Livonia moves to district-led quality assurance review after Cognia accreditation

Livonia Public Schools officials described a year-two report on a new internal quality-assurance review process that the district has used in place of external accreditation from AdvancedED/Cognia.

The presentation, led by district staff, outlined a three-day visit model that begins with a kickoff and leadership presentation, followed by intensive classroom observations and follow-up full-day visits. Innovation coordinators Larry Grzeczec and Diane Erso lead the elementary and secondary visiting teams, respectively, the presenters said.

District staff said the shift away from outside accreditation was driven by a desire for deeper classroom-level feedback and better alignment with district priorities. “We would be able to support our schools through our own process,” a presenter said, describing a 15-year history of local review and a 2022 vision to provide “a mirror to our schools.”

Why it matters: presenters told the board the in‑district review produced far more classroom observations than past external visits and is designed to yield actionable follow-up. The district presented numbers including more than 125 classroom visits at Stevenson and about 95 at Emerson; the team reported more than 900 total visits across schools when PLTs and site visits are included.

District staff outlined the review steps: an October kickoff with a staff survey, a half‑day leadership presentation, two subsequent full‑day classroom observation visits, and a report shared with principals and staff. The report compiles observations tied to district strategies and the school improvement plan; schools keep the full report and receive a follow‑up slideshow for staff presentations.

Presenters emphasized that the review is iterative. Teams debrief after each visit, then meet with school leadership to select “big rocks” — the priority improvement areas to address through PLCs, PLTs and department meetings. The team said it returns the following year to monitor progress and help implement chosen strategies.

Speakers and staff who participated described examples of classroom and PLT follow-through. One presenter recounted a first‑grade intervention change that occurred between visits and observed a smooth transition for the student, citing the benefit of timely revisit feedback. Another example noted a post‑crisis response that staff executed and later reviewed with visiting team members.

Board members asked about team size and coordination; presenters said elementary teams typically include eight administrators/coordinators for some schools, smaller teams for others, and that having district coordinators for elementary and secondary visits reduced variability in team perspectives. The presenters said school staff have been receptive and inquisitive, and principals have requested frank reviews, including “the tough days.”

The presenters also told the board the district saved the annual fees previously paid to Cognia/AdvancedED and that the in‑house approach was more targeted to district priorities. A board member noted past dissatisfaction with the last external visit’s classroom focus.

Looking ahead, the district said teams will continue the three‑year visitation cycle, refine report compilation methods, and return to campuses to monitor progress and provide coaching based on the report findings. The presenters characterized the process as intensive and designed to help schools build a continuous culture of school improvement.

Ending: Board members did not take a vote during the study session; presenters asked the board to continue support for the internal review model and for staff to report back on next‑year scheduling and follow-up results.