Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accreditation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs joint accreditation MOU with Cognia, OPI to keep federal assurances
Summary
The Montana Board of Public Education discussed a proposed MOU allowing districts to use Cognia accreditation as part of the state accreditation cycle while the Office of Public Instruction would retain federally required assurances and data inputs; the board signaled preference for a six‑year term to be considered at tomorrow’s vote.
The Montana Board of Public Education spent a large portion of its March 11 meeting reviewing a proposed memorandum of understanding that would let school districts voluntarily pair Cognia’s national accreditation process with state accreditation requirements.
OPI Chief Program Officer Julie Murgel and Cognia regional directors described a joint process in which Cognia would perform in‑depth reviews of curriculum, professional learning, mentorship and school climate while OPI would retain responsibility for federal assurances (for example, Title I, Indian Education for All), data certification and teacher‑licensure checks. The two sets of reviews would be combined under the state’s accreditation rubric to produce the district’s overall accreditation status, the presenters said.
“Cognia brings a deep, evidence‑based site review that includes stakeholder surveys and classroom observations, which can enrich the state’s continuous‑improvement picture,” said Daniel Seibert, Cognia senior regional director. He and BJ Paris, Cognia regional vice president, described Cognia’s three‑year engagement cycle and a midcycle progress review designed to check follow‑through on improvement priorities.
OPI staff emphasized limits on the joint model: federal reporting requirements and some assurance items would remain OPI responsibilities because they depend on state data systems. “There are federal pieces and data pulls that must remain with OPI,” Julie Murgel said, citing integrated strategic action plans and data elements that live in the state information system.
Cognia representatives outlined membership and accreditation fees. They described a model in which districts could join Cognia (membership roughly $1,400 per school per year) and pay an accreditation fee that can be amortized over the accreditation term. OPI staff said the state does not expect to pay Cognia costs and that districts choosing the joint process would cover those expenses.
Board members asked about timing and the MOU term. OPI recommended a review provision and annual check‑ins, while the chair signaled support for a six‑year MOU term to be proposed when the item appears on the action calendar. “We can set a six‑year term but review annually and make adjustments,” an OPI official said.
The board did not take a final vote on the MOU March 11. The item was described as time‑certain for the board’s next action meeting; members instructed staff to incorporate the board’s term preference into the draft motion.
What’s next: The board will consider the MOU for action at the next scheduled session; districts would remain free to opt into the joint accreditation path if the board approves the MOU and the participating district agrees to cover Cognia fees.
