report of the external review team for polk county … · report of the external review team for...

Report of theExternal Review Team

forPolk County School District

1915 South Floral AvenueP.O. Box 391

BartowFL 33830-0391

US

Mrs. Jacqueline ByrdSuperintendent

Date: January 24, 2016 - January 27, 2016

Document Generated On May 22, 2016

Copyright (c) 2016 by Advance Education, Inc. AdvancED™ grants to the Institution, which is the subject of the External Review Team Report, and its

designees and stakeholders a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license and release to reproduce, reprint, and distribute this report in

accordance with and as protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States of America and all foreign countries. All other rights not expressly

conveyed are reserved by AdvancED™.


AdvancED Polk County School District

© 2016 Advance Education, Inc. All rights reserved unless otherwise granted by written agreement.

Table of Contents Introduction 4

Results 9

Teaching and Learning Impact 9

Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for Learning 10

Standard 5 - Using Results for Continuous Improvement 11

Student Performance Diagnostic 11

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot™) 13

eleot™ Data Summary 16

Findings 19

Leadership Capacity 23

Standard 1 - Purpose and Direction 24

Standard 2 - Governance and Leadership 24

Stakeholder Feedback Diagnostic 25

Resource Utilization 26

Standard 4 - Resources and Support Systems 26

Findings 27

Conclusion 28

Accreditation Recommendation 30

Addenda 31

Individual Institution Results (Self-reported) 31

Team Roster 36

Next Steps 45

About AdvancED 46

References 47





© 2016 Advance Education, Inc. All rights reserved unless otherwise granted by written agreement. Page 3

IntroductionThe External Review is an integral component of AdvancED Performance Accreditation and provides the

institution with a comprehensive evaluation guided by the results of diagnostic instruments, in-depth review of

data and documentation, and the professional judgment of a team of qualified and highly trained evaluators. A

series of diagnostic instruments examines the impact of teaching and learning on student performance, the

capacity of leadership to effect continuous improvement, and the degree to which the institution optimizes its

use of available resources to facilitate and support student success. The results of this evaluation are

represented in the Index of Education Quality (IEQ™) and through critical observations, namely, Powerful

Practices, Opportunities for Improvement, and Improvement Priorities.

Accreditation is a voluntary method of quality assurance developed more than 100 years ago by American

universities and secondary schools and designed primarily to distinguish schools adhering to a set of

educational standards. Today the accreditation process is used at all levels of education and is recognized for

its ability to effectively drive student performance and continuous improvement in education.

Institutions seeking to gain or retain accreditation must meet AdvancED Standards specific to their institution

type, demonstrate acceptable levels of student performance and the continuous improvement of student

performance, and provide evidence of stakeholder engagement and satisfaction. The power of AdvancED

Performance Accreditation lies in the connections and linkages between and among the conditions, processes,

and practices within a system that impact student performance and organizational effectiveness.

Standards help to delineate what matters. They provide a common language through which an education

community can engage in conversations about educational improvement, system effectiveness, and

achievement. They serve as a foundation for planning and implementing improvement strategies and activities

and for measuring success. AdvancED Standards were developed by a committee comprised of talented

educators and leaders from the fields of practice, research, and policy who applied professional wisdom, deep

knowledge of effective practice, and the best available research to craft a set of robust standards that define

institutional quality and guide continuous improvement. Prior to implementation, an internationally recognized

panel of experts in testing and measurement, teacher quality, and education research reviewed the standards

and provided feedback, guidance and endorsement.

The AdvancED External Review Team uses AdvancED Standards, associated indicators and criteria related to

student performance and stakeholder engagement to guide its evaluation. The Team examines adherence to

standards as well as how the institution functions as a whole and embodies the practices and characteristics

expected of an accredited institution. The Standards, indicators and related criteria are evaluated using

indicator-specific performance levels. The Team rates each indicator and criterion on a scale of 1 to 4. The

final scores assigned to the indicators and criteria represent the average of the External Review Team

members' individual ratings.

The External Review is the hallmark of AdvancED Performance Accreditation. It energizes and equips the

institution's leadership and stakeholders to achieve higher levels of performance and address those areas that








-

-

-

-

may be hindering efforts to reach desired performance levels. External Review is a rigorous process that

includes the in-depth examination of evidence and relevant data, interviews with all stakeholder groups, and

extensive observations of learning, instruction, and operations.

Use of Diagnostic ToolsA key to examining the institution is the design and use of diagnostic tools that reveal the effectiveness with

which an institution creates conditions and implements processes and practices that impact student

performance and success. In preparation for the External Review the institution conducted a Self Assessment

that applied the standards and criteria for accreditation. The institution provided evidence to support its

conclusions vis a vis organizational effectiveness in ensuring acceptable and improving levels of student

performance.

an indicator-based tool that connects the specific elements of the criteria to evidence gathered by the

team;

a student performance analytic that examines the quality of assessment instruments used by the

institution, the integrity of the administration of the assessment to students, the quality of the learning

results including the impact of instruction on student learning at all levels of performance, and the

equity of learning that examines the results of student learning across all demographics;

a stakeholder engagement instrument that examines the fidelity of administration and results of

perception surveys seeking the perspective of students, parents, and teachers;

a state-of-the-art, learner-centric observation instrument, the Effective Learning Environments

Observation Tool (eleot™) that quantifies students' engagement, attitudes and dispositions organized

in 7 environments: Equitable Learning, High Expectations, Supportive Learning, Active Learning,

Progress Monitoring and Feedback, Well-Managed Learning, and Digital Learning. All evaluators

must be trained, reach acceptable levels of inter-rater reliability, and certified to use this research-

based and validated instrument.

The External Review Team's findings and critical observations are shared in this report through the IEQ™

results as well as through the identification of Powerful Practices, Opportunities for Improvement, and

Improvement Priorities.

Index of Education QualityIn the past, accreditation reviews resulted in an accreditation recommendation on status. Labels such as

advised, warned, probation, or all clear were used to describe the status of a school relative to the AdvancED

Standards and other evaluative criteria. Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, AdvancED introduced a new

framework to describe the results of an accreditation review. Consistent with the modern focus of accreditation

on continuous improvement with an emphasis on student success, AdvancED introduced an innovative and

state-of-the-art framework for diagnosing and revealing institutional performance called the Index of Education

Quality (IEQ™). The IEQ™ comprises three domains of performance: 1) the impact of teaching and learning

on student performance; 2) the capacity of leadership to guide the institution toward the achievement of its








vision and strategic priorities; and 3) use of resources to support and optimize learning. Therefore, your

institution will no longer receive an accreditation status. Instead, your institution will be accredited with an

IEQ™ score. In the case where an institution is failing to meet established criteria, the accreditation will be

under review thereby requiring frequent monitoring and demonstrated improvement.

The three domains of performance are derived from the AdvancED Standards and associated indicators, the

analysis of student performance, and the engagement and feedback of stakeholders. Within each domain

institutions can connect to the individual performance levels that are applied in support of the AdvancED

Standards and evaluative criteria. Within the performance levels are detailed descriptors that serve as a

valuable source of guidance for continuous improvement. Upon review of the findings in this report and

building on their Powerful Practices, institutional leaders should work with their staff to review and understand

the evidence and rationale for each Opportunity for Improvement and Improvement Priority as well as the

corresponding pathway to improvement described in the performance levels of the selected indicator(s).

The IEQ™ provides a new framework that recognizes and supports the journey of continuous improvement. An

institution's IEQ™ is the starting point for continuous improvement. Subsequent actions for improvement and

evidence that these have had a positive impact will raise the institution's IEQ™ score.

Benchmark DataThroughout this report, AdvancED provides benchmark data for each indicator and for each component of the

evaluative criteria. These benchmark data represent the overall averages across the entire AdvancED Network

for your institution type. Thus, the AdvancED Network average provides an extraordinary opportunity for

institutions to understand their context on a global scale rather than simply compared to a state, region, or

country.

It is important to understand that the AdvancED Network averages are provided primarily to serve as a tool for

continuous improvement and not as a measure of quality in and of itself. Benchmark data, when wisely

employed, have a unique capacity to help institutions identify and leverage their strengths and areas of

improvement to significantly impact student learning.

Powerful PracticesA key to continuous improvement is the institution's ability to learn from and build upon its most effective and

impactful practices. Such practices serve as critical leverage points necessary to guide, support and ensure

continuous improvement. A hallmark of the accreditation process is its commitment to identifying with

evidence, the conditions, processes and practices that are having the most significant impact on student

performance and institutional effectiveness. Throughout this report, the External Review Team has captured

and defined Powerful Practices. These noteworthy practices are essential to the institution's effort to continue

its journey of improvement.








Opportunities for ImprovementEvery institution can and must improve no matter what levels of performance it has achieved in its past. During

the process of the review, the External Review Team identified areas of improvement where the institution is

meeting the expectations for accreditation but in the professional judgment of the Team these are

Opportunities for Improvement that should be considered by the institution. Using the criteria described in the

corresponding rubric(s) to the Opportunity for Improvement, the institution can identify what elements of

practice must be addressed to guide the improvement.

Improvement PrioritiesThe expectations for accreditation are clearly defined in a series of the rubric-based AdvancED Standards,

indicators and evaluative criteria focused on the impact of teaching and learning on student performance, the

capacity of the institution to be guided by effective leadership, and the allocation and use of resources to

support student learning. As such, the External Review Team reviewed, analyzed and deliberated over

significant bodies of evidence provided by the institution and gathered by the Team during the process. In the

professional judgment of the Team as well as the results of the diagnostic process, the Team defined, with

rationale, Improvement Priorities. The priorities must be addressed in a timely manner by the institution to

retain and improve their accreditation performance as represented by the IEQ™. Improvement Priorities serve

as the basis for the follow-up and monitoring process that will begin upon conclusion of the External Review.

The institution must complete and submit an Accreditation Progress Report within two years of the External

Review. The report must include actions taken by the institution to address the Improvement Priorities along

with the corresponding evidence and results. The IEQ™ will be recalculated by AdvancED upon review of the

evidence and results associated with the Improvement Priorities.

The ReviewThe 29 team members arrived for the System Accreditation visit on Sunday afternoon, January 24 and

convened in the conference center to meet and discuss responsibilities and expectations for the next three

days. The originally assigned Lead Evaluator was not able to participate in the visit due to a family illness the

day before the visit. One of the in-state Associate Lead Evaluators was asked to assume that role. The pre-

visit logistical planning and schedule were coordinated by the original Lead Evaluator who conducted two

conference calls for team members and initiated communication with the Associate Lead Evaluators as often

as was needed. Off-site preparation by team members included reviewing the System Self Assessment

Report, Executive Summary, Stakeholder Feedback Diagnostic, Student Performance Diagnostic, survey

results, School Improvement Plans, Strategic Plan, website and numerous other artifacts.

The schedule called for visiting 40 schools across the county, which would provide the team an opportunity to

see a variety of learning environments, academic and technical, from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Four

team members at the last minute were not able to come due to personal illness or having their flights cancelled

due to a winter storm. The schedule was adjusted in order to visit the scheduled number of schools with some

being visited by only one team member. The team visited one school in the morning and one in the afternoon.

On Monday, the team was split into two with one assigned to do school visits and the other to interview system








staff. Because the schools were closed, the school teams interviewed teachers and principals at various

school locations throughout the district. On the second day, the entire team spent the day visiting schools and

classrooms. Each evening the team reviewed, analyzed, discussed and shared the day's activities and

findings.

Superintendent Mrs. Kathryn LeRoy and her staff had prepared well for the visit. The system initiated a

thorough internal review process involving numerous system and school staff personnel. It was obvious that

many people had put in many days and long hours to ensure a coordinated visit. The Polk County School

District is characterized by its kind and courteous people. True southern hospitality was clearly evident

wherever we went. Among many, Mr. Kenneth Reddick and Mr. Buddy Thomas were exemplary in their

support of the team. From their warm greeting at the hotel on the first night to ensuring the last team member

made their flight on the last day, they were always there when needed. The smooth transition between

activities allowed the team to be more efficient in completing their responsibilities. The continued progressive

attitude for improvement by the superintendent and school board and active participation by the staff will

facilitate the achievement of system goals.

Stakeholders were interviewed by members of the External Review Team to gain their perspectives on topics

relevant to the institution's effectiveness and student performance. The feedback gained through the

stakeholder interviews was considered with other evidences and data to support the findings of the External

Review. The following chart depicts the numbers of persons interviewed representative of various stakeholder

groups.

Stakeholder Interviewed Number

Superintendents 1

Board Members 7

Administrators 190

Instructional Staff 171

Support Staff 42

Students 52

Parents/Community/Business Leaders 132

Total 595








ResultsTeaching and Learning ImpactThe impact of teaching and learning on student achievement is the primary expectation of every institution.

The relationship between teacher and learner must be productive and effective for student success. The

impact of teaching and learning includes an analysis of student performance results, instructional quality,

learner and family engagement, support services for student learning, curriculum quality and efficacy, and

college and career readiness data. These are all key indicators of an institution's impact on teaching and

learning.

A high-quality and effective educational system has services, practices, and curriculum that ensure teacher

effectiveness. Research has shown that an effective teacher is a key factor for learners to achieve their highest

potential and be prepared for a successful future. The positive influence an effective educator has on learning

is a combination of "student motivation, parental involvement" and the "quality of leadership" (Ding & Sherman,

2006). Research also suggests that quality educators must have a variety of quantifiable and intangible

characteristics that include strong communication skills, knowledge of content, and knowledge of how to teach

the content. The institution's curriculum and instructional program should develop learners' skills that lead them

to think about the world in complex ways (Conley, 2007) and prepare them to have knowledge that extends

beyond the academic areas. In order to achieve these goals, teachers must have pedagogical skills as well as

content knowledge (Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voxx, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U.,

Krauss, S., Nuebrand, M., & Tsai, Y., 2010). The acquisition and refinement of teachers' pedagogical skills

occur most effectively through collaboration and professional development. These are a "necessary approach

to improving teacher quality" (Colbert, J., Brown, R., Choi, S., & Thomas, S., 2008). According to Marks, Louis,

and Printy (2002), staff members who engage in "active organizational learning also have higher achieving

students in contrast to those that do not." Likewise, a study conducted by Horng, Klasik, and Loeb (2010),

concluded that leadership in effective institutions "supports teachers by creating collaborative work

environments." Institutional leaders have a responsibility to provide experiences, resources, and time for

educators to engage in meaningful professional learning that promotes student learning and educator quality.

AdvancED has found that a successful institution implements a curriculum based on clear and measurable

expectations for student learning. The curriculum provides opportunities for all students to acquire requisite

knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Teachers use proven instructional practices that actively engage students in

the learning process. Teachers provide opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills to real

world situations. Teachers give students feedback to improve their performance.

Institutions with strong improvement processes move beyond anxiety about the current reality and focus on

priorities and initiatives for the future. Using results, i.e., data and other information, to guide continuous

improvement is key to an institution's success. A study conducted by Datnow, Park, and Wohlstetter (2007)

from the Center on Educational Governance at the University of Southern California indicated that data can

shed light on existing areas of strength and weakness and also guide improvement strategies in a systematic

and strategic manner (Dembosky, J., Pane, J., Barney, H., & Christina, R., 2005). The study also identified six










key strategies that performance-driven systems use: (1) building a foundation for data-driven decision making,

(2) establishing a culture of data use and continuous improvement, (3) investing in an information management

system, (4) selecting the right data, (5) building institutional capacity for data-driven decision making, and (6)

analyzing and acting on data to improve performance. Other research studies, though largely without

comparison groups, suggested that data-driven decision-making has the potential to increase student

performance (Alwin, 2002; Doyle, 2003; Lafee, 2002; McIntire, 2002).

Through ongoing evaluation of educational institutions, AdvancED has found that a successful institution uses

a comprehensive assessment system based on clearly defined performance measures. The system is used to

assess student performance on expectations for student learning, evaluate the effectiveness of curriculum and

instruction, and determine strategies to improve student performance. The institution implements a

collaborative and ongoing process for improvement that aligns the functions of the school with the expectations

for student learning. Improvement efforts are sustained, and the institution demonstrates progress in improving

student performance and institution effectiveness.

Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for LearningThe system's curriculum, instructional design, and assessment practices guide and ensure teacher

effectiveness and student learning across all grades and courses.

Indicator Description Review TeamScore

AdvancEDNetworkAverage

3.1 The system's curriculum provides equitable and challenginglearning experiences that ensure all students have sufficientopportunities to develop learning, thinking, and life skills thatlead to success at the next level.

2.83 2.68

3.2 Curriculum, instruction, and assessment throughout the systemare monitored and adjusted systematically in response to datafrom multiple assessments of student learning and anexamination of professional practice.

3.00 2.50

3.3 Teachers throughout the district engage students in theirlearning through instructional strategies that ensureachievement of learning expectations.

2.14 2.55

3.4 System and school leaders monitor and support theimprovement of instructional practices of teachers to ensurestudent success.

2.76 2.73

3.5 The system operates as a collaborative learning organizationthrough structures that support improved instruction and studentlearning at all levels.

2.17 2.57

3.6 Teachers implement the system's instructional process insupport of student learning.

2.17 2.48

3.7 Mentoring, coaching, and induction programs supportinstructional improvement consistent with the system's valuesand beliefs about teaching and learning.

2.41 2.60










Standard 5 - Using Results for Continuous ImprovementThe system implements a comprehensive assessment system that generates a range of data about student

learning and system effectiveness and uses the results to guide continuous improvement.

Student Performance DiagnosticThe quality of assessments used to measure student learning, assurance that assessments are administered

with procedural fidelity and appropriate accommodations, assessment results that reflect the quality of



3.8 The system and all of its schools engage families in meaningfulways in their children's education and keep them informed oftheir children's learning progress.

2.69 2.92

3.9 The system designs and evaluates structures in all schoolswhereby each student is well known by at least one adultadvocate in the student's school who supports that student'seducational experience.

1.83 2.40

3.10 Grading and reporting are based on clearly defined criteria thatrepresent the attainment of content knowledge and skills andare consistent across grade levels and courses.

1.93 2.53

3.11 All staff members participate in a continuous program ofprofessional learning.

2.10 2.64

3.12 The system and its schools provide and coordinate learningsupport services to meet the unique learning needs of students.

2.45 2.66



5.1 The system establishes and maintains a clearly defined andcomprehensive student assessment system.

2.97 2.66

5.2 Professional and support staff continuously collect, analyze andapply learning from a range of data sources, includingcomparison and trend data about student learning, instruction,program evaluation, and organizational conditions that supportlearning.

2.59 2.41

5.3 Throughout the system professional and support staff aretrained in the interpretation and use of data.

2.07 2.15

5.4 The school system engages in a continuous process todetermine verifiable improvement in student learning, includingreadiness for and success at the next level.

2.14 2.46

5.5 System and school leaders monitor and communicatecomprehensive information about student learning, schoolperformance, and the achievement of system and schoolimprovement goals to stakeholders.

2.72 2.72










learning, and closing gaps in achievement among subpopulations of students are all important indicators for

evaluating overall student performance.

Evaluative Criteria Review TeamScore

AdvancED NetworkAverage

Assessment Quality 2.96 3.28

Test Administration 3.39 3.50

Equity of Learning 2.26 2.44

Quality of Learning 2.91 2.97










Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot™)Every learner should have access to an effective learning environment in which she/he has multiple

opportunities to be successful. The Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot™) measures the

extent to which learners are in an environment that is equitable, supportive, and well-managed. An

environment where high expectations are the norm and active learning takes place. It measures whether

learners' progress is monitored and feedback is provided and the extent to which technology is leveraged for

learning.

Observations of classrooms or other learning venues are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes per

observation. Every member of the External Review Team is required to be trained and pass a certification

exam that establishes inter-rater reliability. Team members conduct multiple observations during the review

process and provide ratings on 30 items based on a four-point scale (4=very evident; 3=evident; 2=somewhat

evident; and 1=not observed). The following provides the aggregate average score across multiple

observations for each of the seven learning environments included in eleot™ as well as benchmark results

across the AdvancED Network.

The Team visited 40 schools and observed 305 classrooms representing a wide array of different subject

environments. The classes were found to be well managed (3.22), supported in learning (3.14), and monitoring

student progress with most activities fostering collaboration and active learning (2.98). While the instructional

strategies and practices varied and appeared sincerely presented, they did not always produce outcomes

desired in either scores or having the student fully understand the information needed to apply the knowledge.

eleot™ Results

Review Network

A. E

quita

ble

Lear

ning

B. H

igh

Expe

ctat

ions

C. S

uppo

rtive

Lea

rnin

g

D. A

ctiv

e Le

arni

ng

E. P

rogr

ess

Mon

itorin

g an

d

Feed

back

F. W

ell-M

anag

ed L

earn

ing

G. D

igita

l Lea

rnin

g

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Per

form

ance

Lev

els

2.80 2.69 2.85 2.813.14 3.07 2.98 2.94 2.92 2.79

3.22 3.14

1.76 1.83










The opportunities for equitable participation in classroom activities and resources were clearly evident (2.80)

but differentiated learning was not as prevalent. The classroom environment fostered high expectation (2.85),

not just in the subject activity, but beyond the classroom with the philosophy of always trying to do your best.

The schools visited had a wide offering of media and technology opportunities, but not all schools had the

same level of technology. This inconsistency between all system schools has been addressed by the

leadership. This has not effected learning as much as has the limited use of technology by the student which

would lead to meaningful activities in the classroom (1.76). The schools have technology, but the students are

not fully engaged through lesson-planned activities in collaborative research or individual creative learning.

The eleot results show a system which is above the AdvancED Network (AEN) averages in all but one area

and this is only slightly less: Digital Learning 1.76, AEN 1.83.

Many of the observed teachers used the available classroom technology but primarily to present subject matter

or augment the textbook. Students seldom interacted with the technology in front of the classroom or during

group work. Bring you own device (BYOD) activities were seen in few classes. (Digital Learning, 1.76)

The classroom environment was conducive to learning with managed activities and good behavior, but there

was inconsistent provision of exemplars of high quality work (High Expectations, Item B3, 2.39). This was

observed through positive teacher support which resulted in increased student responsiveness to instruction

(B1, 3.14). The well planned class activities and smooth transition promoted an effective use of time and

increased active learning opportunities (Well-Managed Learning, 3.22).

It was observed that instructional practices varied throughout the system. This inconsistency could lead to

varied results in student learning and scoring (Equitable Learning Item A1, 2.60). The varied grading criteria

and weight of classroom activities across much of the observed schools could lead to varying degrees of

success and outcomes (Standard Indicator, 3.10). The district has already identified this discrepancy and will

implement a standardized system-wide grading criteria policy starting next school year (2016-17).

In Polk County Schools teachers are teaching and students are learning. A system cannot ask much more than

that. It must, however, continue to ensure all students in all school facilities are being provided the best

opportunity for success with resources available uniformly throughout the school system (Standard 4.6

Indicator Rating, 2.07). It also should ensure the system is led by highly qualified administrators, teachers and

support staff trained and provided with the necessary professional development in content areas, data use,

and best practice instructional strategies which contribute to student success (Standard 3.11, Indicator Rating,

2.10). The system is cognizant of the need to increase teacher retention and is employing strategies to

address this situation. This large system over the last few years has averaged hiring over 700 new teachers

every year. The system has raised beginning teacher salaries and implemented other measures to be a more

forward thinking organization.

In an ever changing world of needs and demands from the workplace and post-secondary education, every

system is tasked to find new ways to continue improvement. The visiting team saw in the school classroom










many excellent teachers and devoted staff with attentive students striving for a better future. They appear to be

ready for the challenge through higher expectations for themselves and their school.










eleot™ Data Summary

A. Equitable Learning %

Item Average Description

Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.60 Has differentiated learning opportunitiesand activities that meet her/his needs

27.54% 29.84% 18.03% 24.59%

2. 3.40 Has equal access to classroomdiscussions, activities, resources,technology, and support

52.79% 36.72% 8.20% 2.30%

3. 3.19 Knows that rules and consequences arefair, clear, and consistently applied

38.69% 45.57% 11.48% 4.26%

4. 2.00 Has ongoing opportunities to learnabout their own and other'sbackgrounds/cultures/differences

9.51% 27.21% 16.72% 46.56%

Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 2.80

B. High Expectations %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.14 Knows and strives to meet the highexpectations established by the teacher

36.07% 45.57% 14.43% 3.93%

2. 3.09 Is tasked with activities and learning thatare challenging but attainable

32.13% 49.84% 12.46% 5.57%

3. 2.39 Is provided exemplars of high qualitywork

15.41% 38.36% 15.74% 30.49%

4. 2.88 Is engaged in rigorous coursework,discussions, and/or tasks

24.26% 46.89% 21.31% 7.54%

5. 2.77 Is asked and responds to questions thatrequire higher order thinking (e.g.,applying, evaluating, synthesizing)

22.62% 45.57% 17.70% 14.10%











C. Supportive Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.26 Demonstrates or expresses thatlearning experiences are positive

40.00% 47.87% 10.16% 1.97%

2. 3.34 Demonstrates positive attitude about theclassroom and learning

45.57% 44.59% 8.20% 1.64%

3. 3.22 Takes risks in learning (without fear ofnegative feedback)

38.69% 48.20% 9.51% 3.61%

4. 3.20 Is provided support and assistance tounderstand content and accomplishtasks

39.67% 44.92% 10.82% 4.59%

5. 2.67 Is provided additional/alternativeinstruction and feedback at theappropriate level of challenge for her/hisneeds

24.26% 39.34% 15.08% 21.31%


D. Active Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.17 Has several opportunities to engage indiscussions with teacher and otherstudents

42.95% 37.38% 13.77% 5.90%

2. 2.54 Makes connections from content to real-life experiences

25.90% 30.16% 16.07% 27.87%

3. 3.24 Is actively engaged in the learningactivities

42.95% 40.33% 14.43% 2.30%











E. Progress Monitoring and Feedback %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.99 Is asked and/or quizzed about individualprogress/learning

29.51% 47.54% 15.41% 7.54%

2. 2.99 Responds to teacher feedback toimprove understanding

29.51% 48.85% 12.79% 8.85%

3. 3.05 Demonstrates or verbalizesunderstanding of the lesson/content

30.82% 48.52% 15.08% 5.57%

4. 2.68 Understands how her/his work isassessed

24.26% 38.03% 19.34% 18.36%

5. 2.90 Has opportunities to revise/improvework based on feedback

28.85% 44.92% 13.11% 13.11%


F. Well-Managed Learning %

Item Average DescriptionV

ery

Evi

den

t

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.45 Speaks and interacts respectfully withteacher(s) and peers

58.03% 31.80% 7.21% 2.95%

2. 3.37 Follows classroom rules and works wellwith others

49.84% 39.67% 8.20% 2.30%

3. 3.06 Transitions smoothly and efficiently toactivities

40.98% 35.41% 12.46% 11.15%

4. 2.89 Collaborates with other students duringstudent-centered activities

36.07% 32.79% 15.08% 16.07%

5. 3.31 Knows classroom routines, behavioralexpectations and consequences

47.21% 40.66% 8.52% 3.61%











FindingsImprovement PriorityDesign, implement, and evaluate system-wide grading and reporting practices that clearly define criteria

representing attainment of content knowledge and skills across all grade levels and courses.

(Indicator 3.10)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.10

Evidence and Rationale

Stakeholders interviewed were not aware of system-wide grading policies and procedures. During the review

of artifacts, it became apparent these written grading policies, processes, and procedures were not evident nor

evaluated by course, subject or grade level. Implementing a system grading criteria would inform teachers and

students of the uniform weight of various assessments and the content level of knowledge attained. This

consistency would provide students transferring within the system and those moving to the next grade a fair

appraisal of their work and related grade. The system having recognized this need, will begin implementing in

the Fall 2016, a system-wide grading criteria and establish a process to monitor its adherence.

Improvement PriorityDevelop and implement a systematic structure that includes a training component for staff that ensures each

student is well known by an adult advocate.

(Indicator 3.9)

Primary Indicator

G. Digital Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 1.96 Uses digital tools/technology to gather,evaluate, and/or use information forlearning

15.74% 19.02% 10.82% 54.43%

2. 1.72 Uses digital tools/technology to conductresearch, solve problems, and/or createoriginal works for learning

10.82% 15.74% 7.87% 65.57%

3. 1.60 Uses digital tools/technology tocommunicate and work collaborativelyfor learning

9.18% 11.15% 10.49% 69.18%











Indicator 3.9


A review of artifacts and discussions with stakeholder groups revealed the lack of formal systemic structures

whereby students are individually assigned to school personnel for advocacy and support. During various

interviews the team was apprised of a number of organizations and activities in place that may engage in

advocacy support for students. The External Review Team recognizes the importance of these structures and

commends schools for their efforts. There was, however, no evidence that all students were provided an

opportunity to benefit from formal advocacy structures in every school. A student having the advocacy of

school personnel benefits academically, socially, and emotionally. School personnel, additionally, gain

significant insight into a student’s needs regarding learning skills, thinking skills, and life skills. Once the formal

process is fully implemented, there should be measures to evaluate its success and benefit.

Improvement PriorityImplement a systemic formalized continuous improvement process that focuses more on the use of

comprehensive data to monitor progress towards system goals and student learning objectives.

(Indicator 5.4)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 5.4


From stakeholder interviews, system document review, including, but not limited to data training agendas,

leadership institute presentations, various data presentations, and team school visits, the system did not

appear to have processes in place to verify improvements in student learning and student readiness for

success at the next level. Adopting a systemic continuous improvement process that monitors data and

instructional decisions should serve to improve and sustain student learning and growth. Clearly defined

processes and procedures to monitor and evaluate the results of continuous improvement action plans related

to student learning will serve to improve instructional practices and student success

Opportunity For ImprovementEstablish a system-wide process for school level mentoring programs that enhance relationships with students

and improves instructional practices.

(Indicator 3.7)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.7


Polk County School District currently has a Teacher Induction Program Seminar (TIPS) for new teachers. This

induction and support program limited to new teachers provides professional development on collection,

analysis, and interpretation of data. Qualification for this program is based on state requirements. The district










is restricted in the number of teachers that qualify for this program because of funding constraints. It is

recommended that highly effective teachers mentor new or experienced educators that need support at the

school level. These teacher mentors could provide support on instruction, classroom management, data

analysis, or other identified needs. This continued support throughout a teacher's career will augment the

necessary tools to be successful in the classroom. This personal engagement will foster a caring foundation to

possibly assist in retention. The system self-assessment also noted that it plans to focus on increasing school-

level mentoring programs that build relationships with students over time. The implementation of this plan

should help in student/school engagement and would supplement the formal system-wide adult advocacy

program.

Opportunity For ImprovementFormalize a process to ensure the systemic implementation and structure of Professional Learning

Communities (PLC) that empower and build the capacity of teachers to improve instructional practices.

(Indicator 3.5)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.5


Polk County School District has a program to promote collaboration at a system level referred to as Teacher

Leader Cadre (TLC). This cadre promotes collaboration and professional development that is disseminated to

the schools through an instructional leader. Although this is a program to be commended, the Professional

Learning Community (PLC) practices are not consistent across the system. Key elements of PLCs are not

evident and are at times confused for common planning or traditional professional development models. A

systematic process for collaboration within schools that promotes peer support, instructional reflection and

student analysis would be beneficial to increase student achievement. Professional development on true PLCs

could be provided and include topics such as: action research, lesson studies, and peer observations.

Collaboration among professional educators can lead to enhanced best practice instructional strategies which

can be shared and improved upon. This can also be used to support and develop new teachers.

Opportunity For ImprovementInitiate a comprehensive system-wide long-range professional learning program for all system staff members

and teachers to ensure all actions are aligned with the system's purpose and direction and based on the needs

of the system.

(Indicator 3.11)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.11


During interviews and in review of training attendance, there was no evidence of full participation by all staff

members in professional learning which aligned with the system purpose and direction. Everyone participating










in the training builds capacity to fulfill the needs of the system. Meaningful and relevant content area training,

based on a system needs assessment and regularly evaluated for effectiveness, will benefit both the system

and individual schools and support the continuous improvement process. This professional development

should include: system-wide instructional practices, understanding of student learning characteristics and the

use of data in addressing the unique learning needs of all students.










Leadership CapacityThe capacity of leadership to ensure an institution's progress towards its stated objectives is an essential

element of organizational effectiveness. An institution's leadership capacity includes the fidelity and

commitment to its institutional purpose and direction, the effectiveness of governance and leadership to enable

the institution to realize its stated objectives, the ability to engage and involve stakeholders in meaningful and

productive ways, and the capacity to enact strategies to improve results of student learning.

Purpose and direction are critical to successful institutions. A study conducted in 2010 by the London-based

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) reported that "in addition to improving performance,

the research indicates that having a sense of shared purpose also improves employee engagement" and that

"lack of understanding around purpose can lead to demotivation and emotional detachment, which in turn lead

to a disengaged and dissatisfied workforce."

AdvancED has found through its evaluation of best practices in more than 32,000 institutions around the world

that a successful institution commits to a shared purpose and direction and establishes expectations for

student learning that are aligned with the institutions' vision and supported by internal and external

stakeholders. These expectations serve as the focus for assessing student performance and overall institution

effectiveness.

Governance and leadership are key factors in raising institutional quality. Leaders, both local administrators

and governing boards/authorities, are responsible for ensuring all learners achieve while also managing many

other facets of an institution. Institutions that function effectively do so without tension between the governing

board/authority, administrators, and educators and have established relationships of mutual respect and a

shared vision (Feuerstein & Opfer, 1998). In a meta-analysis of educational institution leadership research,

Leithwood and Sun (2012) found that leaders (school and governing boards/authority) can significantly

"influence school conditions through their achievement of a shared vision and agreed-on goals for the

organization, their high expectations and support of organizational members, and their practices that

strengthen school culture and foster collaboration within the organization." With the increasing demands of

accountability placed on institutional leaders, leaders who empower others need considerable autonomy and

involve their communities to attain continuous improvement goals. Leaders who engage in such practices

experience a greater level of success (Fink & Brayman, 2006). Similarly, governing boards/authorities that

focus on policy-making are more likely to allow institutional leaders the autonomy to make decisions that

impact teachers and students and are less responsive to politicization than boards/authorities that respond to

vocal citizens (Greene, 1992).

AdvancED's experience, gained through evaluation of best practices, has indicated that a successful institution

has leaders who are advocates for the institution's vision and improvement efforts. The leaders provide

direction and allocate resources to implement curricular and co-curricular programs that enable students to

achieve expectations for their learning. Leaders encourage collaboration and shared responsibility for school

improvement among stakeholders. The institution's policies, procedures, and organizational conditions ensure

equity of learning opportunities and support for innovation.










Standard 1 - Purpose and DirectionThe system maintains and communicates at all levels of the organization a purpose and direction for

continuous improvement that commit to high expectations for learning as well as shared values and beliefs

about teaching and learning.

Standard 2 - Governance and LeadershipThe system operates under governance and leadership that promote and support student performance and

system effectiveness.



1.1 The system engages in a systematic, inclusive, andcomprehensive process to review, revise, and communicate asystem-wide purpose for student success.

2.59 2.62

1.2 The system ensures that each school engages in a systematic,inclusive, and comprehensive process to review, revise, andcommunicate a school purpose for student success.

2.59 2.63

1.3 The school leadership and staff at all levels of the systemcommit to a culture that is based on shared values and beliefsabout teaching and learning and supports challenging, equitableeducational programs and learning experiences for all studentsthat include achievement of learning, thinking, and life skills.

2.72 2.89

1.4 Leadership at all levels of the system implement a continuousimprovement process that provides clear direction for improvingconditions that support student learning.

2.69 2.61



2.1 The governing body establishes policies and supports practicesthat ensure effective administration of the system and itsschools.

2.93 2.95

2.2 The governing body operates responsibly and functionseffectively.

3.62 2.92

2.3 The governing body ensures that the leadership at all levels hasthe autonomy to meet goals for achievement and instruction andto manage day-to-day operations effectively.

3.59 3.12

2.4 Leadership and staff at all levels of the system foster a cultureconsistent with the system's purpose and direction.

2.66 2.97

2.5 Leadership engages stakeholders effectively in support of thesystem's purpose and direction.

2.52 2.67










Stakeholder Feedback DiagnosticStakeholder Feedback is the third of three primary areas of evaluation in AdvancED's Performance

Accreditation model. The AdvancED surveys (student, parent, and teacher) are directly correlated to the

AdvancED Standards and indicators. They provide not only direct information about stakeholder satisfaction

but also become a source of data for triangulation by the External Review Team as it evaluates indicators.

Institutions are asked to collect and analyze stakeholder feedback data, then submit the data and the analyses

to the External Review Team for review. The External Review Team evaluates the quality of the administration

of the surveys by institution, survey results, and the degree to which the institution analyzed and acted on the

results.



2.6 Leadership and staff supervision and evaluation processesresult in improved professional practice in all areas of thesystem and improved student success.

2.76 2.76

Evaluative Criteria Review TeamScore


Questionnaire Administration 3.08 3.36

Stakeholder Feedback Results and Analysis 3.72 3.04










Resource UtilizationThe use and distribution of resources must be aligned and supportive of the needs of an institution and the

students served. Institutions must ensure that resources are aligned with the stated mission and are distributed

equitably so that the needs of students are adequately and effectively addressed. The utilization of resources

includes an examination of the allocation and use of resources, the equity of resource distribution to need, the

ability of the institution to ensure appropriate levels of funding and sustainability of resources, as well as

evidence of long-range capital and resource planning effectiveness.

Institutions, regardless of their size, need access to sufficient resources and systems of support to be able to

engage in sustained and meaningful efforts that result in a continuous improvement cycle. Indeed, a study

conducted by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (Pan, D., Rudo, Z., Schneider, C., & Smith-

Hansen, L., 2003) "demonstrated a strong relationship between resources and student success... both the

level of resources and their explicit allocation seem to affect educational outcomes."

AdvancED has found through its own evaluation of best practices in the more than 32,000 institutions in the

AdvancED Network that a successful institution has sufficient human, material, and fiscal resources to

implement a curriculum that enables students to achieve expectations for student learning, meets special

needs, and complies with applicable regulations. The institution employs and allocates staff members who are

well qualified for their assignments. The institution provides a safe learning environment for students and staff.

The institution provides ongoing learning opportunities for all staff members to improve their effectiveness and

ensures compliance with applicable governmental regulations.

Standard 4 - Resources and Support SystemsThe system has resources and provides services in all schools that support its purpose and direction to ensure

success for all students.



4.1 The system engages in a systematic process to recruit, employ,and retain a sufficient number of qualified professional andsupport staff to fulfill their roles and responsibilities and supportthe purpose and direction of the system, individual schools, andeducational programs.

2.41 2.92

4.2 Instructional time, material resources, and fiscal resources aresufficient to support the purpose and direction of the system,individual schools, educational programs, and systemoperations.

2.83 2.93

4.3 The system maintains facilities, services, and equipment toprovide a safe, clean, and healthy environment for all studentsand staff.

2.76 3.05

4.4 The system demonstrates strategic resource management thatincludes long-range planning in support of the purpose anddirection of the system.

2.90 2.63










FindingsImprovement PriorityImplement a systematic comprehensive technology plan that will improve services and provide a fully

functional infrastructure designed to equip and support the system's vision.

(Indicator 4.6)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 4.6


Through artifacts review, observation, and interviews, there was evidence of a computerized school

management system, web content management system, and library management system. However, they all

appeared to be in their initial stage of implementation. Additionally, while the schools are utilizing technology at

all levels among all stakeholders, its implementation is primarily data entry. Training is required on how to

access and use the system for all stakeholders. Technology use is somewhat inconsistent throughout the

system in its application and availability. A technology plan will address many of these issues, including the

proper instructional use of technology as a tool for interactive student learning and engagement. Observed

classroom use of technology was primarily teacher centered.



4.5 The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates theeffectiveness of information resources and related personnel tosupport educational programs throughout the system.

2.62 2.74

4.6 The system provides a technology infrastructure and equipmentto support the system's teaching, learning, and operationalneeds.

2.07 2.54

4.7 The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates theeffectiveness of support systems to meet the physical, social,and emotional needs of the student population being served.

2.38 2.66

4.8 The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates theeffectiveness of services that support the counseling,assessment, referral, educational, and career planning needs ofall students.

2.52 2.60










ConclusionThe appointed superintendent in her second year is beginning to see improvement in student achievement

from the many changes in policy and expectations throughout the district. She has an aggressive five-year plan

that will direct the system to achieve at a level previously unattained. Full fruition of her initiatives may take

longer than desired, but given a focused vision and support by the school board, they are well within reach. A

full acceptance system wide of the progressive attitude for change and improvement will enhance success.

A major challenge heard from the superintendent and school board members is the need to receive enough

funds to satisfy the capital outlay required to provide the best facilities for a high quality of education for the

students. Another challenge the district has begun work on is to ameliorate the high mobility rate of its

students. The district is providing summer learning opportunities and learning backpacks. The community has

well received this program and a significant number of students have taken advantage of this initiative.

The superintendent since 2013-14 has guided the district through a comprehensive system of initiatives for

improvement. These initiatives include: a comprehensive aligned instructional system, the establishment of a

regional system of support with coaching staff, the identification of a tiered system for schools to address those

with academic challenges, the establishment of an extensive summer learning program that supports

increased reading, mathematics and science, and the beginning of a comprehensive literacy program for

elementary students. Whether it is initiatives to improve the professional development process of staff,

establishing parent centers or literacy programs like Read While You Roll on buses and "Power Up Polk," the

system has implemented numerous focused activities that align with actions which should assist and support

student success.

The system has clearly identified its current challenges and established programs and initiatives that will

enable it to make progress and achieve system goals. These include: improving technology and support

infrastructure to be able to keep up with the demand of providing the skills necessary for students to be

successful in the workplace or post-secondary classroom, increasing the reading, math and science skills of

students through dedicated programs; empowering staff to interpret student assessment data so they can

utilize it to make instructional decisions and alter practices and strategies; establishing system-wide uniform

grading criteria that accurately represent attainment of content knowledge and skills; providing a formal

structure for a system-wide adult advocacy program which will encourage and engage students in school

which should improve graduation rate; and enhancing the District Professional Development plan, which will

increase the number of personnel participating and provide them with not only opportunity for individual growth

but establish continuity within the system. This will increase the number of teachers utilizing instructional

strategies that enhance the achievement of learning expectations.

The system is exemplary in its efforts to identify its challenges and in the development of aggressive processes

to resolve them. The many diverse initiatives, when collectively viewed, provide a singular path to future

student achievement and success.












-

-

-

-

Improvement PrioritiesThe institution should use the findings from this review to guide the continuous improvement process. The

institution must address the Improvement Priorities listed below:

Design, implement, and evaluate system-wide grading and reporting practices that clearly define criteria

representing attainment of content knowledge and skills across all grade levels and courses.

Develop and implement a systematic structure that includes a training component for staff that ensures

each student is well known by an adult advocate.

Implement a systematic comprehensive technology plan that will improve services and provide a fully

functional infrastructure designed to equip and support the system's vision.

Implement a systemic formalized continuous improvement process that focuses more on the use of

comprehensive data to monitor progress towards system goals and student learning objectives.












Accreditation RecommendationIndex of Education QualityThe Index of Education Quality (IEQ™) provides a holistic measure of overall performance based on a

comprehensive set of indicators and evaluative criteria. A formative tool for improvement, it identifies areas of

success as well as areas in need of focus.

The IEQ™ comprises three domains: 1) the impact of teaching and learning on student performance; 2) the

leadership capacity to govern; and 3) the use of resources and data to support and optimize learning.

The overall and domain scores can range from 100-400. The domain scores are derived from: the AdvancED

Standards and indicators ratings; results of the Analysis of Student Performance; and data from Stakeholder

Feedback Surveys (students, parents, and staff).

The IEQ™ results include information about how the institution is performing compared to expected criteria as

well as to other institutions in the AdvancED Network. The institution should use the information in this report,

including the corresponding performance rubrics, to identify specific areas of improvement.

Consequently, the External Review Team recommends to the AdvancED Accreditation Commission that the

institution earn the distinction of accreditation for a five-year term. AdvancED will review the results of the

External Review to make a final determination including the appropriate next steps for the institution in

response to these findings.

External Review IEQScore


Overall Score 264.45 278.34

Teaching and Learning Impact 249.94 268.94

Leadership Capacity 295.46 292.64

Resource Utilization 256.03 283.23












AddendaIndividual Institution Results (Self-reported)

Institution Name Teaching andLearning Impact

LeadershipCapacity

ResourceUtilization

Overall IEQScore

Alta Vista Elementary 295.24 300.00 342.86 305.13

Alturas Elementary 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00

Auburndale Central Elementary 280.95 281.82 228.57 271.79

Auburndale High School 309.52 309.09 300.00 307.69

B.E.S.T. 238.10 245.45 214.29 235.90

Bartow Elementary Academy 300.00 309.09 300.00 302.56

Bartow HighSchool/InternationalBaccalaureateSchool/Summerlin

304.76 309.09 300.00 305.13

Bartow Middle 276.19 263.64 242.86 266.67

Ben Hill Griffin Elementary 285.71 309.09 300.00 294.87

Bethune Academy 319.05 363.64 300.00 328.21

Bill Duncan Opportunity Center 228.57 254.55 257.14 241.03

Blake Middle Academy 309.52 290.91 257.14 294.87

Boswell Elementary 300.00 309.09 300.00 302.56

Brigham Academy 295.24 300.00 300.00 297.44

Carlton Palmore Elementary 276.19 290.91 285.71 282.05

Chain of Lakes Elementary 223.81 272.73 271.43 246.15

Churchwell Elementary 300.00 327.27 328.57 312.82

Cleveland Court Elementary 300.00 309.09 300.00 302.56

Combee Elementary 300.00 327.27 328.57 312.82

Crystal Lake Elementary 285.71 290.91 300.00 289.74

Crystal Lake Middle 271.43 290.91 257.14 274.36

Daniel Jenkins MiddleAcademy

290.48 327.27 271.43 297.44

Davenport Community Campus 252.38 290.91 257.14 264.10

Davenport School of Arts 323.81 327.27 300.00 320.51















LeadershipCapacity

ResourceUtilization

Overall IEQScore

Denison Middle 290.48 300.00 271.43 289.74

Dixieland Elementary 295.24 309.09 300.00 300.00

Don E. Wood OpportunityCenter

252.38 227.27 257.14 246.15

Doris Sanders Learning Center 261.90 245.45 271.43 258.97

Dr. N. E. Roberts Elementary 304.76 281.82 328.57 302.56

Dundee Elementary Academy 280.95 263.64 214.29 264.10

Dundee Ridge Middle Academy 266.67 263.64 228.57 258.97

Eagle Lake Elementary 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00

East Area Adult 242.86 263.64 242.86 248.72

Eastside Elementary 276.19 300.00 300.00 287.18

Elbert Elementary 280.95 372.73 271.43 305.13

Floral Ave Elementary 280.95 309.09 300.00 292.31

Fort Meade Middle Senior HighSchool

285.71 327.27 314.29 302.56

Frostproof Elementary 300.00 309.09 300.00 302.56

Frostproof Middle/Senior HighSchool

266.67 263.64 271.43 266.67

Garden Grove Elementary 290.48 309.09 300.00 297.44

Garner Elementary 266.67 345.45 257.14 287.18

Gause Academy of Leadershipand Applied Technology

342.86 345.45 371.43 348.72

George Jenkins High School 280.95 309.09 300.00 292.31

Gibbons Street Elementary 266.67 300.00 300.00 282.05

Griffin Elementary 295.24 336.36 271.43 302.56

Haines City High School 347.62 345.45 371.43 351.28

Harrison School of the Arts 276.19 300.00 300.00 287.18

Highland City Elementary 304.76 318.18 300.00 307.69

Highlands Grove Elementary 304.76 309.09 357.14 315.38

Horizons Elementary 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00

Inwood Elementary 247.62 218.18 257.14 241.03

Jean O'Dell Learning Center 252.38 263.64 157.14 238.46

Jesse Keen Elementary 319.05 290.91 300.00 307.69

Jewett Middle Academy 295.24 309.09 285.71 297.44















LeadershipCapacity

ResourceUtilization

Overall IEQScore

Jewett School of the ArtsMagnet

257.14 236.36 257.14 251.28

John Snively Elementary 290.48 272.73 342.86 294.87

Karen M. Siegal Academy 266.67 300.00 285.71 279.49

Kathleen Elementary 314.29 372.73 357.14 338.46

Kathleen High School 309.52 300.00 300.00 305.13

Kathleen Middle 261.90 300.00 271.43 274.36

Kingsford Elementary 300.00 309.09 300.00 302.56

Lake Alfred Elementary 328.57 336.36 314.29 328.21

Lake Alfred-Addair Middle 266.67 281.82 285.71 274.36

Lake Gibson High School 295.24 300.00 300.00 297.44

Lake Gibson Middle 285.71 309.09 300.00 294.87

Lake Marion Creek Middle 352.38 336.36 400.00 356.41

Lake Region High School 319.05 354.55 300.00 325.64

Lake Shipp Elementary 257.14 236.36 214.29 243.59

Lakeland Highlands Middle 257.14 290.91 285.71 271.79

Lakeland Senior High School 257.14 263.64 200.00 248.72

Laurel Elementary 295.24 300.00 300.00 297.44

Lawton Chiles Middle Academy 338.10 345.45 314.29 335.90

Lena Vista Elementary 309.52 318.18 300.00 310.26

Lewis A Woodbury Elementary 247.62 281.82 285.71 264.10

Lewis Elementary 247.62 300.00 285.71 269.23

Lincoln Avenue Academy 300.00 309.09 300.00 302.56

Loughman Oaks Elementary 261.90 263.64 271.43 264.10

McLaughlin Middle 266.67 281.82 257.14 269.23

Medulla Elementary 300.00 336.36 285.71 307.69

Mulberry High School 280.95 300.00 314.29 292.31

Mulberry Middle 309.52 300.00 328.57 310.26

North Lakeland Elementary 314.29 318.18 300.00 312.82

Oscar J Pope Elementary 247.62 263.64 242.86 251.28

Padgett Elementary 300.00 290.91 300.00 297.44

Palmetto Elementary 233.33 254.55 214.29 235.90

Philip O'Brien Elementary 300.00 281.82 285.71 292.31















LeadershipCapacity

ResourceUtilization

Overall IEQScore

Pinewood Elementary 319.05 318.18 300.00 315.38

Polk City Elementary 309.52 300.00 300.00 305.13

Polk Virtual School 233.33 261.54 200.00 236.59

Purcell Elementary 271.43 309.09 257.14 279.49

R. Bruce Wagner Elementary 300.00 318.18 300.00 305.13

Ridge Community High School 314.29 336.36 314.29 320.51

Ridge Technical College 280.95 327.27 285.71 294.87

Rochelle SOTA 219.05 272.73 242.86 238.46

Roosevelt Academy 276.19 309.09 300.00 289.74

Sandhill Elementary 309.52 281.82 300.00 300.00

Scott Lake Elementary 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00

Shelley S Boone Middle 328.57 300.00 385.71 330.77

Sikes Elementary 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00

Sleepy Hill Elementary 290.48 309.09 300.00 297.44

Sleepy Hill Middle 290.48 300.00 271.43 289.74

Socrum Elementary 300.00 318.18 300.00 305.13

Southwest Elementary 238.10 236.36 242.86 238.46

Southwest Middle 309.52 309.09 300.00 307.69

Spessard Holland Elementary 276.19 309.09 300.00 289.74

Spook Hill Elementary 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00

Stambaugh Middle 300.00 309.09 285.71 300.00

Stephens Elementary 342.86 363.64 285.71 338.46

Tenoroc High School 271.43 309.09 371.43 300.00

Traviss Technical College 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00

Union Academy Magnet School 400.00 381.82 400.00 394.87

Valleyview Elementary 295.24 309.09 300.00 300.00

Wahneta Elementary 247.62 254.55 271.43 253.85

Walter Caldwell Elementary 228.57 281.82 285.71 253.85

Wendell Watson Elementary 319.05 290.91 300.00 307.69

West Area Adult School 242.86 272.73 242.86 251.28

Westwood Middle 295.24 263.64 300.00 287.18

Winston Academy ofEngineering

233.33 300.00 228.57 251.28















LeadershipCapacity

ResourceUtilization

Overall IEQScore

Winter Haven High School 280.95 300.00 271.43 284.62














Team Roster

Member Brief Biography

Dr. Wade Davis Dr. Davis serves as an AdvancED Lead Evaluator, Trainer and AdvancEDFlorida State Council Member. Retired after nearly twenty years as Researchand Evaluation Specialist for School Improvement and as a high school socialstudies teacher for the Osceola School District and in Duplin County, NorthCarolina, Dr. Davis has led accreditation teams for ten years, visiting schools anddistricts in Georgia, Florida, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, China, Indiaand the United Arab Emirates. He served as member of the State AdvisoryCommittee on School Improvement and was the Academic Dean for FloridaMetropolitan University for two years. Dr. Davis has been an adjunct professor,teaching business and management at five colleges, most recently at ValenciaCollege. His earlier careers included being a military helicopter pilot, plantmanager for Wrangler and industrial engineer for Ralph Lauren Polo products.

Dr. Edlow Barker Edlow Barker lives in Richmond, Virginia, with his wife Carolyn. Together, theyhave three children and five grandchildren. His professional work includesextensive experience as assistant superintendent for instruction, director ofinstruction, principal (elementary, middle, and high), assistant principal, teacher,and coach. His experience is primarily in Virginia, but includes two years asdirector in a multi-national private school in Cali, Colombia, South America. Heearned his Bachelor’s Degree from Wake Forest University, the Master's Degreefrom the University of Virginia, and the Doctoral Degree from Virginia Tech.Additional coursework was taken at Norfolk State University and the University ofAlabama. He has taught numerous graduate courses for the University ofVirginia and Radford University. Related leadership activities includedevelopment of educational foundations in two public school districts,development of a regional academic competition league for high schools,Chairman of the Virginia High School League, and development of a regionalGovernor's School program for gifted students. He has served on and chairednumerous accreditation committees for the Southern Association of Colleges andSchools, the Virginia Department of Education, and AdvancED.

Mr. Randall Cook Randall holds a Bachelor's Degree in History from Trevecca University, and aMaster's in Middle Eastern Studies and Religions from Missouri. He has been aneducator for 24 years; twelve years of those as the Social Studies Specialist forLee County School District. He has also been an AP US and AP EuropeanInstructor.He served on the Florida Council of Social Studies Supervisors and the FloridaCouncil for the Social Studies, and serves presently on the National Council forthe Social Studies.Randall served as Chairman of the Florida AdvancED-SACS/CASI State Councilfor the last year, and served on the Florida AdvancED-SACS/CASI StateCouncil for the last six years, and also served on the Review Committee for theCouncil. He has also taught Standards Training at Summer Institutes for SACS.He continues to lead in Pre-K reviews to meet Florida DOE Standards for theCouncil, to be a Lead Evaluator for school External Review Teams, and toconduct readiness visits for schools desiring to be accredited. He has served on District External Review Teams in Florida, Alabama, Georgia,Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and South Carolina. Also, on every DistrictExternal Review Team in Florida on which he has served, he has been theAssociate Lead Evaluator for most of them.















Mrs. Selma B Allen Selma Allen retired as an administrator with 35 years of experience with HalifaxCounty Schools, North Carolina. During those 35 years she worked as anelementary teacher, middle school assistant principal, elementary principal, anddistrict office administrator.

Currently she serves as a field consultant and Lead Evaluator for AdvancEDNorth Carolina. Other AdvancED experiences include service as a state councilmember, School Lead Evaluator, District Associate Lead Evaluator, and districtteam member. She has served as Lead Evaluator for school teams in nineteenschool systems and has served on district review teams in seven school systemsin North Carolina and seven systems in other states across the United States.Selma holds the BA Degree from North Carolina Central University and theMAED from East Carolina University.

Ms. Kathleen Black Kathleen Black is currently a Specialist in the Office of School Improvement andDistrict Accreditation with the School District of Palm Beach County, FL (5thlargest school district in Florida, 11th largest in the nation). Kathleen devoted 11years in an elementary school, teaching all levels and leading various projectswithin the school and the community. She also held a position as a LearningTeam Facilitator, responsible for analyzing student work and data with individualsand teams to impact student achievement as well as coaching and mentoringteachers. Kathleen has a passion for building capacity within the educationalsystem and has presented nationally through the National Science TeachersAssociation (NSTA) in Anaheim, St. Louis, Boston and New Orleans as well asstate and local technology conferences. Kathleen holds an Associates of Artsfrom Palm Beach Community College, graduated Summa Cum Laude with aBachelor of Arts in Elementary Education from Florida Atlantic University, andSumma Cum Laude with a Masters of Educational Leadership (K-12) from theAmerican College of Education.

Lisa Brookins Lisa currently serves as the Hendry County Schools Assistant Director forExceptional Student Education. She has worked as a classroom teacher and ahigh school Assistant Principal. She received a Bachelors in ElementaryEducation and a Master's in Educational Leadership. In the past 3 years she hasserved on two site teams, one for a school and one system review.

Ms. Suzi P Cabe Ms. Cabe currently contracts with North Carolina New Schools to providecoaching services to early college high schools. She received her BS degree insecondary social studies from Western Carolina University. She also holds MAdegrees in library science and curriculum instruction and an EdS in educationalleadership. Her professional experience includes teaching at the elementary,secondary, and community college level. She served 10 years as mediacoordinator at the middle school level. During her last 15 years in Macon Countypublic schools, she was assistant superintendent for curriculum/instruction,testing/accountability, and student information systems. Upon retirement in 2005,she contracted with the system to provide testing and accountability services foranother two years. She also spent 10 years in an business environment. Herassociation with accreditation spans over 30 years. She currently serves as aNC field consultant for AdvancED, lead evaluator for NC schools, and a teammember for out-of-state district, corporate, and distant learning visits.

Dr. Dorothy A Cook Dr. Dorothy Cook served as a professional educator for 38 years before retiringin 2009. She has worked in numerous counties in Florida, as well as Tennessee.She has served as an elementary/middle school teacher, exceptional educationteacher, reading specialist, elementary/middle school principal, adjunctprofessor/guest lecturer, staff development trainer and Area Director of SchoolImprovement. In addition, she has served on numerous school and districtExternal Review Teams during the past 15 years. Currently she is the Presidentand CEO of two consultant and management firms.















Mrs. Jodi Cronin Mrs. Jodi Cronin serves as the Coordinator of School Improvement andAccreditation for Collier County Public Schools in Naples, Florida. In this positionshe coordinates the School Improvement Planning process, School AdvisoryCouncils, Differentiated Accountability, and the Florida School RecognitionProgram. In addition, Mrs. Cronin assists with District Accreditation, MTSS/PBS,summer school and professional development. She has sixteen years ofexperience in education serving as a teacher, data specialist, and district trainerfor data and assessments. Jodi Cronin holds a Bachelor of Science degree inElementary Education from the University of Central Florida, Master of Educationin Curriculum and Instruction from Florida Gulf Coast University, and is currentlycompleting her dissertation in Educational Leadership from the University ofFlorida. Jodi has served on eight district accreditation visits and is trained as anAdvancED lead evaluator.

Dr. David L Dixon Dr. David Dixon is currently a manager of Teacher Development and CurriculumManagement in the College of Continuing Studies at the University of Alabama.In 1980 he began his teaching career in the Shelby County School District inAlabama, where he taught instrumental music Grades 6-12. In 1996 he wasappointed Assistant Principal at Columbiana Middle School for three years andlater accepted the position of principal at Columbiana Middle School for theremaining seven years of his career in public education. After retirement heserved one year as Headmaster of a non-denominational private school inCentral Alabama. Dr. Dixon currently serves as an adjunct professor at theUniversity of West Florida. Degrees include: Bachelor of Music Education,Master’s in Music Education, Education Specialist Degree in EducationalLeadership, and Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Alabama. He hasserved on both school and district review teams throughout the southeast.

Ms. Cheryl Fernandez Ms. Cheryl Fernandez has been in the field of education for more than fifteenyears, and holds an Ed. S. in Curriculum and Instruction. She has beenemployed with Hillsborough County Public Schools in the capacity of CTEeducator, Career Specialist, and District Administrative Resource. Ms.Fernandez's teaching assignment for the last nine years has been with BrooksDeBartolo Collegiate High School. She is also on assignment with HillsboroughCommunity College as a college readiness adjunct instructor. Ms. Fernandez isthe proud mother of a son in the United States Navy, and a daughter who is asenior at UCF.

Mrs. Mary Flynn Mary Flynn have worked in the field of education for 20 years. Three of thoseyears she worked as a case manager with middle school at-risk students. Theremaining 17 years, she has been employed with Duval County Public Schools(DCPS). During her tenure with DCPS, she has served in the capacity as an "At-Risk" teacher, English teacher, Reading teacher, Reading Coach, BehaviorInterventionist, and currently for the pass five years as an Assistant Principal.With the DCPS system she has worked in two middle schools, two alternativecenters, a teen parent center, and three high schools. Her certified includeEducational Leadership & Supervision, English 5-9, Reading Endorsed, andBusiness Education 6-12. She acquired her M.Ed through the University ofPhoenix in Educational Leadership and Supervision and her BA from EdwardWaters College of Jacksonville, Florida in the field of BusinessAdministration/Organizational Management. She has served as an externalreview team member on several occasions.















Mr. Jeff Garthwaite Jeff Garthwaite taught middle school American History and Civics. He served asa middle school assistant principal and principal. He was a school districtcoordinator for the Department of Juvenile Justice schools and Title I PrivateSchools. He was assigned as principal to a rural Pre K - 8th grade school andcharged to raise the failing school grade. Mr. Garthwaite has presented a varietyof educational workshops and informational sessions at national, state, and localconferences. He worked within an educational consulting corporate partnership,providing professional development services to high school principals in sixstates. He has also provided educational consulting and professionaldevelopment services to many Florida charter schools. Mr. Garthwaite served asa Regional Director on the Florida League of Middle Schools Executive Board.He has served on several AdvancED External Review Teams for both schoolsand district systems.

Dr. Nancy G. Golson Dr. Nancy G. Golson, an experienced educator is presently owner and leadconsultant for Red Crayon Associates, which provides training and support fordistricts going through school improvement and accreditation. Previously, Dr.Golson served as Curriculum Director and Director of Special Education inAuburn City Schools, with additional responsibility for school improvement andaccreditation. Additionally, she served as elementary principal for seven years.Much of Dr. Golson’s experience was in Charlotte, North Carolina, where shewas an associate professor at Johnson C. Smith University, then teacher,curriculum coordinator, assistant principal, principal and system director inCharlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. Dr. Golson began her career as a secondaryteacher in Durham, North Carolina, and curriculum consultant for a chain of child-care centers in Atlanta and served on the national committee that set the firststandards for child-care centers. Dr. Golson’s undergraduate and master’sdegrees are from Auburn University; her Ph.D. is from the University of SouthCarolina with additional study atthe University of North Carolina, Charlotte. Dr. Golson’s favorite publication isRed Crayon Finds Her Home, which she wrote for and about the children atDean Road Elementary School where she served as principal for seven years.Dr. Golson served as co-chair of the Auburn City Schools AdvancEDaccreditation and has served as lead evaluator, assistant lead evaluator, andteam member on numerous teams.

Mrs. Alisa L Grace Alisa L. Grace is a Middle School Assistant Principal in Orange County PublicSchools (OCPS). She lives in Sanford, FL and attended Seminole CountyPublic Schools. She holds a Bachelors of Arts Degree in Music (RollinsCollege), Master’s Degree – Educational Leadership (Concordia University), andSpecialist Degree- Curriculum and Instruction (Liberty University) and she iscurrently enrolled at Grand Canyon University, in their Doctor of Education,Organizational Development program. She is certified in Elementary Ed K-6,Exceptional Student Education K-12, Reading Endorsed K-12 and EducationalLeadership K-12. She has taught Music K-5th, ESE Varying Exceptionalities(self-contained and full inclusion), and Reading Classes in the Orange CountyPublic School System. She is pursuing a Doctorate of Education Degreethrough Grand Canyon University. Her educational career highlights herprofessional philosophy, which is to help students maximize their potential toachieve academic excellence. She has worked in various capacities includingleadership roles in the following areas: Department chair of Special Areas andESE, a Curriculum Resource Specialist, Instructional Coach, Learning ResourceSpecialist, Reading Coach, API designee, Staffing and Compliance Specialist forExceptional Education and English Language Learners. She has served onAdvancED SACS-CASI review teams since 2010. Her favorite quote is No OneRises to Low Expectations!















Mrs. Selina C Hall Mrs. Hall lives in Northern Mississippi just outside of Memphis, Tennessee, withher husband, Mike. Together they have a 20 year old son and a 16 year olddaughter. She is the principal of Chickasaw Elementary School in Olive Branch,MS. She received both her B.A.E. and M. Ed. from the University of MS.She began her educational career in 1994 as a teacher. She remained in theclassroom for eleven years. While teaching. she was the grade level chairperson,served on numerous committees; including curriculum development, parentengagement, and leadership. Mrs. Hall has presented at several conferences,and was named as the teacher of the year several times. She completed a fulltime administrative internship during the 2006-2007 school year. She was anassistant principal for two years. She is currently in her eighth year as aprincipal. She is an active member of the National Association of ElementarySchool Principals. This is her third year to serve as the MS State NAESPRepresentative. She is also a member of the International Reading Association,Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, and works inconjunction with local universities mentoring aspiring and new principals. Shehas served as an external review team member for several school and districtaccreditation teams.

Mrs. Brenda Y Hawkes Mrs. Hawkes is a Retired Administrator from Broward County Public SchoolSystem. We are fortunate to have her share 37 years of expertise with boys andgirls in her district. She served in several leadership roles during herprofessional career. She was an Assistant Principal and Principal for ElementarySchools. She served as Director of Effective Schools. Mrs Hawkes received herB.S degree from the renown Bethune Cookman University. She continued toreceive advance degrees from Nova Southeastern Masters and EducationalSpecialist. Finally she completed her Ph.D from Redding University.She is a Former Florida Council member - SACS / CASI with 20 years ofexperience AdvancED

Mr. Lawrence Herring Lawrence Herring retired from the US army as a Sergeant Major with thirty yearsservice in 1994. He was employed in the Mobile County School System, at JohnL. Leflore High School, from 1994-2010, serving as a classroom teacher andadministrator. Lawrence has Degrees in Accounting, and OrganizationalAdministration and Leadership from Queens College ,New York, and TheUniversity of Mobile, Mobile, Alabama. He enjoys landscaping, doing voice oversfor radio, and television. He has been a Lead Evaluator for AdvancED since2008.

Ms. Lorietta Howard Lorietta Howard have been in education for twenty one years serving in thecapacity as ESE teacher, ESE Liaison Reading Teacher, Reading Coach,Administrator, and PBIS Team Member. As an educator, it is important that aneducator is compassionate about students’ success taking into note the social,academic, behavior and personal growth of all students. It is imperative that acommendable relationship with peers, parents and stakeholders is maintain at alltimes. Through professional develop and personal growth, a a number academicand personal accolades have been accomplished.















Dr. Sylvia R. Jackson Dr. Jackson is currently employed as the Director of Gadsden’s TechnicalInstitute (GTI). During the course of her 30-year career as an Educator, sheserved as a middle and high school science teacher; high school lead guidancecounselor; high school assistant principal for curriculum, assessment, andfederal programs; high school principal; curriculum director for both small(Gadsden County Public Schools) and large school districts (Anaheim UnionHigh School District; and a university summer adjunct instructor (CaliforniaLutheran University-Human Growth and Development). She has completedAction Research (CA – Integrated Science Curriculum) for and written andreceived several state (Orange County Middle School STEM Science Grant,FLDOE RTTT) grants both in the State of California and Florida. She has servedas a committee member on numerous university (California Lutheran EducatorsCommittee and FAMU-COE Redesign and Restructuring Committee), communitycollege (Oxnard College Educators Committee and Tallahassee CommunityCollege Outreach Community Committee), and district education committees(Havana Middle School Restructuring Committee, Panhandle Area EducationConsortium Advisory Board).

She is a graduate of the Gadsden County Public School system. She earned herBachelor of Arts degree in Biology from Indiana University, a Psychiatric NursingLicense from Camarillo State Hospital, and my teaching certification in LifeScience from the University of California, Santa Barbara. She has a Master’s ofScience degree in Guidance and Counseling, Master’s of Arts in SchoolAdministration, and a Doctorate of Education Leadership, all of which wereearned at California Lutheran University. She has written high school curriculumfor both English and English as a Second Language science instruction; andpresented at the National Science Teachers’ Association Conference andnumerous local organizations within the learning communities she has served.

During her tenure with the Gadsden County Public Schools System, sheauthored the Race to the Top Grant, the Gadsden Teacher Evaluation Model,and the School Leaders/Non Classroom Teachers Evaluation Models(http://www.gcps.k12.fl.us/ ). She served on the Panhandle Areas EducationConsortium (PAEC) Advisory Board for four years and is currently serving on theGadsden County Development Council. She is also a trained Clinical Educatorcertified by the State of Florida. Her current District responsibilities includedsupervision of the day to day operations of Gadsden Technical Institute andoverseeing the Career and Technical programs at school sites.

Ms. Margaret PublicoverKring

Ms. Kring's experience in education has included positions as a principal,assistant principal, curriculum writer, reading specialist, and teacher at theelementary, middle school, jr. high, jr. college and state levels. Under herleadership as a principal in Title I schools in a large, urban school district, studentperformance increased significantly As a school improvement specialist for theFlorida Dept. of Education, Peggy supported school districts in northeast Floridain the areas of professional development, leadership, curriculum, instruction,assessment and systems. She has presented at local, state, and nationalconferences in the areas of reading, assessment, year round school and autism.Peggy holds a B.A. degree in English from Boston College and a M.A. Degree inReading from the University of South Florida. For over 10 years, she hasparticipated in SACS and Advanc-Ed Accreditation visits. Currently, Ms. Kring ispresident-elect of the Florida Association of Elementary and Middle SchoolPrincipals.















Dr. Rose D McGee Dr. Rose McGee is retired from the Florence City Schools where she served asthe Director of Instruction and Assessment and Principal of Hibbett MiddleSchools. She has 34 years of experience as a teacher, parent involvementspecialist, federal Pre-K director, assistant principal, principal and central officeadministrator. Dr. McGee has also served as an adjunct professor at theUniversity of North Alabama and Northwest Shoals Community College. Sheholds a BS degree in Elementary and Early Childhood Education from theUniversity of North Alabama; an MA and Ed.S in Early Childhood Education andDevelopment from the University of Alabama, and a Ph.D. in Curriculum andInstruction from the University of Alabama, Birmingham. Dr. McGee serves as aSchool Lead Evaluator for AdvancED and also an Associate Lead Evaluator forAdvancED District External Review teams.

Mr. George Ryan Moore Ryan Moore is currently working as the Coordinator of Talent Management andOrganizational Development for Fulton County Schools in Atlanta, Georgia.Ryan has served Fulton County Schools for nine years as a career and technicaleducation teacher for grades 9-12, a school administrator, and a studentbehavior program specialist. Ryan has a BSE in business education, a MAES ininstructional leadership, an EDS in educational leadership, and is currentlyseeking an EDD in educational administration and policy at the University ofGeorgia. This is Ryan's second time working on an external review team withAdvancED. He was the project lead for Fulton County's successfulreaccreditation process during the 2014-2015 school year.

Ms. Giselle Rodriguez Giselle Rodriguez is a specialist curriculum for a nationally accredited schoolsystem. She has been a teacher in South Florida for over 12 years. Her role ascurriculum specialist focuses on data management, professional development,and curricular alignment for the charter system. She has worked as aneducational consultant for large school districts, Houghton Mifflin HarcourtPublishing Company, and has presented internationally through FloridaInternational University. Giselle has a degree in elementary education, amaster's degree in Education and is certified in ESL, Education for GiftedChildren, and ESE.

Mr. William Schulte Bill Schulte an award winning teacher who has been a classroom teacher,principal, international conference speaker and consultant to school systems,educational companies and non-profit organizations across the United Statesand in 3 different countries. He holds advanced college degrees in EducationalLeadership, Teaching English Speakers of Other Languages, and in SpecialEducation.

He has been recognized as a technology guru who has focused on improvingeducation for all students including those with the most significant disabilities andmany of his projects have been spotlighted at the state and national level. As aLockheed Martin Scholar at UCF and he began his career working with Disney’sCelebration school as a technology specialist in “WALTS” team. These ideasinspired him to open one of the first private schools that boasted 1-1 computersin the late 90’s. In 2005 his research on the impact that digital note-taking wasselected for a special edition of the Journal of Special Education Technology in2005 and was featured in Scholastic Magazine for his work on “Equal EducationTechnology.” He is currently a doctoral candidate and Excel Fellow with theUniversity of Florida and is investigating the impact that ProfessionalDevelopment activities surrounding the principles of Universal Design forLearning has on teachers. Additionally, he is the lead investigator of a researchproject that is examining the effects of literacy education in 26 indigenousvillages in rural parts of Guatemala. In his free times he likes to hike, camp, playbeach volleyball and travel with his daughter.















Dr. Angelique C Seifert Dr. Angelique Seifert has served as an AdvancEd External Review team membersince 2010. Her educational degrees and certificates are: Doctor of Philosophy,Curriculum and Instruction/Urban Education, The University of North Carolina atCharlotte, post graduate certificate, Curriculum and Supervision, The Universityof North Carolina at Charlotte, Master of Arts, The Ohio State University, andBachelor of Science in Education, The Ohio State University. She is a JapanMemorial Fulbright Scholar and was selected as a Transatlantic OutreachFellow. Angelique retired as a member of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg SchoolsOffice of Accountability Managing for Performance Data Tools Team. This teamfocused on using data for the improvement of teaching and learning,assessment, educational research, curriculum and the common core, andproviding professional development and consulting for teachers and principals.Angelique continues her work through Global Educational Research andConsulting by contracting services for: international education, STEM education,program evaluation, research, assessment, curriculum development, training,professional development, instructional support, and data utilization to improveteaching and learning. Dr. Seifert has been publishing and presenting researchfindings since 2003, at local, state, national and international conferences (ex.American Educational Research Association, International SymposiumElementary Mathematics Teaching, and the international Mathematics EducationInto the 21st Century Project).

Dr. Jimmy D Shaw Dr. Jimmy Shaw has 16 years of experience in the field of education. He hasserved as a classroom teacher, Assistant Principal of a high school, Director ofFederal Programs, Director of Instruction and Assessment, and currently servesas the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction for the Florence City SchoolsSystem.

Jimmy has served on five district reviews for SACS and AdvancED. He iscurrently on the state council for Alabama. Jimmy has been in administration fornine years, and he holds an Ed.D. from Samford University in EducationalLeadership.

Dr. Suzanne St.Clair Dr. Suzanne St. Clair has been working for the District School Board of PascoCounty since 2007 and currently serves as a supervisor in the Office forAccountability, Research, and Measurement. In this position, she coordinates theSchool Improvement process, School Advisory Councils, DifferentiatedAccountability, District Accreditation, and School Grades /Accountability. Inaddition, Dr. St. Clair is a member of Project Read which provides professionaldevelopment and consulting to the Ministry of Education in Jamaica. Dr. St. Clairbegan her career in education as an elementary teacher, and has served as asite director, mathematics coach, and a data coach in several states. Hercredentials include a B.S. in Early Childhood Education, an M. Ed. in Curriculumand Instruction, and an Ed. D. in Educational Leadership.

Dr. Lynda Gibson Taylor Dr. Lynda Gibson Taylor earned an Associate of Arts degree at SouthwestMississippi Community College, in Summit, MS; a Bachelor and a Masters ofScience degree at the University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg. ADoctorate of Education at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale,Florida. Her areas of specialization are Child and Youth Studies andManagement of Programs. Dr. Taylor retired from public education after 39 yearsof service. She has worked as a classroom teacher, elementary principal,Special Education Director, District Coordinator for State Testing, and ChiefAcademic Officer. She currently works as an educational consultant. She hasserved as a team member on three District External Reviews; twice as anAssociate Lead Evaluator.















Mr. Ferlondo JermayneTullock

Ferlondo Tullock is a graduate of Claflin College; Orangeburg, SC and TheCitadel; Charleston, SC. He has completed non-degree coursework at FurmanUniversity, Converse College, and Lander University. He has also completed alldoctoral requirements except dissertation at NOVA Southeastern University, andis currently a doctoral student at South Carolina State University.He has held various positions in education over the past 21 years. Mr. Tullockhas served as a middle level English and Reading teacher, Elementary/Middlelevels Assistant Principal, Elementary Principal, Director of Federal Programsand Curriculum and Instruction, and most recently Deputy Superintendent forStudent Services.














1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Next StepsReview and discuss the findings from this report with stakeholders.

Ensure that plans are in place to embed and sustain the strengths noted in the Powerful Practices

section to maximize their impact on the institution.

Consider the Opportunities for Improvement identified throughout the report that are provided by the

team in the spirit of continuous improvement and the institution’s commitment to improving its capacity

to improve student learning.

Develop action plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the team. Include methods for

monitoring progress toward addressing the Improvement Priorities.

Use the report to guide and strengthen the institution's efforts to improve student performance and

system effectiveness.

Following the External Review, submit the Accreditation Progress Report detailing progress made

toward addressing the Improvement Priorities. Institutions are required to respond to all Improvement

Priorities. The report will be reviewed at the appropriate state, national, and/or international levels to

monitor and ensure that the system has implemented the necessary actions to address the

Improvement Priorities. The accreditation status will be reviewed and acted upon based on the

responses to the Improvement Priorities and the resulting improvement.

Continue to meet the AdvancED Standards, submit required reports, engage in continuous

improvement, and document results.














About AdvancEDAdvancED is the world leader in providing improvement and accreditation services to education providers of all

types in their pursuit of excellence in serving students. AdvancED serves as a trusted partner to more than

32,000 public and private schools and school systems – enrolling more than 20 million students - across the

United States and 70 countries.

In 2006, the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA CASI),

the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (SACS

CASI), both founded in 1895, and the National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE) came together to form

AdvancED: one strong, unified organization dedicated to education quality. In 2011, the Northwest

Accreditation Commission (NWAC) that was founded in 1917 became part of AdvancED.

Today, NCA CASI, NWAC and SACS CASI serve as accreditation divisions of AdvancED. The Accreditation

Divisions of AdvancED share research-based quality standards that cross school system, state, regional,

national, and international boundaries. Accompanying these standards is a unified and consistent process

designed to engage educational institutions in continuous improvement.














-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

ReferencesAlwin, L. (2002). The will and the way of data use. School Administrator, 59(11), 11.

Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voxx, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S.,

Nuebrand, M., & Tsai, Y. (2010). Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the

classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (2012). Shared purpose: the golden thread?

London: CIPD.

Colbert, J., Brown, R., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the impacts of teacher-driven

professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 134-154.

Conley, D.T. (2007). Redefining college readiness (Vol. 3). Eugene, OR: Educational Policy

Improvement Center.

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school

systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on

Educational Governance, USC.

Dembosky, J., Pane, J., Barney, H., & Christina, R. (2005). Data driven decision making in

Southwestern Pennsylvania school districts. Working paper. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Ding, C. & Sherman, H. (2006). Teaching effectiveness and student achievement: Examining the

relationship. Educational Research Quarterly, 29 (4), 40-51.

Doyle, D. P. (2003). Data-driven decision making: Is it the mantra of the month or does it have staying

power? T.H.E. Journal, 30(10), 19-21.

Feuerstein, A., & Opfer, V. D. (1998). School board chairmen and school superintendents: An analysis

of perceptions concerning special interest groups and educational governance. Journal of School

Leadership, 8, 373-398.

Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 42 (62), 61-89.

Greene, K. (1992). Models of school-board policy-making. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28

(2), 220-236.

Horng, E., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal time-use and school effectiveness. American

Journal of Education 116, (4) 492-523.

Lafee, S. (2002). Data-driven districts. School Administrator, 59(11), 6-7, 9-10, 12, 14-15.

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The Nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-

analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48 (387). 388-423.

Marks, H., Louis, K.S., & Printy, S. (2002). The capacity for organizational learning: Implications for

pedagogy and student achievement. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Organizational learning and school

improvement (p. 239-266). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

McIntire, T. (2002). The administrator's guide to data-driven decision making. Technology and

Learning, 22(11), 18-33.

Pan, D., Rudo, Z., Schneider, C., & Smith-Hansen, L. (2003). Examination of resource allocation in

education: connecting spending to student performance. Austin, TX: SEDL.














report of the external review team for polk county … · report of the external review team for...

Documents