Executive Summary

Introduction

Chapter 1: Background and Description

Chapter 2: Implementation of the Reporting Process

Chapter 3: Accreditation Reporting Requirements

Conclusion

Appendices

Accreditation is a means of providing for accountability within the education system. Traditionally, Wyoming's accreditation process focused on compliance issues, rather than on factors that directly measured student learning. In 1990, the State Board of Education (SBE) promulgated new rules basing accreditation on student learning factors. This change was consistent with a national movement to base accreditation on student performance.

SBE allowed a seven-year transition period to give districts time to implement the new rules. In 1995, SBE directed WDE to keep the 1997 deadline for full implementation of the new rules, even though districts were at different points of compliance with the new model. During this time, in response to district complaints that SBE’s rules were too vague to implement, the Wyoming Department of Education (WDE) issued interpretative guidelines, called the Accreditation Guide, to clarify the rules.

In reviewing accreditation reporting, we considered not only the actual documentation WDE requires of districts, but also the underlying activities and processes districts must have in place to improve schools. We found that the shift from a compliance-based accreditation model to one based on student learning is a significant one. Likewise, the changes in the reporting requirements are also significant. The recommendations in our report offer tools to strengthen the accreditation reporting processes.

In 1995, given SBE’s renewed urgency to fully implement the rules, WDE focused its efforts on helping districts create the organizational structures promoted by school improvement theories. While these efforts have been beneficial, WDE can further improve its training efforts in the area of teacher knowledge and skills. These training efforts can help shape new attitudes towards the changes required by standards-based education.

The accreditation reporting process is intended to be the culmination and conduit for a meaningful experience of reform, self-evaluation, and continuous improvement. Lack of buy-in by educators could cause the accreditation reporting process to be superficially done only because the state requires it. No education reform effort will succeed if a majority of educators do not

The Guide places more explicit requirements on local school districts than had existed before, including repeated requirements for districts to involve their communities. The underlying concept is that a school’s reform efforts will only succeed if the community supports the vision. Similarly, WDE’s goals can best be met if the affected community of school district personnel also shares and supports WDE goals. We believe WDE could expand its strategies for district input to be more comprehensive and systematic.

In order to more completely reflect the principles of the accreditation model and to improve its self evaluation efforts, WDE should conduct a formal climate survey of educators in the 48 districts. The results of such a survey should be used as a factor for adjusting the reporting requirements, developing WDE’s own improvement plan, and designing technical assistance for districts. WDE may also find benefit in producing and distributing a vision document for classroom teachers.

Because educators are responsible for accreditation reporting, SBE could form an advisory committee of practitioners with strong representation from the 48 school districts. Its purpose would be to advise SBE and WDE of district needs, and to advance district concerns regarding accreditation reporting practices and processes.

SBE’s 1990 accreditation rules are almost silent on the specifics of district accreditation reporting. Consequently, districts had considerable latitude to develop their own interpretations of accreditation reporting requirements. When WDE issued the Guide in 1995, it clarified accreditation reporting requirements. However, WDE created the Guide internally, and most districts were not involved in the creation of these informal, but binding, reporting requirements. Since detailed rules have not been promulgated, there has not been full opportunity for public debate over very specific but uncodified accreditation reporting requirements.

Furthermore, the lack of specificity in rule has allowed WDE latitude to establish informal but fully binding procedures for the accreditation of schools. Since many of the mechanical aspects of how WDE conducts accreditation are not codified in rule, the system operates largely according to established practice.

SBE should review the Guide and determine which provisions are appropriate for rule promulgation. SBE should institutionalize elements of the Guide that clearly require a level of compliance from the districts. SBE should also formalize many of the WDE’s processes to accredit local school districts.

To study accreditation reporting, it was necessary to review the procedural aspects of accreditation. This is because accreditation reports are simply a reflection of the varied and substantive activities going on within each district. There are inseparable linkages between accreditation reporting and the underlying philosophy and processes of standards-based education.

More reporting is involved in an accreditation model that focuses on student learning. As such, the ongoing success of standards-based accreditation will depend partially on district support for it. WDE can gain further district support by finding more ways to comprehensively involve districts. Our recommendations suggest additional ways to involve educators and expand and clarify rules. The challenge for WDE will be to use this structure to continually improve the accreditation process.

W.S. 28-8-107(b) authorizes the Legislative Service Office to conduct program evaluations and performance audits. Generally, the purpose of such research is to provide a base of knowledge from which policy makers can make informed decisions.

In December 1997, the Management Audit Committee selected the topic of school district accreditation reporting for review. The Committee requested that the topic focus specifically on district reporting requirements for accreditation purposes. We defined accreditation reporting as both the reports districts must produce for WDE, as well as the underlying activities districts must complete to document activities that fulfill the accreditation requirements. Our research centered around the following questions:

• What information does the Wyoming Department of Education (WDE) require of districts as part of the accreditation process?
• What role did districts play in establishing the reporting requirements?
• What guidance has WDE provided to districts regarding the accreditation reporting requirements?
• Do WDE's reporting requirements cause duplicate submissions of the same material?
• What impacts are WDE reporting requirements having on districts?
• To what extent are WDE’s accreditation reporting requirements derived from statutes and regulations?

We limited our evaluation of accreditation to the reporting requirements established under the state’s accreditation model. We did not evaluate the merits of the current accreditation system and its components, nor did we review alternatives to the current model. Rather, we reviewed existing reporting requirements and the impacts those reporting requirements have on Wyoming’s 48 school districts. WDE is also responsible for accrediting the education program in

This evaluation was conducted according to statutory requirements and professional standards and methods for governmental audits. The research was conducted from January through March 1998.

In order to compile basic information about the accreditation reporting process, we reviewed relevant statutes, rules and regulations, policies, annual reports, budget documents, WDE’s strategic plan, State Board of Education (SBE) minutes, other internal documents, and professional literature regarding standards-based accreditation and rulemaking. We observed an on-site accreditation review conducted by WDE at a district. We also interviewed individuals who had been involved in the development of the accreditation rules, current and former SBE members, current and former WDE officials and employees, district superintendents, district principals, and other interested parties.

We conducted informal focus groups with teachers in four school districts. We selected two districts that had recently been through an on-site accreditation review, as well as two districts preparing for an on-site review. Two of these districts had over 4,000 students and two had under 900 students. In all, we interviewed 37 teachers to gain a qualitative perspective on teachers’ role in accreditation reporting. We did not attempt to conduct a statistically-valid survey of teachers, because we wanted to solicit more in-depth feedback than a survey would allow.

We mailed surveys to superintendents in all 48 school districts to gauge statewide perspectives on accreditation reporting requirements. We received responses from 45 of the districts, generating a 94 percent response rate. We also reviewed the accreditation files of 26 of the 28 districts that have undergone on-site accreditation reviews since January of 1996. WDE had not finalized accreditation reports for two of the districts at the time of our review. All districts were scored against agency guidelines developed at the end of 1995.

The Legislative Service Office expresses appreciation to those who assisted in this research, especially to the State Board of Education, current and former Wyoming Department of Education officials and employees, local school district personnel, and other individuals who contributed their expertise.

This page intentionally left blank.

Accreditation is the state’s process to ensure citizens and policymakers that local school districts are appropriately using public funds. Accreditation is a means of providing for accountability within the education system. Traditionally, accreditation and accountability have been linked in Wyoming, although the state’s methods of providing both are changing. Currently, accreditation in Wyoming holds districts accountable for student learning, through a process known as standards-based accreditation.

The Wyoming Department of Education (WDE) defines accreditation as a process by which each school district, and each school within the district, is assessed and is monitored by the state. The purpose is to identify strengths, plan and implement improvement, assure legal compliance, and assure the public that children are learning in accordance with locally-determined performance standards.

Standards-based accreditation and accountability are based on information about student progress toward achieving established standards. The collecting and reporting of accreditation information reflects districts’ efforts to improve their schools, and is the focus of this evaluation.

According to the Education Commission of the States (ECS), in the late 1980s, states nationwide began to promote the use of "standards" as part of education accountability systems. Since standards articulate what students should learn, student performance began to replace documentation of "seat time" as the focus of analysis for accreditation. Reform efforts centered around the idea that schools should be judged by outcomes, specifically student achievement, rather than by inputs.

Professional literature describes the movement toward standards-based accreditation as a process that relies more heavily on qualitative data about the performance of a school, as measured by the performance of its students, than on quantitative data about inputs, such as the number of students per

As a result, states began to create more meaningful accreditation systems, designed to document direct measures of student learning. Under standards-based accreditation, districts meet accreditation standards by showing efforts to improve student performance. Such efforts have been described as a "school improvement process." School improvement is a term for various organizational theories in the field of education that result in a focused effort from everyone in a school system to increase student learning.

The building blocks, or structures, of school improvement are standards and related assessments. Other principles of school improvement include self evaluation, community input, goal setting based on data analysis, and actions based on research-proven practices. The term "capacity" is also used in the field of education to mean the ability of the organizations and teachers within the education system to help students meet more challenging standards. School improvement models attempt to build capacity.

One of the guiding principles of standards-based accreditation is that it is a process and not an event. Accreditation reporting is important because it provides assurance that a district and its schools are continually working toward improvement. Thus, the reporting process is not an end in itself; standards-based accreditation holds districts accountable not just for documentation, but also for results.

Traditionally, Wyoming statutes have been almost silent regarding accreditation of local school districts. The statutes require the State Board of Education (SBE) to prescribe the minimum standards for the evaluation and accreditation of schools, and require the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to prepare and maintain a list of accredited schools in Wyoming. Appendix A contains relevant statutes. Legislation passed during the 1997 Special Session increases accreditation responsibilities and is discussed more fully in Chapter 3 of this report.

SBE establishes the minimum standards for accreditation through promulgated rules, which, traditionally, were compliance-based. In the past, Wyoming accredited local school districts by documenting

In 1990, after several years of study and preparation, SBE promulgated new rules (see Appendix B) that base accreditation on aspects of student learning. To implement the new rules, SBE allowed for a phase-in period so school districts had time to meet the requirements of the new model. The SBE adopted an implementation timeline from September 1990 through September 1994, divided into three broad phases. In 1991, in response to requests from districts, SBE extended the deadline for implementation until 1997. Each of the phases set forth open-ended tasks for districts to accomplish. The timeline did not provide detailed information about how to execute these tasks, or estimations of how long they should take.

Although some groundwork was being laid between 1990 and 1995 for the new emphasis on student learning, WDE’s accreditation process continued much the same as it had under compliance-based accreditation. Districts were advancing at their own pace during this time.

A newly elected Superintendent took office in January 1995, two years before full implementation was due to occur. By this time, it was clear that some districts were not making adequate progress to meet the deadline. Nevertheless, SBE required adherence to the timeline and directed WDE to ensure full implementation by 1997.

In late 1995, in response to district complaints that SBE’s rules were too vague to implement, WDE issued interpretative guidelines to clarify the rules. These policies are known as the Accreditation Guide; WDE has refined the Guide annually since 1995. The Guide establishes eight components of accreditation, provides examples of acceptable approaches and documentation, and includes a scoring tool called a rubric.

Before outlining the specific kinds of accreditation reporting WDE now requires, it is necessary to describe the Guide’s eight components and the rubric. Together, the components and the rubric are what districts use to guide their own progress, and what WDE accreditation teams use to evaluate the districts. Each district receives an WDE on-site evaluation once every five years. The on-site review is more fully described on page 11.

The Guide’s eight components are the focal point of standards-based accreditation in Wyoming. According to WDE, these components are not linear requirements, but are inter-related activities that, collectively, are designed to help districts improve schools.

When districts report to WDE for accreditation purposes, they are reporting on component-related work in which committees of their own teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and school boards had a part. Thus, in reviewing accreditation reporting, we consider not only the actual documentation WDE requires of districts, but also the underlying activities and processes districts must have in place in order to improve schools. Through the following components, the Guide specifies these processes and activities:

A rubric, according to WDE, is a description of the requirements for varying degrees of success in responding to open-ended questions. WDE developed the rubric as a way of scoring districts uniformly and fairly in relation to accreditation rules. Appendix C contains the accreditation scoring rubric.

Prior to an on-site visit, districts may use the rubric for self-evaluation, as a means of assessing their own strengths and needs. During an on-site visit, the accreditation team uses the same rubric to score districts on each of the eight components; the scale is 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest score. According to WDE officials, a score of 3 on the rubric fulfills the requirements in the rules. A score of a 4 on the rubric represents exemplary performance, exceeding the minimum standards established in the rules.

Districts are scored in the components on their approach, their deployment, and their results. Currently, to achieve full accreditation, districts must achieve scores of 3 on approach, deployment, and results.

WDE’s Accreditation Unit is responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring uniform standards for educational programs. To do this work, the Accreditation Unit had a budget of $642,000 in the 1997-98 biennium. This provided an administrator, three professional, and two support staff. For the 1999-2000 biennium, the Legislature increased the Accreditation Unit’s budget to $1.1 million and added one professional and one clerical staff position. This increased funding will cover these new salaries and operating expenses to fulfill responsibilities for education reform initiated during the 1997 Special Session.

The costs that districts incur to complete accreditation requirements cannot be similarly quantified or estimated. Typically, districts do not segregate their costs for standards-based accreditation reporting. The activities they undertake for such purposes are interwoven with day-to-day district, school, and classroom activities, and cannot readily be isolated.

Annually, WDE makes recommendations to the SBE, which votes on accreditation of every district. By the terms of its rules, the Board may grant full, conditional, or non-accredited status to districts. Appendix D lists the accreditation status, as of July 1997, for each district.

When making the recommendations on accreditation status, WDE takes into account information it receives on each district’s performance relative to the eight components, statutory compliance, and federal monitoring.

This information comes to the Department and Board through different reporting mechanisms. Every district annually provides "assurance

The desk audit also provides advance information about the district to the on-site accreditation team. It provides evidence of the processes a district and its schools are engaged in that meet requirements for the eight components of the model. For example, districts must describe the process by which all constituents were involved in developing student performance standards, how the standards reflect the curriculum, and what methods are in place to address students who exceed or fail to meet the standards. The desk audit requires similar detail for all components of the model.

The on-site team has one leader for state issues and one for federal issues. The size of the team and length of the visit depend on the number of schools in the district, as two team members visit every school. Team size is also affected by WDE staff who specialize in federal programs.

During the on-site, the team visits classrooms, interviews certified staff, parents, and students, and verifies any information not provided in the desk audit. The team uses this broad range of information to determine the district’s scores on the rubric. When scoring a district, the team works toward consensus, with the team leader facilitating the process. WDE officials indicate the team will reference SBE’s rules on accreditation if clarification is needed. The final scores are meant to reflect the preponderance of evidence accumulated from the desk audit and the on-site. The team leaders complete a written report, including a recommendation to the SBE as to accreditation status, within 30 days of the on-site visit.

Figure 1 lists districts that have had on-site visits since the Guide was issued in 1995. Figure 2 lists the districts that have not yet undergone on-site reviews using the Guide. The administrator of the Accreditation Unit believes that currently, there is close to full implementation of the model. However, the first cycle of on-site visits using the Guide and rubric will not be completed until the end of school year 1999-2000.

Source: LSO analysis of WDE information.

Source: LSO analysis of WDE information.

Figure 3 shows the corrective actions WDE has given districts in each of the accreditation components since the Guide has been in use. Two districts received no corrective actions in any of the components; the remaining districts received a median number of three corrective actions in the eight components.

Source: LSO analysis of WDE accreditation files.

According to the ECS, the success of an accountability system is determined not only by its design, but also by the level of commitment policymakers demonstrate to its ongoing implementation and refinement. WDE has designed a more meaningful accountability system than existed before, in that standards-based accreditation focuses on student learning. As one school district superintendent wrote regarding the new system, "If we can move to the acceptance of the process as school improvement, there is no doubt in my mind that all of the children of Wyoming will truly benefit."

The shift from a compliance-based accreditation model to one based on student learning is a significant one. Likewise, the changes in the reporting requirements are also significant. As such, it is no surprise that there have been "growing pains" as WDE implemented the model. The ongoing testament to its success will be the refinement of the system based on increased district involvement and feedback regarding accreditation reporting requirements and underlying processes.

In interviews and written comments, some districts expressed concerns regarding WDE’s implementation of the model, indicating they want to be more involved in establishing the reporting requirements they must meet. Some superintendents praised the intent of the model, but disagreed with certain procedures that WDE used to implement it. The findings in this report explain concerns echoed in a number of school districts regarding accreditation reporting. The recommendations offer tools to assist WDE by strengthening the accreditation reporting processes that exist to promote accountability.

This page intentionally left blank.

WDE has used the Guide to help districts develop an organizational framework, or "structures," needed to fulfill accreditation reporting requirements under the new standards-based model. These structures also serve to enforce the requirements of the accreditation rules. WDE has also streamlined reporting requirements for accreditation. Further, WDE efforts have expedited the model’s implementation and kept the implementation timeline intact.

In creating this framework, however, some educators believe that WDE has not involved districts to the same degree districts must involve their own communities. Although WDE has many constituents, for the purposes of fulfilling accreditation reporting requirements, district personnel are the affected community. We found evidence of weak understanding and agreement with the model among educators. This is a concern because the lack of support from educators could ultimately mean the resulting reform is only superficial. It is not too late for WDE to take steps to involve district personnel more comprehensively.

Between 1990 and 1995, WDE had given districts limited guidance on how to execute the vision of the new accreditation rules. Instead, they allowed districts to move at their own pace and develop their own interpretations of the rules. During this period, WDE did not conduct rigorous accreditation reviews under the new rules; reviews were a hybrid of the old and new models. As a result, many districts believed that WDE would not hold them to the implementation timeline.

Even though districts were at different stages of compliance, SBE directed WDE to keep the 1997 deadline for full implementation. In late 1995, WDE issued the Guide as a tool to assist districts in meeting the deadline. A few months later, WDE began using the rubric to score district performance during on-site accreditation reviews.

In reaction to how the Guide was issued, one district administrator stated, "Some very fine educational expectations were thrust upon districts with no preparation, guidance, or support. Consequently, districts scrambled to band-aid things together, blindly assembled a hodgepodge of information, spent a great deal of money to produce inferior products that mean very little to them, and crossed their fingers that they had guessed right."

Establishing a system as intangible as and with as many actors as standards-based accreditation is a complex undertaking. Other states that have switched to standards-based accreditation appear to have built a transition period into the process. In Missouri, districts had two years during which they could choose to be accredited under the new or old system. After that, the new system became mandatory. Kansas had a phase-in period with 50 of its schools. Montana is currently piloting its standards-based accreditation model with 18 volunteer schools before determining how to proceed.

Given the new urgency from SBE to fully implement the rules with only existing departmental resources, WDE necessarily had to focus its

While these efforts have been beneficial, WDE’s training efforts need to increasingly address teacher knowledge and skills, as well as attitudes toward the changes required by standards-based education. WDE staff acknowledge this fact, saying, "The next logical step is to provide help in the classroom. We can’t do it now with current staff." To advance understanding and acceptance of the new model, it would be helpful to have a "vision document" for educators describing the philosophy of the model, the interconnections of the components, the reporting requirements, and the role classroom teachers play. For example, Montana has created such a document, written in simple language that both educators and the public can understand.

It appears WDE has relied in part on the staff development component of the model to build the understanding and capacity of classroom teachers. However, at this point, it also appears districts’ staff development plans are centered more around creating the required structures and documents for accreditation reporting than on teacher practices. One principal said, "It is sad that our inservices will be totally about accreditation for a whole year." The comment indicates that in this district, the focus of inservices was on the event of the on-site visit, and not on using the model to build the capacity of teachers.

WDE alone cannot build the capacity of classroom teachers to be effective within this model. Local administrators can play an important role in increasing teacher understanding and acceptance of the model. However, our interviews with educators suggest that WDE needs to do more to increase administrator understanding about accreditation reporting requirements. This could, in turn, support administrators’ efforts to build teacher capacity.

While implementing the new model for standards-based accreditation, WDE has worked to increase the efficiency of reporting practices. Fully 86 percent of superintendents responding to our survey reported that WDE handled their on-site visits with a minimum of disruption, and 61 percent said the on-site did not require staff to duplicate work. Similarly, 75 percent said that since 1995, the reporting requirements for accreditation have not been duplicative. Those who believed there was duplication tended to cite part of the 604 annual report, which is duplicated in the desk audit prior to an on-site visit. The administrator of the Accreditation Unit intends to correct this duplication.

A school’s NCA accreditation will satisfy the state’s requirements for one of the eight components, school improvement, but does not fully satisfy the state’s seven other requirements. This is because NCA looks only to see that an individual school has met its own criteria. NCA does not have comprehensive criteria for the other components of the state’s model, nor does it investigate compliance with federal or state statutes and rules.

The accreditation reporting process is intended to be the culmination of and conduit for a meaningful experience of reform, self evaluation, and continuous improvement. No education reform effort will succeed if a critical mass of educators do not agree, understand, and have the capacity to be part of it. In short, educators must "buy-in" to the reform. Otherwise, standards-based accreditation can be seen by educators as an unproductive drain on limited resources.

Lack of buy-in by educators could cause the accreditation reporting process to be superficially done only because it is required. Accreditation reporting is then a frustration because of the unavoidable fact that measuring and reporting take away from doing. Based on our interviews, surveys, and focus groups, we believe the reform effort will become stronger if educator buy-in increases. WDE can better gauge the level of support for reforms by creating additional feedback mechanisms for practitioners.

We received mixed responses from superintendents as to the value of accreditation reporting, leading us to conclude that there is less than full support for the model’s reporting requirements. Eighty-eight percent of superintendents who responded said the products required for accreditation, such as a climate survey, were worthwhile. Nevertheless, 50 percent also believed that the costs outweighed the benefits, and 48 percent believed that accreditation reporting detracted from student learning.

Further, we found that teachers participating in our focus groups did not necessarily see the value of the products required for accreditation reporting. Although each of the teacher focus groups we conducted had unique circumstances and a distinct tone, some common themes emerged. Recognizing these groups were very small and not representative of all teachers, the views expressed were nevertheless illuminating. These teachers saw the accreditation reporting process as requiring a great deal from them, but also, as not giving them an avenue to discuss their experiences or concerns with policymakers.

Even teachers from a district sophisticated in school improvement had philosophical concerns about the model. The model hinges on standards-based teaching, and through experience, these teachers had found that standards-based teaching reduced the amount of material taught. A feedback loop within the accreditation reporting process would provide an opportunity to communicate such views.

Most teachers in the groups were willing to go along with what they thought was being asked of them. However, they did not understand the relationship between the model, the reporting requirements, and their own classroom practices. A teacher in one district said, "I hope this new model meshes before I retire in six to seven years. I want to see what I have dedicated myself to. I want to see it make sense."

Professional literature about school reform supports the idea that classroom teachers are particularly important to ensure education reforms are successful. Increased student learning requires two inputs: a supportive and focused structure, and teachers committed to the vision. WDE has achieved much in terms of the reformed structure. However, if teachers are not collaborative partners in the reform philosophy, the result may be teachers pursuing old practices while working in a new structure.

Standards-based accreditation is meant to be more meaningful than compliance-based accreditation because it should be tied to student

WDE officials indicate that the first cycle of on-site visits under the Guide requires the most work from districts. In fact, WDE has no way of measuring how much work this model requires now or will require in the future. Responses from the superintendent survey indicate that districts see the reporting requirements of the new model commanding ever-increasing resources. Sixty percent of superintendents expect the next accreditation cycle to require more resources to fulfill reporting requirements than the first one. Twenty-nine percent expected it to require the same amount, while only 11 percent expected it to require fewer resources.

Teachers in our focus groups also believed the numerous committees they serve on to create the processes and reports required by the new model increase their workload. It was not possible for teachers to quantify the time spent on this work because it is not customarily tracked by individuals, schools, or districts. The teachers agreed that most of their colleagues were also involved in accreditation reporting processes. Some indicated that the requirements of accreditation, including reporting aspects, were particularly burdensome for teachers in smaller districts or elementary schools because of their small sizes and staffs.

We found a belief within the education community that in order for a district to be successful, it is important to have an administrator, commonly called a curriculum coordinator, in charge of accreditation. Curriculum coordinators can increase the understanding of teachers and take on some of the workload related to reporting. Results of our superintendent survey show that 68 percent of responding districts,

Superintendent survey responses showed that 84 percent reported not extending teacher contracts for accreditation reporting. Forty-four percent of districts used some substitute days for accreditation reporting. Teachers participating in focus groups stated that they did have some substitute days available to accomplish the purposes of accreditation reporting. However, they also expressed a consistent reluctance to use substitute days in this fashion. The practice of using substitutes was viewed by teachers as detracting from student learning, while requiring additional preparation time.

The new accreditation model, as detailed in the Guide, has placed more explicit requirements on the districts; for example, there are repeated requirements for districts to involve the community. The concept underlying these requirements is that a school’s efforts to increase student learning will only succeed if the community has bought into the vision for improvement.

The education community has mixed responses as to whether the Accreditation Unit is, itself, following the principles implicit in the accreditation model. When asked if the Accreditation Unit models the principles of the accreditation model, 44 percent of superintendents were neutral, 37 percent disagreed, and only 20 percent agreed. In our survey and interviews, educators tended to express that more opportunities for input, involvement, and buy-in regarding WDE’s own processes would be valuable.

The community is an essential part of the accreditation process for districts. Similarly, WDE’s goals can best be met if its community shares and supports those goals. As stated earlier, we defined the districts as WDE’s "community" for accreditation reporting. As such, we see a parallel between several of the eight components of the model and the work of the Accreditation Unit. At least three components of the model -- parent and community involvement, school improvement planning, and school climate -- readily fit this conceptual framework.

It is important for Accreditation Unit staff to be responsive to comments and suggestions as they arise, although this is not a strategy for input, but something that happens naturally during interactions with district personnel. WDE also leaves evaluation forms with superintendents and team members after on-site visits, and distributes evaluation forms after trainings. However, the practice of evaluating after on-sites has not fostered upfront involvement and a sense of buy-in. We believe the Accreditation Unit’s strategies for community input could be expanded to be more comprehensive and systematic.

Missouri, Montana, and Kansas each use advisory committees of school administrators and classroom teachers to counsel their

These states’ advisory committees are able to initiate and advance field concerns, needs, and ideas. The committees work toward consensus with department of education staffs on both practical and philosophical aspects of and changes to the accreditation model. They also provide a link between educators and the state boards of education, helping to insure the success of the accreditation model. One Missouri official said, "The contribution our statewide committee has made is credibility among school districts. It has meant all the stakeholders had input."

In order to more completely reflect the principles of the model and to improve its self evaluation efforts, WDE should conduct a formal climate survey of educators in the 48 districts. The results of such a survey, routinely conducted, should be used by WDE as a factor for adjustments to the accreditation reporting process, developing its improvement plan, and designing technical assistance for districts. WDE may also find benefit in producing and distributing a vision document for classroom teachers, explaining the accreditation model, reporting requirements, and their relation to classroom methods.

Because educators are responsible for accreditation reporting, SBE could form an advisory committee of practitioners with strong representation from the 48 school districts. Its purpose would be to advise SBE and WDE of district needs, and to advance district concerns regarding the accreditation reporting practices and processes. Members of this committee could participate in the development of the Accreditation Unit’s improvement plan. This committee would also be an appropriate way for SBE and WDE to discuss and pilot ideas for changes to accreditation reporting requirements and the design of the model. The development of such a committee would formalize and institutionalize district input into the accreditation reporting processes, and help generate the vision of reform among educators.

Because SBE’s standards-based accreditation rules are broad expressions of policy, districts had considerable latitude to proceed with implementation at their own pace and develop their own interpretations of accreditation reporting requirements. When the Guide was issued in 1995, it brought some assurance of uniformity to the system, as well as more clarity about reporting requirements. However, as the system continues to solidify and mature, more formality is needed.

Similarly, the lack of specificity in rule has allowed WDE latitude to establish informal but fully binding procedures for the accreditation of schools. As a result, WDE directs and oversees accreditation reporting largely "by practice," not through promulgated rules.

SBE needs to expand its accreditation rules to more fully describe both district reporting requirements and WDE’s accrediting procedures. More specificity in rule is needed to ensure that accreditation reporting requirements are open and fair. In addition, promulgating rules will open up the process to allow district involvement in decisions that affect them.

In tone and content, the SBE rules provide a vision of what standards-based accreditation is, rather than specific details about how districts should proceed or how WDE would conduct accreditation. The rules mention broad ideals, such as "implementing programs which will improve student results" and addressing "student performance standards in an officially adopted planning process." They are almost silent on the specifics of district accreditation reporting requirements.

SBE has not promulgated procedural rules that describe WDE’s administrative processes regarding accreditation. Only one section of the rules discusses actual procedural issues. This section provides for

By issuing the Guide within a year of taking office, the current administration put the Board’s rules into effect in a way that provided districts direction to proceed. This action also demonstrated that WDE was serious about achieving full implementation by the 1997 deadline.

According to WDE officials, the Guide derives from rules and provides technical assistance and clarification of them. We agree that the Guide does provide examples and guidance, such as scenarios and exemplary practices, that districts may consider when implementing school improvement. This guidance has been well received. Ninety-five percent of our survey respondents either strongly or mildly agreed that the Guide was a helpful tool in preparing for their on-site visit.

However, when WDE issued the Guide in late 1995, some districts were not prepared for the new rigor it and the rubric required. Several district superintendents responding to our survey believed the requirements in specific sections of the Guide invalidated their initial interpretations of the rules. More than one-fourth of the respondents to our survey also experienced a situation where they believed they had been following the intent of the rules, but found they were not following certain parts of the Guide, specifically the rubric. These districts tended to believe they received lower accreditation scores as a result.

Specifically, the rubric provides more than just suggestions to districts as to how to carry out accreditation requirements. The rubric is the standard districts must meet to receive full accreditation, and WDE scores and accredits districts against it. The rubric explains in prescriptive detail what districts need to provide, through reporting, to demonstrate to WDE that they are working toward school improvement.

Through our accreditation file review, we found that WDE directs districts to undertake certain activities listed in the rubric, even if those activities are not clearly required in rule. WDE has mandated in two ways that districts conform to requirements of the rubric: either by giving corrective actions, or by implying that certain activities mentioned only in the rubric must be undertaken to achieve full accreditation. The following examples demonstrate that WDE treats the rubric as requirements:

• Accreditation rules state that schools must adopt procedures to assess school climate. The rules do not provide additional detail about how often schools should conduct these climate surveys or stipulate that the results of such surveys must be reported. The rubric, on the other hand, mandates the frequency of climate surveys and requires that these results be reported.

• Throughout the rules, there are references to improving student performance. The rubric scores district progress in this realm by requiring school improvement plans that should include certain elements such as school profiles and action plans.

• Accreditation rules state that districts must measure (i.e. test) student performance. The rubric defines certain levels of quality for such tests.¹

Together, the Guide and its rubric give direction and meaning to accreditation reporting requirements. However, WDE created this document internally, and did not promulgate requirements into rules. Our survey of school district superintendents revealed that 81 percent were not given the opportunity to provide input into the design of the original Guide. Neither does it appear that there are structured ways to sufficiently involve all districts in ongoing refinements to the Guide. Superintendents we surveyed responded the most common way to contribute to changes in the Guide was through "informal comments to WDE staff."

Consequently, districts believe they have not been adequately included in the process of commenting and giving feedback on this significant and controlling document. WDE has essentially made statewide policy, but has not promulgated that policy. The rule promulgation process ensures that policies are explained in detail on the record, and also provides full opportunity for all interested groups to participate in the deliberations.

Accreditation reporting requirements are the culmination of substantive education activities that have traditionally been the focal point of local control. As such, the districts’ role in scrutinizing, discussing, and debating those requirements is vital. Since detailed rules have not been promulgated, there has not been full opportunity for public debate over very specific but informal accreditation reporting requirements.

Since many of the mechanical aspects of how WDE conducts accreditation are not codified in rule, the system operates largely according to established practice. For example, the cycle for on-site visits and the composition of teams have not been communicated in rule. Without promulgated rules that identify standard procedures, WDE cannot assure districts that the accreditation process is carried out with consistency and equity. Also, because the rules do not contain procedural protections, districts have no certainty regarding how and when WDE interpretations and practices may change.

Administrative rules are the formal mechanism for agencies to communicate with affected entities. WDE has not used this avenue to disclose to districts the procedures that will be used to accredit them.

The rules do not lay out a process that guarantees recourse for districts if they disagree with accreditation findings. The rules have no provision allowing districts to file a formal response to the accreditation report, nor do they specify a process to appeal accreditation status. Currently, informal avenues for recourse exist, and both WDE and SBE officials indicated that school districts are always welcome and encouraged to make a case to the SBE if they wish. However, a review of SBE minutes indicates that districts rarely, if ever, approach the Board in this way.

WDE has noted that the concept underlying corrective actions is not meant to be punitive. The intent is for districts to engage in a process of continual improvement. However, because accreditation is also the state’s mechanism to ensure that districts meet some minimum level of compliance, WDE has blurred the line between minimum requirements and continual improvement. Under the current rules, WDE has no explicit authority to require that a fully accredited district make further programmatic improvements. In this situation, WDE needs to gain the district’s voluntary support in making improvements.

It is unclear what options WDE would have if a district chose not to address corrective actions after being given full accreditation. Accreditation is a legal status that, when denied, could be challenged in court. However, when WDE awards full accreditation, with caveats, districts do not have this recourse.

Lack of specificity regarding accreditation status has given rise to misunderstandings and confusion. One local administrator informed us that districts must receive a 4 in all the components to achieve full accreditation; in fact, WDE has established a 3 on the rubric as full accreditation. WDE officials told us that no district that gets a 3 will get a corrective action, and no district will be down-graded after an on-site exit conference. However, these protections are not in rule and districts may not be aware of them. One superintendent commented in our written survey, "Required corrective action is based on opinion, not written rules or regulations."

We were also unable to determine what level of compliance would merit each accreditation status: full, conditional, or non-accreditation. An accreditation team member told us that if a district receives correctives on more than four components, it will be awarded conditional, not full, accreditation status. Such a stipulation is not in rule, and it is not clear whether this is WDE’s practice.

Finally, the requirements placed on districts by mentors for clearance of corrective actions are not defined in rule. It is not apparent what the timeline is for clearing corrective actions and what explicit authority a mentor holds. We found that mentors act as both regulator and helper, and these roles, currently undefined, can create confusion.

We reviewed professional literature on agency rulemaking procedures and interviewed individuals familiar with the agency rulemaking process. The literature and experts stressed the importance of maintaining sufficient agency discretion to get the job done.

We found there are no definitive standards for determining if and when an agency should promulgate its informal guidelines and operational practices. A sensible balance must be maintained when deciding what agency practices should be included in formal rulemaking, and which information can best be communicated through informal policies. One administrative law text we reviewed noted that agencies need flexibility with internal procedures, but promulgation of those procedures "lends an air of fairness and impartiality to agency interactions with individuals, groups, and other agencies."

Other literature provides more justification for promulgating rules, rather than operating under informal guidelines. Rules provide standard policy statements that can be broadly and uniformly applied. Rulemaking reduces the likelihood or appearance of arbitrariness, lending fairness to administration. Without rules, there is less agency accountability and it is more difficult to provide due process to affected entities. One official familiar with agency rulemaking questioned what an agency would have to fear from the rule promulgation process. "Debate will ultimately produce the best product ... Illumination can only be beneficial."

We conducted a limited review of rules in selected states that have adopted standards-based accreditation. We learned that SBE’s rules are less explicit in comparison to other states. Our intent was to identify rules that provide solid procedural protections and detailed information about the accreditation program. The following are examples of such protections within rule:

During the 1997 Special Session, the Legislature adopted language that more prominently features the role of accreditation in statute. The statutes, effective July 1, 1998, state that SBE is responsible for prescribing uniform state performance standards. SBE is required to implement and enforce state standards through the accreditation process. Further, the statutes require WDE to implement a statewide assessment system to measure student progress on the mastery of the state standards. Statutes require the assessment results to be used in school improvement planning.

These statutory changes place increasing responsibility on WDE to ensure accountability in the education system. As such, it is even more important that existing accreditation practices and requirements be formalized.

As a result of the emphasis placed on accreditation during the 1997 Special Session, many of the new responsibilities of the WDE Accreditation Unit will likely need to be explained in rules. This would also be an ideal opportunity for SBE to draft regulations regarding district reporting requirements and WDE accreditation procedures.

SBE should review the Guide and determine which provisions are appropriate for rule promulgation. WDE should institutionalize elements of the Guide that clearly require a level of compliance from districts, such as the rubric. Such action would eliminate district perceptions that "this too shall pass." Having this information promulgated in rules would give districts consistency in what SBE requires of them for reporting, even as different administrative philosophies come and go in WDE.

SBE should formalize many of the WDE’s processes to accredit local school districts. Some of the practices that the state needs to more clearly define include: desk audit requirements; determination of accreditation status; definition of corrective actions; clearance of deficiencies; and the role of mentors. Finally, SBE should include protections in rule to provide local districts with formal recourse. This could include a process allowing districts to respond to the accreditation report and should outline a process for district appeals.

In our research on accreditation reporting, we found it difficult to separate the philosophical and procedural aspects of accreditation. This is because accreditation reports are simply a reflection of the varied and substantive activities going on within each district. There are inseparable linkages between accreditation reporting and the underlying philosophy and processes of standards-based education. To address reporting requirements, it was necessary to examine these processes.

Wyoming’s move to standards-based accreditation is consistent with national trends designed to examine factors that affect student learning. It is easier to document the number of books in the library than it is to document the effectiveness of the structures that support student learning. WDE believes most districts have implemented the standards-based accreditation rules, but the state is still transitioning to the new model. More reporting is involved, and as such, the ongoing success of this model will depend partially on district support for it.

WDE can gain further district support by continuing to find more ways to comprehensively involve districts. It can create a better feedback loop for districts to communicate with SBE about philosophical issues of accreditation, and with WDE about implementation of the reporting requirements. As well, SBE can promulgate rules that more fully describe WDE’s accreditation procedures and district reporting requirements. Currently, accreditation rules serve two purposes: they are both a system to reform education, and a means of monitoring district performance. This mix is not inappropriate, but has created complexity.

Our recommendations are to open the process up, involve participants, and expand and clarify rules. These steps alone will help to improve accreditation reporting. The challenge for WDE will be to use the structure to build district and teacher capacity for continual improvement.

This page intentionally left blank.

Note: The Wyoming Department of Education’s response to the report is on file at the Legislative Service Office.

Duties of the State Board until July 1, 1998:

W.S. 21-2-304(b): In addition to any other duties assigned to it by law, the state board shall:

(i) Prescribe minimum standards with which public schools and other educational institutions receiving money from any state fund, except the University of Wyoming and the community colleges, must comply. The standards shall relate to and include:

(C) The evaluation and accreditation of the public schools.

(ii) Enforce the rules and regulations adopted under paragraph (b)(i) of this section by taking appropriate administrative action with the state superintendent or withhold state funds from any school district or institution failing to comply with any applicable law or with the minimum standards prescribed by the state board.

W.S. 21-2-304(a) The state board of education shall:

(i) Establish policies for public education in this state consistent with the Wyoming Constitution and statutes and may promulgate rules necessary or desirable for the proper and effective implementation of this title and its responsibilities under this title.

(ii) Through the evaluation and accreditation of school districts, implement and enforce the uniform standards for educational programs prescribed under W.S. 21-9-101 and 21-9-102 in the public schools of this state, including any educational institution receiving any state funds except for the University of Wyoming and Wyoming community colleges. The board shall ensure that educational programs offered by public schools in accordance with these standards provide students an opportunity to acquire sufficient knowledge and skills, at a minimum, to enter the University of Wyoming and Wyoming community colleges, to prepare students for the job market or postsecondary vocational and technical training and to achieve the general purposes of education that equips students for their role as a citizen and participant in the political system and to have the opportunity to compete both intellectually and economically in society;

(iii) By rule and regulation and in consultation and coordination with local school districts, prescribe uniform student performance standards for the common core of knowledge and the common core of skills specified under W.S. 21-9-101(b) and promulgate uniform standards for programs addressing the special needs of student populations specified under W.S. 21-9-101(c). Student performance standards prescribed under this paragraph shall include standards for graduation from any high school within any school district of this state based upon performance or mastery of the common core of knowledge and common core of skills prescribed under W.S. 21-9-101(b). Graduation standards imposed under this paragraph shall require the successful completion of the following components, as evidenced by passing grades or by the successful performance on competency-based equivalency examinations:

(A) Four (4) school years of English;

(B) Three (3) school years of mathematics;

(C) Three (3) school years of science;

(D) Three (3) school years of social studies, including history, American government and economic systems and institutions.

(iv) Establish, in consultation with local school districts, through testing or other means, a requirement for each student to demonstrate mastery of the common core of knowledge and skills in order to earn a high school diploma;

(v) Through the state superintendent and in consultation and coordination with local school districts, implement a statewide assessment system for measuring student progress based upon uniform education program and student performance standards imposed by law and by board rule and regulation. The assessment system shall be administered at appropriate levels at specified grades and at appropriate intervals aligned to the standards. The assessment system shall be aligned to the statewide education program standards, shall specifically assess student performance in reading, writing and mathematics at grades four, eight, and eleven and may measure the other common core of knowledge and skills established under W.S. 21-9-101(b), which can be quantified. The assessment results will be used in conjunction with a school district’s annual assessment to design educational strategies for improvement and enhancement of student performance. This design for improvement shall be part of each district’s school improvement plan. In consultation and coordination with school districts, the board shall review and evaluate the assessment system regularly and based upon uniform statewide reports from each district, annually report to the legislature on student performance at specified grade levels and on school improvement plans.

(b) In addition to subsection (a) of this section and any other duties assigned to it by law, the state board shall:

(ii) Enforce the uniform state educational program standards imposed by W.S. 21-9-101 and 21-9-102 and the uniform student performance standards established by rules and regulations adopted under subsection (a) of this section by taking appropriate administrative action with the state superintendent, including but not limited to the changing of accreditation status.

W.S. 21-2-202(a) In addition to any other duties assigned by law, the state superintendent shall:

(viii) Prepare and maintain a list of accredited schools in Wyoming.

(c) In addition to subsection (a) of this section, the state superintendent may take appropriate administrative action with the state board as necessary to withhold funds from any school district or state institution failing to comply with any applicable law or with the minimum standards prescribed by the state board.

(d) Any school district aggrieved by an act of the state superintendent may seek review in accordance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act.

W.S. 21-2-202(a) In addition to any other duties assigned by law, the state superintendent shall:

(viii) Prepare and maintain a list of accredited schools in Wyoming.

(xiv) For purposes of the statewide assessment of students and reporting student performance under W.S. 21-2-304(a)(v), have authority to assess and collect student educational assessment data from school districts, community colleges and the University of Wyoming. All data shall be provided within a reasonable time in accordance with rules and regulations of the state board;

(xxi) Establish and maintain a uniform statewide reporting system based upon the statewide student assessment implemented by the state board under W.S. 21-2-304(a)(v).

(c) In addition to subsection (a) of this section, the state superintendent may take appropriate administrative action with the state board as necessary, including but not limited to the changing of accreditation status, against any school district or state institution failing to comply with any applicable law or with the uniform education program standards specified under W.S. 21-9-101 and 21-9-102 and the student performance standards prescribed by the state board.

(d) Any school district aggrieved by an act of the state superintendent may seek review in accordance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act.

W.S. 21-9-101. Schools to adhere to minimum standards promulgated by the state board of education.

The board of trustees of each school district within the state shall cause the schools under its jurisdiction to adhere to the minimum standards relating to educational programs promulgated by the state board of education.

W.S. 21-9-102. Instruction in state and federal constitutions required; satisfactory examination a prerequisite to graduation.

All schools and colleges in this state that are supported in any manner by public funds shall give instruction in the essentials of the United States constitution and the constitution of Wyoming, including the study of and devotion to American institution and ideals, and no student shall receive a high school diploma, associate degree or baccalaureate degree without previously passing a satisfactory examination on the principles of the constitution of the United States and the state of Wyoming. The instruction shall be given for at least three (3) years in the elementary grades and for one (1) year each in the secondary and college grades.

21-9-101.  Educational programs for schools; standards; core of knowledge and skills; special needs programs; class size requirements; cocurricular activities.

(a)  The board of trustees of each school district within the state shall cause the schools under its jurisdiction to provide an educational program in accordance with uniform standards defined under this section and rules and regulations promulgated by the state board of education pursuant to W.S. 21-2-304(a).

(b)  Each school district within the state shall provide educational programs sufficient to meet uniform student performance standards at the level established by the state board of education in the following areas of knowledge and skills:

(i)  Common core of knowledge:

(A)  Reading/language arts;

(B)  Social studies;

(C)  Mathematics;

(D)  Science;

(E)  Fine arts and performing arts;

(F)  Physical education;

(G)  Health and safety;.

(H)  Humanities;

(J)  Career/vocational education;

(K)  Foreign cultures and languages;

(M)  Applied technology;

(N)  Government and civics including state and federal constitutions pursuant to W.S. 21-9-102.

(ii)  For grades one (1) through eight (8), reading, writing and mathematics shall be emphasized under the common core of knowledge specified under paragraph (b)(i) of this section;

(iii)  Common core of skills:

(A)  Problem solving;

(B)  Interpersonal communications;

(C)  Keyboarding and computer applications;

(D)  Critical thinking;

(E)  Creativity;

(F)  Life skills, including personal financial management skills.

(c)  In addition to subsection (b) of this section, each school district within this state shall provide programs designed for the special needs of those student populations specified within this subsection. Programs under this subsection shall be provided and shall identify special student populations in accordance with rules and regulations of the state board of education. The state board shall monitor the proportion of students in each special needs category, compared to available regional averages. Special needs student populations include:

(i)  Children with disabilities evaluated in accordance with rules and regulations of the state board as having mental retardation, hearing impairments including deafness, speech or language impairments, visual impairments including blindness, serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, specific learning disabilities, deafness and blindness or other multiple disabilities, and who, because of the impairments, need special education and related services; and

(ii)  Gifted and talented students identified by professionals and other qualified individuals as having outstanding abilities, who are capable of high performance and whose abilities, talents and potential require qualitatively differentiated educational programs and services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society.

(d) In addition to subsections (b) and (c) of this section, each school district within this state shall endeavor to maintain when practicable, in kindergarten through grade three (3) within the district, an average class size of no more than twenty (20) students per teacher, excluding children with disabilities who spend more than fifty percent (50%) of their time outside of regular classroom instruction.

(e)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit school districts from establishing cocurricular activity programs which have as their purpose to provide educational experiences not otherwise provided by the local district. The legislature specifically encourages school districts to establish programs of this type.

(f)  It is the intent of the legislature that the funding mechanism established by law for schools encourage school districts to achieve the goal of reduced class sizes.

21-9-102.  Instruction in state and federal constitutions required; satisfactory examination a prerequisite to graduation.

All schools and colleges in this state that are supported in any manner by public funds shall give instruction in the essentials of the United States constitution and the constitution of the state of Wyoming, including the study of and devotion to American institution and ideals, and no student shall receive a high school diploma, associate degree or baccalaureate degree without satisfactorily passing an examination on the principles of the constitution of the United States and the state of Wyoming. The instruction shall be given for at least three (3) years in kindergarten through grade eight (8) and for one (1) year each in the secondary and college grades.

These rules and regulations are promulgated pursuant to the Wyoming Education Code of 1969 (as

amended)(W.S. 21-2-304 (a)(i)).

These rules and regulations pertain to the evaluation and accreditation of public schools (K-12).

With these rules and regulations, it is the intention of this agency to establish minimum standards with

which public schools (K-12) must comply.

Any amendments to these rules shall become effective as provided by the Wyoming Administrative

Procedures Act. (W.S. 16-3-101 through 16-3-115).

(a) Accreditation. A process by which each school district and each school within the

district assesses itself and is monitored by the state in order to identify strengths, plan

and implement improvement, assure legal compliance and assure the public that

children are learning in accordance with locally determined performance standards.

(b) At-Risk Students. School age individuals who are likely to experience economic,

social, and academic failure because of social or family conditions or at-risk behavior.

(c) Common Core of Knowledge. Areas of knowledge each student is expected to

acquire at levels established by the district.

(d) Common Core of Skills. Skills each student is expected to demonstrate at levels

the community in setting and helping the school staff implement district performance

outcomes.

(i) Counseling individual and small groups of students. Diagnostic testing

results along with other pertinent information may be used as aids in the

counseling process.

(ii) Consultation with school staff and with parents about the general

welfare of students as individuals in the classroom and in the total school

environment.

(iii) Coordination of guidance services within, between, and among

schools, between school and community, and between school and referral

agencies in the community.

(iv) Staff-Development for building or district staff to help them

understand student behavior and to learn intervention strategies which will

assist students to practice self-fulfilling behavior.

(h) Health Services. An organized program provided by qualified personnel to identify

potential and existing health problems among students.

(i) Media Services. An organized program to provide services which include all print

and non-print resource materials which aid in the teaching-learning process.

(j) Student Performance Standard. The statement of student learning expectations at

both school and school district levels against which results are measured.

(k) Parent Involvement. The participation by parents in helping to set student

performance standards and to implement goals.

(l) Program. Any or all of the district-sponsored or district-supported educational

opportunities for students, either within or beyond the school day.

(m) Public School. An entity created by a local district board which provides education

free of charge to students ages 5 to 21.

the education of persons in grades 1-12 (or as otherwise legally authorized) in a

geographic area defined by the Wyoming State Committee on School District

Organization.

planned activities for individuals, schools and the entire district designed to improve

those elements of professional knowledge and skills that affect student learning.

All public school districts, and the schools and personnel within those districts, must comply with the

applicable statutes of the State of Wyoming.

All public school districts, and the schools and personnel within those districts, must comply with

applicable state board policies and regulations.

All public school students shall meet the student performance standards at the level set by the school

and district in the following areas of knowledge:

(a) Language Arts;

(b) Social Studies;

(b) Mathematics;

(d) Science;

(e) Fine Arts and Performing Arts;

(f) Physical Education;

(g) Health and Safety;

(h) Humanities;

(i) Career Options;

(j) Foreign Cultures Including Language;

(k) Applied Technology.

All public school students shall meet student performance standards at the level set by the school

and district in the following skills:

(a) Problem Solving;

(b) Interpersonal Communications;

(c) Keyboarding and Computer Applications;

(d) Critical Thinking;

(e) Creativity;

(f) Life Skills, including Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Training.

(a) The district shall involve parents, community, and professional staff in developing

student performance standards in the common core of knowledge and skills and in

implementing programs which will improve student results.

(b) The district shall address student performance standards in an officially adopted

planning process reinforced by board of education policies. This process must show,

and its implementation demonstrate, how student performance standards have affected

planning for facilities and annual budget priorities.

(c) The district shall have a board-approved process in which student performance

results are identified, monitored, and reported. The process shall include an annual

report card disseminated widely to patrons of the district.

(d) The district shall demonstrate that staff development relates to student performance.

(e) The administration shall monitor building operations to assure all legal requirements,

federal, state, and local, are met in each school.

(a) Each school shall adopt district student performance standards and site-specific

student performance standards.

(b) Each school shall have staff development plan based upon district and school

student performance goals.

decision-making.

(d) Each school shall have planned strategies and procedures to measure student

performance.

(e) Each school shall adopt procedures for changing strategies on the basis of the

degree of success in accomplishing adopted student performance goals. Particular

attention will be given to addressing needs of gender, ethnic, or socio-economic group

for which results are below either school or district performance levels.

(f) Each school shall involve parents, and students when appropriate, in processes

leading to improved student results.

(g) Each school shall adopt a procedure for assessing school climate.

The district shall have policies and procedures for every school in the district to identify and

intervene with at-risk students. In addition, all schools shall provide instruction as appropriate

through the school curriculum directed at the prevention of at-risk behavior.

(a) A student shall master the student performance standards within the common cores

of knowledge and skills at the levels set by the district and the schools, including

alternative schools.

All districts shall provide the following support services for students:

(a) Health Services;

(b) Media Services;

(c) Guidance Services.

All public school districts and the schools and personnel within those districts shall provide

verification of compliance with these rules and regulations to the Wyoming State Board of Education

annually.

All public school districts and schools within those districts, shall be granted one of the following

accreditation levels by the State Board of Education on an annual basis:

(a) Full Accreditation. The local district and/or the schools within it have met the state

accreditation standards in a fully satisfactory manner.

(b) Conditional Accreditation. The local district and/or the schools within it have met

the state accreditation standards in less than a fully satisfactory manner.

(c) Non-Accreditation. The local district and/or the schools within it have not met the

state accreditation standards. The State Board may attach penalties on an individual

basis.

(d) Exemption. The State Board of Education may exempt a school or district, upon

presentation of a written plan, from any state policy or regulation. A time-line must be

specified in the district's plan.

Note: The Rubric is on file at the Legislative Service Office.

Reports completed since 1995 are available free on the Internet at http://legisweb.state.wy.us/progeval/progevr.htm. Due to technical limitations, the format of reports

on the web site have been altered somewhat to be compatible with the Wyoming Legislative Service

Office's web site. The agency responses, certain graphics, attachments, and appendices to these

reports are unavailable on an on-line basis. Complete printed copies of program evaluation reports

are available for purchase from the Wyoming Legislative Service Office, 213 State Capitol,

Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82002, (307)777-7881.