Cognia-Accreditation-Engagement-Review-Report-2022 - June 10, 2024 - DCSD Board Meeting Archive

Acceleration
Academies
Chicago, Illinois

January 9 - 12, 2022
Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review
267246
Table of Contents
Cognia Continuous Improvement System ...........................................................................3
Initiate.............................................................................................................................................. 3
Improve ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Impact ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Cognia Performance Accreditation and the Engagement Review ................................................... 4
Cognia Standards Diagnostic Results .............................................................................................. 4
Leadership Capacity Domain ........................................................................................................... 5
Learning Capacity Domain ............................................................................................................... 6
Resource Capacity Domain.............................................................................................................. 7
Assurances ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Accreditation Status and Index of Education Quality® ..................................................................... 8
Insights from the Review ................................................................................................................... 9
Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Team Roster ..................................................................................................................................... 13
References and Readings................................................................................................................ 14
Cognia Continuous Improvement System
Cognia defines continuous improvement as “an embedded behavior rooted in an institution’s culture that
constantly focuses on conditions, processes, and practices to improve teaching and learning.” The
Cognia Continuous Improvement System (CIS) provides a systemic, fully integrated solution to help
institutions map out and navigate a successful improvement journey. In the same manner that educators
are expected to understand the unique needs of every learner and tailor the education experience to drive
student success, every institution must be empowered to map out and embrace their unique improvement
journey. Cognia expects institutions to use the results and the analysis of data from various interwoven
components for the implementation of improvement actions to drive education quality and improved
student outcomes. While each improvement journey is unique, the journey is driven by key actions.
The findings of the Engagement Review Team are organized by the ratings from the Cognia Performance
Standards Diagnostic and the Levels of Impact within the i3 Rubric: Initiate, Improve, and Impact.

Initiate
The first phase of the improvement journey is to Initiate actions to cause and achieve better results. The
elements of the Initiate phase are defined within the Levels of Impact of Engagement and
Implementation. Engagement is the level of involvement and frequency of stakeholders in the desired
practices, processes, or programs within the institution. Implementation is the process of monitoring and
adjusting the administration of desired practices, processes, or programs for quality and fidelity.
Standards identified within Initiate should become the focus of the institution’s continuous improvement
journey toward the collection, analysis, and use of data to measure the results of engagement and
implementation. Enhancing the capacity of the institution in meeting these Standards has the greatest
potential impact on improving student performance and organizational effectiveness.

Improve
The second phase of the improvement journey is to gather and evaluate the results of actions to
Improve. The elements of the Improve phase are defined within the Levels of Impact of Results and
Sustainability. Results come from the collection, analysis, and use of data and evidence to demonstrate
attaining the desired result(s). Sustainability is results achieved consistently to demonstrate growth and
improvement over time (a minimum of three years). Standards identified within Improve are those in
which the institution is using results to inform their continuous improvement processes and to
demonstrate over time the achievement of goals. The institution should continue to analyze and use
results to guide improvements in student achievement and organizational effectiveness.

Impact
The third phase of achieving improvement is Impact, where desired practices are deeply entrenched. The
elements of the Impact phase are defined within the Level of Impact of Embeddedness. Embeddedness
is the degree to which the desired practices, processes, or programs are deeply ingrained in the culture
and operation of the institution. Standards identified within Impact are those in which the institution has
demonstrated ongoing growth and improvement over time and has embedded the practices within its
culture. Institutions should continue to support and sustain these practices that yield results in improving
student achievement and organizational effectiveness.

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 3
Cognia Performance Accreditation and the Engagement
Review
Accreditation is pivotal in leveraging education quality and continuous improvement. Using a set of
rigorous research-based standards, the Cognia Accreditation Process examines the whole institution—
the program, the cultural context, and the community of stakeholders—to determine how well the parts
work together to meet the needs of learners. Through the accreditation process, highly skilled and trained
Engagement Review Teams gather first-hand evidence and information pertinent to evaluating an
institution’s performance against the research-based Cognia Performance Standards. Review teams use
these Standards to assess the quality of learning environments to gain valuable insights and target
improvements in teaching and learning. Cognia provides Standards that are tailored for all education
providers so that the benefits of accreditation are universal across the education community.
Through a comprehensive review of evidence and information, our experts gain a broad understanding of
institution quality. Using the Standards, the review team provides valuable feedback to institutions, which
helps to focus and guide each institution’s improvement journey. Valuable evidence and information from
other stakeholders, including students, also are obtained through interviews, surveys, and additional
activities.

Cognia Standards Diagnostic Results
The Cognia Performance Standards Diagnostic is used by the Engagement Review Team to evaluate the
institution’s effectiveness based on the Cognia Performance Standards. The diagnostic consists of three
components built around each of three Domains: Leadership Capacity, Learning Capacity, and
Resource Capacity. Results are reported within four ranges identified by color. The results for the three
Domains are presented in the tables that follow.

Color Rating Description
Identifies areas with insufficient evidence or evidence that
Red Insufficient
indicated little or no activity leading toward improvement
Represents areas to enhance and extend current improvement
Yellow Initiating
efforts
Pinpoints quality practices that are improving and meet the
Green Improving
Standards
Demonstrates noteworthy practices producing clear results
Blue Impacting
that positively impact the institution

Under each Standard statement is a row indicating the scores related to the elements of Cognia’s i3
Rubric. The rubric is scored from one (1) to four (4). A score of four on any element indicates high
performance, while a score of one or two indicates an element in need of improvement. The following
table provides the key to the abbreviations of the elements of the i3 Rubric.

Element Abbreviation
Engagement EN
Implementation IM
Results RE
Sustainability SU
Embeddedness EM

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 4
Leadership Capacity Domain
The capacity of leadership to ensure an institution’s progress toward its stated objectives is an essential
element of organizational effectiveness. An institution’s leadership capacity includes the fidelity and
commitment to its 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 implement strategies that improve learner and educator
performance.

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating
1.1 The organization commits to a documented purpose that defines beliefs about
learning, including expectations for the organization. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 4
1.2 Stakeholders collectively demonstrate actions to ensure the achievement of
the organization’s purpose.
Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 4 EM: 3
1.3 The organization engages in a continuous improvement process that
leverages its performance and future success based on documented
evidence. Impacting

EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 4 EM: 3
1.4 The governing authority establishes and ensures adherence to policies that
are designed to support organizational effectiveness. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 4 EM: 4
1.5 The governing authority adheres to a code of ethics and functions within
defined roles and responsibilities. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 4 EM: 4
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve
professional practice and organizational effectiveness. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3
1.7 The organization markets and promotes itself through processes that are
transparent and reflect the organization’s purpose. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 4 EM: 4
1.8 Organizational leaders demonstrate business acumen.
Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 4 EM: 4
1.9 Leaders implement operational processes and procedures to ensure
organizational effectiveness and professional practice. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3
1.10 Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the
organization’s purpose and direction. Improving
EN: 3 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 5
Leadership Capacity Standards Rating
1.11 The organization provides experiences that cultivate and improve leadership
effectiveness. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 4 EM: 3
1.12 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple
stakeholder groups to inform decision-making for improvement. Improving
EN: 3 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3
1.13 The organization implements a documented quality assurance process for its
institutions to ensure organizational effectiveness and student learning. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 4 EM: 3

Learning Capacity Domain
The impact of teaching and learning on student achievement and success is the primary expectation of
every institution. An effective learning culture is characterized by positive and productive teacher/learner
relationships, high expectations and standards, a challenging and engaging curriculum, quality instruction
and comprehensive support that enable all learners to be successful, and assessment practices
(formative and summative) that monitor and measure learner progress and achievement. Moreover, a
quality institution evaluates the impact of its learning culture, including all programs and support services,
and adjusts accordingly.

Learning Capacity Standards Rating
2.1 The organization ensures learners have equitable opportunities to develop
skills and achieve the content and learning expectations. Improving
EN: 3 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3
2.2 The organization develops and implements equitable, relevant, and targeted
programs and/or services to meet the needs of its institutions. Improving
EN: 3 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3
2.3 The learning culture promotes creativity, innovation, relevancy and
collaborative problem-solving. Insufficient
EN: 1 IM: 1 RE: 1 SU: 1 EM: 1
2.4 The organization’s learning culture promotes the development of attitudes,
beliefs, and skills needed for success.
Improving
EN: 3 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3
2.5 The organization has a formal structure to ensure learners are supported
during their educational experiences. Improving
EN: 3 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 2
2.6 Educators implement a curriculum that is based on high expectations and
prepares learners for their next levels. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 6
Learning Capacity Standards Rating
2.7 The organization implements a process to ensure the curriculum is aligned to
standards and best practices. Impacting
EN: 2 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 4 EM: 3
2.8 Educators implement instructional strategies that ensure learners’ needs are
met and that learners are engaged in deeper learning experiences. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3
2.9 Learning progress is reliably assessed, and results are used to update
curriculum, program services, and instructional practices deployed to
educators. Impacting

EN: 3 IM: 4 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3
2.10 Educators gather, analyze, and use formative and summative data that lead to
the demonstrable improvement of student learning. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 3 EM: 4
2.11 The organization implements a process to continuously assess its programs,
services, and organizational conditions to improve its overall effectiveness. Impacting
EN: 3 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 4

Resource Capacity Domain
The use and distribution of resources support the stated mission of the institution. Institutions ensure that
resources are distributed and utilized equitably, so the needs of all learners are adequately and effectively
addressed. The utilization of resources includes support for professional learning for all staff. The
institution examines the allocation and use of resources to ensure appropriate levels of funding,
sustainability, organizational effectiveness, and increased student learning.

Resource Capacity Standards Rating
3.1 The organization plans and delivers professional learning to improve the
organization’s learning environment and organizational effectiveness. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3
3.2 The organization’s professional learning structure and expectations promote
collaboration and collegiality to improve organizational effectiveness.
Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 4
3.3 The organization provides induction, mentoring, and coaching programs that
ensure all staff members have the knowledge and skills to improve
organizational effectiveness. Impacting

EN: 4 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 4
3.4 The organization attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the
organization’s purpose and direction. Impacting
EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 3 EM: 4

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 7
Resource Capacity Standards Rating
3.5 The organization integrates digital resources into teaching, learning, and
operations to improve professional practice, student performance, and
organizational effectiveness. Impacting

EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 4 EM: 4
3.6 The organization provides access to information resources and materials to
support the curriculum, programs, and needs of learners, staff, and the
organization. Impacting

EN: 4 IM: 4 RE: 4 SU: 4 EM: 4
3.7 The organization demonstrates strategic resource management that includes
long-range planning and use of resources in support of the organization’s
purpose and direction. Impacting

EN: 3 IM: 4 RE: 3 SU: 3 EM: 3
3.8 The organization allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment
with the organization’s identified needs and priorities to improve organizational
effectiveness. Improving

EN: 3 IM: 3 RE: 3 SU: 2 EM: 3

Assurances
Assurances are statements that accredited institutions must confirm they are meeting. The Assurance
statements are based on the type of institution, and the responses are confirmed by the Accreditation
Engagement Review Team. Institutions are expected to meet all Assurances and are expected to correct
any deficiencies in unmet Assurances.

Assurances Met
If No, List Unmet Assurances
YES NO
by Number Below
X

Accreditation Status and Index of Education Quality®
Cognia will review the results of the Accreditation Engagement Review to make a final determination
concerning accreditation status, including the appropriate next steps for your institution in response to
these findings. Cognia provides the Index of Education Quality (IEQ) as a holistic measure of overall
performance based on a comprehensive set of standards and review criteria. This formative tool for
improvement identifies areas of success and areas in need of focus. The IEQ comprises the Standards
Diagnostic ratings from the three Domains: Leadership Capacity, Learning Capacity, and Resource
Capacity. The IEQ results are reported on a scale of 100 to 400 and provide information about how the
institution is performing compared to expected criteria. Institutions should review the IEQ in relation to the
findings from the review in the areas of Initiate, Improve, and Impact. An IEQ score below 250 indicates
that the institution has several areas within the Initiate level and should focus their improvement efforts on
those Standards within that level. An IEQ in the range of 225–300 indicates that the institution has several
Standards within the Improve level and is using results to inform continuous improvement and
demonstrate sustainability. An IEQ of 275 and above indicates the institution is beginning to reach the

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 8
Impact level and is engaged in practices that are sustained over time and are becoming ingrained in the
culture of the institution.
Below is the average (range) of all Cognia Improvement Network (CIN) institutions evaluated for
accreditation in the last five years. The range of the annual CIN IEQ average is presented to enable you
to benchmark your results with other institutions in the network.

Institution IEQ 353.12 CIN 5 Year IEQ Range 278.34–283.33

Insights from the Review
The Engagement Review Team engaged in professional discussions and deliberations about the
processes, programs, and practices within the institution to arrive at the findings of the team. These
findings are organized around themes guided by the evidence, with examples of programs and practices,
and suggestions for the institution’s continuous improvement efforts. The Insights from the Review
narrative should provide contextualized information from the team’s deliberations and analysis of the
practices, processes, and programs of the institution organized by the levels of Initiate, Improve, and
Impact. The narrative also provides the next steps to guide the institution’s improvement journey in its
efforts to improve the quality of educational opportunities for all learners. The findings are aligned to
research-based criteria designed to improve student learning and organizational effectiveness. The
feedback provided in the Accreditation Engagement Review Report will assist the institution in reflecting
on its current improvement efforts and to adapt and adjust their plans to continuously strive for
improvement.
The Accreditation Engagement Review for Acceleration Academies was conducted as a
remote engagement review. In planning and carrying out this review, it was the full intention of
the Engagement Review Team (team) to gain as much information as possible to rate the Standards, to
review the evidence, and to engage all stakeholders in the virtual process. The team was organized in
such a way as to provide the most personal experience possible for the team members and for
the institution. The leadership of the organization quickly put together a draft of a Distance Learning
Plan that defined the activities and expectations for instruction during this time. This model plan will be of
great benefit for the district moving forward. The team applied quality processes and tools used for the
review of system institutions, as well as modified accreditation processes using virtual communication
tools. All processes and protocols required for School Accreditation were followed and the institution was
rated against the System Standards.
The team engaged in quality information gathering sessions that included presentations by district
staff, interviews with representatives from stakeholders, and a deep dive into provided evidence.
The team clearly understood that the review was to be based on the evidence and interviews that
capture the whole of the instructional year and beyond, not on the limited observations conducted during
the pandemic. It is in within this context that the team offers the following insights that highlight themes
across the organization and ideas for next steps.
Corporate leaders model the behaviors needed to ensure the achievement of the organization’s
purpose. The organization utilizes the Model Fidelity Framework to outline, execute, and monitor
processes and actions to support the mission. As identified in interviews with all stakeholders, the
corporation’s mission is to re-engage young adults not experiencing success in a traditional high school
setting. The Framework was shared with the team and clearly outlined key performance metrics and
included guiding tenants for all stakeholders to work toward achieving the mission. Teachers and
administrators also indicated that corporate, network, and academy leaders model the work that needs

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 9
to be accomplished at each site. When students or student families are in need, leaders at all levels
intervene to provide support. For example, a teacher described the impact of a recent suicide of a
student. Leaders reached out to the partner district for crisis counselors and set up a fund to arrange for
the mother who lives outside the United States to travel to take care of the deceased student.
Leaders also engage representatives from all stakeholder groups to create, implement, and monitor
continuous improvement initiatives. The corporation shared its strategic and corporation improvement
plan and process. It was evident based on interviews with both teachers and leaders and a review of the
plans and minutes from meetings that the plans contain specific goals, strategies, activities, and
measures based on needs. Moreover, stakeholder groups meet on a weekly basis to discuss data,
compare goals, and adjust as needed.
Leaders throughout the organization demonstrate business acumen and consistently model sound
business practices. The organization provided the team with artifacts showing how they utilize a
quarterly goal setting process and use BambooHR software to track and monitor employee
performance. They also track student engagement that is reviewed daily at the school level and weekly
by corporate leaders. The corporation has a robust leadership development program that focuses both
on assisting leaders in acquiring the skills necessary to excel in their current positions but also in
supporting next-level leaders. All leaders participate in weekly coaching meetings with their leadership
coach and have access to a cadre of highly-skilled academic, career/technical, and social-emotional
coaches to support their work. Moreover, all leaders are also assigned a mentor leader who holds their
same position in the company and whose practices have led to documented success. Leadership
process training is required of all new site directors and available to every leader in the organization.
This training grows and evolves data-driven leadership practices and occurs over a period of six to eight
weeks with follow-up support as needed. The team encourages the corporation’s leaders to continue
modeling as it has inspired all stakeholders to follow corporation and academy leadership and buy into
the organization’s mission.
The organization has systems, processes, and policies to ensure organizational effectiveness.
Along with the Model Fidelity Framework, the organization shared its Resource Guide, which has a
plethora of standard operating procedures and its retention cycle protocol, which is designed to monitor
students on a weekly basis with their assigned life coach. Each academy implements an engagement
protocol designed to provide a process for monitoring student attendance and activity within Edmentum.
All staff utilizes the engagement process daily to ensure that students make progress toward their
academic and attendance goals. In addition, the organization provided the team with the Incites
Organizational Leadership Meeting Cadence which outlines roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders
across the organization. Leaders and teachers indicated that this document ensures that all employees
know and execute assigned tasks. Formal performance evaluations are conducted to provide both
supervisors and employees the opportunity to discuss job tasks, identify areas of growth, encourage and
recognize strengths, and discuss positive, purposeful approaches for setting and meeting goals.
Based on interviews with staff, Key Performance Indicator data are collected, analyzed, and used to
inform professional practices, successes, and challenges. These discussions take place in a formal
weekly meeting called a “huddle.” To market and promote the work accomplished by the organization,
the institution has created and employs a Marketing Approval Process and a Brand and Style Guide that
is used by each academy. The organization provides the academies and the corporate office with a
marketing automation system that helps build, monitor, and track marketing campaigns including email,
text, website traffic, and social media. Google Analytics tracks website traffic and visits. To ensure that
each facility is operating with fidelity, all academies implement the Model Fidelity Framework. The Model
Fidelity Coach implements systems and processes to increase the efficacy of the organization. The team
recommends that Acceleration Academies continue these effective practices; when organizations have

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 10
systems, processes, and policies that are documented, employed, and monitored throughout, they are
likely to improve their effectiveness and positively impact student performance.
The organization collects, analyzes, monitors a variety of data to inform school improvement
initiatives and practice. Student engagement data are collected and analyzed daily at each site.
Teachers and site administrators have real-time access to this data and use them to develop
programming and interventions that increase engagement. Students and parents described how
teachers, staff, and administrators provide a variety of real-time interventions and services to increase
engagement on a daily and weekly basis. As a result, longitudinal results over the course of the last
three years demonstrate engagement increased from 65% to 70%, graduates increased from 177 to
347, and course completions increased from 4311 to 5389. These data are also documented, reviewed,
and discussed daily at the site level and formally at the network and corporate level twice weekly with
schools. The team was provided with examples of data trackers, minutes, and standard operating
procedures describing how teachers, administrators, and network and corporate leaders analyze trends,
adjust practices, and provide coaching support during meetings.
In addition, the organization also reviews graduate exit data from students and staff. For example,
because of exit data received over the past three years, the organization made an adjustment to the
model and added a Career Technology and Engineering program to course offerings. As the graduation
rate has improved over time, the corporation is improving the tracking systems through the Personal
Learning Plan in the Ed Incites platform. Additionally, post-graduation and career surveys are monitored
through the Incite Engagement dashboard and reflect programming and curriculum alignment that meets
the needs of students. As one leader conveyed, and several others echoed the following statement,
"Everything we do at Acceleration Academies is begun from a lens of continuous improvement and
coaching. No matter what goals we reach, we are always setting new ones to improve our practices and
serve our stakeholders in more powerful ways. We have an entire Model Fidelity Coaching team
dedicated to monitoring progress and increasing performance, as well as one coach whose particular
focus, alongside academic success, is that of continuous improvement for the organization." Using data
to inform continuous improvement is deeply ingrained in the daily, weekly, quarterly, and annual work of
the institution which leads to verified growth over time. The team recommends that Acceleration
Academies continue this systematic monitoring of data.
The corporation has provided students and staff with the resources needed to increase student
performance and improve key performance indicators over time. Every site has a designated
professional development calendar and onboarding process. Calendars indicated that staff continue to
support each other in formal and informal meetings as well as outreach when needed. Staff members
have opportunities to collaborate with staff across the country on a regular basis. Job-alike huddles are
held monthly to support collaboration and learning. However, a few staff members expressed interest in
content specific articulation. Formal mentoring and onboarding programs are implemented and
monitored to ensure quality and fidelity to improve professional practice and organizational
effectiveness. Feedback and data from performance coaching plans, new staff onboarding processes,
new site start up processes, and monthly collaboration huddles for like-role staff are reviewed weekly to
adjust programs and processes. The Model Fidelity Coach team and the Chief Academic Officer support
all implementation efforts. When updates to the academic program require training or system-wide
communication, this team schedules, designs, and delivers the necessary training.
All staff members participate in continuous performance management and goal setting conversations
with teammates and supervisors. Time is dedicated for a more formal and analytical review twice a year.
Standard operating procedures and relevant documentation are reviewed with and available to all staff
members. Students, parents, teachers, and leaders embraced and made a swift transition to remote
learning. As a blended-learning service provider, the corporation provided students and staff with the

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 11
necessary devises, materials, and training needed to ensure continued growth in key performance
indicators. A commitment to access and use of quality resources and materials throughout the
organization to support the programs and student and staff needs and interests was evident. The
corporation conducts regular meetings with site staff, network staff, and resource development to review
resources and needs and respond to them. The Model Fidelity Team supports staff through coaching,
training, and resource development. The rolling agenda for Performance Management meetings shows
how agenda items and structures are adjusted for needs and are embedded in the work. As
communicated to the team by board members, leadership and the governing authority demonstrate their
support for and belief in the organization’s purpose and long-range planning. They have and continue to
garner additional human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with identified needs to improve the
quality of educational services. The team recommends that the corporation continue these strong
practices in resource management.
Inquiry-based activities and innovative projects for students were not evident. While students and
parents talked about the helpfulness of teachers and coaches, the team saw limited evidence of
curriculum that required inquiry-based activities or innovative projects. The organization has highly-
competent and caring professionals who work diligently to support student needs. Staff are accessible
and enthusiastically desire to help students excel. The curriculum is aligned to state standards and
students are exposed to facets of differentiated instruction and rigor. The corporation recognized through
surveys, exit interviews, and data reviews the need to provide students with a Career Technology and
Engineering program that will address inquiry-based activities and innovative projects. However, the
organization is encouraged to explore strategies and curriculum that embeds inquiry-based activities and
innovative projects for students across all content areas. This will lead to increased engagement,
enrollment, and improved student performance. Ultimately, effective implementation will prepare
students for successful careers and lives.
In conclusion, the contents of this report provide qualitative and quantitative information based on
triangulation of data and team deliberations. Insights reveal themes and pose next steps for Acceleration
Academies to consider in their journey for continuous improvement.

Next Steps
Upon receiving the Accreditation Engagement Review Report, the institution is encouraged to implement
the following steps:
 Review and share the findings with stakeholders.
 Develop plans to address the areas for improvement identified by the Engagement Review Team.
 Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution’s continuous
improvement efforts.
 Celebrate the successes noted in the report.
 Continue the improvement journey.

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 12
Team Roster
The Engagement Review Teams are comprised of professionals with varied backgrounds and
professional experiences. All Lead Evaluators and Engagement Review Team members complete
Cognia training and eleot certification to provide knowledge and understanding of the Cognia tools and
processes. The following professionals served on the Engagement Review Team:

Team Member Name Brief Biography/Title

Eric Carlton, Mr. Carlton has served as a high school special education teacher,
assistant principal, and principal in Maryland. For the last 20 years, he
Lead Evaluator
has served as an educational consultant and has owned and operated
up to eight therapeutic and alternative schools in Chicago, Milwaukee,
and Miami. He has led engagement reviews for 14 years and received
the AdvancED Leadership (2016) and Excellence in Education (2013)
Awards. He also serves on the Cognia State Advisory Committee and
was the Lead for the Cognia State Performance Management Group.
He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in African studies from the
University of Maryland Baltimore County, Master of Science degree in
special education from Johns Hopkins University, and Education
Specialist degree from Walden University.

Pirchie, Team Member Principal

Kitty McElhaney Retired Assistant Superintendent

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 13
References and Readings
AdvancED. (2015). Continuous Improvement and Accountability. Alpharetta, GA: AdvancED. Retrieved
from https://source.cognia.org/issue-article/continuous-improvement-and-accountability/.
Bernhardt, V., & Herbert, C. (2010). Response to intervention and continuous school improvement: Using
data, vision, and leadership to design, implement, and evaluate a schoolwide prevention
program. New York: Routledge.
Elgart, M. (2015). What a continuously improving system looks like. Alpharetta, GA: AdvancED. Retrieved
from https://source.cognia.org/issue-article/what-continuously-improving-system-looks/.
Elgart, M. (2017). Meeting the promise of continuous improvement: Insights from the AdvancED
continuous improvement system and observations of effective schools. Alpharetta, GA:
AdvancED. Retrieved from https://source.cognia.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/11/CISWhitePaper.pdf.
Evans, R. (2012). The Savvy school change leader. Alpharetta, GA: AdvancED. Retrieved from
https://source.cognia.org/issue-article/savvy-school-change-leader/.
Fullan, M. (2014). Leading in a culture of change personal action guide and workbook. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kim, W., & Mauborne, R. (2017). Blue ocean shift: Beyond competing. New York: Hachette Book Group.
Park, S, Hironaka, S; Carver, P, & Nordstrum, L. (2013). Continuous improvement in education. San
Francisco: Carnegie Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/carnegie-foundation_continuous-improvement_2013.05.pdf.
Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change. New York: Teachers
College.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: George Braziller, Inc.

Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 14
Corporation Accreditation Engagement Review Report 15

Agenda Item