

The table below contains some examples of data cleaning ideas. Documents are usually overly broad, cover many
topics, and are sometimes many pages long. Data cleaning means being specific about precisely which parts of
the document apply to the analysis. Selecting the important data from a document is like citing a reference in a
term paper. You do not cite the entire book; you cite the specific pages from the book that contain information to
support your needs. The same goes for other sources such as questionnaires and surveys. Rather than say, “The
parent survey data,” which may include many items with information applicable to many topics, say, “Items 1, 17,
and 20 (related to leadership) of the Parent Questionnaire.”
Data Sources Not Cleaned Data Sources Cleaned

“Student Handbook” (too broad) Suspension policy (Student Handbook, p. 5)
“Student Survey” (too broad) Student Survey (items 3, 7, 11, 15 related to homework)
Cognia Interim Assessment results Results of interim assessment, items related to reading comprehension
Cognia Family survey Questions from Cognia’s Family Survey related to Culture
It’s during the data cleaning process that you may find, once again, that you need to collect more or different
data. It is better to stop and collect that data immediately rather than moving on with inadequate, insufficient, or
inaccurate data. You also may find that as you begin the analysis and synthesis work, you may have to come back
and “reclean” some of your data sources, especially when you begin to focus on specific themes.
Using the data sources you identified from the earlier activity, review your data sources and begin to determine
if they are impacted by any of the considerations above. Once you have completed that step, develop an action
plan to correct any issues with your data sources and begin to organize specific components of your data. You
may wish to use the activity linked below.
Analyzing and Synthesizing Information

Once all your “cleaned” data is in one place, you can begin to analyze and synthesize. Remember the puzzle we
showed earlier? That is what analysis and synthesis is: putting those pieces together to create a holistic “picture”
of your organization; but your organizational picture will not be a photograph, it will be based on themes. Some
themes are “assigned” (like the key characteristics) while others may emerge as you study your data.
First, you will review and organize all your data to create information. As you review different pieces of data, you
will find that they begin to cluster around certain themes. This can be a fun exercise for a group using some quality
management tools like an affinity diagram. As the themes begin to develop, determine if you have adequate data
or if you need more. You may also find you have collected some data that does not fit with any of the themes. If
you have data that never aligns with a theme, just put it to one side. You might even begin to classify each data
point as a “positive result” or “negative result.”
Once you get all the data categorized under themes, give the themes one- or two-word names. You already
have four broad themes: culture, leadership, engagement, and growth. You may see many more specific themes
emerge, such as data management, professional learning, student discipline—the possibilities are endless. You
may find that most of these specific themes are subcomponents of one or more of the key characteristics. That
may help you not only to prepare for your engagement review, but also with tasks such as selecting improvement
goals and budget prioritization. You can also expect an occasional theme that does not seem to fit with any of the
key characteristics; do not worry, and do not try to force a theme to fit where it does not.
Interpreting Findings, Developing Theories of Action, and Prioritizing

Interpreting your findings really answers the question, “Does this matter to us?” Now that you have your
information organized and arranged under themes, it is time to transform your information into findings. For this
step, you will be reflecting on your organized information and writing a statement that succinctly defines what you
have discovered. This statement is called a “finding.” Findings help us determine what we do well and what we

do not do so well. Do not include the solution in your finding: just write a clear statement that indicates what the
information under the theme tells you. Here are some examples:
• Student performance in seventh grade language arts has been lower than sixth- and eighth-grade
performance for the past three years.
• Items related to culture from multiple surveys (learner, teacher, parent) indicate strong support for the
leadership of our school.
• On the SAT, students perform well above the average on language arts and below average on mathematics.
The information you have gathered that aligns with and supports your finding is called “evidence.”
You may have identified many findings, and you may think that prioritizing is simply a process of deciding which
findings we want to work on first, or that findings you should address immediately should be focused on student
results. Cognia strongly recommends you reflect carefully on your findings and develop theories of action to help
you prioritize. Frequently, institutions err in their analysis. The error? Jumping into action before determining the
root cause. We often talk about “treating the symptoms, not the cause.” Here is a sample of this common error:
Finding: Student absenteeism has been increasing for the last four years.
Erroneous Action: Implement a reward program for students who do not miss any days!
Discussion: Student absenteeism is a symptom. We must find out why students are not attending
school regularly. Only then can we determine what actions might improve student absenteeism.
With careful reflection and study of your findings and the associated evidence, followed by development of
theories of action, your institution will not fall prey to this error! And developing a theory of action is relatively
easy:
1. Using your analyses and the finding statement you have developed, determine the possible root cause(s)
of the current outcome described in the finding. Remember that the data and results you have are a
measure of the symptoms, not the root cause. Root cause answers the question, “Why are these results
what they are?” The best technique to accomplish this is using a fishbone diagram (see figure below).
Curriculum Assessment
Lack of AP math classes Our assessments don’t mirror SAT styles
Bo
Alignment to SAT content Grade inflation

ar
dr
eq
Sequence of courses
uir
Mathematics
em
en
scores on SAT
ts
High absenteeism Lack of professional learning for math teachers are below
average
No real-world application provided
Minimal group work Too few critical thinking tasks
Too much lecture
Too many ditto sheets
Minimal project work
No
te
no
Engagement Instruction
ug
ht
ex
tb
oo
ks

Another method of root cause analysis is known as the “Five Whys.” While it may take more or fewer
times asking why, usually five times will help you identify root cause. (See figure below.)
2. Select what you believe to be the top one or two causes you have identified, identify who might be able to
affect change to address the issue, and describe actions that might bring about the desired change.
“After discussion, mathematics faculty felt that curriculum alignment was the highest priority; however,
that is not scheduled until two years from now. Therefore, the faculty decided the three most important
causes in our control are: 1) providing more real-world projects, 2) focusing on critical thinking and
problem solving in instruction, and 3) building a professional development plan to improve math
instruction.”
3. Develop an “if/then/so that” statement (theory of action).
“If math teachers engage in professional development to learn how to increase critical thinking and
implement real-world projects into math classes, then students will be more engaged in learning math so
that they will score higher on the math portion of the SAT.”
Reflecting on your “if/then/so that” statements will help you prioritize your goals and guide you in developing an
action plan.
You may wish to engage in the activity below to help guide your work.
Group Activity: Developing Findings
Group Activity: Writing Theories of Action
Putting It All Together

We have talked a lot about the processes of data analysis, synthesis, interpreting information, and identifying
findings. Now, it is simply a matter of using the results of your efforts to create a clear, concise document. Some
analysis documents will be longer than others, depending upon the complexity of the topic and your theory of
action. Consider creating narrative documents that use the following outline:
First section: evidence you have analyzed and synthesized
Second section: findings from your analysis and synthesis
Third section: interpretations of the root cause of your findings and your theory of action
This has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating: For data to be useful to the personnel in your institution
for continuous improvement, and useful to your Cognia Engagement Review evaluators, the analyses of those
data should be presented, not the raw results.

Now you know the basics of data analysis to help you prepare for your Accreditation Engagement Review. Data
analysis is just like its overarching activity of continuous improvement: The good news is you can begin today,
but the reality is that you will never finish! As you collect new data, you will want to reanalyze and update your
narratives. Keeping these narratives up to date means you will always have them at your fingertips when you need
them for improvement work.
Required Analyses
We have talked about the collection, analysis, and synthesis of data in a general fashion. Before you begin
completing the components of your Self-Assessment, you must complete at least three analyses: one on student
performance data, one on observations of learning environments focused on learner engagement, and one on
survey results. The analysis templates have been provided for you in this section of the workbook.
Cognia requires that you examine and analyze your student performance data to see how well the institution’s
educational program is preparing learners for success in current and future academic work. You likely have
several data sources, with a strong emphasis on the set of assessment tools and practices used to measure
performance. You will use the analysis process in this workbook to analyze your data and synthesize the data into
findings. Note: This analysis is not required for standalone corporations, ESAs without schools, or Charter School
Authorizers.
Cognia requires that you collect stakeholder feedback data from three stakeholder groups: learners (grades 3
and higher), families, and educators. Cognia provides you with certified content surveys for these three
stakeholder groups if you wish to use them. However, you may also use your own survey system or other
stakeholder feedback methods to collect the data. Whichever method you choose, you can use the analysis
process in this workbook to analyze and synthesize your data into findings.
There are advantages to using Cognia’s surveys. First, all the items on the surveys for the three stakeholder
groups are aligned with the four key characteristics you will write about in your Self-Assessment. Additionally, you
can be confident that the Cognia surveys are fully tested and reliable. Later in this document you will be asked
to use our criteria to evaluate the quality of your surveys. If you use Cognia’s surveys, on the criterion concerning
validity and reliability (EC1), you can simply say “We used Cognia’s surveys,” and that will meet the criterion at the
highest level.
The final required analysis is a study of learning environments in you institution. This can most easily be
completed using data from Cognia’s eleot observations, but if you have another instrument that assesses learning
environments, you may use it. Please note: You CANNOT use a teacher observation instrument of any kind to
meet the expectations of this requirement. This analysis is not about the teacher alone, it is about the overall
learning environment, which focuses primarily on what learners are doing, not teachers. Note: This analysis is not
required for standalone corporations, ESAs without schools, or Charter School Authorizers.
Student Performance Analysis

Most people will agree that the desired outcome of education is successful learner performance. By simply
looking at test results, the chances of improving learner performance are slim. This tool will help you use the five
steps explained earlier to analyze your assessment data so that you can make impactful changes that will result in
improved learner performance.
Below are steps to guide you in this analysis.

1. Understand the Purpose for Your Analysis
The careful analysis of student performance data might seem self-evident, yet it is a critical step that
many institutions fail to perform, or only one or two people in the institution are involved. Here are some
activities you might consider:
• Agree to approach the process and analysis reporting with honesty and transparency.

• Determine the level of commitment of the personnel in your institution to using the results of this
analysis to improve across the entire institution.
• Review the four Assessment Package Evaluative Criteria.
2. Identify and Evaluate Data Sources (Process)
Make a list of assessments that your institution uses to measure student performance. You may have
already made a longer list of all data sources in an earlier activity.
• Create a table similar to the sample below. Your table will most likely have many more rows than this
sample! In this table, all data sources will fall under the category of “performance,” so there is no need
to list that here.
• Include data from summative assessments that support the mission of your institution (such as core
academics or performance assessments specific to the purpose of the institution).
• Consider including comparison data to like institutions that have similar learner populations.
For each data source you list:
• List the number of administrations you have for comparison, or describe when the data were collected
(trend data).
• Make any comments that will help you clean and classify the results into themes.
Data Source Trend Data Comments
Cognia Interim Assessments, 1 administration With only one administration thus far, we
grades 3, 5, 7 cannot determine if we are improving;
however, the results appear to correlate highly
with student performance data being provided
by our assessment program.
Evidence of student performance 3 years of data showing The use of multiple forms of assessment
on interim assessments for growth and the within our balanced assessment system
English Language Arts; probability of proficiency provides data that includes multiple purposes.
grades 2, 4, and 8 These may include informing instruction,
differentiation, review of curriculum, etc.
Evidence of student performance 3 years of data showing Same as above.
on interim assessments for growth and the
Mathematics; grades 5, 8, and 10 probability of proficiency
SAT, all batteries 5 years Administered to all students in grade 11.
Because over 95% of our students go to
college, this is an important data source.
Arts and Graphics end of course administrations at the Not tested for validity and reliability.
assessment (semester class, end of 6 semesters
grade 6)

Interaction—Enter your data sources, trend information, and comments here.
After you have completed the table above, use the four evaluative criteria to rate your institution’s “assessment
package” holistically. Your evaluation of your assessment may look something like this:
EC 1: Assessment Quality EC 2: Administration EC 3: Quality of Learning EC 4: Equity of Learning

3 4 2 1
This rating will help you determine the degree of confidence you have in your statements when you begin your
analysis and synthesis, and will help you determine where improvement needs to be made in your assessment
package.

Here are the four evaluative criteria for Assessment Packages.
Assessment Package Evaluative Criteria
EC1: Assessment Quality
The array of assessment devices used by the institution to determine learners’ performances is sufficiently
aligned so that valid inferences can be reached regarding learners’ status with respect to the full set of
curricular aims regarded as high-priority instructional targets. The documentation provided in support of
4
this alignment is persuasive. Almost all assessments used are accompanied by evidence demonstrating that
they satisfy accepted technical requirements such as validity, reliability, absence of bias and instructional
sensitivity.
The array of assessment devices used by the institution to determine learners’ performances is aligned
so that valid inferences can be reached regarding learners’ status with respect to the most curricular aims
3 regarded as high-priority instructional targets. The documentation provided in support of this alignment is
persuasive. Most of the assessments used are accompanied by evidence demonstrating that they satisfy
accepted technical requirements.
The array of assessment devices used by the institution to determine learners’ performances is somewhat
aligned so that valid inferences can be reached regarding learners’ status with respect to some curricular aims
2 regarded as high-priority instructional targets. The documentation provided in support of this alignment is
less than persuasive. Some of the assessments used are accompanied by evidence demonstrating that they
satisfy accepted technical requirements.
The array of assessment devices used by the institution to determine learners’ performances is not aligned
and valid inferences are unlikely to be reached regarding learners’ status with respect to curricular aims
1 regarded as high-priority instructional targets. No documentation in support of alignment has been provided
or, if provided, it is not persuasive. Few of the assessments used are accompanied by evidence demonstrating
that they satisfy technical requirements.
EC2: Test Administration
Almost all the assessments used by the institution to determine learners’ performances, whether externally
acquired or internally developed, have been administered with complete fidelity to the administrative
procedures appropriate for each assessment. The learners to whom these assessments were administered
4
accurately represent the learners served by the institution. Appropriate accommodations have been provided
for all assessments so that valid inferences can be made about all learners’ statuses with respect to all the
institution’s targeted curricular outcomes.
Most of the assessments used by the institution to determine learners’ performances have been administered
with reasonable fidelity to the administrative procedures appropriate for each assessment. In most instances,
the learners to whom these assessments were administered are essentially representative of the learners
3
served by the institution. Appropriate accommodations have been provided for most assessments so that
valid inferences can be made about most learners’ statuses with respect to most of the institution’s targeted
curricular outcomes.
Some of the assessments used by the institution to determine learners’ performances have been
administered with fidelity to the administrative procedures appropriate for each assessment. In some
instances, the learners to whom these assessments were administered are somewhat representative of the
2
learners served by the institution. Some accommodations have been provided for assessments so that valid
inferences can be made about some learners’ statuses with respect to some of the institution’s targeted
curricular outcomes.
Few, if any, assessments used by the institution to determine learners’ performances have been administered
with fidelity to the administrative procedures appropriate for each assessment. The learners to whom
1 these assessments were administered are not representative of the learners served by the institution. Few
accommodations were provided for assessments so that valid inferences cannot be made about learners’
statuses with respect to any of the institution’s targeted curricular outcomes.

EC3: Quality of Learning
Evidence of learner learning promoted by the institution is well analyzed and clearly presented. In comparison
to institutions functioning in a similar educational context, learners’ statuses, improvement and/or growth
4
evidence indicates that the level of learner learning is substantially greater than what would otherwise be
expected.
Evidence of learner learning promoted by the institution is acceptably analyzed and presented with
reasonable clarity. In comparison to institutions functioning in a similar educational context, learners’ statuses,
3
improvement and/or growth evidence indicates that the level of learner learning is at or above what would
otherwise be expected.
Evidence of learner learning promoted by the institution is indifferently analyzed and presented with
little clarity. In comparison to institutions functioning in a similar educational context, learners’ statuses,
2
improvement and/or growth evidence indicates that the level of learner learning is below what would otherwise
be expected.
Evidence of learner learning promoted by the institution is poorly analyzed and is presented unclearly. In
comparison to institutions functioning in a similar educational context, learners’ statuses, improvement and/
1
or growth evidence indicates that the level of learner learning is substantially below what would otherwise be
expected.
EC4: Equity of Learning
Evidence of learner learning indicates no significant achievement gaps among subpopulations of learners, or
4
the achievement gaps have substantially declined.
Evidence of learner learning indicates achievement gaps exist among subpopulations of learners, and these
3
achievement gaps have noticeably declined.
Evidence of learner learning indicates achievement gaps exist among subpopulations of learners, and these
2
achievement gaps demonstrate a modest decline.
Evidence of learner learning indicates achievement gaps exist among subpopulations of learners and that
1
minimal or no change has occurred in these achievement gaps.
Interaction—Enter your ratings.
EC 1: Assessment Quality EC 2: Administration EC 3: Quality of Learning EC 4: Equity of Learning

3. Select and Clean Data Sources
It is likely you will have several pages of charts, graphs, and tables. You may wish to limit each analysis
to one grade level or one subject, or you can analyze all assessment data at once. When selecting
assessment data to include, consider the following criteria:
• Provide longitudinal results of the same assessment from multiple administrations, if available, to allow
for analysis of trends.
• Disaggregate data by subgroups appropriate for your institution.
• Provide tables, graphs or other depictions that provide assessment data with longitudinal results that
are disaggregated by appropriate subgroups for the institution. Use Evaluative Criteria 3 and 4 as your
guides.
• Provide learner performance results by presenting data using status, improvement and/or growth.
– Status: the level of performance on an assessment or group of assessments against a set of criteria.
– Improvement: trend data of the same grade level and/or course over several years.
– Growth: learner cohort data regarding the performance of a group of learners over time.
4. Analyze and Synthesize Information
Analysis and synthesis put the pieces of information you have amassed together to create a holistic
“picture” of your organization in the form of themes. Use the following prompts and questions to guide
your thinking and writing:
• Areas of Noteworthy Achievement
– Which area(s) are above the expected levels of performance?
– Describe the area(s) that show a positive trend in performance.
– Which area(s) indicate the overall highest performance?
– Which subgroup(s) show a trend toward increasing performance?
– Between which subgroups is the achievement gap closing?
– Which of the above reported findings are consistent with findings from other data sources?
Interaction—Enter your findings (answers to the prompts and question above) below or create a
separate document.

• Areas in Need of Improvement
– Which area(s) are below the expected levels of performance?
– Describe the area(s) that show a negative trend in performance.
– Which area(s) indicate the overall lowest performance?
– Which subgroup(s) show a trend toward decreasing performance?
– Between which subgroups is the achievement gap becoming greater?
• Which of the above reported findings are consistent with findings from other data sources?
separate document.

5. Interpret Findings, Prioritize, and Develop a Theory of Action
Now that you have your information organized and neatly arranged under themes, it’s time to transform
your information into findings—that is, “what we do well, and where we need to improve.” Refer to the
earlier section on Interpreting Findings, Developing Theories of Action, and Prioritizing. Consider the
following suggestions:
• List all your findings statements
• Prioritize the findings statements:
– Select the findings you feel are most important to begin your improvement process.
– Select only the number of findings you have the capacity to address.
• Perform root cause analysis on the findings to determine how to address the improvement areas and
describe your intended results and next steps (theory of action).
See a sample analysis on page 155.
See how the evaluator will evaluate your analysis on page 163.
Interaction—Enter your priorities and theories of action (answers to the prompts and question
above) below or create a separate document.

Stakeholder Feedback Analysis
“Perception is reality.” You have probably heard and maybe even used this phrase before. Cognia believes
collecting and analyzing data from at least three populations (learners, teachers, and families) can give your
institution insights into your “current reality.” Whether it is survey results, focus group results, or other types of
perception data, this tool will help you use the five steps explained earlier to analyze your perception data so
that you can make impactful changes that will result in improved stakeholder perceptions, which ultimately will
improve student performance.
Below are steps to guide you in this analysis.

This might seem self-evident, yet it is a critical step, even when considering perception or survey results.
Here are some activities you might consider:
analysis to improve.
• Review the four Evaluative Criteria for Surveys and Perception Data.
2. Identify and Evaluate Data Sources
Review all possible data sources (surveys, focus groups, etc.). List these data sources in the table
provided. For each survey or other data source you list:
• List the populations you have collected perception data from. Cognia requires that you collect at least
learner perceptions, family perceptions, and teacher perceptions.
• Indicate the number of administrations of surveys or focus groups you have for comparison (trend
data).
• For each data source, include comments about the overall validity and reliability of the results and
make note of potential areas for improvement.
• Below are some samples. Your table may include more data sources.
Cognia Family Survey 2 years We should not compare year one with year two because during the
first year the family survey was only administered to parents who
attended our site council meeting, which is not considered to be
representative of all families.
Cognia Learner Survey 3 years This is a reliable data source as we gave it to all students both
years at about the same time of year. Over 95% of all students
responded.
Cognia Teacher Survey 3 years This is a reliable data source as we gave it to all teachers both
years at about the same time of year. Response rate was 100%.
Principal’s Roundtable 4 years Twice per year the principal invites a group of parent and
community members to a luncheon where school progress,
issues, and concerns are discussed. Only parents and community
members who had time attended, but all 8 sessions had at least 30
participants.

Below the table:
• Briefly describe how the participants to whom these surveys were administered accurately represent
all their respective populations. You can include information like the size of the population, how
participants were identified, the number of surveys administered, the number of responses received,
and other information that may have impacted the analysis.
Interaction—Complete the table for your data sources here.
Interaction—Enter your description of participants and method of collecting feedback here.

Holistic Evaluation of All Data Sources
• After you have completed the table above, use the four evaluative criteria (listed below) to rate your
institution’s “stakeholder feedback package” holistically.
• This rating will help you determine the degree of confidence you have in your statements when you begin
your analysis and synthesis, and help you determine where improvement needs to be made in your
perception collection data.
Stakeholder Feedback Evaluative Criteria
EC1: Item Quality (not required for Cognia Surveys)
4 Items in almost all surveys and focus group protocols have been tested and proven as reliable and valid.
3 Items in most surveys and focus groups have been tested and proven as reliable and valid.
2 Items in some surveys and focus groups have been tested and proven as reliable and valid.
1 Items in few or no surveys and focus groups have been tested and proven as reliable and valid.
EC2: Administration
4 Surveys were administered to all members of the total population of the institution.
3 Surveys were administered to most participants that represented the total population of the institution.
2 Surveys were administered to some participants that represented the total population of the institution.
Surveys were administered to a small group of participants that did not accurately represent the total
1
population of the institution.
EC3: Number of Responses
4 The total response rate was 75% or more and all participant populations were well represented.
The total response rate was between 50% and 75% of all respondent populations. Almost all population
3
groups were represented.
2 The total response rate was between 25% and 50% of the survey group.
1 The total response rate was between 0% and 25% of the survey group.
EC4: Equity of Respondents
4 Results indicate no significant gaps exist among subpopulations of respondents.

Results indicate minimal gaps exist among subpopulations of respondents, and trend data indicate these gaps
3
have noticeably declined.
Results indicate gaps exist among subpopulations of respondents, and these perception gaps demonstrate a
2
modest decline.
Results indicate gaps exist among subpopulations of respondents and that minimal or no change has
1
occurred in these gaps.
Interaction—Enter your ratings.
EC 1: Item Quality EC 2: Administration EC 3: Quality of Results EC 4: Equity of Results

When selecting survey data to include, consider the following criteria:
• Organize the items of your surveys under themes. You can always begin with Cognia’s key
characteristics (Culture, Leadership, Engagement, Growth), then add others as you wish. Cognia’s
surveys are already aligned to these key characteristics.
• Provide longitudinal results of the same questions from multiple administrations, if available, to
allow for analysis of trends.
• Provide tables, graphs or other depictions that provide response data with longitudinal results that
are disaggregated by appropriate subgroups (families, learners, teachers, etc.).
Analysis and synthesis put the pieces of information you have amassed together to create a holistic
“picture” of your organization in the form of themes. Use the following questions to guide your thinking
and writing:
– In which area(s) do stakeholders feel the institution is doing really well?
– Which area(s) indicate the overall highest feedback ratings?
– What successes are highlighted?
Note: These prompts differ from the ones you will see in the online diagnostic. Please respond to
these prompts as you analyze the stakeholder feedback data and upload your narrative into the online
diagnostic.
separate document.

– In which areas do stakeholders feel the institution needs to improve?
– Which area(s) indicate the overall lowest feedback ratings?
– What needs for improvement are highlighted?
separate document.

Now that you have your information organized and neatly arranged under themes, it’s time to transform
your information into findings—that is, “what we do well, and where we need to improve.” Refer to the
earlier section on Interpreting Findings, Developing Theories of Action, and Prioritizing. Consider the
• List all your findings statements.
• Perform root cause analysis on the findings to determine how to address the improvement areas, and
above) below or create a separate document.

Learning Environment Observation Analysis
You have made a careful analysis of learner engagement observation data. Here are some activities you
should consider:
analysis to improve across the entire institution.
• Review the four Learning Environment Observation Evaluative Criteria.
2. Identify and Evaluate Data Sources (Process)
You should list one or more instruments that your institution uses to measure learner engagement in an
observational format. Considerations for your list:
• Cognia’s eleot (Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool) instrument is considered the
premier learning environment observation tool to measure learner engagement. If you use a different
tool or tools, please make sure they are designed to measure learning environments with a focus on
learner engagement.
• Teacher observation/evaluation tools are not appropriate for this analysis.
For each data source you listed, you should include:
• A description of trend data (usually over a one-year period or more), citing learning environments and/
or aspects of learner engagement that have improved, maintained, or declined.
• Any comments that will help you clean and classify the results into themes.

Learning Environment Observation Evaluative Criteria
Rate the three evaluative criteria for Learning Environment Observation.
EC1: Instrument Quality (not required if Cognia’s eleot instrument is used)
The specific purpose of the instrument(s) used is clearly to measure learner engagement in learning
4
environments. Sufficient information has been reviewed to ensure the instrument(s) is reliable and valid.
The primary purpose of the instrument(s) used is to measure learner engagement in learning environments.
3
Information has been reviewed to ensure the instrument(s) is reliable and valid.
The instrument(s) used is, at least in part, to measure learner engagement in learning environments. Some
2
information has been reviewed to ensure the instrument(s) is reliable and valid.
1 The instrument(s) is not designed to measure learner engagement in learning environments.
EC2: Certification of observers
4 Almost all observations were conducted by observers who were trained and certified in using the instrument.
3 Many observations were conducted by observers who were trained and certified in using the instrument.
2 Some observations were conducted by observers who were trained and certified in using the instrument.
1 Few observations were conducted by observers who were trained and certified in using the instrument.
EC3: Observations
The tool is used with fidelity for the time period indicated in the tool’s instructions (e.g. “a minimum of
20 minutes per observation”). Data presented are from multiple observations conducted over an extended
4
period of time, such as a school year. Observations represent a broad and representative range of content,
grade level, and time of observation (beginning, middle, end of lesson or period).
The tool is used for the time period indicated in the tool’s instructions/guidelines (e.g. “a minimum of 20
minutes per observation”). Most data presented are from multiple observations conducted over an extended
3
period of time, such as a school year. Observations represent a range of content, grade level, and time of
observation (beginning, middle, end of lesson or period).
The tool is sometimes used in accordance with the instrument’s instructions/guidelines. Some data
presented are from multiple observations conducted over an extended period of time, such as a school year.
2
Observations represent a range of content that includes at least core subject areas, grade level, and time of
The tool is rarely used in accordance with the instrument’s instructions/guidelines. Data presented represent
1 one administration of observations. Observations represent a limited range of content, grade level, and time of

You may build several pages of charts, graphs, and tables. When selecting learning environment
observation data to include, you should consider the following criteria:
• Provide longitudinal results using the same instrument from multiple administrations, if available, to
allow for analysis of trends.
• Disaggregate data by content, grade level, and time of observation (beginning, middle, end of lesson or
period).
Your analysis and synthesis put the pieces of information you amassed together to create a holistic
“picture” of your organization in the form of themes. Use the following prompts and questions to guide
your thinking and writing:
– Which area(s) were above the expected levels of learner engagement?
– Describe the area(s) that showed a positive trend in learner engagement.
– Which area(s) indicated the overall highest learner engagement?
– Which subgroup(s) showed a trend toward increasing learner engagement?
– Which of the above reported findings were consistent with findings from other data sources?
Interaction—Enter your findings (answers to the prompts and question above) below.

– Which area(s) were below the expected levels of learner engagement?
– Describe the area(s) that showed a negative trend in learner engagement.
– Which area(s) indicated the overall lowest learner engagement?
– Which subgroup(s) showed a trend toward decreasing learner engagement?
– Which of the above reported findings were consistent with findings from other data sources?
Interaction—Enter your findings (answers to the prompts and question above) below.

You have your information organized and neatly arranged under themes, and determined findings—that
is, “what we do well, and where we need to improve.” Refer to the earlier section on Interpreting Findings,
Developing Theories of Action, and Prioritizing for more information on writing findings. Consider the
• List all your findings statements
• Perform root cause analysis on the findings to determine how to address the improvement areas and
above) below or create a separate document to upload as an attachment.

Completing the Self-Assessment
Executive Summary
Cognia wants to know more about your institution. Your description of your institution should be 2,000 words
(four to five pages) or less. Consider composing a paragraph or two based on each these prompts to guide you in
writing your first narrative:
1. Provide a brief description of the history of your institution.
2. Describe the community your institution serves.
• Is the community urban, suburban, or rural?
• What language(s) are spoken?
3. Describe how your institution is governed.
• Is your institution independent, related to a special association or religious group, or under a state
department or ministry of education?
• Is there a board of directors or other governing authority?
4. Describe the mission, vision, and values of your institution.
• When were these statements last reviewed and/or updated?
5. Describe the enrollment trends in your institution for the past three to five years.
6. Describe your institution’s philosophy of education.
• Is the philosophy traditional?
• Is it based on a particular model or does it include research developed by John Dewey, Piaget,
Vygotsky, Glaser or Gardner’s work? Perhaps it’s a combination of multiple sources of research.
7. Describe your institution’s curriculum.
• Does your governing authority require a certain curriculum?
• Do you have a traditional curriculum based on reading, writing, and mathematics?
• Do you offer special programs such as STEM, music, and arts?
• How and when is the curriculum updated?
8. Describe instruction in your institution.
• Is it traditional lecture format, competency-based, on-site, and/or remote?
• How much is technology integrated into instruction?
9. Discuss personnel management (such as hiring practices, evaluation, and supervision).
10. Give a brief description of student performance.
• Are you required to give certain assessments at certain grades?
• In what curricular areas do your students perform well?
• What curricular areas need improved student performance?
• Does trend data indicate student performance is improving, staying about the same, or declining?
11. Describe current major improvement initiatives.
• Include progress and status on each initiative.
• Include the intended outcome or goal of each initiative.

To see an example of an Executive Summary, go to page 131.
Interaction—Enter your Executive Summary here.

Executive Summary, page 2




Standards
Continuous improvement should be the goal of every institution. Cognia provides accreditation standards and
assurances that are specific to varying types of systems and institutions. The improvement journey for each
institution may look different but should always include measures of quality of learning and instruction.
The Cognia Performance Standards provide a set of evaluative criteria that lays the foundation for improvement
planning and implementation. Based on rigorous research and best practices, the standards are a powerful
tool for driving instructional change. Education institutions are complex entities where a wide variety of factors
interact interdependently. Viewing these Performance Standards through multiple lenses will give an institution
and its Engagement Review evaluators a holistic portrayal of the institution. While each of Cognia’s Performance
Standards are a measure of the quality of a specific dimension, no Standard is independent; it is affected by and
has effect on other standards.
The Standards
If you are familiar with the previous Cognia Performance Standards for different institution types, you will notice
a significant change: One set of standards now applies to all K–12 and postsecondary institution types, including
systems of institutions. All education institutions share a fundamental common goal: to inspire and equip
learners so that they succeed to their highest potential. The new, research-based standards acknowledge that
commonality. They are appropriate for all institutions, placing emphasis on quality and effective practices that
benefit all learners in any K–12 or postsecondary non-degree granting setting. The details relevant to different
types of institutions will be addressed in assurances and in other Cognia Accreditation resources that will be
available to members. (Early Learning and Extended Learning institutions continue to have dedicated standards.)
Our Performance Standards for 2022–2027 are designed to evolve the work of the institution to meet current
and future educational contexts. First, the standards are constructed with a learner-centered focus. Historically,
accreditation standards are institutionally centered, describing the processes and performance of the institution.
Our standards now focus on the learner and how all the processes and practices serve to support and ensure the
learner’s journey of learning.
Additionally, the standards now emphasize the importance and impact of ensuring equity for every learner, as
well as the expectation that all learners, regardless of their circumstance, are included in the learning process.
Equity in learning requires that institutions define the needs of each learner and what it will take for the learner
to succeed in their educational journey. The institution must ensure that each learner has access to effective
teaching, the entire school’s curriculum and programming, and additional support services when needed. The
institution also must ensure that the school’s curriculum and programming is inclusive of every learner. No learner
should be excluded based on their background or demographic footprint. Fundamental to ensuring an equitable
and inclusive learning environment for every learner is that the institution believes that every learner can succeed
in their educational journey and commits to actions aligned with that belief.
Every iteration of Cognia’s Performance Standards builds on the prior version to support ongoing improvement.
Many of the themes of the previous standards are reflected in the new standards. The 2022 standards also
include several significant new concepts to guide institutions forward, including:
• Learner-centric: Cognia’s new standards focus on the learner, describing the impact on the learning
journey of processes and practices, which reflect the performance of the institution. Further, the standards
emphasize student voice and agency.
• Demonstration of equity: These standards emphasize the expectation of equity for every learner across
all aspects of the institution. Equity is expressed in the institution culture and in a curriculum that values the
diversity of individuals, families, cultures, and more.
• Learner well-being: Learning depends on more than skilled instruction. Institutions must address multiple
aspects of learners’ circumstances and environments, so that every learner can grow.

Rubrics
Each Cognia Performance Standard is rated using a four-point rubric. These rubrics embed the identified
practices that institutions and systems should have in place. Level 4 of each rubric identifies the demonstration of
noteworthy systematic and systemic practices producing clear results that positively impact learners, while Level
1 reflects areas with insufficient evidence and/or limited activity leading toward improvement.
The institution and the Engagement Review evaluators will use these rubrics for rating each of the 30 standards.
The expectation is that Level 3 represents meeting the standard, with Level 4 going well above and beyond the
expected practice at Level 3. Levels 1 and 2 represent practices that don’t yet meet the intent of the standard.
Cognia uses a compensatory methodology for rating the standards. Put simply, that means that your institution
may meet most but not all the criteria in a particular rubric level and still achieve that rating. Think of it as “we
have evidence for criterion 1 and criterion 2, but minimal evidence for criterion 3; however, there is other evidence
that compensates for criterion 3,” as opposed to “we must meet criterion 1 AND criterion 2 AND criterion 3 to
earn the rating.” As you examine the rubric for each standard, you will see words that differentiate between
the levels, moving from practices that “rarely” or “seldom” occur in Level 1, to “occasionally” or “sometimes”
being in place in Level 2, to “regular,” “systematic,” and “routine” implementation in Level 3, and “consistent” and
“systemic” practices in Level 4. Both Level 3 and Level 4 include the expectation that your institution’s evidence
will demonstrate that processes are in place and will show the results that have been achieved through the
implementation of the processes. Rely on Cognia’s definitions, not dictionary definitions, for these words that
differentiate (available in the Cognia Glossary). The overarching definitions for each of the four levels are as follows:
Rubric Level Descriptors

Demonstrating noteworthy systematic and systemic practices producing clear results that positively
Level 4
impact learners.
Level 3 Engaging in practices that provide evidence of expected effectiveness that is reflected in the standard.
Developing or improving practices that provide evidence that effort approaches desired level of
Level 2
effectiveness.
Level 1 Reflecting areas with insufficient evidence and/or limited activity leading toward improvement.
How to Unpack the Standards

Review each of the 30 standards cards by reading the selected standard and examining the elements associated
with the standard. You will see the elements align with the rubric levels in the four-point rubric for the standard. For
each standard, you will also see key terms identified that reflect concepts within the standard and elements.
As you conduct your Self-Assessment with your institution leadership team and other stakeholders, you will
want to identify evidence your institution may already have to demonstrate the institution’s performance for
the standard. You will also likely find some standards where you need to collect additional evidence to achieve
a higher rating on the rubric. Prioritize evidence by reviewing the earlier section on engaging in the process of
continuous improvement and effective use of data. This will help you identify the most impactful evidence to
support your rating for each standard.
This will take time and discussion within your institution community and is a major component of the Self-
Assessment process. It is critical that you provide adequate time for group discussions to review sources of
evidence, synthesize and analyze data, and use these sources to help you decide on a rubric level rating for each
standard. As you identify the rating for each standard for your institution, be prepared to cite specific reasons
and evidence used to reach that rating. This will support you in compiling the narrative responses to each key
characteristic in the next section.

Group Activity: Unpacking the Standards
Example:
Standard 26 Rating
Leaders regularly evaluate instructional programs and organizational conditions to improve instruction
and advance learning. 2
Leaders consistently implement a documented process to determine the effectiveness of the institution’s
curriculum and instruction, including staffing and resources. Leaders use a formal, systematic process for
4
analyzing current and trend data and stakeholder input to make decisions about retaining, changing, or
replacing programs and practices.
Leaders routinely implement a documented process to determine the effectiveness of the institution’s
3 curriculum and instruction, including staffing and resources. Leaders use analyzed current and trend data and
stakeholder input to make decisions about retaining, changing, or replacing programs and practices.
Leaders occasionally implement a process to determine the effectiveness of the institution’s curriculum and
2 instruction, including staffing and resources. Leaders sometimes use data and stakeholder input to make
decisions about retaining, changing, or replacing programs and practices.
Leaders rarely implement a process to determine the effectiveness of the institution’s curriculum and
1 instruction, including staffing and resources. Leaders seldom use data and stakeholder input to make
Evidence and Comments
Documented curriculum review process (4-year cycle)
Teacher observations—effective teaching practices
eleot observations—engaged learners
Budget—for allocation of staff, materials and resources related to curriculum implementation
Analyzed formative and summative assessment results—effectiveness of instruction
Resources
Cognia Performance Standards with Rubrics
• Used by all institutions except for Early Learning and Extended Learning accreditation
Cognia Standards for Quality Early Learning Schools
Cognia Standards for Quality Extended Learning Programs
Cognia Glossary
Standards Cards

Key Characteristics
There are four key characteristics that are present when institutions effectively and productively tend to the
Performance Standards. In other words, when one walks into an educational institution these key characteristics
are evident. First, you should witness an environment where the culture is focused on the challenges, joys, and
opportunities for learning. Second, one should witness leadership focused, dedicated, and committed to learning.
Third, one should witness learners engaged productively in the learning experience. And lastly, one should have
evidence that learners are growing in their learning in the programs and curricula provided by the institution.
Group Activity: World Café: Deep Dive into the Standards
Definitions
Here are the four key characteristics you will address with brief definitions of each characteristic:
Culture of Learning. A good institution nurtures and sustains a healthy culture of learning. In a healthy culture,
learners, parents, and educators feel connected to the purpose and work of the institution as well as behave
in alignment with the stated values and norms. The institution also demonstrates evidence that reflects the
mission, beliefs, and expectations of the institution (e.g., learners’ work; physical appearance of the institution;
participation in institution activities; family attendance at institution functions).
Leadership for learning. The ability of a leader to provide leadership for learning is a key attribute of a good
school. Leaders who engage in their own learning while tangibly supporting the learning process for learners
and teachers have a significant positive impact on the success of others. Leaders must also communicate
continuously with consistency and purpose the learning expectations for all learners and teachers. The
expectations are embedded in the culture of the school reflective in learners’, teachers’, and leaders’ attitudes and
behaviors about learning.
Engagement of learning. A good institution ensures that learners are engaged in the learning environment.
Learners who are engaged in the learning environment participate with confidence and display agency over their
own learning. A good institution adopts policies and engages in practices that support all learners being included
in the learning process.
Growth in learning. A good institution positively impacts the learner throughout their journey of learning. A
positive impact on the learner is reflected in their readiness to engage in and preparedness for the next transition
in their learning. Growth in learning is also reflected in the learner’s ability to meet expectations in knowledge and
skill acquisition.
All the Performance Standards are related to one or more of these characteristics, based on the unique context
of the institution. Performance Standards have been assigned a primary and secondary key characteristic that
Cognia feels they most closely align with, however your institution may see the standards connecting to the key
characteristics in different ways based on your context.
How to Write the Key Characteristic Narratives

You will use all the information from your analyses of data and your self-rating of the standards and assurances
to inform your key characteristics narratives. Using what you have learned from your rating of the standards,
including the evidence you have listed, you will create a narrative discussing the status of each key characteristic
at your institution. The following tips, along with the example narratives, can help you to write narratives that
represent your institution well and provide needed information to the Engagement Review evaluators.
• Write in complete sentences.
• Cite the standards numbers when appropriate at the end of sentences.
• Address all the prompts provided.

See non-example narratives and exemplar narrative on page 140.
See how the evaluator will evaluate your narratives on page 163.
Resources
Cognia Glossary
Standards Cards
Standards and Key Characteristics Alignment
Narrative Exemplars and Non-Examples pages 131–148
Evaluator Rubrics pages 163–165.

Standards Self-Assessment
Key Characteristic 1: Culture of Learning
A good institution nurtures and sustains a healthy culture of learning. In a healthy culture, learners, parents, and
educators feel connected to the purpose and work of the institution as well as behave in alignment with the stated
values and norms. The institution also demonstrates evidence that reflects the mission, beliefs, and expectations
of the institution (e.g., student work; physical appearance of the institution; participation in institution activities;
parents’ attendance at institution functions).
Keys to A Culture of Learning

A healthy culture is evident where:
• Stakeholders are actively engaged and supportive of the institution’s mission
• Learners’ academic and non-academic needs and interests are the focal point
• Stakeholders are included and supported
Rate and list evidence for each standard associated with the Culture of Learning.
Interaction—Standard 1 Rating
Leaders cultivate and sustain a culture that demonstrates respect, fairness, equity, and inclusion and is
free from bias.
Leaders consistently model the attributes and implement practices that shape and sustain the desired
institution culture, clearly setting expectations for all staff members. Leaders and professional staff members
4
consistently implement ongoing practices, processes, and decision making that embody the values of
respect, fairness, equity, and inclusion and are free from bias.
Leaders regularly model the attributes and implement practices that shape and sustain the desired institution
culture, clearly setting expectations for all staff members. Leaders and professional staff members routinely
3
implement ongoing practices, processes, and decision making that embody the values of respect, fairness,
equity, and inclusion and are free from bias.
Leaders occasionally model the attributes and implement practices that shape and sustain the desired
institution culture, clearly setting expectations for all staff members. Leaders and professional staff members
2
sometimes implement ongoing practices, processes, and decision making that embody the values of respect,
fairness, equity, and inclusion and are free from bias.
Leaders rarely model the attributes and implement practices that shape and sustain the desired institution
culture, clearly setting expectations for all staff members. Leaders and professional staff members seldom
1
implement ongoing practices, processes, and decision making that embody the values of respect, fairness,
equity, and inclusion and are free from bias.

Learners’ well-being is at the heart of the institution’s guiding principles such as mission, purpose, and
beliefs.
Staff members continually demonstrate commitment to learners’ academic and non-academic needs and
4 interests. The institution’s practices, processes, and decisions are documented and regularly reviewed for
consistency with its stated values.
Staff members routinely demonstrate commitment to learners’ academic and non-academic needs and
3 interests. The institution’s practices, processes, and decisions are documented and are consistent with and
based on its stated values.
Staff members occasionally demonstrate commitment to learners’ academic and non-academic needs and
2 interests. The institution’s practices, processes, and decisions are consistent with and based on its stated
values.
Staff members seldom demonstrate commitment to learners’ academic and non-academic needs and
1
interests. The institution’s practices, processes, and decisions may not be based on its stated values.

Leaders actively engage stakeholders to support the institution’s priorities and guiding principles that
promote learners’ academic growth and well-being.
Leaders establish and sustain conditions that consistently result in support and active participation among
stakeholders. Leaders consistently collaborate with stakeholders to advance identified priorities. Institutions
4
implement a formal process to choose areas of focus based on analyzed data on learners’ needs and
consistent with guiding principles.
Leaders establish and sustain conditions that regularly result in support and active participation among
3 stakeholders. Leaders routinely collaborate with stakeholders to advance identified priorities. Institutions
choose areas of focus based on analyzed data on learners’ needs and consistent with guiding principles.
Leaders establish conditions that occasionally result in support and participation among stakeholders.
2 Leaders sometimes collaborate with stakeholders to advance identified priorities. Institutions choose areas of
focus sometimes based on data on learners’ needs and consistent with guiding principles.
Leaders establish conditions that rarely result in support and participation among stakeholders. Leaders
1
seldom collaborate with stakeholders. Institutions choose areas of focus rarely based on data about learners.

Learners benefit from a formal structure that fosters positive relationships with peers and adults.
A formal structure is planned and consistently implemented to promote a culture and climate in which
4 learners receive support from adults and peers. Peer and adult interactions and behaviors consistently
demonstrate respect, trust, and concern for one another’s well-being.
A formal structure is planned and regularly implemented to promote a culture and climate in which learners
3 receive support from adults and peers. Peer and adult interactions and behaviors routinely demonstrate
respect, trust, and concern for one another’s well-being.
A formal structure may be planned but is minimally implemented to promote a culture and climate in which
2 learners receive support from adults and peers. Peer and adult interactions and behaviors sometimes
demonstrate respect, trust, and concern for one another’s well-being.
A formal structure is not planned or implemented to promote a culture and climate in which learners receive
1 support from adults and peers. Peer and adult interactions and behaviors rarely demonstrate respect, trust,
and concern for one another’s well-being.

Professional staff members embrace effective collegiality and collaboration in support of learners.
The institution’s documented operating practices cultivate and set expectations for collegiality and
collaboration and are monitored for fidelity of implementation. Professional staff members consistently
4 interact with respect and cooperation, learn from one another, and consider one another’s ideas. Professional
staff members intentionally and consistently work together in self-formed or assigned groups to review
information, identify common problems, and implement solutions on behalf of learners.
The institution’s documented operating practices cultivate and set expectations for collegiality and
collaboration. Professional staff members regularly interact with respect and cooperation, often learn from
3 one another, and routinely consider one another’s ideas. Professional staff members often work together in
self-formed or assigned groups to review information, identify common problems, and implement solutions on
behalf of learners.
The institution’s operating practices somewhat cultivate and set expectations for collegiality and
collaboration. Professional staff members generally interact with respect and cooperation, periodically learn
2 from one another, and somewhat consider one another’s ideas. Professional staff members sometimes work
together in self-formed or assigned groups to review information, identify common problems, and implement
solutions on behalf of learners.
The institution’s operating practices rarely cultivate and set expectations for collegiality and collaboration.
Professional staff members may or may not interact with respect and cooperation, learn from one another,
1
or consider one another’s ideas. Professional staff members rarely work together in self-formed or assigned
groups to review information, identify common problems, and implement solutions on behalf of learners.

Professional staff members receive the support they need to strengthen their professional practice.
Professional staff members consistently receive adequate resources and assistance based on data and
4 information unique to the individual. A formal structure ensures that professional staff members receive
personalized mentoring and coaching from leaders and peers.
Professional staff members receive adequate resources and assistance based on data and information
3 unique to the individual. Professional staff members receive personalized mentoring and coaching from
leaders and peers.
Professional staff members receive some resources and assistance based on data and information unique
2 to the individual. Professional staff members periodically receive mentoring and coaching from leaders and
peers.
Professional staff members receive few or no resources and assistance based on data and information unique
1
to the individual. Professional staff members rarely receive mentoring and coaching from leaders and peers.

Describe the Key Characteristic: Culture of Learning
Interaction—List your data sources (cleaned) in the field below.
Don’t forget to include any standards ratings or assurances you feel impact your narrative.
Write a narrative in three parts:
Analysis and synthesis: Using the evidence you have collected and analyzed related to culture, write an
organized description of your data results. Make sure to cite your sources of evidence in your narrative. Include
references to your rating of any standards you find applicable. In addition to your analysis of the standards and
relevant evidence, consider the following:
• What evidence illustrates that the learners, families, and educators feel connected to the purpose and work
of the institution?
• What evidence illustrates that learners, families, and educators consistently behave in alignment with the
stated values and norms of the institution?
• Describe activities and other engagements that reflect the mission, beliefs, and expectations of the
institution.
Findings, interpretations, and prioritization: Describe the areas within culture where your institution is
performing well, and areas within culture where your institution is performing not so well. Write one or more
“findings statements” that describe your conclusions. State whether maintaining high performance or addressing
poor performance in this area is a high priority or not.
Action: Based on your findings, write a conclusion to your narrative describing your theory of action.

Interaction—Write your narrative in the box below.
See a sample narrative on page 141.

Key Characteristic 2: Leadership for Learning
The ability of a leader to provide leadership for learning is a key attribute of a good institution. Leaders who
engage in their own learning while tangibly supporting the learning process for learners and teachers have a
significant positive impact on the success of others. Leaders must also communicate the learning expectations
for all learners and teachers continuously with consistency and purpose. The expectations are embedded in the
culture of the institution, reflected by learners’, teachers’, and leaders’ behaviors and attitudes toward learning.
Keys to Leadership for Learning

Leadership for learning is demonstrated when school leaders:
• Communicate expectations for learning
• Influence and impact the culture in positive ways
• Model and engage in learning while supporting others to do so
Rate and list evidence for each standard associated with Leadership for Learning.
Leaders guide professional staff members in the continuous improvement process focused on
learners’ experiences and needs.
Leaders consistently engage professional staff members in developing, communicating, implementing,
monitoring, and adjusting the continuous improvement process. The continuous improvement process
4 is based on analyzed trend and current data about learners’ academic and non-academic needs and the
institution’s organizational effectiveness. Leaders and professional staff members consistently implement
ongoing practices, processes, and decision making that improve learning and engage stakeholders.
Leaders regularly engage professional staff members in developing, communicating, implementing,
3 is based on analyzed data about learners’ academic and non-academic needs and the institution’s
organizational effectiveness. Leaders and professional staff members routinely implement ongoing practices,
processes, and decision making that improve learning and engage stakeholders.
Leaders occasionally engage professional staff members in developing, communicating, implementing,
2 is sometimes based on data about learners’ academic and non-academic needs and the institution’s
organizational effectiveness. Leaders and professional staff members sometimes implement ongoing
practices, processes, and decision making that improve learning and engage stakeholders.
Leaders seldom engage professional staff members in developing, communicating, implementing, monitoring,
and adjusting the continuous improvement process. The continuous improvement process is rarely based
1 on data about learners’ academic and non-academic needs and the institution’s organizational effectiveness.
Leaders and professional staff members rarely implement ongoing practices, processes, and decision making
that improve learning and engage stakeholders.

The governing authority demonstrates a commitment to learners by collaborating with leaders to
uphold the institution’s priorities and to drive continuous improvement.
The governing authority’s policies and decisions are regularly reviewed to ensure an uncompromised
commitment to learners and the institution’s identified priorities. The governing authority and institution
4
leaders use their respective roles and responsibilities to consistently and intentionally collaborate to further
the institution’s improvement.
The governing authority’s policies and decisions demonstrate a commitment to learners and support the
3 institution’s identified priorities. The governing authority and institution leaders use their respective roles and
responsibilities to collaboratively further the institution’s improvement.
The governing authority’s decisions demonstrate some commitment to learners and sometimes support the
2 institution’s identified priorities. The governing authority and institution leaders use their respective roles and
responsibilities to focus the institution’s improvement.
The governing authority’s decisions demonstrate minimal commitment to learners and rarely support the
1 institution’s identified priorities. The governing authority and institution leaders seldom collaborate on the
institution’s improvement.

Leaders cultivate effective individual and collective leadership among stakeholders.
Leaders consistently recognize and actively encourage leadership potential among stakeholders. Leaders
create conditions that ensure formal and informal leadership opportunities, and provide customized support
4
for individuals and groups to improve their leadership skills. Stakeholders show initiative and eagerness to
take on individual or shared responsibilities that support the institution’s priorities.
Leaders frequently recognize and encourage leadership potential among stakeholders. Leaders create
conditions that regularly offer formal and informal leadership opportunities, and support individuals and
3
groups to improve their leadership skills. Stakeholders demonstrate a willingness to take on individual or
shared responsibilities that support the institution’s priorities.
Leaders occasionally recognize and encourage leadership potential among stakeholders. Leaders sometimes
create conditions that offer leadership opportunities and support individuals and groups to improve their
2
leadership skills. Stakeholders sometimes volunteer to take on individual or shared responsibilities that
support the institution’s priorities.
Leaders seldom recognize and encourage leadership potential among stakeholders. Leaders rarely
create conditions that offer leadership opportunities and support individuals and groups to improve their
1
leadership skills. Stakeholders rarely volunteer to take on individual or shared responsibilities that support the
institution’s priorities.

Leaders demonstrate expertise in recruiting, supervising, and evaluating professional staff members
to optimize learning.
Leaders intentionally and consistently identify, develop, and retain qualified professional staff members who
contribute to the institution’s culture and priorities. Leaders consistently use analyzed data from a variety of
4 sources to forecast future staffing needs and employ best practices to attract a diverse pool of candidates.
Leaders implement and monitor documented practices and procedures for supervision and evaluation that
improve professional staff members’ performance to optimize learning.
Leaders identify, develop, and retain qualified professional staff members who contribute to the institution’s
culture and priorities. Leaders routinely use data from a variety of sources to forecast future staffing needs
3 and employ best practices to attract a diverse pool of candidates. Leaders regularly implement practices and
procedures for supervision and evaluation that improve professional staff members’ performance to optimize
learning.
Leaders hire qualified professional staff members who contribute to the institution’s culture and priorities.
2 Leaders sometimes use data to forecast future staffing needs. Leaders supervise and evaluate professional
staff members to improve performance.
Leaders hire qualified professional staff members without consideration of contribution to the institution’s
1 culture and priorities. Leaders rarely use data to forecast future staffing needs. Leaders seldom supervise and
evaluate professional staff members to improve performance.

Leaders create and maintain institutional structures and processes that support learners and staff
members in both stable and changing environments.
Leaders consistently demonstrate awareness of potential influences on institution stability and engage
stakeholders in planning and implementing strategies to maintain stability and respond to change. The
institution’s structure and processes are documented, monitored, and thoroughly communicated so that
4
learners and staff members know what to do and expect in everyday circumstances. The institution’s
structure and processes include emergency and contingency plans that support agile and effective responses
to both incremental and sudden change.
Leaders regularly demonstrate awareness of potential influences on institution stability and engage
3 institution’s structure and processes are documented and communicated so that learners and staff members
know what to do and expect in everyday circumstances. The institution’s structure and processes include
emergency and contingency plans that support responses to both incremental and sudden change.
Leaders sometimes demonstrate awareness of potential influences on institution stability and engage
2 institution’s structure and processes are occasionally documented and communicated so that learners
and staff members know what to do and expect in everyday circumstances. The institution’s structure and
processes include emergency and contingency plans to respond to change.
Leaders seldom demonstrate awareness of potential influences on institution stability. The institution’s
structure and processes are not well documented or communicated so that learners and staff members know
1
what to do and expect in everyday circumstances. The institution’s structure and processes may not include
emergency and contingency plans to respond to change.

Professional staff members implement curriculum and instruction that are aligned for relevancy,
inclusion, and effectiveness.
Professional staff members systematically implement, review, and adjust curriculum and instruction
based on recognized and evidence-based content standards. Curriculum and instructional practices are
4
regularly assessed through a formal, systematic process to assure alignment, relevancy, inclusiveness, and
effectiveness for all learners.
Professional staff members implement, review, and adjust curriculum and instruction based on recognized
3 and evidence-based content standards. Curriculum and instructional practices are regularly assessed to
assure alignment, relevancy, inclusiveness, and effectiveness for all learners.
Professional staff members implement curriculum and instruction based on recognized and evidence-based
2 content standards. Curriculum and instructional practices are sometimes assessed to assure alignment,
relevancy, inclusiveness, and effectiveness for all learners.
Professional staff members implement locally adopted curriculum and instruction. Curriculum and
1 instructional practices are rarely or not assessed to assure alignment, relevancy, inclusiveness, and
effectiveness for all learners.

Qualified personnel instruct and assist learners and each other in support of the institution’s mission,
purpose, and beliefs.
All staff members demonstrate commitment to enhancing their professional practice over and above the
required knowledge and skills for their positions. Staff members work collaboratively to instruct and assist
4 learners and colleagues in support of the institution’s guiding principles. Staff members’ individual and
collective decisions and behaviors consistently demonstrate alignment and coherence with the institution’s
mission, purpose, and beliefs.
All staff members demonstrate the required knowledge and skills for their positions. Staff members work
cooperatively to instruct and assist learners and colleagues in support of the institution’s guiding principles.
3
Staff members’ individual and collective decisions and behaviors demonstrate alignment and coherence with
the institution’s mission, purpose, and beliefs.
Most staff members demonstrate the required knowledge and skills for their positions, and a plan is being
implemented to ensure that all staff members are qualified for their positions. Staff members sometimes work
2 cooperatively to instruct and assist learners and colleagues in support of the institution’s guiding principles.
Staff members’ individual and collective decisions and behaviors sometimes demonstrate alignment and
coherence with the institution’s mission, purpose, and beliefs.
Some staff members do not demonstrate the required knowledge and skills for their positions, and a plan
does not exist to ensure that all staff members are qualified for their positions. Staff members rarely work
1 cooperatively to instruct and assist learners and colleagues in support of the institution’s guiding principles.
Staff members’ individual and collective decisions and behaviors rarely demonstrate alignment and
coherence with the institution’s mission, purpose, and beliefs.

Curriculum and instruction are augmented by reliable information resources and materials that
advance learning and support learners’ personal interests.
Professional staff members consistently suggest and provide thoughtfully selected information resources and
materials for learners that broaden and enrich the learning process and support learners’ personal interests.
4
A systematic process is used to identify and verify that information resources and materials are selected from
credible sources.
Professional staff members suggest and provide thoughtfully selected information resources and materials
3 for learners that broaden and enrich the learning process and support learners’ personal interests. These
information resources and materials are selected from credible sources and based on verifiable information.
Professional staff members sometimes suggest and provide information resources and materials for learners
2 that broaden and enrich the learning process and/or support learners’ personal interests. These information
resources and materials are usually selected from credible sources and based on verifiable information.
Professional staff members rarely suggest and provide information resources and materials for learners that
1 broaden and enrich the learning process or support learners’ personal interests. These information resources
and materials are rarely selected from credible sources or may not be based on verifiable information.

Learners’ needs drive the equitable allocation and management of human, material, digital, and fiscal
resources.
Professional staff members engage in a systematic process to analyze learners’ needs and current trend data
4 to adjust the allocation and management of human, material, digital, and fiscal resources to ensure equity for
learning. Adjustments to resource allocation are consistently based on current data at any point in time.
Professional staff members routinely analyze learners’ needs and current trend data to adjust the allocation
3 and management of human, material, digital, and fiscal resources to ensure equity for learning. Adjustments to
resource allocation are routinely based on current data and at predetermined points in time.
Professional staff members sometimes analyze learners’ needs and current trend data to adjust the allocation
2 and management of human, material, digital, and fiscal resources to ensure equity for learning. Adjustments to
resource allocation are sometimes based on current or updated data.
Professional staff members rarely analyze learners’ needs and trend data to adjust the allocation and
1 management of human, material, digital, and fiscal resources. Resources are rarely allocated in alignment with
documented learners’ needs or to ensure equity for learning.

Describe the Key Characteristic: Leadership for Learning
Analysis and synthesis: Using the evidence you have collected and analyzed related to leadership, write an
organized description of your data results. Make sure to cite your sources of evidence in your narrative. Include
references to your rating of any standards you find applicable. In addition to your analysis of the standards and
relevant evidence, consider the following:
• How do leaders communicate expectations for learning and monitor progress toward meeting such
expectations?
• Describe examples of behaviors and actions by leaders that influence and have a positive impact on the
culture of the institution.
• In what ways do leaders model and engage in learning while supporting others to do so?
• How is leadership distributed throughout your institution?
Findings and interpretations: Describe the areas within leadership where your institution is performing
well, and areas within leadership where your institution is performing not so well. Write one or more “findings
statements” that describe your conclusions. State whether maintaining high performance or addressing poor
performance in this area is a high priority or not.

See a sample narrative on page 143.

Key Characteristic 3: Engagement of Learning
A good institution ensures that learners are engaged in the learning environment. Learners who are engaged
in the learning environment participate with confidence and display agency over their own learning. A good
institution adopts policies and engages in practices that support all learners being included in the learning
process.
Keys to Engagement of Learning

Engagement is demonstrated when all learners:
• Are included in the learning process
• Participate with confidence  
• Have agency over their learning  
Rate and list evidence for each standard associated with Engagement of Learning.
Learners experience curriculum and instruction that emphasize the value of diverse cultures,
backgrounds, and abilities.
Respect for the diversity of cultures, backgrounds, and abilities is embedded in every aspect of the
4 institution’s culture and learning environments. The presence and contributions of the global community are
authentically integrated in the curricular content and instructional practices.
Respect for the diversity of cultures, backgrounds, and abilities is clearly present in the institution’s culture and
3 learning environments. The presence and contributions of the global community are intentionally included in
the curricular content and instructional practices.
Respect for the diversity of cultures, backgrounds, and abilities is somewhat present in the institution’s culture
2 and learning environments. The presence and contributions of the global community are inconsistently
included in the curricular content and instructional practices.
Respect for the diversity of cultures, backgrounds, and abilities is rarely present in the institution’s culture
1 and learning environments. The presence and contributions of the global community are not included in the
curricular content and instructional practices.

Learners have equitable opportunities to realize their learning potential.
Professional staff members develop relationships with and understand the needs and well-being of individual
learners. Academic and non-academic experiences are tailored to the needs and well-being of individual
4
learners. Learners are challenged and supported to strive towards maximal levels of achievement and self-
efficacy without barriers or hindrances by schedules or access to academic and non-academic offerings.
Professional staff members know their learners well enough to develop and provide a variety of academic
and non-academic experiences. Learners have access and choice in most academic and non-academic
opportunities available according to grade levels or through expected sequencing of courses. Learners rarely
3
encounter barriers when accessing academic and non-academic experiences most suited to their individual
needs and well-being. Learners are challenged and supported to strive towards individual achievement and
self-efficacy.
Professional staff members give consideration to varying learner needs and well-being when developing and
providing academic and non-academic experiences. Learners have access to some variety in academic and
non-academic opportunities available according to grade levels or through expected sequencing of courses.
2
Learners may encounter barriers when accessing some academic and non-academic experiences most
suited to their individual needs and well-being. Learners are sometimes challenged and supported to strive
towards individual achievement and self-efficacy.
Professional staff members give little or no consideration to individual learner needs and well-being
when developing and providing academic and non-academic experiences. Academic and non-academic
opportunities are limited and standardized according to grade levels or a predetermined sequencing of
1
courses. Learners frequently encounter a variety of barriers when accessing academic and non-academic
offerings that would be well suited to their individual needs and well-being. Learners are rarely challenged to
strive towards individual achievement and self-efficacy.

Learners are immersed in an environment that fosters lifelong skills including creativity, curiosity, risk
taking, collaboration, and design thinking.
Conditions across all aspects of the institution promote learners’ lifelong skills. Learners engage in ongoing
experiences that develop the non-academic skills important for their next steps in learning and for future
4
success. A formal structure ensures that learning experiences collectively build skills in creativity, curiosity,
risk taking, collaboration, and design thinking.
Conditions within most aspects of the institution promote learners’ lifelong skills. Learners engage in
experiences that develop the non-academic skills important for their next steps in learning and for future
3
success. Collectively, the learning experiences build skills in creativity, curiosity, risk taking, collaboration, and
design thinking.
Conditions within some aspects of the institution promote learners’ lifelong skills. Learners engage in some
2 experiences that develop non-academic skills important for their next steps in learning and for future success.
Some learning experiences build skills in creativity, curiosity, risk taking, collaboration, and design thinking.
Learners engage in environments that focus primarily on academic learning objectives only. Little or no
1 emphasis is placed on non-academic skills important for next steps in learning and for future success.
Learning experiences rarely build skills in creativity, curiosity, risk taking, collaboration, or design thinking.

Learners are immersed in an environment that promotes and respects student voice and responsibility
for their learning.
Conditions across all aspects of the institution promote learners’ active discovery and expression of their
4 needs and interests. Learners give input into the instructional and learning activities they pursue and the
methods in which they learn. Learners consistently identify their learning targets and monitor their progress.
Conditions within most aspects of the institution are learner-centered and promote learners’ active
discovery and expression of their needs and interests. Learners give input into most of the instructional and
3
learning activities available to them. Learners are frequently involved in identifying their learning targets and
monitoring their progress.
Conditions within some aspects of the institution are learner-centered and promote learners’ active discovery
and expression of their needs and interests. Learners have some opportunity for input into the instructional
2
and learning activities available to them. Learners are sometimes involved in identifying their learning targets
and monitoring their progress.
Learners engage in environments that are heavily instructor-centered. Learners have little or no input into the
1 instructional and learning activities available to them. Learners are rarely expected to monitor their learning
progress.

Learners engage in experiences that promote and develop their self-confidence and love of learning.
Learners consistently pursue challenging opportunities that may not always result in success, knowing
4 that they will be supported when needed. Learners readily and consistently show motivation, curiosity, and
excitement about their learning.
Most learners pursue opportunities that may not always result in success, knowing they will be supported.
3
Most learners show motivation, curiosity, and excitement about their learning.
Some learners pursue opportunities that may not always result in success, but only with significant, individual
2
support. Some learners show motivation, curiosity, and excitement about their learning.
Most learners primarily pursue opportunities they believe to be risk-free or heavily guaranteed to be
1
successful. Most learners show little motivation, curiosity, or excitement about their learning.

Instruction is characterized by high expectations and learner-centered practices.
Learners engage in instructional activities, experiences, and interactions based on their individual needs and
4 interests. Professional staff members consistently deliver instruction designed for learners to reach their
potential.
Most learners engage in instructional activities, experiences, and interactions based on their individual needs
3 and interests. Professional staff members routinely deliver instruction designed for learners to reach their
potential.
Learners engage in instructional activities, experiences, and interactions based on needs and interests typical
2 of most students. Professional staff members infrequently deliver instruction designed for learners to reach
their potential.
Instructional activities are primarily designed around curriculum objectives with little or no focus on learner
1 needs and interests. Professional staff members rarely deliver instruction designed for learners to reach their
individual potential.

Instruction is monitored and adjusted to advance and deepen individual learners’ knowledge and
understanding of the curriculum.
Professional staff members consistently monitor and adjust instruction based on each learner’s response to
instruction and achievement of desired learning targets. Professional staff members use a formal, systematic
4
process for analyzing trend and current data to deepen each learner’s understanding of content at increasing
levels of complexity.
Professional staff members regularly monitor and adjust instruction based on each learner’s response to
3 instruction and achievement of desired learning targets. Professional staff members routinely analyze trend
and current data to deepen each learner’s understanding of content.
Professional staff members sometimes monitor and adjust instruction based on each learner’s achievement
2 of desired learning targets. Professional staff members sometimes analyze data to deepen each learner’s
understanding of content.
Professional staff members rarely monitor and adjust instruction. Professional staff members rarely analyze
1
data to deepen each learner’s understanding of content.

Professional staff members integrate digital resources that deepen and advance learners’ engagement
with instruction and stimulate their curiosity.
Professional staff members seamlessly and deliberately integrate digital resources that add value to the
learning process and encourage learners’ active engagement in the learning process. Digital resources
4
consistently support learners’ pursuit of interests and deepen or extend curriculum topics to stimulate
learners’ curiosity.
Professional staff members intentionally select and integrate digital resources that add value to the learning
3 process and encourage learners’ active engagement in the learning process. Digital resources routinely
support learners’ pursuit of interests and deepen or extend curriculum topics to stimulate learners’ curiosity.
Professional staff members occasionally select and integrate digital resources that add value to the learning
2 process or encourage learners’ active engagement in the learning process. Digital resources sometimes
support learners’ pursuit of interests and deepen or extend curriculum topics to stimulate learners’ curiosity.
Professional staff members select and integrate few or no digital resources or select digital resources that
rarely add value to the learning process or encourage learners’ active engagement in the learning process.
1
Digital resources rarely support learners’ pursuit of interests or deepen or extend curriculum topics to
stimulate learners’ curiosity.

Describe the Key Characteristic: Engagement of Learning
Analysis and synthesis: Using the evidence you have collected and analyzed related to engagement of
stakeholders, write an organized description of your data results. Make sure to cite your sources of evidence in
your narrative. Include references to your rating of any standards you find applicable. In addition to your analysis
of the standards and relevant evidence, consider the following questions:
• How does the instructional environment ensure active engagement of learners? How do you know?  
• Do learners participate with confidence? How do you know? What strategies are employed to improve the
confidence level of the learners?  
• What strategies are employed to provide learners agency over their learning? Provide key examples of
student agency?  
Findings and interpretations: Describe the areas within engagement where your institution is performing
well, and areas within engagement where your institution is performing not so well. Write one or more “findings
statements” that describe your conclusions. State whether maintaining high performance or addressing poor
performance in this area is a high priority or not.

See a sample narrative page 144.

Key Characteristic 4: Growth in Learning
A good institution positively impacts learners throughout their journey of learning. A positive impact on the
learner is reflected in readiness to engage in and preparedness for the next transition in their learning. Growth in
learning is also reflected in learners’ ability to meet expectations in knowledge and skill acquisition.
Keys to Growth in Learning

Growth is evident when
• Learners possess non-academic skills that ensure readiness to learn
• Learners academic achievement reflects preparedness to learn
• Learners attain knowledge and skills necessary to achieve goals for learning
Rate and list evidence for each standard associated with Growth in Learning.
Leaders use data and input from a variety of sources to make decisions for learners’ and staff
members’ growth and well-being.
Leaders consistently demonstrate skill and insight in considering a variety of information, choosing relevant
and timely information, and interpreting data. Leaders make intentional decisions by consistently taking into
4
account data and additional factors that have an impact on learners and staff members such as institution
history, recent experiences, and future possibilities.
Leaders regularly demonstrate skill and insight in considering a variety of information, choosing relevant
and timely information, and interpreting data. Leaders make decisions by routinely taking into account data
3
and additional factors that have an impact on learners and staff members such as institution history, recent
experiences, and future possibilities.
Leaders sometimes demonstrate skill and insight in considering and choosing information and interpreting
2 data. Leaders make decisions that occasionally take into account data and additional factors that have an
impact on learners and staff members such as institution history, recent experiences, and future possibilities.
Leaders rarely demonstrate skill and insight in considering and choosing information and interpreting data.
1 Leaders make decisions that rarely take into account data and additional factors that have an impact on
learners and staff members such as institution history, recent experiences, and future possibilities.

Leaders promote action research by professional staff members to improve their practice and
advance learning.
Leaders intentionally create and preserve a culture that invites inquiry, reflection, and dialogue about
instructional problems and issues relevant to the institution and/or individual learning environments.
Professional staff members, as a group or as individuals, consistently engage in action research using
4
an inquiry-based process that includes identifying instructional areas of improvement, collecting data,
and reporting results to make informed instructional changes. Leaders provide and engage in learning
opportunities customized for professional staff members about action research.
Leaders regularly create and preserve a culture that invites inquiry, reflection, and dialogue about instructional
problems and issues relevant to the institution and/or individual learning environments. Professional staff
members, as a group or as individuals, routinely engage in action research using an inquiry-based process
3
that includes identifying instructional areas of improvement, collecting data, and reporting results to make
informed instructional changes. Leaders provide and engage in learning opportunities for professional staff
members to implement action research.
Leaders occasionally create and preserve a culture that invites inquiry, reflection, and dialogue about
instructional problems and issues relevant to the institution and/or individual learning environments.
Professional staff members, as a group or as individuals, sometimes engage in action research using an
2
inquiry-based process that includes identifying instructional areas of improvement, collecting data, and
reporting results to make informed instructional changes. Leaders provide and engage in some learning
opportunities for professional staff members to implement action research.
Leaders rarely create a culture that invites inquiry, reflection, and dialogue about instructional problems and
issues relevant to the institution or learning environments. Professional staff members seldom engage in
1
action research to make informed instructional changes. Leaders provide and engage in few or no learning
opportunities for professional staff members about action research.

Leaders regularly evaluate instructional programs and organizational conditions to improve instruction
and advance learning.
Leaders consistently implement a documented process to determine the effectiveness of the institution’s
curriculum and instruction, including staffing and resources. Leaders use a formal, systematic process for
4
analyzing current and trend data and stakeholder input to make decisions about retaining, changing, or
replacing programs and practices.
Leaders routinely implement a documented process to determine the effectiveness of the institution’s
3 curriculum and instruction, including staffing and resources. Leaders use analyzed current and trend data and
stakeholder input to make decisions about retaining, changing, or replacing programs and practices.
Leaders occasionally implement a process to determine the effectiveness of the institution’s curriculum and
2 instruction, including staffing and resources. Leaders sometimes use data and stakeholder input to make
Leaders rarely implement a process to determine the effectiveness of the institution’s curriculum and
1 instruction, including staffing and resources. Leaders seldom use data and stakeholder input to make

Learners’ diverse academic and non-academic needs are identified and effectively addressed through
appropriate interventions.
The institution consistently addresses the range of developmental, physical, emotional, and intellectual
needs to support learners’ ability to learn. Strategies and interventions for these needs are formally and
4
systematically planned and implemented based on analyzed information, data, and instructional best
practices to ensure learners’ success.
The institution routinely addresses the range of developmental, physical, emotional, and intellectual needs
to support learners’ ability to learn. Strategies and interventions for these needs are regularly planned and
3
implemented based on analyzed information, data, and instructional best practices to ensure learners’
success.
The institution sometimes addresses the range of developmental, physical, emotional, and intellectual needs
2 to support learners’ ability to learn. Strategies and interventions for these needs are occasionally planned and
implemented based on information, data, and instructional best practices to ensure learners’ success.
The institution rarely addresses the range of developmental, physical, emotional, and intellectual needs
1 to support learners’ ability to learn. Strategies and interventions for these needs are seldom planned and
implemented based on information, data, or instructional best practices.

With support, learners pursue individual goals including the acquisition of academic and non-academic
skills important for their educational futures and careers.
Professional staff members consistently engage with learners to help them recognize their talents and
potential and to identify meaningful, attainable goals that support academic, career, personal, and social skills.
4
Learners consistently choose activities and monitor their own progress, demonstrating active ownership of
their stated goals.
Professional staff members regularly engage with learners to help them recognize their talents and potential
and to identify meaningful, attainable goals that support academic, career, personal, and social skills. Learners
3
routinely choose activities and monitor their own progress, demonstrating active ownership of their stated
goals.
Professional staff members sometimes engage with learners to help them recognize their talents and
potential and to identify meaningful, attainable goals that support academic, career, personal, and social skills.
2
Learners occasionally choose activities and monitor their own progress, demonstrating active ownership of
their stated goals.
Professional staff members rarely engage with learners to help them recognize their talents and potential and
1 to identify meaningful, attainable goals that support academic, career, personal, and social skills. Learners do
not choose activities or monitor their own progress toward goals.

Understanding learners’ needs and interests drives the design, delivery, application, and evaluation of
professional learning.
Professional learning is learner-centered, customized around the needs of individual or groups of professional
staff members, and focuses on improving pedagogical skills and knowledge to better address learners’ needs
4
and interests. A documented process to select, deliver, implement, and evaluate professional learning is being
fully implemented and monitored for fidelity.
Professional learning is learner-centered, designed around the principle that professional staff members need
opportunities to focus on improving pedagogical skills and knowledge to better address learners’ needs and
3
interests. A documented process to select, deliver, implement, and evaluate professional learning is being fully
implemented.
Professional learning is occasionally learner-centered, designed around the principle that professional staff
members need opportunities to focus on improving pedagogical skills and knowledge to better address
2
learners’ needs and interests. A documented process to select, deliver, implement, and evaluate professional
learning exists but is not fully implemented.
Professional learning is rarely learner-centered and may or may not focus on improving pedagogical skills
1 and knowledge to better address learners’ needs and interests. A documented process to select, deliver,
implement, and evaluate professional learning does not exist.

Learners’ progress is measured through a balanced system that includes assessment both for learning
and of learning.
Professional staff members and learners collaborate to determine learners’ progress toward and achievement
of intended learning objectives based on assessment data gathered through formal and informal methods.
4
Assessment data are systematically used for ongoing planning, decision making, and modification of
curriculum and instruction.
Professional staff members and learners regularly use assessment data gathered through formal and
informal methods to determine learners’ progress toward and achievement of intended learning objectives.
3
Assessment data are routinely used for ongoing planning, decision making, and modification of curriculum
and instruction.
Professional staff members occasionally use assessment data gathered through formal and informal methods
2 to determine learners’ progress toward and achievement of intended learning objectives. Assessment data
are sometimes used for ongoing planning, decision making, and modification of curriculum and instruction.
Professional staff members seldom use assessment data to determine learners’ progress toward and
1 achievement of intended learning objectives. Assessment data are rarely or inconsistently used for ongoing
planning, decision making, and modification of curriculum and instruction.

Describe the Key Characteristic: Growth in Learning
Analysis and synthesis: Using the evidence you have collected and analyzed related to growth and
improvement, write an organized description of your data results. Make sure to cite your sources of evidence in
your narrative. Include references to your rating of any standards you find applicable. In addition to your analysis
of the standards and relevant evidence, consider the following:
• Are learners ready to engage in their next transition in learning? What evidence supports this belief?  
• Are learners academically prepared to transition to the next level of learning? What evidence supports this
belief?  
• Are learners meeting expectations in knowledge and skill acquisition? What evidence supports this belief?  
Findings and interpretations: Describe the areas within growth where your institution is performing well, and
areas within growth where your institution is performing not so well. Write one or more “findings statements” that
describe your conclusions. State whether maintaining high performance or addressing poor performance in this
area is a high priority or not.

See a sample narrative page 146.

Reflections
During your group discussion of your data and the resulting analyses, reflect on the areas you are most proud
of about your institution, areas you wish to improve, and challenges your institution is facing or you feel it will be
facing in coming years. Record your reflections in brief narratives (500 words or less). Here are some prompts for
each reflection area to guide your writing.
Prompts that may help you identify areas of excellence and areas for improvement:
• Is the culture and climate of your institution positive or could it be improved?
• What areas are you most proud of in terms of student academic performance?
• What areas of student academic performance need improvement?
• Are there outstanding non-academic areas, or some that need improvement? (You might consider topics
such as graduation and retention rates, disciplinary referrals, faculty stability or turnover, parent involvement,
community support and involvement, finances, technology, special programs, extracurricular activities, etc.)
Prompts that may help you identify challenges:

• What is the economic outlook in the community you serve?
• What governmental, political, or social changes might lend support or create challenges?
• What do demographic and enrollment trends suggest?
Write your narratives in the fields starting on page 85. Don’t forget to cite your sources of information. Once
complete, share your narratives with your faculty and the community you serve to ensure they accurately reflect
your institution.

Here is an example:
Sample Areas of Excellence

Upon reviewing the standards and reflecting upon the key characteristics discussed in the narrative statements
above, the Cooper High School leadership team has identified the following areas of excellence: commitment
to our vision and mission, a focus on building the capacity of faculty and staff, and allocation of resources to
support the needs of faculty and students.
At Cooper High School, you will find that the mission and vision of the school are immersed and modeled
throughout the school community, from our main office to our staff workroom to our classrooms. It would be
difficult to identify a student, teacher, parent, or administrator who does not know our vision and mission. These
statements, developed, approved, and annually reviewed by the stakeholders, represent all facets of our school
community and are the mainstay of our daily operations, embedded in the culture of the school. Our mission is
the educational framework designed to achieve the highest possible academic outcomes. References to the
mission and vision are constant and seamless. You will find our vision and mission statements are used as the
North Star in making decisions related to curriculum selection, assessment practices, hiring practices, and
decisions regarding finances. Everything we do connects back to the vision and mission.
As noted in our narrative statement, a focus on building capacity of faculty and staff is another identified
area of excellence. Professional learning is a vital component of the school’s dynamic, progressive approach
to teaching and learning. We have worked to ensure that we not only provide the necessary training to our
faculty members, but we also afford the necessary time and support for our teachers to implement strategies
with fidelity. We are intentional in monitoring the results of implementation and adjusting as needed. The
positive academic outcomes and increased engagement we have been able to attain (as noted in our narrative
statements) by providing our instructional faculty with professional learning opportunities is our evidence of
this.
A final area of excellence that we have identified is the allocation of resources to support the needs of our
faculty members and students. Cooper Middle School provides a plethora of resources. Among them are
Google Classroom (as a Learning Management System), Naviance (for college and career planning), Khan
Academy, and Study Island (both for remediation, enrichment, and individualization of learning). We feel that
the allocation and use of resources to support the school’s mission and vision merits recognition for its ability
to provide abundant resources for teaching and learning. We feel the importance of human, material and fiscal
resources should never be underestimated in striving to move our school and our students to the next level of
academic excellence.

Sample Areas for Improvement
Cooper High School relies heavily on the use of Cognia culture and climate surveys, teacher inventories, and
the eleot observation tool to determine areas for improvement at the school. Based on analyzed data, student
performance on state and local assessments, and stakeholder input, the Cooper High School Site Council has
determined that several areas for improvement are a priority for the upcoming school year.
First, student performance is one of our highest priorities. Performance on the state assessments has recently
plateaued in the areas of English and science, and while performance on math assessments is relatively high
compared to state averages, there is always room for improvement. Continuing the school’s focus on reliable
intervention for struggling students is a priority, as well as addressing the course maps in English and science to
increase rigor and align more closely to the state standards.
Secondly, our professional development plan will need to increase time devoted to pedagogical skills,
particularly on student engagement and formative assessment. Observation data indicate that while students
are respectful and well behaved, they are often more compliant than actively engaged. If we coach our teaching
staff on how to actively engage learners in meaningful ways, learner outcomes will improve.
Next, the leadership team has prepared an incentive plan for student and staff attendance. With the uncertainty
of recent times, many students and staff members have accrued many absences. While safety is of paramount
concern, the leadership team wants to make sure learners are present, staff are present, and the school does
not have to rely on substitutes. To this end, several incentive programs have been proposed, although none
have been accepted or finalized at this point.
Finally, Cooper High School is actively engaged in recruiting talented teachers and leaders of underrepresented
groups. We want all students to have role models and advocates that accurately reflect our student
demographics. By actively working with local and national recruiting agencies, we hope to recruit outstanding
educators and increase the overall diversity of our school.
Working collaboratively with all stakeholders, the leadership team of Cooper High School believes it can
leverage the experience, knowledge, and enthusiasm of the community to improve the educational experience
for all learners.
Sample Challenges
While Cooper High School endeavors to provide the highest educational experience possible for all learners,
there have been and still are some challenges the leadership team is trying to overcome through collaboration,
determination, and focused professional development.
The first major challenge has been the transition from on-site learning to remote learning, then back to on-
site learning. Logistically, the major hurdles were worked out at the first transition—every student was issued
a laptop and all teachers were given a professional Zoom account to conduct classes. However, in-person
learning is significantly different than online learning. The school did not have the capacity or professional
knowledge to instruct staff members on best practices for online learning. With time and experience,
the professional learning communities (PLCs) for teachers came up with many researched and effective
techniques; however, there has been precious little time to implement or even gauge the effectiveness because
of the ongoing transitions and changes.
A second major challenge is reacquainting our students and staff to on-site learning. Cooper High School
requires all stakeholders be masked in classes and group settings, and that has taken a great deal of time in
developing rules, processes, and training for our community. Our primary concern must be for the safety of all
learners and staff members, so these adjustments are a necessary part of the process.
Based on recent assessment information, Cooper High School students have not fully mastered the
curriculum standards for their classes. EOC results from the locally developed assessments indicate large
gaps in performance from previous years, partially attributable to lost classroom time, adjustment to remote
learning, and stress. The leadership team is working cooperatively with teachers and counselors to set up
appropriate intervention strategies and make the counselors available for students and staff members who are
experiencing anxiety about the current issues.
Finally, our most recent challenge has been restarting and maintaining our facilities at the proper level of
hygiene after so many months of unuse. Every building and classroom, in addition to the other facilities, needs
to be kept at a high level of cleanliness to fight COVID-19 infections. While it takes extra time, funding, and effort,
we are confident that we can overcome these challenges.

Interaction—Enter your responses here.
Areas of Excellence

Areas for Improvement

Challenges

Assurances
The Cognia Assurances are compliance-oriented requirements of all accredited institutions. The assurances are
comprised of requirements applicable to all systems and institutions and, in some cases, supplemented by any
additional requirements unique to the system or institution type. Also, some institutions may have specialized
assurances related to the institutions or to requirements of partnership agreements. Institutions are expected to
meet the required assurances and are expected to correct any deficiencies in unmet assurances.
Special note regarding the first assurance: The first assurance verifies that your institution complies with all
Cognia policies and procedures. When your Engagement Review team is on-site, one or more members of the
team will be asking questions related to the policies and procedures. A best practice is to identify for the team
someone in your institution who will answer policy and procedure related questions.
The first seven assurances are the same for every institution type; however, each institution type may have
additional assurances. The Assurances for Schools and Systems in the United States are listed in the section
below. Assurances and activities for all other types of institutions are listed in the Appendices to this workbook.
While the statements are clear, Cognia has provided definitions and explanations where they are needed. Be
prepared to provide evidence for each assurance that shows your institution meets the requirement. Select your
institution type below to see the assurances that apply to your institution.
Below you will click the link for the assurances appropriate to your institution, then read each assurance and mark
“Yes” if your institution meets the assurance or “No” if your institution does not meet the assurance. Below the
list of assurances, list any assurances marked “No” and describe your plan of action to bring your institution into
compliance.
Resources
Click the appropriate link below to go to the assurances for your category of institution:
System Assurances
• School System (public, non-public, corporations, corporation systems, education service agencies,
charter school authorizers) (United States, International)
Institutional Assurances
• School (United States, International)
– Digital Learning (United States, International)
– Early Learning (United States, International)
– Extended Learning (United States, International)
– Postsecondary (United States, International)
– Special Purpose—Adjudicated Youth (United States, International)
– Special Purpose—Travel Study (United States, International)
– Special Purpose—Tutoring (United States, International)
– Special Purpose—Wilderness (United States, International)

Assurances for Schools in the United States (go back)
Assurance: Yes/No
1. The institution has read, understands, and complies with the Cognia Accreditation and
Certification Policies and Procedures.
No
Yes
2. The institution complies with all applicable governmental laws or regulations.
No
Yes
3. The institution adheres to ethical marketing and communication practices to transparently
disclose current and accurate information to the public.
No
Yes
4. The governing authority adheres to written policies that govern its conduct, decision making,
ethics, and authority; and engages in training aligned to its roles and responsibilities.
No
Yes
5. The institution annually submits all financial transactions for an annual audit conducted by an
accounting authority external to the institution.
No
Yes
6. The institution annually reviews and implements written management plans for security,
crisis, safety, and health for on-site and virtual environments that includes expectations,
communications protocols, and training for students, staff, and stakeholders. No
Yes
7. The institution participates in required training related to accreditation or certification by
timeframes prescribed by Cognia.
No
Yes
If any assurances were marked “No” please indicate the standard number in the first column and your plan of
action to bring your institution into compliance in the second column (press the tab key to add rows):
# Plan

Assurances for School Systems in the United States (including ESAs, ESAs with schools, Corporations,
Corporation Systems, Non-Public Systems, Charter School Authorizers) (go back)
Assurance: Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
8. The system executes a written quality assurance process to monitor and verify that all
institutions within its jurisdiction:
No
Yes
a. meet the applicable governmental requirements of the school’s location;
b. meet the Cognia Accreditation and Certification Policies and Procedures;
c. meet the Cognia Accreditation and/or Certification Standards and Assurances and;
d. implement its required education programs with fidelity.
If any assurances were marked “No” please indicate the standard number in the first column and your plan of
action to bring your system into compliance in the second column (press the tab key to add rows):
# Plan

The Engagement Review
The information below provides a general understanding of the purpose and functions of the Accreditation
Engagement Review. Your institution has the support of your local Cognia office and the Regional Accreditation
Evaluator (for U.S. reviews) or the Lead Evaluator (for International reviews), should you have questions. You will be
assigned a month-long window in which your Engagement Review activities will be scheduled.
U.S. Reviews
Reviews are no longer conducted as an event with a team coming on-site for multiple days. Most review
activities will be completed remotely, including review and evaluation of your submitted diagnostics and any
leadership presentations and discussion. If your state requires an on-site component for the review, it will be
completed sometime during the year of the Engagement Review. On-site components include review of learning
environments and document review or discussion with leadership teams.
During the year of your Engagement Review, you will work closely with your Regional Accreditation Evaluator to:
• Establish any schedule needed for remote activities and any on-site component, as applicable.
• Address any questions and/or concerns related to review preparation.
International Reviews
Some activities, such as stakeholder interviews, will be conducted remotely prior to your on-site review
component. Other activities will continue to be conducted by the review team on-site.
As the Engagement Review timeframe approaches, you will work closely with the Lead Evaluator to:
• Establish the review schedule, including remote activities and the on-site component of the review
• Coordinate logistics for the review team
• Address any questions and/or concerns related to review preparation
• Ensure the system and institutions are ready for the on-site review and other activities
The Review Protocol

The protocol for all accreditation reviews includes a self-assessment phase; a third-party peer review and
document review; formal feedback recognizing the noteworthy practices and areas for improvement of the
institution; and a progress reporting phase. These activities happen over the six-year term* of accreditation.
The Engagement Review is no longer a single event, but is a series of activities conducted by the institution and
Cognia to measure the degree to which your institution is engaged in the continuous improvement process.
The specific elements of the self-assessment phase and the activities of the evaluators during the Engagement
Review vary depending on the type of institution being reviewed.
*Note: Some states currently require the continuation of a five-year term of accreditation.
Resource
Protocol Requirements by Institution Type
Accreditation Infographic

Role of the Primary Contact
Often, the leader of the institution assigns a senior staff member to facilitate the accreditation process and act
as a Primary Contact for Cognia and the Regional Accreditation Evaluator (for U.S. institutions) or Lead Evaluator
(for International institutions). This individual:
• Serves as the key point of contact between Cognia and the institution
• Oversees the accreditation management for the institution or system, including working with individual
institutions within the system
• Supports stakeholders throughout the process, answers questions, and provides guidance
• Works with the evaluator to prepare for and complete the Engagement Review
• Manages the logistics and oversees the schedule of Engagement Review activities
Key Responsibilities of Systems and Institutions

The following table outlines the responsibilities of your institution throughout the six-year accreditation cycle.
Timing Institution Responsibilities

Every Year • Maintain membership in the Cognia Network.
• Engage in ongoing self-analysis and continuous improvement using Cognia tools
and/or other tools that support your efforts.
• Adhere to the Cognia policies, standards, and requirements.
• Analyze and document results of improvement efforts.
• Update system and institution demographic and contact information.
• Notify Cognia of any substantive changes (submit the Cognia Substantive
Notification Change Form) that may affect how your institution meets Cognia
policies, standards, and requirements.
Year Prior to • Attend an Orientation Meeting with a Cognia representative.
Accreditation • Fulfill the mandatory training requirement.
Engagement Review
• Administer surveys for stakeholder input.
• Conduct observations of the learning environment focused on learner
engagement.
Year of Accreditation • Work with Cognia to schedule any Engagement Review activities.
Engagement Review • For International reviews: Work with the Lead Evaluator to establish the
Engagement Review schedule and make arrangements for the team.
• Coordinate the participants in the review activities as defined by the schedule.
• In advance of the Engagement Review, submit the following diagnostics in the
Cognia Improvement Platform:
International institutions: Submit at least four weeks in advance of the review dates.
U.S. institutions: Submit no later than February 1st.
– Cognia Assurances and supportive documentation
– Completed Executive Summary
– Completed Standards Self-Assessment
– Completed Stakeholder Feedback Analysis
– Completed Student Performance Analysis (not required for standalone
corporations, ESAs without schools, or Charter School Authorizers)

Timing Institution Responsibilities
Year of Accreditation – Completed Learning Environment Observation Analysis (not required for
Engagement Review standalone corporations, ESAs without schools, or Charter School Authorizers)
continued
– Accreditation Portfolio, including the following required evidence, with a focus on
analyzed results rather than raw data
1. Results referenced in the student performance diagnostic including
achievement, graduation, attendance, disciplinary information over the
past 2 to 3 years.
2. Improvement plan (goals, strategies) and documented results
3. Curriculum – plan/map/scope and sequence
4. Policies governing the institution
5. Documented organizational practices and procedures (e.g., handbooks)
6. A description of the institution’s professional learning plan and schedule,
including strengths and limitations
7. A description of the institution’s evaluation and supervision process
including strengths and limitations
8. Description of any major initiatives being undertaken, including action
research, training, and initial results that support the implementation
9. A copy of the most recent budget Verification and results of the most
recent financial audit
10. For non-public/private schools: License to operate
11. For systems: A description of the Quality Assurance and oversight
process for all schools in the system
12. Other: Any additional targeted information/documentation that would
support the Engagement Review Team in evaluating the institution’s
adherence to standards
• Ensure the institution community is ready for the review.
• For International reviews: Host the Engagement Review Team.
– Support and facilitate the schedule for the review.
• Actively engage in all aspects of the review process.
• Provide additional requested information to the evaluator.
After the • Review and consider necessary actions in fulfillment of the Findings in the
Accreditation Engagement Review Report.
Engagement Review • Create and enact strategies to address the findings and cause improvement.
• Gather evidence, monitor, and document progress in addressing the findings.
• Submit the Progress Report that provides evidence and impact of improvement
actions addressing the findings.
• Continue to meet the Cognia Performance Standards, engage in continuous
improvement, and document results.

Using Diagnostics and Tools
Cognia’s intent is for your institution to use appropriate tools for the diagnosis of your continuous improvement
process. Your analysis of the results of these diagnostics will be critical not only to your ongoing improvement
process, but also for your Engagement Review.
Your institution should engage in an ongoing internal review to determine the current status of the institution,
including needs, goals, and areas of successful improvement. During your improvement journey, the institution
should focus on collecting and analyzing data concerning (1) perspectives (stakeholder perceptions about your
institution gathered through surveys, interviews, or other techniques), (2) observations of teaching and learning,
and (3) data analysis (ongoing collection, analysis, and use of data, particularly concerning student performance
and organizational effectiveness).
Gathering Stakeholder Perception Data

The purpose and value of surveys is to gain an understanding of what key stakeholders believe about the quality
and experience of schooling. Stakeholder perceptions and experiences reveal how the processes, practices,
and conditions of schooling impact learners, families, and educators. Cognia provides an array of valid and
reliable surveys that an institution can deploy to gather stakeholder perspectives. Institutions may also use
your own surveys or other tools to gather stakeholder perspectives. Whether you use Cognia tools or your own,
the institution must submit an analysis of the survey results and how they are used to guide the institution’s
continuous improvement. You will complete this analysis using the Stakeholder Feedback Analysis, and submit it
to Cognia as part of your completed diagnostics prior to the Engagement Review.
Resources
Cognia Stakeholder Surveys
• Learners
• Families
• Educators
• Survey Quick Start Guide
Observing Teaching and Learning

Cognia’s Teacher Observation Tool is a formative tool designed to promote teachers’ improvement toward the
practice of learner-centric instruction and effective teaching. It is designed to be used in remote, synchronous
virtual, hybrid, and face-to-face classroom settings. The tool has 23 items that can be expected to be observed
within a 20-minute observation timeframe, in any subject and grade level. This tool is available to all Cognia
institutions.
Cognia uses three proprietary observation tools for learning, specific to various learning environments.
The Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot) is a learner-centric classroom observation
tool that focuses on the learners in K–12 classrooms. The eleot is made up of 28 items organized in seven
environments aligned with the Cognia Performance Standards and is based on a review of widely used
observation instruments and the most current research on effective learning. The eleot provides useful, relevant,
structured, and quantifiable data on the extent to which learners are engaged in activities and/or demonstrate
knowledge, attitudes, and/or dispositions that are conducive to effective learning. This tool is available to all
institutions.
The Environmental Rating for Early Learning (erel™) is a classroom observation tool that examines research-
based elements of effective early learning classroom environments. The erel is organized into four environmental
domains that examine practices and behaviors of both children in the environment and the adult influence on the
environment. The tool includes 66 items that are observed in a 30- to 45-minute observation timeframe, looking

at both the indoor and outdoor learning environments. The purpose of this tool is to identify and document
observable evidence of essential environmental requirements that are conducive to the health, safety, and
education of young children. This tool, currently offered in an offline version, is available to all institutions upon
request.
The Cognia Observation Tool for Digital Learning is an end-user observation tool that focuses on the digital
learning environment and associated learning experiences. The observations are conducted from the end-user
perspective to measure the alignment level of the environment and experiences to research-based criteria
and best practices in digital learning. The tool measures five Key Areas using 23 criteria and a two-dimensional
analysis for a holistic approach. The tool is utilized for various settings including asynchronous, synchronous,
instructor-led, self-paced, 100% virtual, or blended models of instruction. The tool is currently offered in a digital
or offline version and available to all institutions upon request.
Conducting observations of teaching and learning is a valuable part of the continuous improvement process.
Cognia has traditionally examined learner engagement while conducting classroom observations during reviews,
using the eleot. As part of your Self-Assessment phase, you will conduct and analyze classroom observations
in preparation for the Engagement Review, with a focus on learner engagement. In most U.S. reviews, Cognia
will no longer conduct formal classroom observations unless required by state approvals. Instead, your learning
environment observations and analysis will provide Cognia evaluators with information on how well learners are
engaged in your institution. International reviews will still have some classroom observations conducted by the
evaluators.
You are encouraged to have staff become certified in the eleot and use that tool to conduct your classroom
observations. Each institution’s network membership includes three training seats for eleot certification each
year. If you have an existing classroom observation tool that focuses on learner engagement, you are welcome to
continue using that tool for your observations and analysis in place of the eleot. Many institutions have found the
regular use of observations helpful as sources of evidence for standards related to teaching and learning as well
as to gauge the effectiveness of continuous improvement initiatives such as professional development related
to instructional practice and learner engagement. We encourage you to use the observation tools available to
your institution to support your own examination of teaching and learning and as evidence of progress on related
initiatives.
Resources
Cognia Observations for Learning
• eleot (Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool)—K–12
– eleot Rating Guide
• erel (Environmental Rating for Early Learning)—Infant, Toddler, Preschool, Pre-K, K
• Cognia Observation Tool for Digital Learning—digital learning K–12
Teacher Observation Tool—K–12
• Teacher Observation Tool User Guide
• Learning Environment Observation Analysis
Analyzing Student Performance Data

Implementing a Balanced Assessment System helps educators gain a full picture about what learners know and
can do, which assists in educational decision making to improve academic learning and program effectiveness.
Institutions need to collect, analyze, and synthesize performance data in order to fully understand how learners
are progressing, where there are gaps, and whether curriculum and instruction is effective.
Cognia offers a variety of assessment solutions to support institutions in implementing a Balanced Assessment
System that supports assessment for learning and assessment of learning. The Balanced Assessment System
includes formative, interim and summative assessments, to gain a full picture of student learning over time.

Formative assessment is a multi-step interactive process in which learners and educators engage in instructional
activities, gather evidence of learning, and use feedback to adjust teaching and improve learning in real time.
Cognia offers formative item sets to assist educators in grades K–12 across Mathematics, English Language Arts,
Science, and Social Studies. Cognia Formative Assessments allow classroom teachers to gather evidence of
academic learning aligned with Common Core State Standards and learning targets. These are available as PDF
item sets in the Cognia online platform for all institutions.
Interim assessments are designed to monitor learner progress toward end-of-year goals and can be administered
three times per year. Cognia offers interim assessments, available for grades 3–11 in Mathematics, Reading, and
Language Usage. The results of interim assessments help educators identify learners or curricular areas needing
additional attention.
Resources
Cognia Formative Content Library (PDFs)
Developing the Schedule of Activities

The institution’s leader or designee (whom Cognia refers to as the Primary Contact) works with the Regional
Accreditation Evaluator (for U.S. institutions) or Lead Evaluator (for International institutions) to schedule all
needed review activities. Engagement reviews are conducted through a mix of remote activities prior to the
on-site component and the on-site portion of the review. Review activities and scheduling vary depending on
location. Please see the information below for your institution. Click here to view information for U.S. institutions.
Click here to view information for International institutions.
U.S. Reviews
Most U.S. reviews will be conducted through a review of the evidence and analyses your institution submits. The
Regional Accreditation Evaluator will work with you to schedule leadership presentations and discussions as
needed. For states requiring an on-site component for the review, the evaluator will schedule this at any point
in the year of the review, typically in the fall or winter of the academic year. All other review activities will be
conducted remotely at times convenient to you and the evaluator.
Leadership Presentation (as needed)

Your Regional Accreditation Evaluator may schedule a leadership presentation with you to expand on information
shared in your submitted Self-Assessment diagnostics. The leadership presentation should begin with a brief
overview of the institution community and demographics (approximately five minutes) and then address the
following questions:
• What are the current strategic priorities and/or key goals for the institution?
• What data was used to identify the priorities and goals?
• How are you addressing these priorities and goals?
• What results do you have that measure your progress in meeting these priorities and goals?
The leader’s overview should last no more than 30 minutes. It is helpful to provide the evaluator with a copy of the
leader’s comments (slide deck or notes) for reference.
Evidence Review
The Regional Accreditation Evaluator assigned to your institution will spend a great deal of time reviewing and
evaluating evidence provided by your institution. Therefore, it is imperative that your required documents are
uploaded to Workspace in the Cognia Improvement Platform no later than February 1st.

Your Evaluator may contact the Primary Contact or institution leader to ask for additional specific documents
based on findings from observations (as applicable) and review of submitted evidence. This does not mean you
did not provide adequate information. In some cases, it simply means additional documentation is needed to
verify, through multiple sources, that certain activities or practices are in place.
Stakeholder Interviews (as needed)

Since you are providing in-depth analysis of stakeholder feedback gathered by your institution as part of your
Self-Assessment process, Cognia is no longer requiring stakeholder interviews as part of the Engagement
Review process. The purpose of your stakeholder feedback analysis is to gather information from a variety
of stakeholders about their collective perceptions of your institution and then make decisions about your
continuous improvement efforts based on that feedback in conjunction with other data sources. Your evaluator
will work with you to determine what stakeholder interviews are applicable to your Engagement Review. If needed,
stakeholder interviews will be conducted remotely via Zoom. Group interviews will take approximately 45 minutes
while individual interviews will take approximately 15 minutes.
Selecting Interviewees (as applicable, in consultation with your evaluator)

The following guidelines are designed to help with inviting stakeholders to be interviewed, if applicable. Before
proceeding with invitations, please confirm the interview groups with your evaluator.
• Stakeholders should collectively reflect the institution’s broader community (socioeconomic levels, race and
ethnicity, and geographic areas served by the institution).
• Provide a range of viewpoints and perspectives (strong and active supporters, critics, those who are less
involved, etc.).
• Include families and community members who are not employed by your institution.
• Represent all levels and departments in the institution.
• Represent all major categories of positions in the institution (leadership, administrative, teaching, guidance,
and support functions).
• Include individuals who can discuss the institution’s strengths and challenges.
The overarching considerations when identifying stakeholders to be interviewed are:

• Will the stakeholders collectively provide an accurate assessment of the institution? Will the stakeholders
collectively yield information that will prove valuable to the institution in its continuous improvement efforts?
• While it may be tempting to identify only those stakeholders who are active and strong supporters of the
institution, that approach will not maximize the insights and richness of the findings that can ultimately benefit
the institution’s improvement efforts. Therefore, Cognia recommends a random selection of participants.
Observations (as applicable, in consultation with your evaluator)

Most U.S. reviews will not have an on-site component to the review unless required by state approvals. Since
you are providing in-depth analysis of learning environment observations gathered by your institution as part of
your Self-Assessment process, Cognia is no longer requiring classroom observations as part of the Engagement
Review process. The purpose of your Learning Environment Observation Analysis is to collect information
about the learner experience and learner engagement in your institution and then make decisions about your
continuous improvement efforts based on those observations in conjunction with other data sources. All
observations should be conducted by trained observers certified in the observation tool being used. Cognia
recommends you use the eleot, as your membership provides you with access to this tool and certification for up
to three staff annually.
Your evaluator will work with you to determine whether any classroom observations are applicable to your
Engagement Review. If an on-site component to the review is applicable to your institution, an evaluator will
observe throughout the institution. These observations may include formal observations of learning environments

using the eleot and informal observations around the institution. The Primary Contact should notify teachers that
the evaluator may observe their classrooms during the on-site portion of the review. The institution leader and/or
Primary Contact should explain the purpose of these observations, emphasizing that the evaluator is observing
learner engagement in the institution, not evaluating teachers. Evaluators are instructed to be as unobtrusive as
possible and to not disrupt the learning process. Teachers should conduct class as usual.
General Observations Around the Institution

In addition to the classroom observations, the evaluator may conduct informal observations throughout your
institution. This may include system-level areas, resource rooms, media centers and technology labs, outdoor
environments, and interactions in non-instructional environments such as hallways or the cafeteria. These
general observations provide data regarding the overall culture and climate of the institution.
Expenses (as applicable for any on-site components)

Your institution is responsible for all expenses related to the on-site component of the review if required for your
institution. Expenses may include hotel accommodations, airfare and mileage, if applicable, and other incidental
costs associated with the on-site component (e.g., meals). Reimbursement for mileage is based on the current
standard mileage rate published by the United States Internal Revenue Service.
The Accreditation fee is assessed once every six years and covers associated costs for the full six-year term
of accreditation, including mandatory training for institution personnel, the Engagement Review, the Progress
Report, and ongoing resources and support for your continuous improvement journey.
Lodging
Your institution is responsible for securing and paying for hotel accommodations, if applicable, in consultation
with the evaluator. The evaluator will work with you to finalize the dates for accommodations.
Go to Keys to a Successful Review
International Reviews
System reviews will typically have up to five days for international systems. Institution reviews will typically
have up to four days for international institutions. Sample review schedules are available in the Canvas course,
Accreditation: Moving from Accountability to Continuous Improvement. The following table shows the key
components of an Accreditation Engagement Review for an International institution.

Key Components of the Engagement Review Schedule
System Engagement Review Institution Engagement Review
Remote Activities • Stakeholder interviews • Stakeholder interviews
Prior to On-Site • Review of analyzed results and • Review of analyzed results and
evidence evidence
• Team deliberations • Team deliberations
• Leadership presentation • Leadership presentation
On-Site • In-depth leadership interview • In-depth leadership interview
(length of time • System environmental scan • Institution environmental scan
determined in
consultation with • Additional evidence review • Classroom observations
Lead Evaluator) • School review(s) • Additional evidence review
– Institution environmental scan • Team deliberations
– Classroom observations
• Team deliberations
• Team work session
After the On-Site • Concluding meeting with Head of • Concluding meeting with Head of
System Institution
Resource
Sample Engagement Review Schedule for International Schools
Leadership Presentation
Your Lead Evaluator will schedule a leadership presentation with you prior to the on-site portion of the review
to expand on information shared in your submitted Self-Assessment diagnostics. The leadership presentation
should begin with a brief overview of the institution community and demographics (approximately five minutes)
and then address the following questions:
• What are the current strategic priorities and/or key goals for the institution?
• What data was used to identify the priorities and goals?
• How are you addressing these priorities and goals?
• What results do you have that measure your progress in meeting these priorities and goals?
The leader’s overview should last no more than 30 minutes for institutions and 45 minutes for systems. It is helpful
to provide the Lead Evaluator with a copy of the leader’s comments (slide deck or notes) for reference.
Evidence Review
The Accreditation Engagement Review team assigned to your system or institution will meet multiple times in
advance of the on-site portion of the Engagement Review. The purpose of these meetings is to review processes
and procedures for the review, and to discuss evidence provided by your institution. Therefore, it is imperative
that your required documents, including the Executive Summary, Standards Self-Assessment, Assurances,
Stakeholder Feedback Analysis, Student Performance Analysis, Learning Environment Observation Analysis, and
Evidence Portfolio, are uploaded at least four weeks before the on-site portion of the Engagement Review.
Your Lead Evaluator may contact the Primary Contact or institution leader to ask for additional specific
documents before the on-site portion of the review. Once the on-site portion of the review begins, the Lead
Evaluator may ask for additional documentation based on findings from interviews and observations. This does

not mean you did not provide adequate information beforehand. In some cases, it simply means additional
documentation is needed to verify, through multiple sources, that certain activities or practices are in place.
Stakeholder Interviews
The purpose of stakeholder interviews is to provide an opportunity for the Engagement Review team to gather
information from a variety of stakeholders about their collective perceptions of your institution. Your Lead
Evaluator will work with you to determine what stakeholder interviews are applicable to your Engagement
Review and when and where individual and group interviews will take place. Interviewees may include institution
leadership and improvement teams, educators, families, community members, support staff, and learners. Most
stakeholder interviews will be conducted remotely via Zoom within the weeks prior to the on-site portion of the
Engagement Review. Your Lead Evaluator will work with you to determine mutually agreeable times for each
stakeholder group to be interviewed.
Setting Up Interviews
The Primary Contact, with support from the institution leadership team, invites and schedules stakeholders
to be interviewed remotely via Zoom as part of a group or individually by members of the Engagement Review
Team prior to the on-site portion of the review. However, be aware that team members may also choose to
conduct brief, impromptu individual or small group interviews with learners, staff, families, and even visitors to
your institution. Group interviews will take approximately 45 minutes while on-site. Individual interviews will take
approximately 15 minutes, with the exception of interviews with individual board members and the head of the
institution (e.g., superintendent, principal, or chief executive officer).
Interviews begin with a brief overview of the purpose of the interviews and the role of the Engagement Review
team. The interview will focus on questions and discussions about the work of the institution.
Selecting Interviewees
The following guidelines are designed to help with inviting stakeholders to be interviewed, if applicable. Before
proceeding with invitations, please confirm the interview groups with your Lead Evaluator.
• Stakeholders should collectively reflect the institution’s or system’s broader community (socioeconomic
levels, race and ethnicity, and geographic areas served by the institution).
• Provide a range of viewpoints and perspectives (strong and active supporters, critics, those who are less
involved, etc.).
• Include families and community members who are not employed by your institution.
• Represent all levels and departments in the institution.
• Represent all major categories of positions in the institution (leadership, administrative, teaching, guidance,
and support functions).
• Include individuals who can discuss the institution’s strengths and challenges.
The overarching considerations when identifying stakeholders to be interviewed are:

• Will the stakeholders collectively provide an accurate assessment of the institution for the Engagement
Review team? Will the stakeholders collectively yield information that will prove valuable to the institution in
its continuous improvement efforts?
• While it may be tempting to identify only those stakeholders who are active and strong supporters of the
institution, that approach will not maximize the insights and richness of the findings that can ultimately benefit
the institution’s improvement efforts. Therefore, Cognia recommends a random selection of participants.

Observations
During the on-site portion of the Engagement Review, team members will observe throughout the institution.
These observations may include formal observations of learning environments using a Cognia observation tool
and informal observations around the institution.
Classroom Observations
Most institution types will conduct your own formal classroom observations to provide a representation of age/
grade levels, subjects, and environments as part of your Self-Assessment process. You will submit an analysis of
the learner engagement observed during classroom observations through the Learning Environment Observation
Analysis. During the on-site portion of the review, the team may conduct formal or informal classroom
observations to validate your analysis findings. All classroom observations conducted by team members will
leverage Cognia observation tools. In digital learning institutions, the Cognia Observation Tool for Digital Learning
may be used by the team to validate the effectiveness of the digital learning environment.
If you have already used eleot or other Cognia observation tools as a data collection tool for your Self-
Assessment, include the results and analyses of your observations in your Learning Environment Observation
Analysis. The team will use your results, as well as their own observations, to corroborate information obtained
from interviews, artifacts, and student performance data.
The Primary Contact should notify teachers that the team may observe their classrooms during the on-site
portion of the review. The institution leader and/or Primary Contact should explain the purpose of these
observations, emphasizing that the team is observing processes and activities in the institution, not evaluating
teachers. Team members are instructed to be as unobtrusive as possible and to not disrupt the learning process.
Teachers should conduct class as usual.
General Observations Around the Institution

In addition to the classroom observations, team members will conduct informal observations throughout your
institution. This may include system-level areas, resource rooms, media centers and technology labs, outdoor
environments, and interactions in non-instructional environments such as hallways or the cafeteria. These
general observations provide data regarding the overall culture and climate of the institution.
Professional Deliberations
The review team engages in professional deliberations regarding the data collected through interviews,
observations, and evidence throughout the review. Cognia asks that these sessions not be interrupted or have
institution personnel or volunteers present. Several of these team deliberations will occur prior to the on-site
portion of the review as the team engages in evidence review and stakeholder interviews. While on-site, the team
will also meet to engage in professional deliberations. The team uses diagnostic tools to engage in professional
deliberations regarding your institution’s adherence and commitment to the Cognia Performance Standards.
These deliberations support the ongoing improvement journey of the institution through the presentation of the
team’s findings and the Engagement Review Report.
Concluding Meeting with Head of Institution

When the team has finished its deliberations and determined its findings, the Lead Evaluator meets with your
Head of Institution and any staff members the Head of Institution designates to participate in the meeting. The
Concluding Meeting will be scheduled within a week following the on-site portion of the review, but will usually
not happen the same day the team is on-site. The Primary Contact schedules the meeting time and location
at the conclusion of the on-site portion of the review and ensures all participants are informed of the meeting.
The meeting provides an opportunity for the Lead Evaluator to discuss the team’s findings with your institution’s
leadership, answer questions, and address any concerns.

Coordinating Team Logistics
Your leader and Primary Contact are responsible for coordinating the logistics for the review with the Lead
Evaluator. The following checklists can help with this task.
At least six weeks prior to the on-site portion of the Engagement Review:
• Coordinate morning and evening transportation for the team members to and from the institution and other
locations as needed for each day of the review. For team members who may be flying in, please coordinate
any transportation arrangements from the airport to the hotel upon arrival and transportation back to the
airport for departure.
• Secure hotel room reservations for each team member, if applicable.
• Make all meal arrangements for the team for each day of their stay (and coordinate any necessary details for
meal delivery). For reviews requiring overnight stays, selecting a hotel with an included breakfast in the room
rate is a simple option to handle breakfast. During system reviews, evenings will be spent in working team
meetings at the hotel, so having dinner delivered to the team’s meeting room is helpful.
• Work with your Lead Evaluator to determine if evening meetings at the hotel will be needed. If so, reserve
meeting space at the hotel each night of the review. The meeting room should be organized as a hollow
square, with enough chairs to accommodate all members of the team. Reliable internet access, a screen,
LCD projector, power cords (two to three), flip chart paper (at least one full pad), markers (at least one for
every member of the team), masking tape, and sticky notes (standard square size, at least one pad for each
member of the team) should be provided. Water and light refreshments are appreciated.
• Invite interviewees for stakeholder interviews to be conducted prior to the on-site portion of the review.
• Make name badges for team members, including any security clearances needed, and ensure that institution
personnel wear their name badges.
• Please note that team members are not allowed to accept gifts from the institution. Items of nominal value
such as pens, pads, or other items with or without the institution’s logo, that will assist the team with their work
are acceptable. Please refer to Cognia Policy 2.7(b).
At least four weeks prior to the on-site portion of the Engagement Review:
• Complete the Assurances Diagnostic and upload with any supportive documentation, including your license
to operate.
• Complete and upload the Standards Self-Assessment, Executive Summary, Stakeholder Feedback Analysis,
Student Performance Analysis, and Learning Environment Observation Analysis.
• Gather and submit the Accreditation Portfolio, ensuring all documents are accessible to the team at least
four weeks in advance of the team’s arrival.
• Confirm all the details related to the schedule and check in with the Lead Evaluator.
• Ensure that all stakeholders involved in the review have a copy of the Engagement Review schedule.
• Email and/or send a reminder to all interviewees.
• Confirm hotel reservations for the team, if applicable.
• Confirm air and ground transportation arrangements for each team member, including special requirements
such as international travel visas, vaccinations, and immigration or entry requirements, if applicable.
• Confirm meals and dinner reservations or delivery for the team.
Expenses
Your institution is responsible for all expenses related to the review, including hotel accommodations, visas
for team members, if applicable, and other incidental costs associated with the review (e.g., meals, local
transportation costs). The Accreditation Fee is assessed once every six years and covers associated costs for

the full six-year term of accreditation, including mandatory training for institution personnel, the Engagement
Review, the Progress Report, and ongoing resources and support for your continuous improvement journey.
Lodging
Your institution is responsible for securing and paying for hotel accommodations, if applicable, in consultation
with the Lead Evaluator. The Lead Evaluator will work with you to finalize the dates for accommodations.
Hosting the Engagement Review Team

Engagement Reviews are scheduled with a mix of remote and on-site activities to ensure the team can conduct
the review with fidelity and gain a full picture of your institution. The Engagement Review schedule serves as the
primary guide for the review. The institution leader and Primary Contact work with the Lead Evaluator to manage
the schedule and ensure all activities of the review occur as planned. The leader and/or Primary Contact should
be available for questions and to help the team access needed information throughout the review period, both
prior to and during the on-site component. It is a good idea for the leader and Primary Contact to provide their
contact information to the Lead Evaluator and team members, including cell phone number, and the names and
contact information of other key leadership staff should questions or emergencies arise. Providing the contact
information of a clinic or hospital the institution works with while the team is on-site is also helpful in the event any
team member requires medical attention.
Prior to the on-site portion of the review, the team will conduct review activities remotely based on the schedule
the institution leader and the Lead Evaluator have developed. These activities may happen any time in the four
weeks prior to the on-site review component.
On-site Arrival and Orientation

Once the Engagement Review team has arrived for the on-site portion of the review, the Primary Contact ensures
all details unfold as planned.
• Confirm lodging and dinner reservations for the team, if applicable.
• Provide team members with hard copies of any information needed for the review, name badges, a final
schedule, maps, floor plans, and any other additional materials team members may need.
• If applicable, check to see that the meeting room for the team’s evening meeting(s) is properly set up per the
Lead Evaluator’s requirements, which may include internet access, flip charts, sticky notes, markers, masking
tape, LCD projector, power cords, screen, any institution artifacts that the institution wants in the team’s work
room, water, and refreshments.
Below is a sample of activities for an on-site review day.

• Ensure all team members have transportation to the institution.
– For system reviews, ensure all team members have transportation to the schools selected for on-site reviews.
• Make sure the team’s meeting room at the institution is ready and meets the team’s needs.
• Ensure easy access to the artifacts the team will need.
• Manage the schedule and ensure that all activities stay on schedule.
• Provide lunch for the team or make arrangements for team members for lunch at school sites, as applicable.
• Make coffee, water, and light refreshments available throughout the day for the team.
• Provide transportation to and from the hotel, if needed.

Keys to a Successful Review
Systems and institutions that have completed Engagement Reviews offer the following advice to their colleagues:
• Be open and honest with the evaluators. The more authentic and accurate your responses are in your
submitted diagnostics and conversations with the evaluators, the better the evaluators are able to assess the
strengths and needs of the institution.
• Communicate with all stakeholders about the accreditation process. The more people who know
about the accreditation process and the activities for the Engagement Review, the better. Be as open and
transparent about the process as possible.
• Use and refer to the Cognia Performance Standards and rubrics. Connect your evidence and artifacts
to the standards to maximize the evaluators’ time and their ability to provide meaningful feedback to the
institution.
• Share and encourage the evaluators to review specific artifacts. The artifacts that you feel are critical
to the evaluators’ understanding of your institution should be shared in your Accreditation Portfolio.
• Remember that you and your institution will get out of the process what you put into it. Your
institution has the ability, through its own commitment to the process, to make the most of the Engagement
Review process. The more committed the institution is to gaining valuable support and feedback, the more
meaningful the Engagement Review will be as well.
Continuing the Journey

While the majority of this workbook is devoted to the Self-Assessment and Engagement phases of accreditation,
the majority of the institution’s time is spent following the review, acting on the Engagement Review findings and
continuing the improvement journey. This section reviews the key activities that occur on an ongoing basis as you
maintain your processes of continuous improvement.
The Written Report of the Engagement Review

After the conclusion of all review activities and evaluation of submitted diagnostics, your evaluators work to
finalize the written report of the review findings. The report is submitted to Cognia for review and acceptance.
Your institution will receive notification that the final report is available in the Shared Folder in the eProve
Workspace.
Upon receipt of the written report, you should communicate the Engagement Review findings to internal and
external stakeholders. Sharing the results of the review with a wide range of stakeholders helps educate the
broader community about the institution’s accreditation and engagement in continuous improvement. It also
garners stakeholder buy-in with regard to next steps your institution will take to respond to the findings of
the report.
Report Debrief with Head of Institution

Following the review, typically the start of the next academic year, a Cognia representative will schedule a time
to debrief the Engagement Review Report with your leadership team. The meeting provides an opportunity for
Cognia to discuss the findings with your institution’s leadership, answer questions, and address any concerns.
This is also an opportunity to discuss your next steps and any support Cognia might be able to provide as you
engage in continuous improvement.

Notice of Accreditation, Celebrating with the
Community, and the IEQ™
Consistent with the focus of engagement on continuous improvement with an emphasis on student success,
Cognia has introduced an innovative framework for classifying institution performance called the Index of
Education Quality (IEQ). Your institution will receive an IEQ score along with an accreditation status. You will
receive more information about the IEQ after your report has received final approval.
The Cognia Accreditation Office submits the Engagement Review Report to the Cognia Global Commission. The
Cognia Global Commission meets four times per year and acts on all accreditation recommendations. Upon the
conclusion of the meeting, results of the Global Commission’s action will be shared with you. For details regarding
the approval process and future or expected accreditation status, please visit the Policies and Procedures for
Accreditation and Certification.
Upon receiving the official accreditation letter, you should communicate the final results to internal and external
stakeholders. Your institution will receive and should proudly display your certificate of accreditation. Press
releases, flags, Q&A guides, and more are available from Cognia to help systems and institutions share and
celebrate your accreditation with your community.
Practices many systems and institutions find useful include:

• Sharing information about their Engagement Review and the accreditation process with families at every
family meeting and through brochures or handouts
• Displaying the Cognia accreditation seal on institution websites, stationery, and student transcripts
• Posting information about accreditation in a regular column of newsletters
• Including a section on accreditation and its importance in annual reports to the community
Acting on the Engagement Review Findings

The Engagement Review Report will serve as a resource to you as your institution furthers its continuous
improvement efforts. Upon receiving the Engagement Review Report, the institution is encouraged to implement
the following steps:
• Review and share the findings with stakeholders.
• Develop plans to address the Areas for Improvement identified from the Engagement Review. You may also
wish to develop plans to address standards rated at Level 1 or Level 2, if any.
• 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.
Be sure to celebrate and strengthen the successes and accomplishments noted in the Engagement Review
Report. Your report may include Noteworthy Practices, which the review found to be practices that are exemplary
and could be a model for other institutions. Make it your goal to build on these accomplishments, enhancing and
sustaining their impact across your institution.
The report will include Areas for Improvement, which are actions identified to address areas where the institution
would benefit from continuous improvement efforts and will support the institution in alignment with your
own goals. Your institution will be held accountable for making progress on each of the identified Areas for
Improvement within three years following the Engagement Review. You will report progress on each Area for
Improvement in a Progress Report that will be submitted to Cognia and returned to you with feedback.

To begin acting on the review findings, review the full report with institution stakeholders. Spend time discussing
the descriptions of trends and their impact on the institution. These descriptions provide greater clarity, guidance,
and direction.
After you and your team have thoroughly reviewed the Engagement Review findings, you should establish a plan
of action by engaging representative stakeholders in the process. The plan typically outlines next steps related
to the review findings and clear strategies for improving quality, effectiveness, and learning. In addition, your plan
should include implementation strategies and methods for monitoring, documenting, and analyzing results.
Implement the strategies you have selected for responding to the review findings, track the progress your
institution is making, and be prepared to answer the questions: “What steps have been taken? What progress has
been made? How do you know you’ve made an impact?”

Conclusion
Congratulations on your commitment to accreditation and the continuous improvement process. Your
engagement in the continuous improvement process through accreditation will enhance all elements of your
institution. As your understanding of a systemic approach to continuous improvement increases, your institution
will become more effective and efficient as a learner-focused education organization. Your entire institution,
community, and most importantly, learners, benefit as the institution works to improve its systems and processes
to increase effectiveness and enhance learning for learners, educators, and leaders.
Cognia looks forward to supporting you throughout the continuous improvement process.

Appendices
Assurances
Assurances for Digital Learning Institutions in the United States (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
communications protocols, and training for students, staff and stakeholders. No
Yes
No
Yes
8. The institution employs administrative and instructional personnel who are qualified in their
assigned grade levels, subject areas, and fields who provide instructional guidance and
oversee the progress of students within each course and meet all applicable governmental No
Yes
regulations.
9. The institution ensures that students graduating from the institution complete at least 25% of
the courses required for graduation at the institution.
No
Yes
10. The institution has written policies for instructional time for each course that includes the
requirements for student engagement, student progress, course completion, eligibility for
accessing the next course, and documentation of authenticity of the student’s work/progress. No
Yes
11. The institution ensures that course objectives, individual student needs, and instructional
support are considered in determining student-to-teacher ratios or class sizes.
No
Yes
12. Learners have access to a Learning Management System that support curriculum, instruction
and learning.
No
Yes
13. Leaders adhere to ethical marketing and communication practices to transparently disclose
current and accurate information to the public.
No
Yes
14. The institution’s technology infrastructure supports teaching, learning and operational
effectiveness.
No
Yes
15. The institution ensures equitable access to technology including hardware, software, internet
access, accessibility, and IT support.
No
Yes
16. The institution implements a written policy that ensures the authenticity of student work.
No
Yes

Assurances for Early Learning Institutions in the United States (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
crisis, safety and health for on-site and virtual environments that includes expectations,
Yes
No
Yes
8. The early learning institution is licensed in good standing with the state or governmental
agency responsible for licensing child care centers and early childhood programs.
No
Yes
Assurances for Extended Learning Institutions in the United States (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
8. The extended learning institution is licensed in good standing with the state or governmental
agency responsible for licensing extended learning programs.
No
Yes

Assurances for Postsecondary Institutions in the United States (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
9. The curriculum and requirements for program completion are aligned to industry standards
or regulations.
No
Yes

Assurances for Special Purpose: Adjudicated Youth Institutions in the United States
Yes/No
(go back)
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
8. The institution has a policy that defines the expectations related to class or group size and
student-to-teacher ratios aligned to the educational programs and instructional support
provided by the institution. No
Yes
9. The institution has written policies for instructional time for each course that includes
the requirements for student engagement, student progress, course completion, and
documentation of student’s work/progress. No
Yes
10. There is documentation showing that the institution meets all applicable state or other
governing authority requirements and regulations for licensure, organization, administration,
and control. No
Yes
11. The institution implements a written plan that is in compliance with any state or governing
authority regulatory requirements pertaining to hygiene, health and safety of students for the
full duration of the enrollment. No
Yes
12. Students are supervised by trained adults for the full duration of the enrollment.
No
Yes
13. The institution provides food adequate to the nutritional needs of the students, sanitary
environmental conditions, and safe drinking water at all times in the program.
No
Yes

Assurances for Special Purpose: Travel Study Institutions in the United States (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
8. The institution employs administrative and instructional personnel who are qualified in
their assigned grade levels, subject areas, and fields; who provide instructional guidance
and oversee the progress of students specific to travel study; and meet all applicable No
Yes
governmental regulations.
accessing the next course, and documentation of student’s work/progress. No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
12. The total cost for the program or course of instruction, including but not limited to all tuition
and fees, comprehensive travel expenses, apparel, medical supplies, and instructional and
support materials is made known to students, parents/guardians, or the authority having No
Yes
financial responsibility at the time of application or registration.
13. The institution implements a written policy that ensures the authenticity of any student work
completed outside of the travel study experience.
No
Yes
Yes
15. The school provides food adequate to the nutritional needs of the students, sanitary
environmental conditions, and safe drinking water at all times in the program
No
Yes
16. There is a communication system in place to provide parents/guardians with important
information including non-emergency contact information and 24-hour emergency contact
information with live operators. No
Yes
17. Protection for students is provided in the form of tuition bonds, appropriate liability, errors
and omissions and medical insurance.
No
Yes
18. All instructional staff and program leaders are trained in first aid and medical emergencies.
No
Yes

Assurances for Special Purpose: Tutoring Institutions in the United States (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
regulations.
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Assurances for Special Purpose: Wilderness Institutions in the United States (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
assigned grade levels, subject areas, and fields; who provide instructional guidance and
oversee the progress of students specific to the wilderness program; and meet all applicable No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
and control. No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

Assurances for Special Purpose: Wilderness Institutions in the United States (go back) Yes/No
20. There is verifiable evidence that all staff members who participate in the wilderness portion
of the program are given specific training regarding situations and/or problems that might be
encountered during the wilderness portion of the program. No
Yes

Assurances for International Schools (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
8. The institution adopts and implements personnel policies that cover job descriptions,
recruitment, employment, assignment, retention, retirement, termination of services, and sick
and/other leave for all institution personnel. No
Yes
9. The board meets only when the Director is present, except when it acts on the Director’s
salary and/or performance, if applicable.
No
Yes
10. The institution requires all professional personnel to earn at least six semester hours of credit
or the equivalent during each five years of employment.
No
Yes
11. The leadership includes in the master schedule sufficient planning time unencumbered by
instructional or supervisory responsibilities for each classroom teacher.
No
Yes
12. Due regard is given to building and facility design, layout, designation, and use to ensure child
safety and protection within the context of the host country. Class size facilitates the ease of
movement within the classroom. No
Yes
13. The institution has developed and adopted an appropriate definition of child abuse, including
physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect and commercial exploitation,
and inappropriate behavior of children toward other children. No
Yes
14. The institution has a policy, approved by the Governing Board, that describes its commitment
to preventing and responding appropriately if children are harmed, or if allegations of harm to
children are made. No
Yes
15. The institution has developed and adopted a code of conduct and written guidelines for
appropriate and inappropriate behavior of adults toward children and children towards other
children. All faculty, staff, volunteers, and contractors acknowledge that they have read the No
Yes
code of conduct and agree to abide by it.

Assurances for International School Systems (including ESAs, ESAs with schools,
Corporations, Corporation Systems, Non-Public Systems, Charter School Authorizers) Yes/No
(go back)
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
timeframes prescribed by Cognia
No
Yes
8. The system executes a written quality assurance process to monitor and verify that all
institutions within its jurisdiction:
No
Yes
a. meet the applicable governmental requirements of the school’s location;
b. meet the Cognia Accreditation and Certification Policies and Procedures;
c. meet the Cognia Accreditation and/or Certification Standards and Assurances and;
d. implement its required education programs with fidelity.
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Assurances for International Digital Learning Institutions (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
regulations.
9. The institution ensures that students graduating from the institution complete at least 25% of
the courses required for graduation at the institution.
No
Yes
accessing the next course, and documentation of authenticity of the student’s work/progress. No
Yes
11. The institution ensures that course objectives, individual student needs, and instructional
support are considered in determining student-to-teacher ratios or class sizes.
No
Yes
12. Learners have access to a Learning Management System that support curriculum,
instruction, and learning.
No
Yes
No
Yes
14. The institution’s technology infrastructure supports teaching, learning and operational
effectiveness.
No
Yes
15. The institution ensures equitable access to technology including hardware, software, internet
access, accessibility and IT support.
No
Yes
16. The institution implements a written policy that ensures the authenticity of student work.
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Assurances for International Digital Learning Institutions (go back) Yes/No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Assurances for International Early Learning Institutions (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Assurances for International Extended Learning Institutions (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Assurances for International Postsecondary Institutions (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
9. The curriculum and requirements for program completion are aligned to industry standards
or regulations.
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Assurances for International Special Purpose: Adjudicated Youth Institutions (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
9. The institution has written policies for instructional time for each course that includes
the requirements for student engagement, student progress, course completion, and
documentation of student’s work/progress. No
Yes
and control. No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
13. The institution provides food adequate to the nutritional needs of the students, sanitary
environmental conditions, and safe drinking water at all times in the program.
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Assurances for International Special Purpose: Adjudicated Youth Institutions (go back) Yes/No
Yes

Assurances for International Special Purpose: Travel Study Institutions (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
8. The institution employs administrative and instructional personnel who are qualified in
their assigned grade levels, subject areas, and fields; who provide instructional guidance
and oversee the progress of students specific to travel study; and meet all applicable No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
13. The institution implements a written policy that ensures the authenticity of any student work
completed outside of the travel study experience.
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

Assurances for International Special Purpose: Travel Study Institutions (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Assurances for International Special Purpose: Tutoring Institutions (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
regulations.
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Assurances for International Special Purpose: Tutoring Institutions (go back) Yes/No
Yes

Assurances for International Special Purpose: Wilderness Institutions (go back) Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
assigned grade levels, subject areas, and fields; who provide instructional guidance and
oversee the progress of students specific to the wilderness program; and meet all applicable No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
and control. No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

Assurances for International Special Purpose: Wilderness Institutions (go back) Yes/No
20. There is verifiable evidence that all staff members who participate in the wilderness portion
of the program are given specific training regarding situations and/or problems that might be
encountered during the wilderness portion of the program. No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Executive Summary Exemplars
Schools
Cooper High School
History
Cooper High School opened in 1978 as the second comprehensive high school in the Parnassus School District in
Rockville, GA. Located in a suburb of Atlanta, the school currently serves 2,850 students. The school mascot, the
Wildcat, was decided by the incoming students when the school opened. The school boasts two large academic
buildings, two gymnasiums, an administrative building that also houses the school media center, a performing
arts center that has an auditorium and houses art, theatre, dance, music, and choir facilities, and multiple athletic
facilities including a stadium for football, soccer, and lacrosse. Other facilities include tennis courts, racquetball
courts, outside basketball courts, and an area for track and field events. A recent successful bond election will
fund a Career and Technical Education building to house a culinary program, an early learning education center, a
welding and construction program, and a sports medicine program.
Throughout the past 43 years, the school population has varied little, as two more high schools have been
opened since Cooper High School, and the attendance boundaries are modified by the school board to keep the
population consistent with the other sites. While the students were learning remotely for 6 months because of the
COVID-19 pandemic, the students have returned this fall for on-site learning. All students and staff wear masks,
staff members have been vaccinated, and the current infection rate is very low.
Demographics
The school staff includes 48 classified employees, 129 full-time certificated teachers, five counselors, a school
psychologist, and 5 administrative leaders. Demographically, the student population is 73% Caucasian, 18%
Black, 6% Hispanic, and 3% Asian, with 23% of the student families qualifying for federal free and reduced lunch
assistance. The special education population is 7%, most of which are classified as SLD with 1% comprised on
MOID, MIID, or ED. Almost 98% of the families report English as the primary language spoken at home, with just
over 2% reporting Spanish as the primary language. There are currently 20 students enrolled in the ESL program,
most of which are in the final year of the program.
Governing Authority
The Parnassus School District is governed by a five-member board with the support of the superintendent. Every
board member is elected through the county election process and board member elections are staggered so
that one board member is up for re-election every 5 years. The board holds internal elections every year in July
to name the chairman of the board, the secretary of the board, and the treasurer of the board. As part of the
board bylaws, these positions may be held for no more than two consecutive years. As part of the overall training
process, each board member must attend training through the Georgia State Association for School Boards on
policymaking, procedures, and ethics every year they serve. Board policy is adopted as necessary and there is
currently a comprehensive policy document that is available to all stakeholders electronically. The governing
board is very supportive of the district schools but is very aware that they are responsible for essentially one
employee—the superintendent. They do not interfere with district or school operations and have made it part of
their policy that their management is strictly through the superintendent.
Cooper High School is led by the administrative staff, which includes the principal, three assistant principals, an
athletic director, and a dean of students. Every member of the leadership team is responsible for staff evaluations,
student supervision, and the monitoring of the professional development program. The assistant principals divide
their responsibilities between curriculum and instruction, student opportunities and activities, and data and
assessment. The athletic director manages the coaching staff and events pertaining to the athletic program. The
dean of students is primarily focused on student discipline and management of the special education program.

In addition to the administrative leadership team, the principal also leads the school advisory council, which is
comprised of parents, students, teachers, and community members. The focus of the school advisory council is
to manage and implement the continuous improvement plan. The site council meets monthly to monitor the plan,
evaluate data from surveys and performance reports, and adjust the plan as necessary. The site council also
manages a budget to fund initiatives that support the plan. Once a year, the site council reviews the vision and
mission statements of Cooper High School and makes recommendations to maintain or adjust these statements
based on data and feedback from stakeholders.
Vision, Mission, and Values
The current iteration of the mission and vision statements are as follows.
Vision: Cooper High School will graduate college- and career-ready students who are civic-minded, critical
thinkers, and lifelong learners.
Mission: Cooper High School is dedicated to a continuing tradition of excellence in an ever-changing world. Within
a safe and supportive environment, we provide a relevant, high-quality education and prepare our student body for
future endeavors. We honor achievement and promote pride in ourselves, in our school, and in our community.
The staff and community of Cooper High school value quality education and the myriad factors associated with
high expectations. All staff are expected to adopt an improvement mindset that focuses on student success. To
this end, Cooper High School has a thorough professional development program to support teachers and staff
in providing the highest quality of instruction possible. Additionally, the school has placed a high priority on the
concepts of equity, fairness, and lifelong learning. Current initiatives supporting those ideas include the advisory
program, the full integration of special needs students into the classrooms, and a proactive discipline program
that includes restorative justice and elements of the Jones Discipline Program.
The mission and vision statements are evaluated every year by the school site council, who recommends
adjustments based on survey data, student performance data, and staff input.
Philosophy of Education
While the school does not focus exclusively on any particular educational philosophy exclusively, much of
the professional development and classroom instructional model utilized at Cooper High School is based on
essentialist and progressive theories. Cooper High School students are expected to engage thoughtfully in
classroom activities, and teachers are expected to deliver engaging and interactive instruction that incorporates
individual learner interests and skills. Emphasis is placed on developing critical thinking skills and mastery of the
state core curriculum. Additionally, the school offers a wide range of elective courses to engage student interests,
including co-curricular classes in creative writing, career and technical education, and the arts.
Curriculum
The school uses the Georgia Standards of Excellence (GSE), as adopted by the Georgia Board of Education.
The core curriculum has been adopted by the Parnassus School Board and includes the implementation of the
standards for all curricular areas.
Course maps for all classes are developed collaboratively through the professional development program, which
includes weekly scheduled times for professional learning communities to meet, discuss student data, and
develop resources. Materials for all classes are proposed by the PLC groups on a rotating basis through a five-
year cycle. The five-year cycle is designed so that a major curricular area is addressed every year along with the
associated departments and classes. For example, in 2019–2020, the math departments reviewed their learning
materials and textbooks along with the computer sciences classes. For the 2020–2021 school year, the ELA,
World Languages, and Arts departments reviewed their course maps and materials. The current school year of
2021–2022 will focus on Physical Education and Social Sciences.
As part of the course maps and materials review, each department also works collaboratively to develop
districtwide common assessments for pretesting and end of course testing. Based on the GSE and aligned to

the Georgia State Assessments, each course in Cooper High School has a common pretest and end of course
assessments (EOCs). For example, all the 10th grade ELA pretests and EOCs are the same. This facilitates
pretest and EOC analysis to gauge whether students are mastering content and where potential changes in the
course maps may need to be made. Data from the assessments are used to drive instruction, measure student
growth, and predict performance levels on state-mandated assessments. Additionally, many of the courses utilize
common formative assessments; however, those materials are still being updated and developed.
Many of the professional development sessions during the school year are focused on the unpacking and
development of the GSE and discussion on how to best develop interactive lesson plans to support learners.
Classroom Instruction
Most classes at Cooper High School are site-based; however, there were several months where instruction
was delivered remotely during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Classes are 50 minutes long, three days
a week, with two days of the week devoted to longer class periods for extended learning opportunities. The
master schedule also includes a weekly meeting of the student advisory program and two late start days to
accommodate professional development sessions.
While many of the classes utilize a traditional Hunter model with anticipatory sets, direct instruction, guided
practice, and independent engagement, the longer instructional periods allow for flexibility to conduct labs
and engage in hands-on learning. Additionally, the extended class periods allow for higher levels of technology
integration, a requirement for all classes.
All formal assessment is conducted electronically as much as possible to reinforce and augment student use
of technology. Assessment through technology also facilitates efficient feedback, accurate data, and a secure
testing environment. Finally, every class is surveyed at the end of the course regarding classroom instruction,
teacher feedback, and student satisfaction.
Personnel Management
All staff members are evaluated using a Danielson-based model that has been approved by the board and the
respective staff associations. Administrative evaluations are conducted by the principal, and the principal’s
evaluation is conducted by the superintendent. The teacher evaluation process is goal-based and includes two
formal classroom observations, two informal classroom observations, and an analysis of student growth based
on the common EOC. Over 96% of the teachers receive a Meets or Exceeds rating on their summative evaluation
form. Teachers who do not meet expectations are assigned a formal improvement plan and are met with monthly
by their assigned administrative evaluator. Teachers or staff who do not meet expectations on the formal
improvement plan after a year are non-renewed.
While diversity is a goal with Cooper High School, much more work needs to be done to reach out to
underrepresented professionals and bring them in to the Cooper High School family. While serving a moderately
diverse student population, over 80% of the teaching staff is Caucasian and 70% female. Cooper High School is
working cooperatively with local agencies such as the National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE) and
African Heritage Studies Association (AHSA) to recruit and hire professionals of color. These efforts have been
formalized through the site council and the adoption of goals in school’s continuous improvement plan.
Learner Performance
Students are required to participate in the Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-
to-State (ACCESS, Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA) 2.0, and Georgia Milestones assessment programs
based on their eligibility. Results from these assessments over the past three years has been varied, as there
are gaps in assessment data from the COVID-19 pandemic. However, trends from the last three assessments
indicate that while substantial growth has been achieved in mathematics, growth from the ELA assessments has
plateaued or dipped slightly. Improvements in mathematics, especially in Algebra 1 and Algebra 2, are attributed
to increased alignment of course maps, increased intervention programs, and professional development around

active engagement in math classes. Over 59% of the students at Cooper High School are achieving Proficient or
Distinguished ratings in mathematics, which is considerably higher than the state average of 30%.
English Language scores peaked in 2019 at 71% achieving Proficient or Distinguished ratings and have dropped
to 68% in 2020. Science results are on par with state averages at 55%, and U.S. History scores exceed the state
average at 48%.
One of the primary indicators of student success on the statewide assessments is the performance on the
common EOCs that every student takes at the end of each course. The assessments are closely aligned to the
state assessments and modified each year during PLC sessions by the teachers based on disaggregated results
published by the Georgia Department of Education.
Cooper High School Continuous Improvement Plan
Based on student performance data, analyzed survey results from all stakeholders, analyzed classroom
observation data, and analyzed attendance and discipline records, the Cooper High School Site Council has
developed an ongoing three-year continuous improvement plan that includes initiatives for the following areas:
1. Increase student performance on ELA, Math, and Science state assessments by 2% in the Proficient
or Distinguished categories and reduce the percentage of students performing at the lowest level by
5% every year. Initiatives to support this ambitious goal include increasing interventions for struggling
students, incentivizing participation in tutoring programs through free admission to sporting and arts
activities, and providing extra time for teachers to analyze student formative assessment data to identify
and target specific standards and learning goals.
2. Increase student engagement in classrooms through professional development in effective classroom
instruction modules during professional development time. Activities and engagement strategies will be
reviewed using the Effective Classroom Instruction resources by Marzano, and classroom observation
data will be used to gauge implementation and success.
3. Increase diversity of professional staff members by collaborating with local agencies to recruit, hire,
and maintain diverse educational professionals. Collaborate with national-level organizations to recruit,
hire, and maintain educational leaders to help Cooper High School increase their success levels on all
improvement goals.
4. Increase attendance of staff and learners by 10% over three years. Recent absenteeism has been a
major challenge because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the transition from remote learning to on-
site learning. Additionally, the results from the culture surveys indicated that students and teachers
were feeling displaced and unsure of the learning environment. Teachers will be incentivized through
additional performance pay funds for those who have high attendance levels (set by the site council), and
students will be recognized through additional incentives for high attendance with admission to sporting
events and arts events, and will be given certificates recognizing their commitment. Additionally, the site
council has partnered with local businesses to offer coupons and gift cards to students and teachers
who have high attendance levels.
5. Increase student and staff attendance and participation in schoolwide events. To address the issues
identified with connectiveness to the school based on the culture and climate surveys, all stakeholders
will be encouraged to participate in sports, clubs, and arts activities. The creation of an intramural sports
program for students and teachers is being organized, and funds are being allocated for additional
student interest clubs to be formed.
The comprehensive continuous improvement plan can be found on the school’s website and is also available at
the front office. The Cooper High Site Council reviews progress on the plan monthly during their meetings.
Cooper High School stakeholders are looking forward to the Accreditation Engagement Review and utilizing the
findings to improve the overall learning experience for the students.

Systems
Parnassus Unified School District
History
The Parnassus Unified School District began operations in 1960 as a comprehensive K–12 school which later
expanded to a system that includes 4 comprehensive high schools, 16 elementary schools, and an early learning
center. The district encompasses the greater Rockville, Georgia, community and currently has an enrollment
of 19,200 learners in K–12 and 60 learners at the early learning center. The Apollo Center, the district’s central
office, is near Parnassus High School in downtown Rockville. The facility houses the district leadership, the
transportation hub for buses, a printshop, and extended maintenance facilities to support the district schools.
The facility also has several spacious conference rooms for district training and meetings and a large boardroom
for the twice-monthly meetings. The boardroom can accommodate 150 participants and is fully wired for online
broadcasts of the meetings.
Rockville, Georgia, is a suburb on the western edge of Atlanta and is composed primarily of suburban housing,
commercial properties, and a small manufacturing plant. Many of the local businesses and organizations are
members of the Parnassus Foundation, a charitable organization that supports the vision and mission of the
Parnassus School District through grants and scholarships.
Demographics
The district staff includes 485 classified employees, 1,044 full-time certificated teachers, 36 counselors,
4 school psychologists, 68 site-based administrative leaders, and 22 district-level administrators including
the superintendent. Demographically, the student population is 61% Caucasian, 22% Black, 9% Hispanic, 6%
Native American, and 2% Asian, with 44% of the student families qualifying for federal free and reduced lunch
assistance. The special education population is 6%, most of which are classified as SLD with 1% comprised of
MOID, MIID, or ED. Almost 98% of the families report English as the primary language spoken at home, with just
over 2% reporting Spanish as the primary language. There are currently 96 students enrolled in the ESL program,
most of which are in the middle stages of the program.
Governing Authority
The Parnassus School District is governed by a five-member board with the support of the superintendent.
Every board member is elected through the county election process, and board member elections are staggered
so that one board member is up for re-election every 5 years. The board holds internal elections every year in
July to name the Chairman of the Board, the Secretary of the Board, and the Treasurer of the Board. As part of
the board bylaws, these positions may be held for no more than two consecutive years. As part of the overall
training process, each board member must attend training through the Georgia School Boards Association on
policymaking, procedures, and ethics every year they serve. Board policy is adopted as necessary and there is
currently a comprehensive policy document that is available to all stakeholders electronically. The governing
board is very supportive of the district schools but is very aware that they are responsible for essentially one
employee—the superintendent. They do not interfere with district or school operations and have made it part of
their policy that their management is strictly through the superintendent.
The Parnassus School District is led by Superintendent Dr. Deloris Berkshire who has been in that role since 2016.
During that time, she has led a re-organization of the district-level staff to include five associate superintendents
that serve as executive leaders for the district. The system-level leadership team also includes 12 director-level
positions that support various departments and 26 classified employees that support maintenance, clerical
services, and financial services.
In addition to the system-level administrative leadership team, the superintendent also leads the district advisory
council, which is comprised of parents, students, teachers, and community members. The focus of the district
advisory council is to manage and implement the strategic plan for the district. The district council meets monthly
to monitor the plan, evaluate data from surveys and performance reports, and adjust the plan as necessary. The

district council also manages a budget to fund initiatives that support the plan. Once a year, the district council
reviews the vision and mission statements of the Parnassus School District and makes recommendations to
maintain or adjust these statements based on data and feedback from stakeholders.
Vision, Mission, and Values
The current iteration of the mission and vision statements are as follows:
Vision: The Parnassus School District will graduate college- and career-ready students who are civic-minded,
critical thinkers, and lifelong learners.
Mission: The mission of our schools is to provide all students with a world-class education that enables them to
be contributing members of a diverse society. We endeavor to create equity for all students and ensure that each
learner is successful, respected, and allowed to fully develop their potential.
The staff and community of the Parnassus School District value quality education and myriad factors associated
with high expectations. All staff are expected to adopt an improvement mindset that focuses on student success.
To this end, the Parnassus School District has a thorough professional development program to support teachers
and staff in providing the highest quality of instruction possible. Additionally, the district has placed a high priority
on the concepts of equity, fairness, and lifelong learning. Current initiatives supporting those ideas include the
advisory programs, the full integration of special needs students into the classrooms, and a proactive discipline
program that includes restorative justice and elements of the Jones Discipline Program.
The mission and vision statements are evaluated every year by the district advisory council, who recommend
adjustments based on survey data, student performance data, and stakeholder input.
Philosophy of Education
While the district does not focus exclusively on any particular educational philosophy, much of the professional
development and classroom instructional model utilized in the schools of the Parnassus School District are based
on essentialist and progressive theories. District students are expected to engage thoughtfully in classroom
activities, and teachers are expected to deliver engaging and interactive instruction that incorporates individual
learner interests and skills. Emphasis is placed on developing critical thinking skills and mastery of the state core
curriculum. Additionally, the district offers a wide range of elective courses to engage student interests, including
co-curricular classes, STEM education, Career and Technical Education programs, character development
courses, and the integration of essential lifelong skills into all curricular materials.
Curriculum
The school uses the Georgia Standards of Excellence, as adopted by the Georgia Board of Education. The core
curriculum has been adopted by the Parnassus School Board and includes the implementation of the standards
for all curricular areas.
Course maps for all classes are developed collaboratively through the professional development program, which
includes weekly scheduled times for professional learning communities to meet, discuss student data, and
develop resources. Materials for all classes are proposed by the PLC groups on a rotating basis through a five-
year cycle. The five-year cycle is designed so that a major curricular area is addressed every year along with the
associated departments and classes. For example, last year, the World Languages department reviewed their
learning materials and textbooks along with the English classes. In the current school year, the Social Studies,
Physical Education, and Science departments reviewed their course maps and materials. The next school year
will focus on Arts and CTE curriculums.
As part of the course maps and materials review, each department also works collaboratively to develop
districtwide common assessments for pretesting and end of course testing. Based on the GSE and aligned to the
Georgia State Assessments, each course and grade level has a common pretest and end-of-course assessment
(EOCA). For example, all the 10th grade ELA pretests and EOCA are the same. This facilitates pretest and EOCA
analysis to gauge whether students are mastering content and where potential changes in the course maps may

need to be made. Data from the assessments are used to drive instruction, measure student growth, and predict
performance levels on state-mandated assessments. Additionally, many of the courses utilize common formative
assessments; however, those materials are still being updated and developed.
Many of the professional development sessions during the school year are focused on the unpacking and
development of the GSE and discussion on how to best develop interactive lesson plans to support learners.
Additionally, considerable time is allowed for PLC groups to meet, discuss student data, and formulate plans to
improve overall learner outcomes.
Classroom Instruction
Most classes in the Parnassus School District are site-based; however, there were several months where
instruction was delivered remotely during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Elementary classes are homeroom based with students traveling to specialized classes such as art, music, and
physical education. All elementary classes are structured around core content areas of math, language arts,
science, and social studies. Every subject matter includes the integration of technology-based instruction and
practice depending on the grade level. Learners are encouraged to not only utilize technology as a resource, but
also leverage technology to complete project-based learning activities and inquiry-based assignments. Core
curriculum classes are 50 minutes long with a short transition between subject matter. All elementary level
learners have a recess period midday that connects to the lunch period. Additionally, all elementary students are
provided the opportunity for electives such as world languages (Spanish, Mandarin, or French), coding courses, or
arts-related courses such as theatre and dance.
Elementary classes are structured around a workshop model where content is reviewed, learning objectives
are established for the day, direct instruction and modeling is given, and then learners are provided time to work
both collaboratively and individually to practice learned skills. Classes conclude with reflections and checks for
understanding.
Secondary classes are structured around 50-minute periods three times a week, with two days a week for longer
periods to accommodate labs and extended learning opportunities. While many of the classes utilize a traditional
Hunter model with anticipatory sets, direct instruction, guided practice, and independent engagement, the
longer instructional periods allow for flexibility to conduct labs and engage in hands-on learning. Additionally, the
extended class periods allow for higher levels of technology integration, a requirement for all classes.
All formal assessment is conducted electronically as much as possible to reinforce and augment student use
of technology. Assessment through technology also facilitates efficient feedback, accurate data, and a secure
testing environment. Finally, every class is surveyed at the end of the course regarding classroom instruction,
teacher feedback, and student satisfaction.
Personnel Management
All staff members are evaluated using a Danielson-based model that has been approved by the board and the
respective staff associations. District-level administrative evaluations are conducted by the executive director
for each department. Executive directors and principals are evaluated by the superintendent. Site-based
administrative evaluations are conducted by the principal. The teacher evaluation process is goal-based and
includes two formal classroom observations, two informal classroom observations, and an analysis of student
growth based on the common EOCA. Over 96% of the teachers received a Meets or Exceeds rating on their
summative evaluation form. Teachers who do not meet expectations are assigned a formal improvement plan and
are met with monthly by their assigned administrative evaluator. Teachers or staff who do not meet expectations
on the formal improvement plan after a year are not renewed.
While diversity is a goal with Parnassus, much more work needs to be done to reach out to under-represented
professionals and bring them in to the Parnassus District family. While serving a moderately diverse student
population, over 80% of the teaching staff is Caucasian and 70% female. The district is working cooperatively

with local agencies such as the NABSE and AHSA to recruit and hire professionals of color. These efforts have
been formalized through the advisory council and the adoption of goals in district’s continuous improvement plan.
Learner Performance
Students are required to participate in the ACCESS, GAA 2.0, and Georgia Milestones assessment programs
based on their eligibility. Additionally, learners in grades 4, 8, and 12 participate in the National Assessment of
Education Progress (NAEP). Results from these assessments over the past three years has been varied, as there
are gaps in assessment data from the Covid-19 pandemic. However, trends from the last three assessments
indicate that while substantial growth has been achieved in mathematics, growth from the ELA assessments has
plateaued or dipped slightly. Improvements in mathematics, especially in Algebra 1 and Algebra 2, are attributed
to increased alignment of course maps, increased intervention programs, and professional development around
active engagement in math classes. Over 59% of the students in PSU are achieving Proficient or Distinguished
ratings in mathematics, which is considerably higher than the state average of 30%.
English Language scores peaked in 2019 at 71% achieving Proficient or Distinguished ratings and have dropped
to 68% in 2021. Science results are on par with state averages at 55%, and U.S. History scores exceed the state
average at 48%.
One of the primary indicators of student success on the statewide assessments is the performance on the
common EOCAs that every student takes at the end of each course. The assessments are closely aligned to the
state assessments and modified each year during PLC sessions by the teachers based on disaggregated results
published by the Georgia Department of Education.
Parnassus School District Strategic Plan
Based on student performance data, analyzed survey results from all stakeholders, analyzed classroom
observation data, and analyzed attendance and discipline records, the Parnassus School District has developed
an ongoing five-year continuous improvement plan that includes initiatives for the following areas:
1. Increase student performance on ELA, Math, and Science state assessments by 2% in the Proficient
or Distinguished categories and reduce the percentage of students performing at the lowest level by
5% every year. Initiatives to support this ambitious goal include increasing interventions for struggling
students, incentivizing participation in tutoring programs through free admission to sporting and arts
activities, and providing extra time for teachers to analyze student formative assessment data to identify
and target specific standards and learning goals.
2. Increase student engagement in classrooms through professional development in effective classroom
instruction modules during professional develop time. Activities and engagement strategies will be
reviewed using the Effective Classroom Instruction resources by Marzano, and classroom observation
data will be used to gauge implementation and success. Engagement levels are measured through
informal classroom observations using the Effective Learning Environment Observation Tool™ (eleot).
3. Increase attendance of staff and learners by 10% over three years. Recent absenteeism has been a
major challenge because of the Covid-19 pandemic and the transition from remote learning to on-
site learning. Additionally, the results from the culture surveys indicated that students and teachers
were feeling displaced and unsure of the learning environment. Teachers will be incentivized through
additional performance pay funds for those who have high attendance levels (set by the local site
council), and students will be recognized through additional incentives for high attendance with
admission to sporting events and arts events, and given certificates recognizing their commitment.
Additionally, the district advisory council has partnered with local businesses to offer coupons and gift
cards to students and teachers who have high attendance levels.

4. Align all site-based continuous improvement plans with the district strategic plan so that site-based
goals are consistent with the district-based goals. Each site develops their continuous improvement
plans by using data from assessments and learning goals and feedback from stakeholders. These
continuous improvement plans are monitored monthly by site-based leadership teams and monitored by
system-level leaders.
The comprehensive strategic plan, which includes timelines, metrics, and other critical information can be found
on the district’s website and is also available at the central office. The Parnassus School District reviews progress
on the plan monthly during their meetings.
All the Parnassus School District’s stakeholders are looking forward to the Accreditation Engagement Review and
utilizing the findings to improve the overall learning experience for the students.

Key Characteristics Narratives
Poor Examples
Culture of Learning
Cooper High School has a process for review, revision, and communication of its purpose. The process includes
participation by representatives for stakeholder groups, which include board members, community, corporations,
individual, organizations, and students. The stakeholders are committed to regularly reflected communication
among learners and staff. Stakeholders make sure that students are provided challenging educational programs,
and equitable learning experiences are implemented so that students are achieving learning, thinking, and life
skills necessary for achieving success.
Cooper High School leadership communicates effectively with appropriate and varied representatives from
stakeholder groups, provide opportunities for stakeholders to shape decisions, solicit feedback, respond
to stakeholders, work collaboratively on school improvement efforts, and provide and support meaningful
leadership roles for stakeholders. School leaders’ efforts result in measurable, active stakeholder participation,
engagement in the school, and a sense of community and ownership.
Why is this narrative unacceptable?

• There is no reference to objective evidence or data to support these assertions.
Leadership for Learning
Leaders at Cooper High School implement a documented, systematic, continuous improvement process for
improving student learning and conditions that support learning. All stakeholder groups are engaged in the
process. School personnel maintain a profile with current and comprehensive data on student and school
performance. The profile contains analyses of data used to identify goals for the improvement of achievement
and instruction aligned with the school’s purpose. Improvement goals have measurable performance targets.
The process includes action planning that identifies measurable objectives, strategies, activities, resources,
and timelines for achieving improvement goals. School leaders hold all school personnel accountable for and
evaluate the overall quality of the implementation of all interventions and strategies. The process is reviewed and
evaluated. Documentation that the process yields improved student achievement and instruction is available and
communicated to stakeholders.

• While there are references to evidence and data, specific pieces of evidence are not named, and no data
points are presented to support these assertions.
• There is no reference to leaders engaging in their own learning.
• There is no statement or evidence to reflect that continuous improvement expectations are embedded.
Engagement of Learning
Learners have equitable opportunities to develop skills and achieve the content and learning priorities
established by the institution.

• There is no evidence of learner engagement. If learners have equitable opportunities, there should be some
evidence to demonstrate this.
• There is no evidence of students taking risks.
• There is no mention of policies or practices to support equitable learning opportunities.

Growth in Learning
A process exists for analyzing data that determines improvement in student learning, including readiness for and
success at the next level. Results indicate mixed levels of improvement, and school personnel sometimes use the
results to design, implement, and evaluate the results of continuous improvement action plans related to student
learning, including readiness for and success at the next level.

• There is no explanation of or evidence to demonstrate what the process is to analyze data.
• There is no explanation of who is involved in the analysis, when the analysis is being conducted, or what data
points are being analyzed.
• There is no data presented to support that the process is working and the school is seeing growth. There
are no examples of improvements that have been made in student learning and no results shared for
interventions used.
• There is no evidence of action plans for targeted improvement areas in student performance.
• There are no data on types of assessments being used to establish readiness and to measure growth.
Narrative Exemplars
Schools
Culture of Learning
Evidence:
• Vision/Mission statements
• Master schedule
• Analyzed Perception Survey results
• Analyzed Culture Survey results
• Analyzed enrollment data
• Analyzed attendance results
• Site council records
• Professional development schedule
• Discipline record
• Analyzed eleot observation data
• Analyzed AP test scores from 2018 to 2021
Cooper High School has made great strides in the creation, development, and support for a healthy and impactful
culture amongst the stakeholders that make up our learning community. On August 3, 2019, the leadership
team organized a thorough review of the vision and mission of the school that included parents, teacher leaders,
students, staff, and community partners. Utilizing time during the embedded professional development schedule,
the team analyzed the mission and vision statements and modified them to reflect the ongoing emphasis of
lifelong learning, career-focused coursework, and the importance of individualized learning. After the completion
of the team’s work, the principal utilized the Cognia eProve survey platform to design stakeholder surveys to
garner feedback for the project. An analysis of the survey results reflected that most stakeholders agreed with
the changes and thought they were aligned with the operations of the school. The highest approval ratings were
from the parents, who emphasized the career-oriented programs and classes available to students. The lowest
approval ratings were from the students, whose feedback included a recommendation to include arts and

athletics somewhere in the mission—a recommendation that is being considered for the next review cycle in the
spring of 2021.
With the revision of the curriculum for the advisory program, which is scheduled for two periods per week,
teachers have reported that students are responding positively in the sessions and are participating in the
scheduled activities with considerably more enthusiasm than the previous year. Some of the sessions include
clear messaging about expected behaviors in the school, including a clear set of infractions and consequences,
but also more trust-building activities that are designed to bring students together in cooperative projects. On
occasion, the advisories are set up for friendly competitions that involve community service, fundraising, and food
drives. Attendance in these programs has increased by 17%, and there have been fewer discipline issues resulting
in office referrals during the advisory period. The leadership team for the advisory program will meet in the spring
to formally review the program using surveys, attendance data, and reflections to continue to move this program
forward.
Both teachers and administrative staff continue to emphasize the available honors courses and AP classes that
are offered. The messaging to students through our website, classes, and quarterly assemblies have emphasized
the availability and importance of taking at least one AP or honors class during their enrollment at Cooper High
School. The past academic year’s enrollment data showed a decrease in enrollment in these courses, so the
leadership developed several ways to communicate the importance of participating in the rigorous content,
but also made sure the professional development program included training on assisting learners of varying
academic strengths so students could feel both supported and successful in the classes. Data from the past
three years indicates that while 27% of students who take the AP tests associated with their class earn a score of
3 or higher, over half are scoring a 1. The leadership team is planning on supporting a tutoring program to support
the AP test takers, with an emphasis on time management and test-taking strategies.
The professional development program at Cooper High School continues to be adjusted and modified based
on the recent state assessment data and the classroom observation analysis from the past year. Teachers were
very successful in engaging the students in the classroom; however, the level of rigor in the classes was often not
what was necessary to develop higher level thinking or accommodate struggling learners. To promote higher level
thinking, teachers are being trained on the Depth of Knowledge techniques and design and are required to engage
learners with a level 3 or higher task each week. Additionally, teachers are being trained on how to address the
learners that are struggling with the material or the writing skills required on state tests and assignments. The
leadership team continues to use eleot observations to guide professional development topics and have trained
teachers on how to conduct the observations through a peer-observation initiative. The goals of the program are
primarily to engage teachers in planning for student success in higher level thinking through specifically designed
learning activities. The leadership continues to track the observation data and celebrate success whenever
possible.
Perceptions of equity among the students and teachers has varied, and the leadership team is in the process of
developing a plan to address those concerns. According to the recent climate and culture survey, many students
believe that favorable opportunities and programs are being offered to student athletes and high-performing
students, while many of the students who do not participate in athletics or excel at coursework are ignored or not
given opportunities to feel connected to the school. It is true that student athletes and high-performing students
have assemblies exclusively dedicated to them and their programs, and that incentives for high academic
performance are common. The leadership team is developing a task force to explore ways of celebrating and
supporting students who have interests outside of the traditional activities and sports so that all students can
shine and be recognized for their individual talents and interests. Teachers who responded to the surveys
indicated that some of the staff members are frequently asked to participate in leadership roles while others
are rarely given the opportunity to develop leadership skills. The administrative team believes that they can do
a better job at offering leadership opportunities to all teachers, and will keep track of the participants in the site
council and other school committees so that teachers can feel more connected to the direction of the school.
Based on the findings of the self-analysis, the leadership team at Cooper High School has collaborated with the
school stakeholders to develop the following theories of action.

1. If the stakeholders increase the effectiveness of their communication regarding the AP and honors level
courses and also increase the tutoring opportunities, then learners will enroll in the courses at higher
rates and score higher on the AP exams.
2. If the school effectively trains instructional staff on higher order thinking skills, then the rigor of the
courses will increase and facilitate deeper levels of learning and higher learner performance.
3. If the school creates opportunities for all learners to equitably showcase their skills and success, then the
positive culture of the school will increase and create a more equitable environment.
Overall, Cooper High School has a healthy culture that continues to develop and grow. The leadership team
employs many tools such as surveys and observational data to monitor the pulse of the school and make
improvements when warranted. It is the leadership’s goal to continue to improve the healthy culture of the school
by continuing to work proactively for impactful positive results.
Evidence:
• Continuous improvement plan
• Analyzed classroom observation data
• Engagement Review report (2017)
• Student performance analysis (state and summative)
• Site council documentation
• Staff demographics/roster
• Analyzed longitudinal evaluation (3 years)
• Analyzed survey results
• SOP documents
Cooper High School (CHS) has developed leadership at our school to be collaborative, transparent, and inclusive
of our many committed stakeholders. Much of the leadership culture is based on our dedication to the continuous
improvement concept. The school improvement plan was collaboratively designed by the leadership team,
teachers, parents, and the governing board. To design the plan, we utilized several resources, including the
previous Cognia Engagement Review Report, classroom observation data, teacher evaluation data, stakeholder
surveys, and student performance data on the state assessments. The plan was mapped out for a three-
year period and assignments were made for persons responsible and metrics to be achieved. The school site
council meets monthly and receives a progress report on the current state of the plan. The school improvement
plan embeds our expectations for learning as well as metrics to help us monitor progress in meeting those
expectations.
The governing board meets twice monthly and the principal of CHS is always present to report on progress,
school issues, and celebrations. The board is working collaboratively with all the schools in the district to uphold
the academic standards and learning goals despite the recent pandemic and the need to vacillate between
on-site learning and remote learning. Because of the earnest support from the district leadership and the board,
every student in the district was given access to a laptop to accommodate remote learning. Survey results from
students and teachers indicate that the process has been challenging but also rewarding. Moving forward, our
school leadership is identifying which families need additional support for internet access and laptop training.
To build leadership capacity among the teachers, the leadership team involves teacher leaders through attending
the site council and administrative team meetings on a rotating basis. Every teacher who wants a leadership
opportunity is given a chance to participate on school committees and other task-oriented groups. Currently,
87% of the teaching staff has volunteered to serve on a school committee in a leadership role (up from 53% three
years ago). While there are teachers for whom a leadership role is challenging because of family commitments
and other obligations, we are confident that teachers feel included and valued by having an opportunity to affect

the overall school improvement plan and the outcomes. Teacher surveys support that most teachers (84%)
strongly agree or agree that they feel included and that their voice is heard in decision making. The engagement
of all teachers in the leadership of the school has positively impacted our culture as we truly have a collaborative,
transparent, and shared leadership approach.
Recruitment, especially in terms of diversity, continues to be a challenge for Cooper High School. Located in a
suburban area outside of a major U.S. city, the school should have access to diverse candidates; however, 94% of
the applicants are female and Caucasian, many of whom are recent graduates of the local university. To increase
the pool of applicants, our leadership team has worked cooperatively with the governing board to offer incentives
for outside candidates to apply for positions. This will hopefully increase the number of applicants available to
choose from, especially male candidates and candidates of color. We will continue to analyze this data over the
coming year to see if any changes have resulted from the implementation of incentives.
The evaluation system for teachers based on the Danielson model was recently updated and approved by the
governing board and includes the elements of goal setting, progress, and classroom observation feedback. Data
from the new evaluation system will be used, in conjunction with Cognia eleot observations and Cognia Teacher
Observation Tool observations to inform future professional development efforts. We have recently focused
professional development on improving teacher skills in distance learning and making sure students are engaged
in the online classes. The online learning process has been a major hurdle; however, teachers have established
PLC groups to support each other with technical assistance, engagement activities, and online assessment. As
classes transition back to on-site learning, we will provide additional opportunities for teachers to continue the
PLC process through dedicated time built into the master schedule.
Our leadership team has relied on Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) for teachers to request materials and
resources for their classrooms. While much of the budget has been dedicated to the online learning program over
the past two years, there are still available resources, albeit scarce, for teachers to personalize instruction through
additional supplementary materials. Requests are made electronically, and every attempt is made to make timely
and objective decisions. To encourage increased leveraging of the available budget, our leadership team has
asked that requests for materials be made as a collaborative decision from teachers in the PLC groups.
Overall, the leadership culture at Cooper High School is healthy and conducive to growth and collaboration. While
improvements are certainly possible, stakeholders have indicated that the leadership environment is welcoming,
positive, and focused on student achievement. We have seen an increase in teacher participation in leadership
roles within the school, and the curriculum review and resource allocation processes are working well to support
teaching and learning. As noted above, we are continuing to improve the diversity of our candidate pool for
teaching and leadership positions. We also look forward to shifting financial resources back to more typical
resource needs once the pandemic ends and the heavy investment in online learning moves to a supplemental
approach to instruction. Our leadership team has identified the diversification of candidates as a top priority for
Leadership for Learning. Our theory of action for this finding indicates that if our candidate pool is diversified,
then we can hire qualified staff who better reflect the diversity of our student population so that students see
themselves represented and have role models and leaders who reflect the diversity of our community.
Evidence:
• Prior AER report
• Professional development plan
• Classroom eleot observation data
• Classroom observation schedule
• Classroom observation feedback/follow-up
• Curriculum documents
• Student perception survey data

• Student attendance data
• Student disciplinary referral data
Cooper High School is pleased with the progress that has been made in Engagement of Learning. This has been
an ongoing focus area in our school improvement plan.
In reviewing our Accreditation Engagement Review Report from the 2016–2017 school year, we focused heavily
on the review team’s eleot scores and corresponding narrative report regarding the classroom observations that
were conducted. The report indicated that instruction was largely teacher-led, with few opportunities for students
to engage in collaborative discussions with one another or with the teacher. The report also noted that there were
no observations of students participating in active learning opportunities, such as projects, collaborative tasks,
or activities. The findings also indicated the instruction was “one-size-fits all” and there was no individualization.
These findings were consistent with what the Cooper High School Leadership team observed during informal
classroom walk-throughs and formal observations of classroom instruction. As you will see below, except for
Supportive Learning Environments and Well-Managed Learning Environments, all eleot observation ratings were
below 3.0.
The lack of engagement of learning was reflected in other areas as well, to include: a high number of disciplinary
referrals, inconsistent student attendance, high rates of grade-level retention, and student reports of being
“bored” or “disliking school.”
We believe that the lack of engaging instruction was not due to a lack of willingness on the part of our faculty/
staff. Faculty and staff regularly sought out professional learning opportunities, but they largely focused on their
content area or on how to incorporate technology into their instruction. Therefore, we believe the lack of engaging
instruction was due to a lack of awareness. Over the last five years, the school has been deliberate in building
teacher capacity for instruction, with a focus on creating engaging learning environments. During the 2017–2018
school year, our quarterly professional development sessions focused on strategies for creating engaging
learning environments. Some examples of the sessions include:
• Differentiated Instruction
• Using Project-Based Learning to Support Student Engagement
• Flipping the Classroom: Approaches to Student-Centered Learning
All core and elective faculty participated in these training sessions. Following each training session, the
instructional coach and other members of the leadership team conducted informal classroom observations to
determine whether the strategies from the training session were being implemented. In cases where strategies
were not being implemented or teachers indicated that they were struggling with implementing strategies, the
instructional coach and leadership team members worked to support faculty by modeling how to implement

the selected strategy/strategies. We also closely monitored data related to engagement to determine in and to
what degree the implementation of these instructional strategies impacted student engagement of learning.
Specifically, we conducted a quarterly review of disciplinary referrals and student attendance, as well as
administered Cognia’s Surveys to gain student’s perception of the school. In addition, the instructional coaches
and leadership team members conducted eleot observations of all core and elective classrooms at the end of
each quarter.
The data yielded from these observations show that faculty and staff members’ implementation of strategies
from the training sessions have had a positive impact. The quarterly data from eleot observations demonstrate
significant increases in all learning environments, but particularly in the areas of Equitable Learning (average
score increased from 2.5 to 3.6), High Expectations (average score increased from 2.3 to 3.5), and Active Learning
(average score increased from 2.4 to 3.8). In a review and discussion of the eleot observation data, faculty
members report that students who were previously disengaged have now been participating with confidence
since the implementation of the new strategies. Faculty members further reported that while they were initially
hesitant to engage in the professional development sessions and did not like having such a high leadership
presence in their classrooms, they now appreciate having the opportunity to build their capacity because of the
results they are seeing in their classrooms.
The curriculum for Mathematics is scheduled for review this academic year. We follow a similar approach to
review and update curriculum across all content areas on a cyclical basis. English Language Arts and Social
Studies course reviews were completed last year, and elective courses are scheduled to be reviewed next
academic year.
We have also seen improvements in the areas of student attendance and student disciplinary referrals. We
attribute this to students being more active and engaged in their learning. Prior to implementing these new
strategies, our daily attendance rate was well below the target of 80%. To date, our daily attendance rate
averages over 95%. Disciplinary referrals which averaged approximately 100 per week are now down to 25 per
week. As we analyze the student perception survey data, we surmise that the positive shift in attitude is due to the
implementation of classroom practices focused on engaging the learner. Students now report being challenged
in their classroom, doing work that is interesting to them, and having the opportunity to collaborate with their
teachers and their peers.
Based on the above findings, the leadership team has collaboratively developed the following theories of action:
1. If the professional learning program can successfully integrate engagement techniques for instructional
staff, then learner engagement will increase and learner performance on assessments will reflect this
change.
2. If the leadership team can successfully implement impactful recognition programs and incentives for
increased attendance and positive learner behaviors, then learner performance will increase and the
culture of the school will be positively impacted.
As a result of the success we have seen, we plan to continue making engaging instructional practices a core
component of our professional development programs, as well as expectations for faculty in the future.
Growth in Learning
Evidence:
• Cognia Interim Assessment data
• 9-week data analysis protocol
• Growth charts indicating movement in instructional level
• Differentiated lesson plans for small group learning sessions
• Cohort data analysis documentation
• Grade level data analysis documentation

• MS-HS Collaboration Agenda and Meeting Minutes
– ninth grade assessment data
– Enrollment data (Advanced/Honors courses)
• Analysis of SAT and ACT results
• Analysis of AP results
Cooper High School believes in using the value-add approach as we analyze the impact of teaching and learning
on student achievement and academic outcomes. We serve an academically diverse student population and
believe that every student should only be competing against themselves. All grade levels will use performance
data from the state assessments and the summative grade assessments to gauge whether the curriculum
warrants modifications or changes. Currently, 76% of students are scoring at or above grade level in all required
math assessments, which is an increase from 54% just three years ago when the math curriculum was adopted.
This increase in growth is encouraging; however, more information and data analysis is needed to make sure the
students continue to be successful and meet expectations for learning.
We begin each school year by administering the Cognia Interim Assessments to all students in grades 9–11 in the
areas of Reading and Math. Data from this initial assessment is used to determine each student’s instructional level for
targeted small group instruction. All students participate in the whole group component of classroom instruction, as
we know it is important for all students to have access and exposure to grade- and course-level content. During small
group instruction time, our teachers utilize learning centers to provide targeted instruction, based on the student’s
need for remediation, reinforcement, or enrichment as evidenced by the assessment data. We also use the data from
this assessment to establish individual growth goals for students. Every nine weeks, students are re-assessed using
this same tool. Data is analyzed to determine whether changes need to be made to our instructional groupings, as well
as to measure whether students are making the expected level of growth. In cases where students are not, our faculty,
the instructional coach, and members of the leadership team discuss possible supports such as What-I-Need (WIN)
sessions for small group support, free before and after school programming, and individual learner conferences, to
enable to students to catch up. We also examined those cases where students exceed the expected level of growth, so
we can identify strategies that worked well and these efforts might be duplicated to best serve the needs of others. We
have attached our data protocols, allowing you to see the template used and questions for discussion for each of our
nine-week data meetings.
Outside of examining growth data for the current school year, we analyze year over year data. As you will see in
the evidence provided, we analyze growth data in two ways: grade-level comparison and cohort comparison.
For grade-level comparison, we examine students’ performance in a content area from one year to the next. For
example, how did ninth grade students perform on the mathematics assessment during the 2020–2021 school
year, as compared to the ninth grade students who took the same assessment during the 2019–2020 school
year? This allows us to identify trends, which inform decisions related to staffing, resource allocation, curriculum
acquisition, and professional development needs. For example, the team noted that students consistently failed
to make expected growth in mathematics year over year in all grade levels. This prompted us to conduct a
curriculum review to determine if the materials were covering the necessary standards and the depth in which
those standards were being covered. We also explored the purchase of supplemental materials and programs
such as iXL, Discovery Learning and Study Island, to provide our teachers and students with additional tools for
remediation. Finally, we examined teacher performance by conducting classroom observations and an analysis
of student performance by teacher to inform our professional development and support needs for faculty. Our
cohort comparisons allowed us to examine and analyze the performance of the same group of students from a
longitudinal perspective. For example: How did ninth grade students perform on the mathematics assessment
during the 2020–2021 school year, as compared to their performance using this same tool as eighth grade
students during the 2019–2020 school year? This allowed us to examine and analyze overall strengths and areas
of development for a particular group of students.
We have attached our data protocols for both types of analysis over the last three years. This cohort review
allowed us to determine that we had some weaknesses in 10th grade math instruction, as students were not
making the same amount of growth that we observed in this same group of students as ninth graders. This led

to discussions regarding not only teacher professional development, but teacher placement as well. In addition
to the grade-level and cohort comparisons, the team was able to examine NWEA reports from the previous two
years and Cognia Interim Assessment data from this year, which allowed us to examine the achievement and
growth of sub-groups including Special Education (SPED) students, English Language Learners (ELL) and student
identified as Gifted and Talented. While we were pleased to find that our SPED and ELL students on average
exceeded their expected level of growth on their assessments, we were surprised to find that our Gifted and
Talented students on average were not meeting their growth targets. This has led to conversations regarding the
level of rigor being provided in the Gifted and Talented classrooms, as well as an examination into how we are
identifying students for this program.
The district has made ACT testing a priority and has funded a program where every junior is provided an
opportunity to take the test in one of the three opportunities offered at the school. An analysis of scores from
the past three years shows that students are making gains in math and science; however, scores for English have
plateaued. The Comprehensive Score has increased from 24 to 26, which is a positive development given that
over 94% of the eligible juniors are participating in the testing opportunities.
Finally, the Cooper High School leadership team and instructional coach partner with the Smith High School
leadership and instructional coach to examine how successfully our former eighth grade students transition into
ninth grade, looking at their Fall interim assessment scores and first semester pass rates. We found that 84% of
our former eighth grade students tested at or above the norm for Fall scores for ninth grade students in Reading
and Math. This means they are performing at or above the level of their peers throughout the country. Further
examination is ongoing about the performance of those in the remaining 16%. This information not only informs
our instructional practices but also allows us the opportunity to analyze the effectiveness of the academic
programs and supports provided to students throughout their time at Cooper High School. These programs and
supports include those such as the AVID program, the resource program, the peer tutoring program, and others,
to determine whether we are preparing students for the next level. In addition to reviewing interim assessment
data for these students, our team examined how many of our AVID students were selected for and enrolled in
advanced courses in ninth grade. We were pleased that 100% of these students were in at least one advanced
level course, while 81% were enrolled in more than one. We concluded that this data confirms that we have been
successful in our efforts to prepare students for the next level.
Based on the analysis of the Growth in Learning Performance Standards, the leadership team collaboratively
designed the following theories of action:
1. If all course curriculum is aligned to formative and summative assessments, then learners will have a
significantly higher opportunity to increase performance levels.
2. If the instructional staff can analyze learner performance data on a regular and structured basis, then
targeted instructional improvement will result in stronger learner performance and success.
Growth in learning is embedded in the culture of our institution and reflected by our policies, practices, and
processes.

Systems
Culture of Learning
Evidence:
1. District Vision/Mission statements
2. Analyzed stakeholder survey data
3. Off-site/on-site transition plan
4. Advisory curriculum
5. Advisory program feedback analysis
6. Mentor program
7. Mentor program data analysis
8. PLC structure and protocols
9. Sample PLC data analysis (EL, HS)
10. ESSA implementation plan
11. HR annual report
The Parnassus Unified School District (PSD) has adopted vision and mission statements that reflects the values
and culture of the schools and the community. The vision of the district is to graduate college- and career-ready
students who are civic-minded, critical thinkers, and lifelong learners. The mission of the PSD is to provide all
students with a world-class education that enables them to be contributing members of a diverse society. We
endeavor to create equity for all students and ensure that each learner is successful, respected, and allowed
to fully develop their potential. Both the vision and mission of the district were collaboratively developed and
approved by all stakeholders. The district annually brings representatives of all stakeholder groups together
formally to review the vision and mission to get feedback on potential revisions and additions.
The vision and mission are truly embraced at PSD. Our strategic plan and the associated goals are aligned to the
values in the vision and mission statements. Each site in the district formally engages in a survey and inventory
process twice each year (September and April) to collect stakeholder feedback on the culture and classroom
experiences. The data from those surveys are collected longitudinally so that progress and areas of concern can
be addressed by district leadership and site leadership teams. The recent data analysis from last spring’s surveys
indicates high levels of satisfaction with the culture of the schools; however, there was a slight dip in satisfaction
regarding equity in the schools. The leadership team has attributed this change to lower performance levels
on summative exams in several of the schools that serve a predominantly low socioeconomic population. The
strategic plan has been adjusted to meet the needs of the learners in these schools and appropriate funding has
been allocated to bolster the learning opportunities for these learners.
With the recent return to on-site learning from remote learning, the entire district has been focused on making
sure learners are transitioning successfully. The district has implemented a systemwide advisory program that
meets twice weekly and is supported by a curriculum that includes life skills, peer mentoring, adult mentoring,
and additional flexibility for site-specific needs. Each learner is paired with a caring adult who is responsible for
not only monitoring academic progress but also for making sure non-academic needs are met. The advisory
curriculum includes specific feedback mechanisms to track learner progress and satisfaction with the program
as well as advisor feedback on the curriculum. The district analyzes this feedback monthly to evaluate the quality
of the overall program.
The district has recently implemented a systemwide PLC program so that teachers and site leaders can
communicate with each other about student performance and provide additional resources such as reteaching
and enrichment opportunities for learners. Professional staff members were provided an initial training on the
process and protocols, and the site leaders are offering mentoring and coaching for their respective PLC groups
so they can continue to develop and increase both the sophistication of their teams and the impact those teams

can have on learner performance. Formal feedback mechanisms have been implemented and those are analyzed
quarterly by the district leadership so they can make recommendations for continued improvement.
Aligned with the PLC program is the mentoring program for new teachers and staff members. This includes
new staff members who are not new to the profession but new to the Parnassus district. Experienced staff
members are in the program for one year, while those new to the profession have a three-year commitment. The
mentoring program has been in place for several years and has been effective at retaining new staff members.
Turnover of new staff members has decreased 24% since the beginning of the program, and as the district makes
improvements, we hope to increase that number further.
Overall, the culture for learning in PSD is very strong and geared toward learner success; however, we are always
planning for implement improvements as the data and surveys indicate.
Evidence:
1. District strategic plan
2. Analyzed stakeholder survey data
3. Student performance analysis
4. Off-site/on-site transition plan
5. Governing board online records
6. Alignment crosswalk—state standards and curriculum
7. Curriculum review plan
8. Demographic analysis
9. ESSA implementation plan
10. Curriculum (online)
11. Analyzed staff evaluation data
The Parnassus School District (PSD) has engaged in the continuous improvement process for three accreditation
cycles and has endeavored to improve the collaborative improvement process each time. The current iteration
of the PSD Strategic Plan began in the summer of this year with an evaluation of the effectiveness of the previous
strategic plan. This process included representation from leaders, teachers, learners, parents, community
members, and professional staff. After a full analysis of the data, the collective team made recommendations for
the new strategic plan, specific initiatives for district focus, and timelines to complete each item. The proposed
new plan went before the school board and was approved in August of this year. The governing board also
approved multiple budget items to support the plan and noted their appreciation for aligning the strategic plan
with the PSD’s vision and mission statements.
To support the strategic plan, each site was tasked to create their own school improvement plan that is directly
aligned with the district strategic plan. These plans will be collaboratively developed through site-based
stakeholder leadership teams that include parents, administrators, teachers, staff, and learners. The governing
board has allocated funding to support each of these plans and will examine and approve them in September of
this year.
As part of an ongoing effort to improve leadership effectiveness at the district level, each department has
designed evaluative criteria and success metrics that are aligned with national leadership standards in education.
Each administrator will provide an individualized action plan that sets performance goals, improvement goals,
and action plans to work collaboratively with other departments in the pursuit of the vision and mission of the
district. During the recent pandemic, many of our departments were working remotely, which created silos in our
operations. As the district transitions back to on-site work, the district leadership hopes to increase collaboration
and stability in case the need for remote work is again necessary.

Every district employee must be appropriately qualified for their roles, including leaders, teachers, and
professional staff members. The district personnel office maintains extensive records and documentation to
support this priority, including educational transcripts, certifications, fingerprint clearance records, and employee
evaluations. A formal process of review and analysis has been implemented to make sure that all employee
records are current and aligned with their duties. The district has also implemented a data analysis protocol
to annually review records so that employees are informed of when additional renewals and certifications are
pending expiration. Feedback from staff members has been very positive about the notifications and support
from the district.
The district has adopted several nationally recognized curriculums that align to the state standards for both
elementary and secondary classes. These curricula are reviewed cyclically on a rotating basis every year. The
process is formalized and includes participation of administrators, teachers, and support staff, with additional
survey input from parents and learners. Each year, three curricular areas are reviewed, and recommendations
are submitted to the executive director of Curriculum and Instruction for approval. Upon approval, the executive
director reports to the superintendent for the recommendations to be taken to the governing board for approval.
The current cycle for this year includes science, physical education, and social studies. The process involves data
regarding learner performance on benchmark and summative assessments, classroom observation data, and
survey information from teachers and learners. The governing board allocates appropriate funding every fiscal
year to support the process and the acquisition of materials if indicated.
Because of the high level of diversity in the district, including racial, student performance, and socioeconomic
factors, the district leadership has been keenly focused on improving equity for learners and sites. Utilizing
performance data analyses, the district has allocated additional funds (approved by the governing board) to
support additional tutoring, reteaching, and enrichment activities to close performance gaps, mainly between
learners who qualify for Title I services and those who do not. The district has identified two high schools and
eight elementary schools to receive additional funding based on these learner needs.
Based on the analysis of Leadership for Learning Standards, the system has collaboratively devised several
theories of action to support the continuous improvement journey. To support more collaboration, system
leaders will add a collaborative element to the overall leadership development plans, and by doing so the district
leadership is hoping to reduce the isolation of our work and integrate our district functions more effectively. To
support the struggling learners, particularly at the Title I schools, additional funding will be allocated through
site-based leadership teams and initiatives tailored to each school. Formalized data analysis and evaluation of
the initiatives will be conducted quarterly to measure the effectiveness of the interventions. These actions will
intentionally support struggling learners and improve learner performance.
Overall, the Leadership for Learning environment at PSD is focused on building capacity, leveraging data to
improve district performance, and developing all stakeholders to be active participants in the educational
environment. The district is proud to engage in the continuous improvement cycle and looks forward to feedback
from the Regional Accreditation Evaluators.
Evidence:
1. Continuous improvement plan (system)
2. Continuous improvement plan (sites)
3. District curriculum
4. Action team operations guide (minutes, recommendations)
5. Analyzed stakeholder surveys
6. Professional development plan
7. Analyzed learner performance
8. Curriculum review cycle plan

9. RTI program guide
10. Digital learning initiative plan
The Parnassus Unified School District believes that all learners can be successful, and that diversity, equity, and
learner agency are keystones to success. As part of the system’s continuous improvement plan, a team of site-
based and district leaders formed an action group two years ago to address diversity and equity issues in the
schools and make recommendations on programming, curriculum, and other aspects of the district operations.
This group includes stakeholders from all categories and meets semi-monthly to discuss their work.
Curriculum in the system is based off the state and national core standards; however, district leaders have
encouraged all sites to include additional support curriculum materials and subjects to be addressed with
frankness and objectivity through an approval process set up by the system’s action group mentioned above.
Stakeholder surveys regarding these materials indicate a wide range of agreement and support, so the action
group carefully examines any enrichment and supplemental materials and subjects offered to learners for
criteria such as age-appropriateness and validity of information. The system leadership believes that a diverse
curriculum that expands learners’ awareness of global culture and worldviews is an important element to
developing critical thinkers and well-rounded young adults.
Access to honors classes and competency-based learning programs were frequently requested items in the
recent fall stakeholder survey. Many elementary learners have shown potential to move quickly through grade-
level standards, so the system has provided enrichment and other opportunities to allow elementary learners to
move at a pace commensurate with their skills and mastery levels. Additionally, learners who are struggling with
mastery are provided interventions such as reteaching and tutoring opportunities as needed. The system has
allocated additional funding for underperforming learners to receive additional services.
Professional development for instructional staff has emphasized two key areas in the past year: learner agency
and differentiation in instruction. As part of the professional development plan, teachers have been creating
lessons that incorporate differentiation strategies based off researched methods to not only address different
learner abilities, but also learner choice, primarily in how the learner demonstrates mastery of content. While
exceptionally difficult, teachers have responded positively on recent surveys to the impact the professional
development has had on their awareness of the need for differentiation and on the impact that choice has had on
learner attitudes toward learning.
Each site has multiple teams of instructors and leaders who work collaboratively to review curriculum for
rigor and relevance on an annual basis. These teams address grade-level standards and subject matter
depending on the grade level and the curriculum that is due for that year’s cycle. For each team, assessment
and learning materials are reviewed for rigor and appropriateness. The team makes recommendations for
changes or modifications based on current assessment scores, teacher input, and student success levels. All
recommendations are reviewed by the system leadership and then brought to the board for final approval and
adoption.
Based on learner performance data and teacher input, the response to intervention (RTI) programs are
undergoing systemic review for effectiveness. Recent teacher feedback from many of the sites has indicated
that the RTI program is not meeting the needs of learners because of the complicated process involved for tier 2
and tier 3 interventions, including paperwork, identification issues, and follow-up procedures. This review will
be the focus of system leadership study groups in the upcoming school year. Leaders plan on meeting weekly
to analyze and revise the RTI program for greater efficiency and effectiveness and make recommendations to
the superintendent by the spring semester. By analyzing the problems associated with the program, the system
is engaging in an action research process with intentionality and fidelity. Results from the overall analysis will be
shared with all sites and stakeholders when the work is complete.
To emphasize skills required for modern learners, the system has recommended that digital learning opportunity
be integrated into lessons and course maps. While only 23% of courses currently have a digital learning
component, site leaders and teachers are collaborating to ensure meaningful digital learning experiences are

integrated into lessons. During a recent focus group, teachers strongly advocated to make sure the digital
integration was not contrived or tacked on as a compliance issue but only added as a meaningful part of the
lessons. Future professional development may be necessary to meet this need to ensure learners are being
taught 21st century skills.
Based on the findings of the system’s analysis of engagement of learning, the system leadership has developed
several theories of action to make improvements in equity, agency, and learner engagement. First, if the system
adopts an equitable process to add a broader spectrum of learning opportunities that embraces diversity and
respects varying worldviews, then learners will have a better opportunity to develop critical thinking skills and a
more sophisticated understanding of the world. Secondly, if the professional development program effectively
addresses the differentiated needs of learners and provides the skills to incorporate learner choice and agency,
then all learners will grow in confidence and embrace lifelong learning. Finally, if the system provides the
opportunity for all educators to integrate digital learning into their lessons in a meaningful manner, the learners
will develop important skills that will not only improve their educational experience but instill a sense of ownership
and ability to successfully pursue their interests.
Growth in Learning
Evidence:
1. Continuous improvement plan (system)
2. Continuous improvement plan (sites)
3. Learner performance analysis
5. Classroom observation analysis
6. Attendance data
7. Analyzed stakeholder feedback analysis
8. PLC plan
9. Core skills integration plan
10. Independent project portfolio collection
The Parnassus Unified School District (PSD) has been consistent in collecting, analyzing, and using multiple
sources of data to inform continuous improvement efforts across the system. The district uploaded the
comprehensive continuous improvement plan derived from input from multiple stakeholder groups and inclusive
of data from student formative and summative assessments, classroom observation data, attendance data,
and other sources of longitudinal data. Taking into account the historical context of PSD, recent challenges
resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, and future growth plans for the district resulting from demographic
changes at the school and the surrounding community, the five-year continuous improvement plan provides
documentation of analyzed data that supports the initiatives of increasing student performance on state
assessments, increasing student engagement by providing intentional professional development on engagement
strategies, increasing attendance of staff and learners, and aligning site-based continuous improvement plans
with the district continuous improvement plan. School leadership provided documentation from site-based PLCs
as well as district PLCs that supports regular and intentional data-dives from multiple stakeholder groups and
multiple sources of data including, but not limited to: student performance data from ACCESS, GAA 2.0, Georgia
Milestones, and NAEP; student formative and data from Cognia Assessments; student participation in tutoring
and extracurricular activities; classroom observation data collected using the eleot; documented attendance in
school and after school activities; and survey data.
All professional staff members are evaluated using the Danielson model. The departmental executive
directors evaluate district-level administrators, and the executive directors and principals are evaluated by the
superintendent. Site-based principals conduct administrative evaluations at the individual schools. The teacher
evaluation process is goal-based and includes two formal classroom observations, two informal classroom

observations, and an analysis of student growth based on summative student assessment data. Teachers
and staff participate in schoolwide and districtwide PLCs to analyze data and participate in action research
designed to diagnose issues and find solutions utilizing multiple sources of data aimed at improving professional
practice to increase student learning and success. Through this process of inquiry, the district developed
their current continuous improvement plan, and site-based leadership has been encouraged to align their
continuous improvement plans to the district’s plan during site council meetings. The district provided calendars
documenting plans for long-range planning of PLC meetings, governing board meetings, and site council
meetings, and district-level leadership provided action steps for interventions aimed at continuous improvement
plan initiatives. Comprehensive staff evaluation documents, PLC data analysis documents, and survey data
were used to not only inform and evaluate the continuous improvement plan, but also to evaluate instructional
programs and organizational conditions aimed at increasing learner performance and staff retention.
Because PSD believes in educating the whole learner, the district has long adopted several core skills to be
integrated into all courses and classes. Established by the leadership team during the last review cycle, the core
skills include perseverance, accountability, critical thinking, and collaboration. To gauge these skills, benchmarks
are established at all grade levels and assessed regularly through the advisory program and normal lessons. Data
regarding these skills are collected and maintained for each learner as they matriculate through the system, and
each advisory teacher assists the learners to establish several goals each year. While there are no longitudinal
results for the learners in these skills, the system is working on collecting the data and analyzing it for continued
improvement.
The professional development program has planned and implemented several learning opportunities for staff
members regarding differentiation in the classroom and facilitating student choices in projects and learning goals.
Learners are encouraged to explore the curriculum in the classes and make choices on how they demonstrate
mastery through a set of options made available to them. Additionally, learners may also opt to choose their
own projects based on teacher approval and alignment with the course goals. While most of the learners choose
from the prepared options, some learners, around 4%, work with their teachers to use their own unique projects.
Additionally, learners in the high school levels participate in the state-mandated career exploration online
surveys. Learners are required to complete the interest-based surveys every year and are provided with their
results through the advisory programs. Results include available career options, school options, and potential
career pathways. Data regarding these pathways have been collected and analyzed so the system can track
where additional supplemental courses could be offered.
Overall, the PSD believes that continued growth in learner performance and skills is an essential function of the
system. To this end, the system has designed the following theories of action based on the status of the self-
evaluation of the Cognia Performance Standards. First, the leadership team will continue to collect and analyze
formative and summative data at the system level so that learner progress across all demographic areas can be
monitored and additional resources made available for those learners who are struggling. Second, all professional
learning initiatives will be aligned directly to learner performance so that a connection can be made from what is
offered and what the results are for those skills. Finally, the system believes that if data from the core skills can be
collected and analyzed, then additional support for those areas that require improvement can be implemented
with fidelity and purposefulness.
The PSD believes that if our system engages with the theories of action with fidelity, then learner performance
and growth will continuously improve.

Analysis Exemplars
Schools
Evidence:
1. Graduation data
2. Analyzed learner performance data
3. Demographic report
4. Analyzed survey data
5. State report schools
6. Data analysis plan
7. Communication plan
8. Professional learning plan
The learner performance leadership team has disaggregated data by subgroups and have noted a steady
increase in our performance in several areas. Four-year cohort graduation data at Cooper High School (CHS) has
increased from an average of 82% in 2017 to 91% in 2021. The leadership team is working to identify additional
factors for this growth and plans to address the opportunities to increase growth immediately. Many of the
learners who are not graduating in the four-year cohort have been identified as eligible for Title I services.
Overall Language Arts performance on Cognia Summative Assessments show a generally positive trend in
grades 9 and 11. Despite occasional dips in performance, our year-to-year comparison data show increases in
performance from 64% proficiency in 2016 to 70% proficiency in 2019. However, the cohort achievement data
show some successes such as the ninth graders in 2016 achieved 56% proficiency in Language Arts but 64%
as 11th graders in 2018. Disaggregation of the data by demographics show that the achievement gap between
students of color and white students has decreased by 15%, an indication that targeted reteaching and tutoring
support has been effective.
SAT performance has remained steady over the last five years. We have moved into the top 10% of schools in our
state in SAT performance over this period. Our low SES subgroup has made gains on all summative assessments
since 2014; the discrepancy in performance between low SES students and “all” students has narrowed by 5%
over that time span. These results are consistent with some of our survey data, which have shown increased
satisfaction from stakeholders (staff, students, parents) with the quality of our system’s programs for college- and
career-readiness. Overall, our learners of color are still scoring lower compared to the white learners; however, the
school is continuing to provide targeted tutoring and study sessions to close this gap.
Our students with learning disabilities have shown persistent low performance on all assessments and in the
graduation rates over the last several years, with gaps increasing over time. Our state department of public
instruction has identified us as an “underperforming” district owing to this trend. This gap has not always been
evident to stakeholders because our overall performance has increased slightly during the same period. Another
area of concern is performance in mathematics, which has not shown growth over the last several years. While
we are in the top third of schools in our region in English Language Arts, we are in the lower half for mathematics.
We have noted considerable gaps in performance among the learners in our school. For example, the 12th graders
have performed well above the district average in mathematics. This may be attributable to the strong vertical
alignment in mathematics in that area. Teachers and administrators have a well-established professional learning
community among those departments that is not in place in the other departments. These achievement trends
may be related to the high staff turnover in ninth and 10th grade mathematics and special education; our Human
Resources Department has presented recruitment/retention data in these areas to our strategic planning team.

Review of our data has resulted in several findings. Despite some success, our school has been stagnant in
several critical areas. Our first priority is that we see a need for deeper analysis and ownership of achievement
data on the part of all stakeholders to prevent what looks like “acceptable” performance to mask achievement
gaps. If our new strategic plan (currently under development) includes systematic training on fully disaggregating
data with an eye toward identifying gaps, particularly among racial and Title I categories, we will most likely see
improvements in this area. Our second priority is that we believe our Public Information office can increase
transparency in its communication on student achievement, resulting in high stakeholder satisfaction. We will also
focus on aligning our needs in mathematics and special education with our recruitment/retention strategies and
professional development efforts, including a differentiated salary schedule and other incentives to recruit staff
to serve in areas of identified need. Additional funding for professional development in mathematics and special
education to improve performance from veteran teachers could have a positive impact on student performance.
Improving administrators’ instructional supervision skills will allow them to better observe and address
weaknesses on staff. Our overall theory of action is that if we can analyze and use data more effectively to identify
learners in need and train our instructors effectively on proven engagement strategies, then we can increase our
graduation rates, close achievement gaps, and increase overall student outcomes.
Evidence:
1. School strategic plan
2. Site council representation
3. Continuous improvement plan
4. Survey analysis report
5. Survey plan
8. Theories of action statements
Cooper High School (CHS) considers stakeholder feedback an essential element of the continuous improvement
process. To this end, CHS includes representation from all stakeholder groups in the site council. The strategic
planning committee meets twice annually to review the strategic plan and feedback data to inform their decision-
making on modifications and updates on the strategic plan. The site council meets monthly to discuss site-based
issues, track the continuous improvement plan, and analyze feedback data when it is available.
CHS utilizes the Cognia eProve Surveys platform to conduct stakeholder surveys twice annually. CHS
administers the Culture Survey (CS), the Middle/High School Student Survey (MHSS), the Family Survey
(FS), and the Educator Survey (ES) twice annually, once in September and once in April to gauge stakeholder
feedback. This survey data is collected longitudinally so that ongoing progress on community perceptions can
be analyzed and acted upon. Because the CHS uses an additional systemwide survey to gauge the perceptions
of stakeholders using the eProve platform (but not a certified content survey), we have rated our evaluative
criteria as a 3 in Item Quality. The other ratings were Administration: 3, Number of Responses: 3, and Equity of
Respondents: 2. Administration was rated at a 3 because families did not meet the threshold for responses that
were anticipated; however, the other stakeholder groups responded in high numbers. While all target populations
were represented, the response rate was between 50% and 75%, which met the criteria for a rating of 3 in the
Number of Responses category. The Equity rating was a 2 because there were gaps in the response rate between
some subgroups.
The current September responses to the surveys show that 80% of the high school learners, 96% of the
professional staff, and 23% of the families responded to the survey. High learner responses are attributed to the
Advisory Program, which allocates time in the program to respond to these surveys. Additionally, staff members
utilize professional development time twice a year to answer the surveys. Families and parents are emailed the
surveys and are also provided time twice annually at the board meetings and time during several site-based

events to respond to the surveys. While learner and staff responses are high, the CHS leadership believes they
could improve on the response rate for families and parents by including the survey links in newsletters and
publishing the links on the CHS website.
Recent results from the learners show that at all levels, a welcoming environment, respect, and caring are the
most common selections regarding the learning environment. CHS learners frequently responded that teachers
did not ask what the learners thought about the lessons but did indicate that the use of digital resources were
common in daily activities. CHS is considering a professional development session dedicated to gaining learner
feedback to see if the lessons were meeting their learning needs.
Families and parents enthusiastically responded that the school was safe, welcoming, and respectful; however,
there was a decrease in the response of “warm environment.” This decrease is being analyzed utilizing the
root-cause fishbone method. Learner responses to classroom activities was promising, as recent professional
development has focused on high levels of classroom engagement. Learners responded that classes were
engaging and that working collaboratively with others was a frequent response. On the other hand, many
learners indicated that worksheets were common activities, and solving problems scored lower than in previous
years. CHS has attributed these responses to state-level changes in required curriculum and that lesson-plan
development has been started over for several ELA courses. The school leadership team is in the process
of comparing classroom observation data to see if there is a correlation between the survey results and the
observed classroom environment.
The school leaders, in collaboration with stakeholders, have devised theories of action to address stakeholder
concerns that surfaced during the analysis of the feedback data. First, the site leaders will develop additional
opportunities for families to respond to surveys so feedback will increase, and stakeholders will have an increased
voice in school issues. Secondly, if the professional development program targets learner engagement, then
classrooms will become more interactive, and learners will engage with the curriculum more successfully. Finally,
CHS will focus on training classified employees in protocols and procedures to welcome guests and families so
that all stakeholders will see the school as a warm and inviting place.
Cooper High School strongly believes that stakeholder feedback is a critical element to the district’s success and
endeavors to engage all stakeholders in the learning environment.
Evidence:
1. eleot observation summary
2. Classroom observation plan
3. Analyzed eleot ratings
4. Analyzed eleot ratings by subgroups
6. Theory of action statements
Cooper High School (CHS) has utilized the Cognia eleot for classroom observations since 2020. During that time,
all administrators and teacher leaders were required to train in the protocol using the available seats provided
by Cognia. Each department has two trained members, and all school leaders are trained. CHS has prepared an
observation plan and schedule to meet the requirements of every learning environment being observed during
the school year at least three times. Additionally, twelve of the system leadership team members were trained in
the protocol and provide additional support for CHS to reach the observation goals.
Because CHS utilizes eleot, the first category of the evaluative criteria was not required to be rated. The
remaining ECs were rated as 4 because the system ensures that all observers are fully certified in eleot and that
all observations meet the full criteria of the observation requirements.

Observation data is collected and analyzed on two main levels: schoolwide observation data and department-
wide observation data. Additionally, the department observations are further disaggregated by course. CHS
utilized professional learning time quarterly to analyze observation data and make recommendations to the
professional learning team. While there are seven major categories in the observation tool, and all of them are
evaluated during the classroom observations, the school has focused on the engagement and high expectations
categories for this analysis.
Results from the school level show that learner engagement is increasing in all levels. This is likely a direct result
of focused professional development for teachers to engage all learners in specific engagement strategies.
Additional professional learning will focus on the strategies that were successful so other teachers can
successfully engage learners in all subjects. However, engagement varied significantly by department. Content
involving CTE, arts, physical education, and science were high in engagement, while ELA and math classes were
much lower. Math classes ranked the lowest on engagement, although the scores were higher than those from the
previous year.
The high expectations ratings were higher than those of the previous year; however, last year’s ratings were
highly affected by the need to teach remotely. When disaggregated, the ratings for learners being able to express
and describe high quality work was rated as a 3.4, which was an increase from the previous year of 3.1. The
analysis team believes that this higher rating was the result of very specific instructions and materials produced
to facilitate online learning, a skill that has now been successfully transferred back into the live classroom. The
highest increase in the category was learners being self-directed, which was rated at 3.3, a significant increase
from last year’s score of 2.4. Again, this information was believed to be a skill augmented by remote instruction,
as learners were required to independently engage with course materials more frequently than in previous years.
Survey analysis confirmed this interpretation by the leadership team.
An integral part of the instructional model for CHS includes the use of data to inform instructional decisions such
as when to reteach or approach content in a different manner. To support this process, professional development
will be implemented in the upcoming year that focuses on improving instructional staff’s use of formative
assessment, including the process of checking for understanding several times during a lesson. Supplementing
these skills will be additional coaching on implementing the checks for understanding using active classroom
techniques. As part of the school’s continuous improvement plan, growth in the progress monitoring and active
learning environment are targeted for specific improvement in the coming school year. The theories of action that
CHS is adopting are as follows:
1. By providing professional learning in the progress monitoring of learners, overall eleot scores will rise as
will overall student performance.
2. By continuing to offer feedback from the observations, teachers will create engaging and active learning
environments, so learner performance is increased.
All CHS leaders are committed to leveraging the eleot to improve learner performance and believe that continued
professional learning will improve the capacity of all instructional staff to increase learner engagement and
success.

Systems
Evidence:
1. Graduation data
2. Analyzed learner performance data
a. Systemwide
b. Site based
3. Demographic report
4. Analyzed survey data
5. State report on system and schools
6. Data analysis plan
7. Communication plan
The learner performance leadership team has disaggregated data by subgroups and have noted a steady
increase in our performance in several areas. Four-year cohort graduation data in three of the four schools has
increased from an average of 82% in 2017 to 91% in 2021. One of the schools has not met the same success
and continues to graduate students at 84% in the four-year cohort. The leadership team is working to identify
additional factors for this lack of growth and plans to address the issue immediately. Many of the learners who are
not graduating in the four-year cohort have been identified as eligible for Title I services.
Overall Language Arts performance on Cognia Summative Assessments show a generally positive trend in
grades 4, 8, and 11. Despite occasional dips in performance, our year-to-year comparison data show increases
in performance from 64% proficiency in 2016 to 70% proficiency in 2019. However, the cohort achievement data
show some successes such as the third graders in 2016 achieved 56% proficiency in Language Arts but 64%
as fifth graders in 2018. Disaggregation of the data by demographics show that the achievement gap between
students of color and white students has decreased by 15%, an indication that targeted reteaching and tutoring
support has been effective.
SAT performance has remained steady over the last five years. We have moved into the top 10% of school
districts in our state in SAT performance over this period. Our low SES subgroup has made gains on all summative
assessments since 2014; the discrepancy in performance between low SES students and “all” students has
narrowed by 5% over that time span. These results are consistent with some of our survey data, which have
shown increased satisfaction from stakeholders (staff, students, parents) with the quality of our system’s
programs for college- and career-readiness. Overall, our learners of color are still scoring lower compared to the
white learners; however, the system is continuing to provide targeted tutoring and study sessions to close this gap.
Our students with learning disabilities have shown persistent low performance on all assessments and in the
graduation rates over the last several years, with gaps increasing over time. Our state department of public
instruction has identified us as an “underperforming” district owing to this trend. This gap has not always been
evident to stakeholders because our overall performance has increased slightly during the same period. Another
area of concern is performance in mathematics, which has not shown growth over the last several years. While we
are in the top third of districts in our region in English Language Arts, we are in the lower half for mathematics. We
have noted considerable gaps in performance among the schools within our district. For example, the Hyperion
schools have performed well above the district average in mathematics. This may be attributable to the strong
vertical alignment in mathematics in that area. Teachers and administrators have a well-established professional
learning community among those schools that is not in place in the three zones. These achievement trends may
be related to the high staff turnover in middle- and high-school mathematics and special education; our Human
Resources Department has presented recruitment/retention data in these areas to our strategic planning team.

Review of our data has resulted in several findings. Despite some success, our district has been stagnant in
several critical areas. Our first priority is that we see a need for deeper analysis and ownership of achievement
data on the part of all stakeholders to prevent what looks like “acceptable” performance to mask achievement
gaps. If our new strategic plan (currently under development) includes systematic training on fully disaggregating
data with an eye toward identifying gaps, particularly among racial and Title I categories, we will most likely see
improvements in this area. Our second priority is that we believe our Public Information office can increase
transparency in its communication on student achievement, resulting in high stakeholder satisfaction. We will also
focus on aligning our needs in mathematics and special education with our recruitment/retention strategies and
professional development efforts, including a differentiated salary schedule and other incentives to recruit staff
to serve in areas of identified need. Additional funding for professional development in mathematics and special
education to improve performance from veteran teachers could have a positive impact on student performance.
Improving school-level administrators’ instructional supervision skills will allow them to better observe and
address weaknesses on their own staff. Our overall theory of action is that if we can analyze and use data more
effectively to identify learners in need and train our instructors effectively on proven engagement strategies, then
we can increase our graduation rates, close achievement gaps, and increase overall student outcomes.
Evidence:
1. District strategic plan
2. Site council representation
3. Continuous improvement plans by site
4. Survey analysis report
5. Survey plan
8. Theories of action statements
The Parnassus Unified School District (PSD) considers stakeholder feedback an essential element of the
continuous improvement process. To this end, PSD includes representation from all stakeholder groups in both
district-level leadership groups and all site-based councils. The district-level strategic planning committee meets
twice annually to review the strategic plan and districtwide feedback data to inform their decision-making on
modifications and updates on the district strategic plan. Site-based councils meet monthly to discuss site-based
issues, track the continuous improvement plans, and analyze feedback data when it is available.
PSD utilizes the Cognia eProve Surveys platform to conduct stakeholder surveys twice annually. Each site
administers the Elementary School Student Survey (ESSS), the Middle/High School Student Survey (MHSS),
the Family Survey (FS), and the Educator Survey (ES) twice annually, once in September and once in April to
gauge stakeholder feedback. This survey data is collected longitudinally so that ongoing progress on community
perceptions can be analyzed and acted upon. Because the PSD uses an additional systemwide survey to gauge
the perceptions of stakeholders using the eProve platform (but not a certified content survey), we have rated
our evaluative criteria as a 3 in Item Quality. The other ratings were Administration: 3, Number of Responses: 3,
and Equity of Respondents: 2. Administration was rated at a 3 because families did not meet the threshold for
responses that were anticipated; however, the other stakeholder groups responded in high numbers. While all
target populations were represented, the response rate was between 50% and 75%, which met the criteria for
a rating of 3 in the Number of Responses category. The Equity rating was a 2 because there were gaps in the
response rate between subgroups, namely a low response rate from the families in our Title I schools.
The current September responses to the surveys show that 80% of the elementary learners, 76% of the middle/
high school learners, 96% of the professional staff, and 23% of the families responded to the survey. High learner
responses are attributed to the Advisory Program, which allocates time in the program to respond to these
surveys. Additionally, staff members utilize professional development time twice a year to answer the surveys.

Families and parents are emailed the surveys and are also provided time twice annually at the board meetings
and time during several site-based events to respond to the surveys. While learner and staff responses are high,
the district leadership believes they could improve on the response rate for families and parents by including the
survey links in newsletters and publishing the links on the district website.
Recent results from the learners show that at all levels, a welcoming environment, respect, and caring are the
most common selections regarding the learning environment. At the middle/high school level, learners frequently
responded that teachers did not ask what the learners thought about the lessons but did indicate that the use of
digital resources were common in daily activities. The sites are considering a professional development session
dedicated to gaining learner feedback to see if the lessons were meeting their learning needs.
Families and parents enthusiastically responded that the schools were safe, welcoming, and respectful;
however, there was a decrease in the response of “warm environment.” This decrease is being analyzed utilizing
the root-cause fishbone method at the sites where the ratings were most noticeable. Learner responses to
classroom activities was promising, as recent professional development has focused on high levels of classroom
engagement. Learners responded that classes were engaging and that working collaboratively with others was
a frequent response. On the other hand, many elementary learners indicated that worksheets were common
activities, and solving problems scored lower than in previous years. The sites have attributed these responses to
state-level changes in required curriculum and that lesson-plan development has been started over for several
third- through fifth-grade ELA courses. The system is in the process of comparing classroom observation data to
see if there is a correlation between the survey results and the observed classroom environment.
The system leaders, in collaboration with stakeholders from across the district, have devised theories of action
to address stakeholder concerns that surfaced during the analysis of the feedback data. First, the system
leaders will develop additional opportunities for families to respond to surveys so feedback will increase, and
stakeholders will have an increased voice in system issues. Secondly, if the professional development program
targets learner engagement, then classrooms will become more interactive, and learners will engage with the
curriculum more successfully. Finally, the sites will focus on training classified employees in protocols and
procedures to welcome guests and families so that all stakeholders will see the schools as a warm and inviting
place.
Parnassus strongly believes that stakeholder feedback is a critical element to the district’s success and
endeavors to engage all stakeholders in the learning environment.
Evidence:
1. eleot observation summary
2. System classroom observation plan
3. Analyzed eleot system ratings
4. Analyzed site-based eleot ratings
6. Theory of action statements
Parnassus Unified School District (PSD) has utilized the Cognia eleot for classroom observations since 2020.
During that time, all schools in the system were required to train a core team of observers in the protocol using
the available seats provided by Cognia. Each elementary site has a team of six trained observers, while the high
schools have a team of twelve trained observers. Each of the sites prepared an observation plan and schedule to
meet the requirements of every learning environment being observed during the school year at least three times.
Additionally, twelve of the system leadership team members were trained in the protocol and provided additional
support for the sites to reach their observation goals.

Because PSD utilizes eleot, the first category of the evaluative criteria was not required to be rated. The remaining
ECs were rated as 4 because the system ensures that all observers are fully certified in eleot and that all
observations meet the full criteria of the observation requirements.
Observation data is collected and analyzed on two main levels: site-based observation data and systemwide
observation data. Additionally, the high school observations are further disaggregated by department and
subject matter. Each site utilized professional learning time quarterly to analyze observation data and make
recommendations to the professional learning team at the system level and at the site level. While there are seven
major categories in the observation tool, and all of them are evaluated during the classroom observations, the
system has focused on the engagement and high expectations categories for this analysis.
Results from the system level show that learner engagement is increasing in K–8 elementary levels, particularly
in third grade reading classes. This is likely a direct result of focused professional development for third grade
teachers to engage all learners in specific reading engagement strategies. In the other elementary levels,
engagement is relatively stable. Additional professional learning will focus on the strategies that were successful
at the third grade so other teachers can successfully engage learners in all subjects. High school engagement
varied significantly by department. Content involving CTE, arts, physical education, and science were high in
engagement, while ELA and math classes were much lower. Math classes ranked the lowest on engagement,
although the scores were higher than those from the previous year.
On the system level, the high expectations ratings were higher than those of the previous year; however, last
year’s ratings were highly affected by the need to teach remotely. When disaggregated, the ratings for learners
being able to express and describe high quality work was rated as a 3.4, which was an increase from the previous
year of 3.1. The analysis team believes that this higher rating was the result of very specific instructions and
materials produced to facilitate online learning, a skill that has now been successfully transferred back into the
live classroom. The highest increase in the category was learners being self-directed, which was rated at 3.3, a
significant increase from last year’s score of 2.4. Again, this information was believed to be a skill augmented by
remote instruction, as learners were required to independently engage with course materials more frequently
than in previous years. Survey analysis confirmed this interpretation by the leadership team.
An integral part of the instructional model for PSD includes the use of data to inform instructional decisions such
as when to reteach or approach content in a different manner. To support this process, professional development
will be implemented in the upcoming year that focuses on improving instructional staff’s use of formative
assessment, including the process of checking for understanding several times during a lesson. Supplementing
these skills will be additional coaching on implementing the checks for understanding using active classroom
techniques. As part of the system’s continuous improvement plan, growth in the progress monitoring and active
learning environment are targeted for specific improvement the coming school year. The theories of action that
the system is adopting are as follows:
1. By providing professional learning in the progress monitoring of learners, overall eleot scores will rise as
will overall student performance.
2. By continuing to offer feedback from the observations, teachers will create engaging and active learning
environments, so learner performance is increased.
All system leaders and site leaders are committed to leveraging the eleot to improve learner performance and
believe that continued professional learning will improve the capacity of all instructional staff to increase learner
engagement and success.

Evaluator Rubrics
Each element of a quality Analysis or Key Characteristic Narrative is defined by a rubric containing four levels.
If the evaluators do not find evidence for a particular item, that item should be rated Level 1. Level 4 is Cognia’s
expectation of analysis and standard narratives for all institutions.
Evaluation of the Student Performance Analysis, Stakeholder Feedback

Analysis, and Learning Environment Observation Analysis
Each analysis is individually rated on the following four items.
Item 1: The institution has made an accurate appraisal of the quality of their data sources using the
evaluative criteria.
The institution has accurately assessed all their data sources against the evaluative criteria within the
4
analysis.
The institution has accurately assessed most their data sources against the evaluative criteria within the
3
analysis.
The institution has accurately assessed some of their data sources against the evaluative criteria within the
2
analysis.
1 The institution has inaccurately assessed their data sources against the evaluative criteria within the analysis.
Item 2: The institution has analyzed and synthesized information.
The institution has written a thorough analysis of information that includes data from at least three sources, or
4
two sources if the sources are highly reliable. The narrative clearly answers all the prompts provided.
The institution has written a good analysis of information that includes data from at least two sources, or one
3 source if the source is highly reliable. The narrative answers two of the prompts provided or was somewhat
related to the prompts.
The institution has written an analysis of information that includes data from at least one source. The narrative
2
answers one or more of the prompts provided or was minimally or not clearly related to the prompts.
The institution has written a shallow analysis of information unrelated to or absent of sources of information.
1
The narrative does not address the prompts provided.
Item 3: The institution has identified areas of noteworthy achievement and areas in need of
improvement.
The institution has identified one or more areas of noteworthy achievement and one or more areas in need of
4
improvement aligned with their analysis and synthesis of data.
3
improvement though not fully aligned with analysis and synthesis of data.
The institution has identified either areas of noteworthy achievement or areas in need of improvement based
2
on their analysis and synthesis of data.
The institution has not identified areas of noteworthy achievement or areas in need of improvement with little
1
or no alignment to analysis and synthesis of data.

Item 4: The institution has interpreted findings, prioritized themes, and developed theories of action.
The institution has interpreted all findings accurately, prioritized themes in a meaningful and logical order, and
4 developed theories of action for each finding, including sustaining noteworthy practices and addressing areas
in need of improvement.
The institution has interpreted most findings accurately, prioritized themes in a generally meaningful order,
3 and developed theories of action for most findings, including sustaining noteworthy practices and areas in
need of improvement.
The institution has interpreted some findings accurately, prioritized themes, and developed theories of action
2
for findings related to areas for improvement.
The institution has interpreted few findings accurately, failed to prioritize themes, and did not develop theories
1
of action.

Evaluation of the Key Characteristic Narratives
Each key characteristic narrative is individually rated on the following four items.
Item 1: The narrative provides evidence for standards related to [Key Characteristic].
4 The institution has provided evidence for all the standards related to [Key Characteristic].
3 The institution has provided evidence for most standards related to [Key Characteristic].
2 The institution has provided evidence for some standards related to [Key Characteristic].
1 The institution has provided evidence for few standards related to [Key Characteristic].
Item 2: The institution has analyzed and synthesized information and responded to the prompts for
[Key Characteristic].
The institution has written a thorough analysis of information that includes data from at least three sources, or
4
two sources if the sources are highly reliable. The narrative clearly answers all the prompts provided.
The institution has written a good analysis of information that includes data from at least two sources, or one
3 source if the source is highly reliable. The narrative answers two of the prompts provided or was somewhat
related to the prompts.
The institution has written an analysis of information that includes data from at least one source. The narrative
2
answers one or more of the prompts provided or was minimally or not clearly related to the prompts.
The institution has written a shallow analysis of information unrelated to or absent of sources of information.
1
The narrative does not address the prompts provided.
Item 3: The institution has identified areas of noteworthy achievement and areas in need of
improvement.
4
improvement aligned with their analysis and synthesis of data.
3
improvement though not fully aligned with analysis and synthesis of data.
The institution has identified either areas of noteworthy achievement or areas in need of improvement based
2
on their analysis and synthesis of data.
The institution has not identified areas of noteworthy achievement or areas in need of improvement with little
1
or no alignment to analysis and synthesis of data.
Item 4: The institution has interpreted findings, prioritized themes, and developed theories of action.
The institution has interpreted all findings accurately, prioritized themes in a meaningful and logical order, and
4 developed theories of action for each finding, including sustaining noteworthy practices and addressing areas
in need of improvement.
The institution has interpreted most findings accurately, prioritized themes in a generally meaningful order,
3 and developed theories of action for most findings, including sustaining noteworthy practices and areas in
need of improvement.
The institution has interpreted some findings accurately, prioritized themes, and developed theories of action
2
for findings related to areas for improvement.
The institution has interpreted few findings accurately, failed to prioritize themes, and did not develop theories
1
of action.

Activities
Group Activity
Identifying Data Sources

Materials Needed: chart paper and markers for each group; materials for taking notes in Part II
Time: 60–120 minutes
Part I
Divide into small groups.
Option A: Divide into four small groups. Assign each group one category of data sources: Documentation,
Observations, Perceptions, Performance. Have each group brainstorm and list on chart paper all of the sources of
data the institution has for that category.
Extension for Option A: Have the groups rotate to each category to review the data sources already
listed and add any additional data sources for the category.
Do a gallery walk and/or debrief as a group to share the variety of data sources for each category.
Option B: Have each small group brainstorm and list on chart paper all the sources of data the institution has for
all four categories: Documentation, Observations, Perceptions, Performance. Collect the chart papers from each
group and combine them into an unduplicated list for each of the four categories. Debrief as a group to share the
variety of data sources for each category.
Part II
After debriefing all the available data sources for the institution, discuss the following questions. You can split
into small groups again and assign each group one of the questions for discussion or conduct a whole group
discussion. This could also be done as a separate session at another time.
1. In what areas do we have insufficient data? Where are there gaps? Where do we need to collect
additional data to clarify what we know so far?
2. What sources of data need to be “cleaned”? Which data sources may be biased or not valid? Which data
sources are overly broad and will need to be cited more precisely?
3. For each data source, how much trend data do we have (e.g., multiple administrations, evidence of review
and revision, year-over-year data)? Where are we lacking trend data?
Based on the discussion, develop an action plan to address any issues with your data sources and begin to
clean and organize the data. The action plan can be developed in this session with the whole group, in a separate
session at another time, or through delegation to a subgroup. Delegate the implementation of the action plan
to your leadership team, school improvement team, or other group to complete as part of the Self-Assessment
process.

Group Activity
Developing Findings
Materials Needed: lists of cleaned data sources by category, scissors, tape, chart paper, sticky notes, markers/
pens, large work surface for each group
Note: This activity can be conducted multiple times to support specific activities like the development of your
institution’s improvement plan, student performance diagnostic, or stakeholder feedback diagnostic; or to identify
the institution’s strengths and areas for improvement more broadly. Outputs from this activity can support the
reflection section of the Self-Assessment Diagnostic as well as the narratives for each key characteristic.
Part I: Identifying Themes

Review the available data sources as a group. Break into small groups, providing each group with the full list of
cleaned data sources. Have groups cut apart the lists into individual data sources or write each data source on a
sticky note. Optionally, you can provide sets of cards or pieces of paper with each data source already identified
on a separate card/paper.
Without talking or discussion, have each group review the data sources by spreading them out on the table so
everyone can see all data sources. Look for ideas that seem to be related in some way. Group these related data
sources together on the table or on chart paper. Group members can reorder and regroup the data sources
throughout the exercise. Continue the process until all data sources are grouped. If a data source seems to belong
in two groups, make a duplicate of the data source on a sticky note.
Next, have each small group begin a discussion to identify themes or categories for each grouping. Groups can
discuss any patterns, reasons for moving controversial data sources, etc. As the themes develop, have groups
note if there is adequate data within the theme or if more may be needed. Groups can continue to move data
sources around until all sources are grouped to everyone’s satisfaction and a theme is selected for each grouping.
There may be some data sources that don’t seem to fit with any theme—these can be set to the side. Write
the theme on a sticky note at the top of the grouping. Tape the data sources into place on the chart paper to
document the themed groupings.
Post the chart paper from each small group on the wall. Conduct a gallery walk. Then, debrief with the whole
group to note where there were similar themes across groups, where there were differences, and how groups
related the various data sources.
Part II: Interpreting Findings

Now that your data sources have been organized into themes, you can begin to transform the information into
findings. Findings help us determine what we do well and what we do not do so well. Assign 3–4 themes to each
small group. You may have each small group return to their own themes to pick the ones to focus on or look at the
complete set of themes that emerged from Part I and select and broad sampling to divide across small groups.
For each theme, the group should write at least one clear statement that indicates what the data sources/
information within each theme tells them. Findings can be strengths or areas that need improvement. Some
themes may have multiple findings based on the data sources. Some data sources may need to be “cleaned”
further to identify the useful information that can support a finding. Groups can make note of themes with data
sources that need to be further cleaned.

Here are some examples of findings statements:
• Student performance in seventh grade language arts has been lower than sixth- and eighth-grade
performance for the past three years.
• Items related to culture from multiple surveys (learner, teacher, parent) indicate strong support for the
leadership of our school.
• On the SAT, students perform well above the average on language arts and below average on mathematics.
• Student absenteeism has been increasing for the last four years.
Once all groups have identified at least one finding within each theme, have each small group report out their
findings statements to the whole group. Collect the findings statements for further work in the Self-Assessment
process.

Group Activity
Writing Theories of Action

Materials Needed: findings statements, themes and data sources from Developing Findings activity
Divide into four small groups, with one group focused on each of the four key characteristics: Culture of Learning,
Leadership for Learning, Engagement of Learning, and Growth in Learning. Provide each group with findings
statements related to the key characteristic they will focus on. Each group should have at least one findings
statement.
Have each group prioritize the findings statements within their key characteristic. Focus on the findings that are
most important to focus improvement efforts on within the institution. Select the findings that can be reasonably
addressed through current resources and capacity or with minimal additional resources.
For each prioritized finding, have the small groups conduct a root cause analysis to determine the underlying
cause(s) of the finding. Reference the data sources from the Developing Findings activity if previously conducted.
Root cause analysis answers the question, “Why are these results what they are?”
Option A: Groups can use a fishbone diagram to identify possible root causes.
Ishikawa Diagram
Option B: Groups can use the Five Whys technique to get to the underlying cause(s). Form the finding into a
problem statement. Then, ask “why” to get to an underlying hypothesized reason for the problem. Ask “why” for
that new reason statement. Continue to ask “why” enough times to identify the root cause of the original problem
(finding). Remember that there can be more than one root cause, so groups may end up with a matrix with
different branches (see below).
Issue Diagram

Once the small groups have identified the root cause(s), have them select the top one or two causes. Then
identify who might have the greatest influence on that cause, and describe actions that can bring about a desired
change.
“After discussion, mathematics faculty felt that curriculum alignment was the highest priority; however, that is not
scheduled until two years from now. Therefore, the faculty decided the three most important causes in our control
are: 1) providing more real-world projects, 2) focusing on critical thinking and problem solving in instruction, and 3)
building a professional development plan to improve math instruction.”
Then have small groups develop an “if/then/so what” statement as a theory of action for the original finding.
“If math teachers engage in professional development to learn how to increase critical thinking and implement
real-world projects into math classes, then students will be more engaged in learning math so that they will score
higher on the math portion of the SAT.”
After all small groups have developed theories of action for each of the prioritized findings, have each group
report out to the whole group. As a whole group, determine which findings from the entire set of findings and
theories of action should be prioritized for the institution. Remember to select only the number of findings that
can be reasonably addressed through current resources and capacity. Aim for at least one finding for each key
characteristic. You will use these findings and theories of action in your narratives for each key characteristic. The
findings and action plans can inform your continuous improvement plan within your institution.

Group Activity
Unpacking the Standards

Materials Needed: standards cards for each small group
Divide into at least three groups. Have each group select one of the Performance Standards from the 30 available
cards. To cover the most standards, provide each group with only 10 of the standards to select from, splitting the
30 standards among the three groups.
Within each group, read the selected standard and examine the elements. Note how the elements align with the
rubric levels.
1. Identify any additional key terms where you need clarification.
2. Identify possible evidence your institution may already have, what you need to collect, and how impactful
that evidence may be for rating the standard.
3. Discuss an initial rating of the standard for your institution and cite specific reasons and evidence you
used to reach that rating.
With the full group, have each small group debrief their conversation by sharing the rating for the standard and the
rationale and evidence used to reach that rating.
Repeat the above process at least twice more, which will allow your team to unpack at least nine of the standards.

Group Activity
World Café: Deep Dive into the Standards

Materials Needed: chart paper and markers for each table (4); copies of the guiding questions (below) and
Cognia Performance Standards (without rubrics) for each table
Time: 90 minutes
Divide into four groups, one for each of the themes synthesized in the context of the key characteristics of what a
good institution does in support of learners, teachers, and leaders and the related standards.
At each table for each 15-minute round:

1. Choose a recorder. This person will capture the conversation notes on the chart paper for the round.
2. Choose a table host. This person will remain at the table for the next round and will share key ideas,
themes, and questions from the last round with the new table participants. The table host will only stay
for one round and then move to the next table at the next rotation.
Have each group discuss how the primary standards relate to the key characteristic. Consider the guiding questions/
statements for each key characteristic, listed below. This will help to identify possible sources of evidence that could be
used for each key characteristic.
Culture of Learning: (Primary Standards 1–6)

• What evidence illustrates that the learners, parents, and educators feel connected to the purpose and work
of the institution?
• What evidence illustrates that the learners, parents, and educators consistently behave in alignment with the
stated values and norms of the institution?
• Describe activities and other engagements that reflect the mission, beliefs, and expectations of the
institution.
Leadership for Learning: (Primary Standards 7–15)

• How do leaders communicate expectations for learning and monitor progress toward meeting such
expectations?
• Describe examples of behaviors and actions by leaders that influence and have a positive impact on the
culture of the institution.
• In what ways do leaders model and engage in learning while supporting others to do so?
Engagement of Learning: (Primary Standards 16–23)

• How does the instructional environment ensure active engagement of learners? How do you know?
• Do learners participate with confidence? How do you know? What strategies are employed to improve the
confidence level of the learners?
• What strategies are employed to provide learners agency over their learning? Provide key examples of
student agency.
Growth in Learning: (Primary Standards 24–30)

• Are students ready to engage in their next transition in learning? What evidence supports this belief?
• Are students academically prepared to transition to the next level of learning? What evidence supports this
belief?
• Are students meeting expectations in knowledge and skill acquisition? What evidence supports this belief?

World Café Structure:
Round 1: 12 minutes of conversation about the standards within a key characteristic

1 minute to rotate (except for table host)
Round 2: 2 minutes for table host to share discussed themes from previous round
12 minutes of conversation about the standards within a key characteristic
1 minute to select a reporter for the group to report during the Debrief
Gallery Walk: Post all key characteristics along a wall or around the room. Participants will review the ideas and themes
from all groups across the key characteristics. (10 minutes)
Debrief: Reporters from each group share the key themes, ideas, and questions for the overall discussion of the
standards and key characteristics. (20 minutes)

References
AdvancED. (2016). InFocus: A guide for strategic thinking and improvement planning. Cognia, Inc.
extranet.cognia.org/system/files/guidebook.pdf
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
De Smet, A., Lurie, M., & St. George, A. (2018). Leading agile transformation: The new capabilities leaders need to
build 21st-century organizations. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/
business%20functions/organization/our%20insights/leading%20agile%20transformation%20the%20
new%20capabilities%20leaders%20need%20to%20build/leading-agile-transformation-the-new-
capabilities-leaders-need-to-build-21st-century-organizations.pdf
Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Gullotta, T. P. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of social and emotional
learning: Research and practice. The Guilford Press.
Ford, T. G., Lavigne, A. L., Fiegener, A. G., & Si, S. (2020). Understanding district support for leader development and
success in the accountability era: A review of the literature using social-cognitive theories of motivation.
Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 264–307. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319899723
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2015). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin.
Hamedani, M. G., Zheng, X., & Darling-Hammond, L. (with Andree, A., & Quinn, B. P.). (2015). Social emotional learning
in high school: How three urban high schools engage, educate, and empower youth—Cross-case analysis.
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/
publications/scope-pub-social-emotional-learning-cross-case-analysis-report.pdf
Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement:
A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911
Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). 21st century skills: Not new, but a worthy challenge. American Educator,
34(1), 17–20. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/RotherhamWillingham.pdf
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience.
In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement,
(pp. 21–44). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_2
Thompson, C. S. (2017). Teachers’ expectations of educational leaders’ leadership approach and perspectives on
the principalship: Identifying critical leadership paradigms for the 21st century.” Journal of Organizational &
Educational Leadership, 2(2), Article 4. https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/joel/vol2/iss2/4/
University of Washington Center for Educational Leadership & The Wallace Foundation. (2013). Creating your theory
of action for districtwide teaching and learning improvement. Central Office Transformation Toolkit.
https://info.K–12leadership.org/central-office-transformation-toolkit

cognia.org

Self-Assessment Workbook - SAMIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Self-Assessment Workbook - SAMIS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self-Assessment Workbook - SAMIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self-Assessment

A Guide for Systems and Institutions

© 2022 Cognia, Inc. v22-7-5 i

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC ii

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC iii

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC iv

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 1

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 2

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 3

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 4

Skills for Ongoing Improvement

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 5

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 6

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 7

Five Steps for Data Analysis

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 8

Group Activity: Identifying Data Sources

Interaction—Enter your list of data sources here.

Documentation Observations Perceptions Performance

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 9

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 10

Data Sources Not Cleaned Data Sources Cleaned

Analyzing and Synthesizing Information

Interpreting Findings, Developing Theories of Action, and Prioritizing

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 11

Alignment to SAT content Grade inflation

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 12

Group Activity: Developing Findings

Group Activity: Writing Theories of Action

Putting It All Together

First section: evidence you have analyzed and synthesized

Second section: findings from your analysis and synthesis

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 13

Student Performance Analysis

Below are steps to guide you in this analysis.

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 14

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 15

Data Source Trend Data Comments

EC 1: Assessment Quality EC 2: Administration EC 3: Quality of Learning EC 4: Equity of Learning

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 16

Assessment Package Evaluative Criteria

EC1: Assessment Quality

EC2: Test Administration

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 17

EC4: Equity of Learning

Interaction—Enter your ratings.

EC 1: Assessment Quality EC 2: Administration EC 3: Quality of Learning EC 4: Equity of Learning

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 18

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 19

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 20

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 21

Below are steps to guide you in this analysis.

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 22

Interaction—Complete the table for your data sources here.

Data Source Trend Data Comments

Interaction—Enter your description of participants and method of collecting feedback here.

Self-Assessment Workbook BACK TO TOC 23

Stakeholder Feedback Evaluative Criteria