Report of the External Review Team for Forsyth County

Report of theExternal Review Team

forForsyth County School System

1120 Dahlonega HwyCumming

GA 30040-4536US

Dr. Jeff BeardenSuperintendent

Date: February 5, 2017 - February 8, 2017

Document Generated On March 10, 2017

Copyright (c) 2017 by Advance Education, Inc. AdvancED™ grants to the Institution, which is the subject of the External Review Team Report, and its

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

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

conveyed are reserved by AdvancED™.


AdvancED Forsyth County School System

This report is pending final approval by the AdvancED Accreditation Commission.© 2017 Advance Education, Inc. All rights reserved unless otherwise granted by written agreement. Page 2

Table of Contents Introduction 4

Results 11

Teaching and Learning Impact 11

Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for Learning 12

Standard 5 - Using Results for Continuous Improvement 13

Student Performance Diagnostic 13

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot™) 15

eleot™ Data Summary 19

Findings 22

Leadership Capacity 25

Standard 1 - Purpose and Direction 26

Standard 2 - Governance and Leadership 26

Stakeholder Feedback Diagnostic 27

Findings 27

Resource Utilization 30

Standard 4 - Resources and Support Systems 30

Findings 31

Conclusion 33

Accreditation Recommendation 35

Addenda 36

Individual Institution Results (Self-reported) 36

Team Roster 38

Next Steps 41

About AdvancED 42

References 43






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practices, Opportunities for Improvement, and Improvement Priorities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and provided feedback, guidance and endorsement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

members' individual ratings.

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

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








-

-

-

-

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

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

extensive observations of learning, instruction, and operations.

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

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

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

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

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

performance.

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

team;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

based and validated instrument.

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

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

Improvement Priorities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








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

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

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

under review thereby requiring frequent monitoring and demonstrated improvement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

country.

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

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

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

improvement to significantly impact student learning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

its journey of improvement.








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

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

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

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

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

practice must be addressed to guide the improvement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

evidence and results associated with the Improvement Priorities.

The ReviewForsyth County School System, a system of nearly 45,000 students is located in the metro Atlanta area and is

one of the fastest growing systems in the state, adding approximately 1,800 students annually. Student

demographics include 65 percent white, 15 percent Asian, 13 percent Hispanic, four percent black, and three

percent other. Forsyth County Schools (FCS) is often on top or near the top of many state-mandated student

assessment results.

The Director of Accountability demonstrated exemplary professionalism and attention to detail in the

preparation for the AdvancED External Review. On November 21, 2016, the Lead Evaluator sent an email

message to the Superintendent and Director of Accountability introducing himself and providing a few details

about the External Review process. A follow-up phone conversation with the Superintendent, Director of

Accountability, and External Review Lead Evaluator occurred on December 7 during which System

expectations and additional details of the process were discussed. Periodic email and phone conversations

occurred from that point forward up to and including the time of the on-site visit.

The External Review Team visited Forsyth County School System February 5 - 8, 2017. The Team was

comprised of seven members: four from Georgia (including the Associate Lead), one from South Carolina, one








from Idaho, and the Lead Evaluator from Kentucky. Prior to arriving in Forsyth County, the Team had a virtual

team meeting on January 11, 2017 and a number of subsequent email messages during which the evidence,

and logistics of the on-site visit were discussed. The system organized evidence in Google Drive under each

of the five AdvancED Standards.

The first on-site Team meeting began at 3:00 PM at the Comfort Inn Suites in Cumming, GA. After

introductions and a review of norms and procedures, initial thoughts about the system's Self Assessment on

the Indicator ratings and the Team's average rating for each of the Indicators were discussed. At 5:00 PM

system personnel met the External Review Team at the hotel to transport them to a nearby restaurant for an

evening meal and a time for greeting and meeting. The Team returned to the hotel at approximately 6:00 PM

to discuss the schedule for the next day, develop questions for the next day, and discuss the logistics of the

day.

On Monday morning at the Board of Education Office Building, the superintendent presented an overview of

the system, which was followed by an interview with the superintendent. This was followed by an AdvancED

Standards overview highlighting the strengths and challenges of the system. Administrative leadership used a

PowerPoint presentation to expand on the Accreditation Report with additional evidence for the Team to

consider. The Standards' presentation was followed by interviews with each of the five board members, divided

into groups to ensure that no interview group involved a quorum of the board. Following lunch, interviews with

principals whose schools were not visited as well as several Central Office personnel were interviewed.

Parents and business stakeholder interviews occurred at the end of the day. All groups interviews seemed to

respond candidly and were forthright. Terms like collaboration instead of competition, trust and autonomy, and

high expectations were common themes heard by all Team members. Follow-up interviews focused on

specific questions regarding the three AdvancED Domains: Teaching and Learning, Leadership Capacity and

Resource Utilization. The Team then returned to the hotel about 4:00 PM and for their evening work session.

The evening work session included a comprehensive review of all evidence gathered during the interviews.

Common themes heard from each of the groups were identified and the evidence was compared to the

language of the Indicator ratings. Each Team member submitted their second round of ratings and the Team

average was discussed. Indicators receiving the highest and lowest ratings were identified and a list of

additional evidence was developed. Preparation for the next day's in-school observations was the last item on

the agenda.

On Tuesday Team members observed in the schools. In an effort to visit as many schools as possible, the

Team was divided into five smaller teams, two teams with two members each and three teams with one

member each. Each of the smaller teams was assigned two schools to visit the next day. School visits

included a time for meeting with the school's leadership team, classroom observations, and student interviews.

The goal was for each Team member to complete five eleot® observations in each of the two schools visited.

This goal was met, generating 70 classroom observations.

Team members were in their assigned schools in time to watch the students arrive at school and greeted by

school personnel. Given what seemed like hundreds of personal vehicles, the unloading of students was a








well-organized, efficient process with sufficient personnel in place to help ensure students' safety. Thirty-

minute morning meetings involving school leadership teams, and External Review Teams were followed by

approximately two and a half hours of classroom observations. Classroom observations were followed by

student interviews. All Team members reported that during their interviews students were well-spoken, serving

as exemplary ambassadors for their schools. Following the student interviews, team members were

transported to their afternoon school assignments and followed a schedule similar to their morning schedule.

At the end of the school day team members were transported to the hotel.

The evening work session began shortly after all team members arrived back at the hotel. The eleot summary

results and the day's interviews were used as the basis for debriefing the day's events and served to inform the

ratings on many of the Indicators. Each of the Standards and related Indicators were discussed, guided by a

review of evidence supplied electronically as well as evidence collected while on site. Following the

discussion, team members entered their ratings into ASSIST and an IEQ was calculated.

The Team's ratings were used to identify two Improvement Priorities and three Powerful Practices. The

Improvement Priorities aligned with the system's Student Learner Profile and planned strategic plan. The

Powerful Practices focused on the skill and efficiency of the board, the system's financial management, and

the system's monitoring and support of the instructional program.

Wednesday morning was set aside for confirming evidence identified with the Powerful Practices and

Improvement Priorities, and the exit presentation was finalized. At 12:15 PM a meeting that involved the

Superintendent, Associate Lead Evaluator, and Lead Evaluator was held during which the findings and

recommendations were discussed. At 3:30 PM a special called board meeting was held at which time the

Lead Evaluator presented the Exit Report to the board, superintendent, system and school-based leadership,

and other interested stakeholders.

The External Review Team extends their thanks for the Forsyth County School System's hospitality, support

and professionalism. The advance preparations, welcome, and interactions during the review supported the

Team. Stakeholders were positive, professional, and readily provided information and assistance related to the

improvement process. During the review, system and school personnel demonstrated strong support for

increasing student learning. Special thanks go to the Superintendent and Director of Accountability for

coordinating the review. Principals organized the school visits to maximize effective use of the team members'

time. The attention to detail and collaborative preparation ensured a successful review.

Access to all stakeholder groups was well-planned. As a result, conversations and interviews were numerous

and ranged from hour-long interviews in which a number of topics were discussed in-depth to shorter

interviews during which one or two main ideas were explored. The feedback gained through the interviews

brought clarity and better understanding of system-supplied evidence. The interviews, classroom

observations, and evidence helped in the triangulation of data and therefore helped ensure the accuracy of all

aspects of the final report.

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








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

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

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

groups.

Stakeholder Interviewed Number

Superintendents 1

Board Members 5

Administrators 69

Instructional Staff 32

Support Staff 17

Students 117

Parents/Community/Business Leaders 22

Total 263








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

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

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

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

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

learning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

student performance and institution effectiveness.

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

effectiveness and student learning across all grades and courses.

Indicator Description Review TeamScore

AdvancEDNetworkAverage

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

2.86 2.69

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

3.00 2.49

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

3.00 2.59

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

3.43 2.71

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

3.57 2.58

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

2.86 2.48

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

3.29 2.60










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

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

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

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



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

3.00 2.97

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

2.43 2.50

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

2.71 2.47

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

3.00 2.65

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

2.86 2.64



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

3.00 2.66

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

3.00 2.49

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

2.86 2.15

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

3.00 2.50

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

3.14 2.75










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

evaluating overall student performance.

Evaluative Criteria Review TeamScore

AdvancED NetworkAverage

Assessment Quality 3.71 3.33

Test Administration 3.86 3.52

Equity of Learning 3.71 2.54

Quality of Learning 3.71 2.96










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

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

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

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

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

learning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

across the AdvancED Network.

Based on 70 classroom observations, the team concluded that the areas of strength were the Well-Managed

Learning Environment with an average rating of rating of 3.27 compared to the AdvancED Network (AEN)

average of 3.12, Supportive Learning Environment with an average of 3.13 (AEN 3.05), and Active Learning

Environment with an average rating of 3.09 (AEN 2.93). Schools provide Learning Environments where

students and teachers were respectful of each other and students were aware of classroom rules and followed

eleot™ Results

Review Network

A. E

quita

ble

Lear

ning

B. H

igh

Expe

ctat

ions

C. S

uppo

rtive

Lea

rnin

g

D. A

ctiv

e Le

arni

ng

E. P

rogr

ess

Mon

itorin

g an

d

Feed

back

F. W

ell-M

anag

ed L

earn

ing

G. D

igita

l Lea

rnin

g

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Per

form

ance

Lev

els

2.61 2.693.03

2.803.13 3.05 3.09 2.93 2.83 2.76

3.27 3.12

2.131.86










them appropriately. Students had great attitudes about the learning and could clearly articulate classroom

goals. The highest of all items, "Is actively engaged in the learning activities," averaged 3.37 (AEN 3.2),

followed by "Is provided support and assistance to understand content and accomplish tasks," averaging 3.33

(AEN 3.19) and "Demonstrates or expresses that learning experiences are positive," averaging 3.31 (AEN

3.18).

The lowest average rating for the Learning Environments was Digital Learning with an average of 2.13 (AEN

1.86). Equitable Learning was the next lowest Environment with an average rating of 2.61 (AEN 2.69). The

third lowest rated Environment was Progress Monitoring and Feedback averaging 2.83 (AEN 2.76). The

lowest of all items, "Has ongoing opportunities to learn about their own and other's

backgrounds/cultures/differences," had an average rating of 1.76 (AEN 1.96), next lowest was "Uses digital

tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning," averaging 2.01 (AEN 1.79). With an

average of 2.17 (AEN 1.82) the third lowest item was "Uses digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve

problems, and/or create original works for learning."

The average rating for the Equitable Learning Environment was 2.61 (AEN 2.69). Peer-to-peer and teacher-

peer discussions and equal access to resources and technology were often observed being evident or very

evident in 96 percent of classroom observations (A.2). Similarly, classroom rules and their consequences

provided the general parameters for classroom behavior and were evident/very evident in 79 percent of

classrooms (A.3). With whole-group instruction occurring in nearly four out of ten classrooms, observations

revealed that differentiated learning was evident/very evident in 59 percent of classrooms (A.1). It was

evident/very evident that students had ongoing opportunities to learn about their own and others' backgrounds,

cultures, and differences in 30 percent of the classrooms (A.4). Given the growing student diversity within the

Forsyth County Schools, leaders and teachers may want to expand instructional strategies allowing students to

"learn about their own and others' backgrounds and differences."

The average rating for High Expectations Learning Environment was 3.03 (AEN 2.80). The average for

"Knows and strives to meet the high expectations established by the teacher" was 3.21 (AEN 3.05). The

highest average, students were "tasked with activities and learning that are challenging but attainable" was

3.23 (AEN 3.08). Both items, "Is engaged in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks" and "Is asked

and responds to questions that require higher order thinking," are evident/very evident 86 percent of the time

with averages of 3.11 (AEN 2.91) and 3.14 (AEN 2.71), respectively. Observed much less often, "provided

exemplars of high quality work" was evident/very evident in but 59 percent of classrooms and had an average

score of 2.61 (AEN 2.29). Given that Forsyth County School has a Career and College Ready Performance

Indicator (CCRPI) score of 92.5 increased use of exemplars as an instructional tool should increase student

understanding and learning.

With an overall average score of 3.13 (AEN 3.05) the Supportive Learning Environment was the highest rated

among all Learning Environments. In 93 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students

demonstrated or expressed that learning experiences were positive (C.1). In 96 percent of classrooms, it was

evident/very evident that students demonstrated a positive attitude about the classroom and learning (C.2). In

93 percent of classrooms it was evident/very evident that students were provided support and assistance to










understand content (C.4). Students being provided additional instruction and feedback at the appropriate level

of challenge for their needs was evident/very evident 71 percent of the time (C.2). This implies that nearly 30

percent of the time students were not provided additional or alternative instruction to support their learning.

Attention to this item should be considered for improved student learning.

Active student engagement was evident/very evident in 90 percent of classrooms. The Team observed

students analyzing and comparing literature, participating in guided reading, working at their pace with use of

technology, and gallery walks of their projects. Students' engagement in discussions with the teacher and

other students was evident/very evident 84 percent of the time. For 66 percent of the instructional time it was

evident/very evident that students were making connections between the content and real life experiences.

English/Language Arts (ELA) students were participating in an itsLearning discussion board. Spanish students,

who had mastered the lesson, participated in a scavenger hunt for the weather in South America, while others

reviewed work using technology to watch videos. Expanded opportunities for linking content to real-life

experiences is an effective instructional strategy to be considered.

The average rating for Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment was 2.83 (AEN 2.76). As the

Team observed classes and spoke with students, it was evident/very evident that students were asked about

their progress or learning in 79 percent of classrooms. Additionally, it was evident/very evident that students

could verbalize their understanding of the lesson content in 89 percent of classrooms. Students responded to

teacher feedback to revise/improve their work in 70 percent of classrooms. Of note, the lowest item for this

Learning Environment was for understanding how work was assessed with an average of 2.43 (AEN 2.46).

The team found that few rubrics were evident in classrooms and students were often not able to articulate how

their work was evaluated. When this is combined with the fairly infrequent use of exemplars as noted in the

High Expectations Learning Environment, modification in pedagogy to increase student understanding of how

student work is assessed may increase student learning.

The score of 3.27 (AEN 3.12) for Well-Managed Learning Environment was the highest average rating for all

the Environments. The team consistently observed that it was evident/very evident that students spoke and

interacted respectfully with each other and the teacher 99 percent of the time. It was evident/very evident that

transitions were smooth and efficient in 91 percent of classrooms. Student collaborating during student-

centered activities was evident/very evident in 74 percent of classrooms. Students' knowledge of classroom

routines, behavioral expectations and consequences were evident/very evident in 99 percent of classrooms.

When reviewing the use of digital learning environment, the Team's primary focus was on the activity of the

students versus the actions of the teacher. When this Environment was considered during the Team's

classroom observations, the overall score of 2.13 (AEN 1.86) indicated that the students were using devises a

moderate amount of time. The use of devises was more prevalent in the elementary and middle schools,

which had more small group focus for instruction. It was evident/very evident in 43 percent of classes that

students were using digital learning tools to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning. An example

of how this was used was found in the International Baccalaureate (IB) Biology class, where students were

tasked with the responsibility of researching characteristics of classes of animals that they had created, then

presenting their findings regarding creature adaptations. In the math classes students used graphing










calculators; in band each instrument had a device attached to measure tone; and in learning centers students

used technology to develop interesting questions, such as "Why do people make noise when they cry?" The

use of itsLearning software program was very evident using pre-tests online, watching grade-appropriate

videos as an extension activity while students completed the main lesson's assignments. Expanded,

appropriate use of technology would allow students opportunities to deepen their understanding of much of the

expected content.

Throughout classroom observations the Team found students to be actively engaged, collaborating with their

teachers and peers in several content-related activities. The students were respectful to one another and the

teacher. They generally were very positive and most often knew not only what they were studying, but why

they were studying it as well. Time was well managed with bell-to-bell instruction being the norm.

Differentiation of instruction was observed in nearly half of the classrooms and was more prevalent at the lower

grades than at the high school. The identified system's personalized learning initiative could easily address

digital learning, affording students the opportunity to delve more deeply in course content.










eleot™ Data Summary

A. Equitable Learning %

Item Average Description

Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.56 Has differentiated learning opportunitiesand activities that meet her/his needs

20.00% 38.57% 18.57% 22.86%

2. 3.31 Has equal access to classroomdiscussions, activities, resources,technology, and support

35.71% 60.00% 4.29% 0.00%

3. 2.81 Knows that rules and consequences arefair, clear, and consistently applied

21.43% 57.14% 2.86% 18.57%

4. 1.76 Has ongoing opportunities to learnabout their own and other'sbackgrounds/cultures/differences

4.29% 25.71% 11.43% 58.57%

Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 2.61

B. High Expectations %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.21 Knows and strives to meet the highexpectations established by the teacher

27.14% 67.14% 5.71% 0.00%

2. 3.23 Is tasked with activities and learning thatare challenging but attainable

30.00% 62.86% 7.14% 0.00%

3. 2.46 Is provided exemplars of high qualitywork

14.29% 44.29% 14.29% 27.14%

4. 3.11 Is engaged in rigorous coursework,discussions, and/or tasks

25.71% 60.00% 14.29% 0.00%

5. 3.14 Is asked and responds to questions thatrequire higher order thinking (e.g.,applying, evaluating, synthesizing)

30.00% 55.71% 12.86% 1.43%











C. Supportive Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.21 Demonstrates or expresses thatlearning experiences are positive

28.57% 64.29% 7.14% 0.00%

2. 3.31 Demonstrates positive attitude about theclassroom and learning

35.71% 60.00% 4.29% 0.00%

3. 2.96 Takes risks in learning (without fear ofnegative feedback)

18.57% 62.86% 14.29% 4.29%

4. 3.33 Is provided support and assistance tounderstand content and accomplishtasks

41.43% 51.43% 5.71% 1.43%

5. 2.81 Is provided additional/alternativeinstruction and feedback at theappropriate level of challenge for her/hisneeds

18.57% 52.86% 20.00% 8.57%


D. Active Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.19 Has several opportunities to engage indiscussions with teacher and otherstudents

37.14% 47.14% 12.86% 2.86%

2. 2.71 Makes connections from content to real-life experiences

24.29% 41.43% 15.71% 18.57%

3. 3.37 Is actively engaged in the learningactivities

47.14% 42.86% 10.00% 0.00%











E. Progress Monitoring and Feedback %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.01 Is asked and/or quizzed about individualprogress/learning

24.29% 54.29% 20.00% 1.43%

2. 2.90 Responds to teacher feedback toimprove understanding

15.71% 62.86% 17.14% 4.29%

3. 3.14 Demonstrates or verbalizesunderstanding of the lesson/content

27.14% 61.43% 10.00% 1.43%

4. 2.43 Understands how her/his work isassessed

15.71% 35.71% 24.29% 24.29%

5. 2.66 Has opportunities to revise/improvework based on feedback

15.71% 54.29% 10.00% 20.00%


F. Well-Managed Learning %

Item Average DescriptionV

ery

Evi

den

t

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.47 Speaks and interacts respectfully withteacher(s) and peers

48.57% 50.00% 1.43% 0.00%

2. 3.39 Follows classroom rules and works wellwith others

42.86% 52.86% 4.29% 0.00%

3. 3.21 Transitions smoothly and efficiently toactivities

35.71% 55.71% 2.86% 5.71%

4. 2.96 Collaborates with other students duringstudent-centered activities

34.29% 40.00% 12.86% 12.86%

5. 3.34 Knows classroom routines, behavioralexpectations and consequences

35.71% 62.86% 1.43% 0.00%











FindingsImprovement PriorityDevelop, implement, and monitor a formal process in all schools, whereby each student is well known by at

least one adult advocate who supports the student’s educational experiences and acts as a mentor for

learning, thinking, and life skills as well as physical, social, and emotional needs.

(Indicator 3.9)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.9

Evidence and Rationale

There were multiple examples of student advocacy and mentoring programs being implemented in the schools.

However, there was no systematic advocacy program in which all students had at least one adult advocate

formally identified.

Based on information from stakeholder surveys 65 percent of the middle school and high school students

agree/strongly agree that “my school makes sure there is at least one adult that knows me well and shows

interest in my education and future.” Parent respondents were generally more favorable. Yet, one of four

parent respondents were either ambivalent or disagreed/strongly disagreed that their “child has at least one

advocate in the school.” Eighty-five percent of the staff agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, a formal

structure exists so that each student is well known by at least one adult advocate in the school who supports

that student's educational experience.”

While parents were quick to point out that teachers were caring and generally they felt welcomed in the school,

there were instances in which no one in the school served as an advocate for their child. One parent reflected

G. Digital Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.21 Uses digital tools/technology to gather,evaluate, and/or use information forlearning

20.00% 22.86% 15.71% 41.43%

2. 2.17 Uses digital tools/technology to conductresearch, solve problems, and/or createoriginal works for learning

18.57% 22.86% 15.71% 42.86%

3. 2.01 Uses digital tools/technology tocommunicate and work collaborativelyfor learning

15.71% 21.43% 11.43% 51.43%











on a time her child needed special tutoring but could not find assistance or recommendations at the school

level. Additionally, some parents expressed concern about the availability of counselors to address student

needs.

In the System Accreditation Report in the Opportunities for Improvement the System noted the demands of

growth in regard to staffing, effective programs, and services for students. A program to give school personnel

long-term interaction with individual students would allow for building strong relationships over time with

student and related adults.

Powerful PracticeForsyth County School District provides a systemic and systematic process for monitoring and supporting

instructional practices of teachers to ensure student success, which is supported by a collaborative structure

focusing on improved instruction and student learning at all levels.

(Indicator 3.4, Indicator 3.5)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.4


“Collaboration not competition” seemed to be more than a glib phrase bantered about by teachers to impress

outsiders. Rather that phrase seemed to describe Standard Operating Procedures not only between the

schools, but also with external stakeholders as well.

In the staff survey 95 percent of respondents agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school’s leader hold all staff

members accountable for student learning.” Additionally, 94 percent of the staff agreed/strongly agreed that

“our school’s leaders regularly evaluate staff members on criteria designed to improve teacher and learning.”

Further, 91 percent of the responding staff agreed/strongly agreed, that “All teachers in our school participate

in collaborative learning communities that meet both informally and formally across grade levels and content

areas.”

Interviews with teachers, principals, district personnel, and board members reiterated the coordinated support

of the Board of Education and the collaboration between all members of the district. For example, the system

supports and monitors cluster collaborations and professional development in the district to support student

success. Board members discussed intentional and on-going practices designed to encourage collaboration

and accountability.

Several artifacts reflected the effectiveness of the board and central office leadership. These included District

Collaboration Day schedules and agendas, the Three-Year Induction Certification Support Model, and vertical

team agendas.

Monitoring instructional practices to determine their impact on student learning is a continuous process

requiring an intentional focus by teachers and leaders. Providing teachers on-going information regarding










student learning is a critical component of the monitoring process. Opportunities for teacher collaboration

within task-alike groups as well as vertical discussions inform planning and pedagogy designed to improve

student success at the next level.










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to a disengaged and dissatisfied workforce."

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

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

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

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

effectiveness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vocal citizens (Greene, 1992).

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

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

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

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

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

equity of learning opportunities and support for innovation.










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

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

about teaching and learning.

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

system effectiveness.



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

3.14 2.68

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

3.00 2.68

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

3.00 2.90

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

3.00 2.65



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

3.43 2.97

2.2 The governing body operates responsibly and functionseffectively.

3.57 2.96

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

3.57 3.17

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

2.43 3.03

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

2.43 2.74










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

results.

FindingsImprovement PriorityPromote an inclusive culture that provides for recognition of diversity by developing relationships across

boundaries and cultures in all decisions and actions to achieve the system’s purpose.

(Indicator 2.4, Indicator 2.5, SF1. Questionnaire Administration)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 2.4


The External Review Team found data that shows a trend of increasing racial, ethnic, and economic diversity

across Forsyth County Schools. The cultural diversity of the school system is expected to continue as rapid

growth in the county is projected over the next decade. Awareness of increasing cultural diversity was

referenced during stakeholder interviews and observations. Additionally, some measures of student

achievement indicate that some student subgroups are performing below the district average.

Given that 35 percent of the students represent minority groups, outreach to families promotes a greater



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

3.00 2.70

Evaluative Criteria Review TeamScore


Questionnaire Administration 3.86 3.42

Stakeholder Feedback Results and Analysis 3.29 3.03










awareness and understanding of the variety of cultures represented in Forsyth Counties. Yet, in the students’

survey 61 percent of elementary students agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “My teachers ask my

family to come to school activities.” Similarly, 69 percent of middle and high school students agreed/strongly

agreed that “My school offers opportunities for my family to become involved in school activities and my

learning.”

During interviews with system and school-level leaders student and community demographics were compared

with administrator and teacher demographics. The difference is rather stark, but it was noted that few minority

applicants were received and that the selection of personnel reflected the best candidate with the best fit.

Promoting an inclusive culture was an already-identified goal of the system. Tenets of its own Learner Profile

focused on engagement and contribution by “Develop[ing] relationships across boundaries and cultures.”

Another tenet, Interact Effectively, called upon students to “Work collaborative with others” and “Cultivate and

maintain positive relationships.” Each of these actions was facilitated through developing an understanding

and appreciation for those who may be different than oneself.

Promoting an inclusive culture is based on an unwavering commitment to understand others and their

foundational principles. This requires intentional practices and policies designed to encourage inclusivity.

Nevertheless, the reality of the changing demographics suggests maintaining the stellar academic standards

currently realized by the district will require broad base community involvement to help ensure greater

understanding of the cultures represented within the community and the impact these cultures have on student

learning.

Powerful PracticeThe Forsyth Board of Education fosters a high performing organizational structure that provides clear vision

and optimal material resources in support of student learning.

(Indicator 2.1, Indicator 2.2, Indicator 2.3)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 2.2


The External Review Team found through multiple sources of documented evidence, recognition from the

Georgia School Board Association, and interviews with staff and community stakeholders that the Board of

Education individually and collectively is very responsive to the stakeholder community. The Board practices

exemplary and appropriate structures of autonomy that provide the superintendent and staff the ability to

appropriately lead the district in support of student learning. This healthy autonomous structure is evident at all

levels of operation throughout the district because of the exemplary leadership and communication at the

Board of Education and superintendent levels.

Parent, staff, and student survey responses were generally favorable in responding to statements related to

the amount of available resources. Eighty-seven percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed “Our school










provides an adequate supply of learning resources that are current and in good condition.” Eighty-seven

percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed “Our school provide sufficient material resources to meet

student needs.” Similarly, 87 percent of middle and high school students agreed/strongly agreed “In my school,

a variety of resources are available to help me succeed (e.g., teaching staff, technology, media center).”

In a time in which many school systems are moving toward a one-to-one technology program, the system has

opted for a Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT) program. Given the abundance of technology owned by

students and their families, purchasing technology for each student seemed to less than optimal use of funds.

Conversations among community, school, and district stakeholders ensued focusing on the pros and cons of

BYOT. Needing to ensure that all students had access, several Chrome Books were purchased and made

available for students either forgetting or not having access to technology. The effectiveness of this plan was

verified in several classroom observations. The variety of technologies did not seem to impact the instructional

flow or students’ abilities to accomplish the tasks at hand.

The rapid growth of the district was mentioned in several interviews. Parents voiced some consternation with

the redistricting yet also (somewhat hesitantly) acknowledged the need for redistricting to help ensure

efficiency of use of resources and to maintain a student population balance among schools. The BYOT

program was mentioned by stakeholders as an effective use of resources. Teachers stated that instruction and

required tasks were not device specific. Further, some noted that “in the real world” not everyone carries the

same device, and allowing students to interact with the differing technologies provided some insight not

available if everyone had the same technology.

An effective school system requires a high level of trust between the board and the system's leadership

coupled with an accountability system designed to measure growth toward the system's purpose and vision.

The need for trust and accountability becomes greater when rapid growth creates competing voices for

available resources. Creating the parameters to provide guidance and direction help ensure decisions are

made and implemented with fidelity.










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

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

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

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

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

evidence of long-range capital and resource planning effectiveness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ensures compliance with applicable governmental regulations.

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

success for all students.



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

2.71 2.87

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

3.00 2.87

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

3.14 3.06

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

3.29 2.76










FindingsPowerful PracticeThe Forsyth County School System demonstrated its commitment to long-range strategic planning and to

maximizing the impact of available financial resources for student learning and success.

(Indicator 4.4)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 4.4


The Georgia Governor’s Office of Student Achievement provides an efficiency ranking of all the state's school

districts based on per student spending compared with the system's overall academic performance. Known as

the Five-Star Financial Efficiency Rating on the Georgia College and Career Ready Performance Index, the

Forsyth County School District was the only system in the state to be awarded a five-star rating in the inaugural

year of the program. The system maintained its five-star ranking during the current, second year.

All stakeholder groups responded overwhelmingly positive to survey questions regarding the system’s use of

available resources. For example, 90 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed “Our school provides

students with access to a variety of information resources to support their learning.” Ninety-seven percent of

the staff agreed/strongly agreed “Our school provides qualified staff members to support student learning” and

94 percent of the staff agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school provides a variety of information resources to

support student learning.” Students were just as enthusiastic with 87 percent of middle and high school

students agreeing/strongly agreeing “In my school, a variety of resources are available to help me succeed

(e.g., teaching staff, technology, media center).”

The superintendent noted that the system is in the process of updating its long-range strategic plan to ensure

clear direction for continuous improvement of the district and schools. Leadership also noted the availability of



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

3.00 2.73

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

3.14 2.72

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

3.00 2.58

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

2.43 2.60










limited financial resources, and the ongoing support of community stakeholders dictates effective, long-range

strategic planning for the continuing success of Forsyth County students.

As noted previously, the system demonstrated its commitment to organizational effectiveness by earning a

Five-Star Financial Efficiency Rating from the state. Furthermore, the system demonstrated responsible

stewardship through its use of capital outlay funds to provide quality school facilities in response to continuing

growth in student enrollment. These measures provide a degree of accountability in the use of available

funding in the areas of facilities and other material resources.










ConclusionFor a school district with the population of Forsyth County, creating a school system versus a system of

schools is often a challenge. Further, when autonomy is an integral part of the leadership's foundational

philosophy, the task becomes even more difficult. Growing at approximately four percent annually (roughly

1,800 students) and led by talented professional educators, the school system developed the Learner Profile

as a non-negotiable to guide decisions, instructional practices, and school and system policies. Further, the

Learner Profile is not simply a document that was adopted, put on the wall, and then forgotten. When asked,

students talked about the Learner Profile and how it impacted not only their current educational experiences,

but the guidance it will provide through graduation and on into a career. Indeed, the Learner Profile is an

integral component that helps ensure the district truly is a school system.

The effectiveness of systemic autonomy helps to shape the culture of Forsyth County Schools. School-level

leaders are held accountable for ensuring successful student results but are given broad latitude on how to get

there. As an example, flexible staffing allocations are given to meet the unique needs of each school including

an allocation for each school to staff an instructional technology specialist. Some school-based leaders have

examined positions that may legally be staffed by non-certified staff and have chosen to hire paraprofessionals

in some of those positions, giving additional funds to hire additional support personnel. Autonomous structure

is guided by district support and accountable through regular monthly meetings with building leadership teams

to ensure appropriate progress monitoring activities are in place at the school, department/grade level and

individual student level.

Collaboration and not competition is an expectation among and between schools. Building principals reported

how they shared data and improvement strategies with their in-system colleagues. Horizontal and vertical

professional conversations occur both inside schools as well as between schools. The District Collaboration

Day (DCD) provides opportunities for skilled teachers to share successful pedagogical practices. This is

especially successful since it provides an opportunity for exceptional Forsyth educators the chance to be

recognized as teacher leaders and other Forsyth teachers to observe best practices occurring within the

system.

The rapid growth of the system was mentioned several times in this report. Linked to that growth was an

expanding diverse student demographic. The system recognized increasing diversity and responded in part by

making Engage and Contribute one of the tenets of its Learner Profile. For the system, Engage and Contribute

includes 1) Connect to be a world-wise person; 2) Develop relationships across boundaries and cultures; 3)

Interact in a multilingual community; and, 4) Demonstrate civility and respect differences in others.

System leaders identified the need to expand career pathways available to students. Denmark High School

and the Alliance Academy are scheduled to open in 2018. The Alliance Academy, designed to simulate 21st

Century work environments, will allow students to earn industry credentials and college credit. Denmark High

School it will help to alleviate overcrowding in some schools. Yet, its opening will necessitate another

redistricting of the county, an unavoidable source of frustration for some parents.












-

-

The manner in which the system's finances are budgeted and managed is a reflection of skilled professionals

working in the system office, the school administration, and the classrooms. With a millage rate of 17.3, the

lowest in Metro-Atlanta, and a per pupil expenditure just under $7,600, the system is continually listed at the

top of most student assessment rankings for Georgia schools. .

The system is in the midst of developing a strategic plan that will provide guidance for decisions over the next

few years. The superintendent noted that the system was awaiting the results of the External Review so that

the recommendation of the Review could be incorporated into the strategic plan.

The External Review Report includes two Improvement Priorities designed to move the system forward while

facing the challenges of a growing, diverse community and student population. The first Improvement Priority

focuses on the need of each student. Calling for a formalized process whereby each student has at least one

adult advocate in the school, this process will help ensure that no students "fall through the cracks" and

become lost in an ever-growing student populations. The second Improvement Priority embraces the portion

of the Learner Profile, Engage and Contribute. This will require special attention to the need to develop

relationships between the variety of cultures found within the community.

The External Review Team left the Forsyth County School District encouraged by the quality of the system.

The quality of leadership combined with the human, fiscal, and technological resources that are present in the

system bodes well for its students.

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

institution must address the Improvement Priorities listed below:

Develop, implement, and monitor a formal process in all schools, whereby each student is well known by

at least one adult advocate who supports the student’s educational experiences and acts as a mentor for

learning, thinking, and life skills as well as physical, social, and emotional needs.

Promote an inclusive culture that provides for recognition of diversity by developing relationships across

boundaries and cultures in all decisions and actions to achieve the system’s purpose.












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

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

success as well as areas in need of focus.

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

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

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

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

Feedback Surveys (students, parents, and staff).

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

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

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

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

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

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

response to these findings.

External Review IEQScore


Overall Score 310.80 278.94

Teaching and Learning Impact 314.29 268.48

Leadership Capacity 314.29 293.71

Resource Utilization 296.43 286.27












AddendaIndividual Institution Results (Self-reported)

Institution Name Teaching andLearning Impact

LeadershipCapacity

ResourceUtilization

Overall IEQScore

Big Creek Elementary School 328.57 327.27 271.43 317.95

Brookwood Elementary School 309.52 318.18 314.29 312.82

Chattahoochee ElementarySchool

319.05 300.00 257.14 302.56

Chestatee Elementary School 314.29 336.36 357.14 328.21

Coal Mountain ElementarySchool

300.00 327.27 385.71 323.08

Cumming Elementary School 314.29 363.64 328.57 330.77

Daves Creek ElementarySchool

333.33 372.73 371.43 351.28

Forsyth Central High School 314.29 345.45 357.14 330.77

Forsyth Virtual Academy 276.19 315.38 271.43 287.80

Haw Creek Elementary School 304.76 309.09 328.57 310.26

Johns Creek Elementary 357.14 318.18 385.71 351.28

Kelly Mill Elementary School 309.52 309.09 314.29 310.26

Lakeside Middle School 290.48 281.82 300.00 289.74

Lambert High School 323.81 300.00 285.71 310.26

Liberty Middle School 347.62 318.18 357.14 341.03

Little Mill Middle School 361.90 300.00 342.86 341.03

Mashburn Elementary School 304.76 345.45 300.00 315.38

Matt Elementary School 290.48 300.00 300.00 294.87

Midway Elementary School 319.05 363.64 328.57 333.33

North Forsyth High School 295.24 290.91 285.71 292.31

North Forsyth Middle School 323.81 345.45 300.00 325.64

Otwell Middle School 300.00 309.09 314.29 305.13

Piney Grove Middle School 300.00 345.45 300.00 312.82

Riverwatch Middle School 314.29 345.45 371.43 333.33

Sawnee Elementary School 295.24 300.00 300.00 297.44














Other System InstitutionsThe following institutions did not utilize ASSIST to complete the Accreditation Report for this External Review.

Therefore self-reported results are not included as part of this report. Some institutions appearing below may

have been required to submit the Accreditation Report outside of ASSIST.

Institution Name Teaching andLearning Impact

LeadershipCapacity

ResourceUtilization

Overall IEQScore

Settles Bridge ElementarySchool

304.76 327.27 357.14 320.51

Sharon Elementary School 333.33 345.45 342.86 338.46

Shiloh Point Elementary School 295.24 318.18 328.57 307.69

Silver City Elementary School 304.76 327.27 300.00 310.26

South Forsyth High School 319.05 327.27 328.57 323.08

South Forsyth Middle School 319.05 318.18 328.57 320.51

Vickery Creek ElementarySchool

342.86 327.27 342.86 338.46

Vickery Creek Middle School 304.76 309.09 300.00 305.13

West Forsyth High School 319.05 309.09 285.71 310.26

Whitlow Elementary School 366.67 381.82 314.29 361.54

Institution Institution

Brandywine Elementary School DeSana Middle School














Team Roster

Member Brief Biography

Dr. David Barnett After serving 42 years in education, Dr. David Barnett retired in July 2016 fromhis position as Founding Dean for the Patton College of Education at theUniversity of Pikeville in Pikeville, KY. Prior to accepting the Dean’s position,Barnett worked thirteen years as a faculty member at Morehead State University(MSU) in Morehead, KY. His responsibilities at MSU also included departmentchair, assistant dean, and director of the doctoral program. Prior to moving tohigher education, Barnett served in the public schools for twenty-seven years.His P-12 experience spans several roles including middle school math teacher,P-12 instructional supervisor, federal programs coordinator, finance officer,assistant superintendent, and school district superintendent. He holds severalteaching and administrative certificates. He completed his doctorate ineducational leadership at the University of Kentucky in 1986. Barnett also servesas a founding board member for The Way, a Christian organization thatfinancially supports an elementary school in Phnom Penh for children who live onor near the city dump. The Way also supports an orphanage located on theMeng Kong River about two hours north of Phnom Penh.

Mr. Tony Pickett Tony Pickett is employed with Henry County Schools in McDonough, Georgia.His experience in public education includes service as a middle and high schoolteacher, Coordinator of Career, Technical and Agricultural Education, andDirector of Administrative Services. Currently, he serves as Assistant to theSuperintendent for Strategic Planning & Development.

Dr. Mary Krisko Mary Krisko, Ph.D., is a retired district curriculum director and consolidated grantmanager with previous experience as a middle school and high school scienceteacher, a university instructor specializing in cell morphology, and a graduate-level curriculum, instruction, and assessment instructor. Her doctoral research ineducation focused on teacher leadership, initiating the concept of teacherleadership beyond the walls of the classroom with publications relating to theattributes of a teacher leader. During her career in the public school system, shewas the Wyoming Teacher of the Year, the National Presidential Awardee inMathematics and Science, and the Wyoming Curriculum Director of the Year,and received the Wyoming Excellence in Education Award from AdvancED. Dr.Krisko serves as an AdvancED Lead Evaluator at both the school and schoolsystems levels in the United States, as well as DDESS, DODEA Europe, andDODEA Pacific schools.















Dr. Marcus AntoineBarber

Dr. Barber is a dedicated and passionate educator, who comes with over 21years of experience. He earned a Bachelor’s degree in Health and PhysicalEducation from Morehouse College. Afterwards, he earned a Master’s degree inSpecial Education and Educational Leadership from the State University of WestGeorgia, followed by a Doctorate degree in Educational Leadership with a Minorin Special Education from Clark-Atlanta University. Moreover, he has earnedleadership certifications from Harvard University, CASIE, and other prestigiousinstitutions. Dr. Barber also received commendations from the Governor’s Office,former superintendents, as well as, from civic organizations such as the Councilof PTA’s and Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Incorporated. The passion Dr. Barber hasfor teaching and learning stems from his childhood experiences as being a“teacher’s kid”. He has utilized those core values throughout his professionalcareer as a teacher, department chair, instructional coach, assistant principal,principal, and regional director in both traditional and non-traditional learninginstitutions. Dr. Barber has developed a reputation for successfully turningaround underperforming schools while positively impacting the whole child andbuilding proficiency and morale among faculty and staff members. By working inAtlanta Public School System, Imagine Schools (Cobb County School District),and the Fulton County School District, Dr. Barber has demonstrated his beliefs ina child-first improvement approach. During his tutelage as a principal on all threeacademic levels (elementary, middle, and high schools) for almost 10 years, hehas empowered and motivated educators to do what is best for students bymeeting students’ individual needs. Dr. Barber is a firm believer that it takes thework of all, the community as a whole, to help students reach their full potential.Dr. Barber is originally from Atlanta, Georgia and has lived in the metropolitanarea all of his life. He is the youngest of three children. His parents live in theLithonia/Rockdale, Georgia area. During down time, he enjoys spending timewith his family, reading, and working out. Dr. Barber is an active member of TheGreater Travelers Rest Baptist Church. He also devotes time to the youth at agroup home where he endeavors to impart wisdom that will change their lives,along with exposing the young men to a myriad of positive and valuableexperiences. On Thanksgiving and Christmas Holidays, you can find him servingdinner to those in need at the Hosea Feed The Hungry Events. Dr. Barbercurrently serves as Principal at the beloved Macon County Elementary School.

Dr. Katie Johnson Dr. Johnson has served as an elementary school teacher, middle schoolassistant principal, and now serves as an elementary school principal. Dr.Johnson went to the University of Georgia for her Bachelors degree and thenwent on to finish her Masters and Doctorate degrees in Elementary Reading andLiteracy and Teacher Leadership at Walden University. She serves on theGeorgia Association of Elementary Principals board. She has focused onstruggling readers, RTI, discipline, and community relations among other areasduring her career.

Mr. Dale Kleinert Dale Kleinert serves as the Idaho Director of AdvancED. He previously servedfor 31 years in the Moscow, Idaho School District as a teacher, AssistantPrincipal, Principal and Superintendent. While serving as an administrator, hewas closely involved in all forms of curriculum, strategic planning and continuousschool improvement efforts. Administrative priorities included working with localand regional law enforcement, and the national WeTip law enforcement programwith the goal of providing a safe environment for all students and staff. As aresult of his community and school safety work, he was recently appointed by theGovernor of Idaho to the serve on the Idaho Juvenile Justice Commission. Hewas named the Moscow School District Teacher of the Year in 1994 and 1996,and was named Idaho Assistant Principal of the Year in 2002. In 2014 hereceived the Idaho Administration Distinguished Service Award from the IdahoAssociation of School Administrators. He received his undergraduate degree atMontana State University and advanced degrees from the University of Idaho.















Mrs. Brigid MonicaNesmith

Brigid Nesmith began her career as an educator 19 years ago teaching highschool English in Effingham County. After eight years at the high school, shemoved to the middle school as the GT English teacher where she remained fortwo years. Ms. Nesmith then began her career in administration moving to anelementary school as an Instructional Supervisor. After four years at theelementary school, Ms. Nesmith moved back to the middle school as theInstructional Supervisor/Assistant Principal. Brigid Nesmith stayed in that positionuntil she became the principal of the middle school in the 2015-2016 school year.She is currently pursuing her Doctoral Degree in Leadership from GeorgiaSouthern University.

Mrs. Carmen PoughBanks

Carmen is a retired educator of the South Carolina Department of Education.While at the SCDOE, she served as the team leader for the external review auditprocess responsible for creating, monitoring and evaluating the processes ofschool performance and developing systems of extra support. Through variousassignments at the Department of Education, she has conducted national andstatewide staff development sessions; monitored programs to ensure complianceto state and federal regulations; designed curriculum and related materials;administered an operational budget; conducted effective teacher trainingsessions; and coached and mentored principals and teachers.Since retiring, shecontinues to contract with the Department of Education serving as a liaison toselected schools in the state. Her business, Newton James and Associates,LLC, provides staff development for school districts across the country and withinSouth Carolina.














1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

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

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

section to maximize their impact on the institution.

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

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

to improve student learning.

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

monitoring progress toward addressing the Improvement Priorities.

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

system effectiveness.

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

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

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

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

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

responses to the Improvement Priorities and the resulting improvement.

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

improvement, and document results.














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

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

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

United States and 70 countries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

designed to engage educational institutions in continuous improvement.














-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

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

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

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

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

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

London: CIPD.

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

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

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

Improvement Center.

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

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

Educational Governance, USC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership, 8, 373-398.

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

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

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

(2), 220-236.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning, 22(11), 18-33.

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

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














Documents

Report of the External Review Team for Forsyth County