High School Accreditation
Framework
North Carolina State Board of Education
June 2012  GCS 2
Angela Quick
Deputy Chief Academic Officer
Elissa Brown, PhD
Director, Secondary Projects & Educator Preparation Programs
Context
2011-306, House Bill 342
• Accredit upon request
The law stipulated that upon request of a local board, the State Board of
Education shall evaluate schools to determine whether the education provided
meets acceptable levels of quality.
• Rigorous accreditation standards
The accreditation standards are to be rigorous and in keeping with other
accrediting agencies’ standards, as well as priorities set by the State Board of
Education.
• LEAs must pay for the service
The law further stipulated that the local district must compensate the State
Board for costs incurred with the process.
Purpose Today
To outline our basic approach
for accrediting high schools.
Definition, Purpose & Process
• Definition
Schools and/or districts undergo a quality assurance process that
includes self-reflection and outside peer review.
• Purpose
To drive continuous improvement of the teaching/learning process and
the systems supporting that process through officially accrediting.
• Process
Typically relies on outsiders to:
 review multiple sources of data
 cite evidence of quality
 garner input from multiple stakeholders
Process for Framework Development
1. Review literature on High School Accreditation
2. Sub-contract with consultant to provide framework report
3. Vet framework with ASIS directors and departments
4. Vet framework with LEA constituencies
5. Draft report to SBE
6. Revise based on input and HS accountability model
7. Submit to General Assembly
Accreditation Designations
Fully
Accredited
Provisionally Accredited
Not Accredited
Basics of Accreditation Approach
• First, we will look at READY accountability
indicators to determine if the school met
established standards (standards TBD) and
review a school self-study
If READY accountability indicators do not meet
established standards, then
•
Additional system indicators are reviewed
o
o
Comprehensive document review
e.g. school improvement plan, NCGP, etc.
Site Visits
e.g. observations, focus groups and interviews
DRAFT
Implications
• Cost for LEAs
• Staff capacity & travel
• State accreditation vs. national accrediting
body
• Alignment with other key state initiatives