McFerran Final DR Report 2018-2019

February 11–14, 2019
Results for: McFerran Preparatory Academy

Diagnostic Review Report
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4
Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4
Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 4
Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7
eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................. 113
Improvement Priorities ................................................................................................................... 113
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 19
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 20
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 21
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 23
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 23
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 26
© Advance Education, Inc. 2 www.advanc-ed.org

Introduction
The AdvancED Diagnostic Review is carried out by a team of highly qualified evaluators who examine the
institution’s adherence and commitment to the research aligned to AdvancED Standards. The Diagnostic Review
Process is designed to energize and equip the leadership and stakeholders of an institution to achieve higher levels
of performance and address those areas that may be hindering efforts to reach desired performance levels. The
Diagnostic Review is a rigorous process that includes the in-depth examination of evidence and relevant
performance data, interviews with stakeholders, and observations of instruction, learning, and operations.
Standards help delineate what matters. They provide a common language through which an education community
can engage in conversations about educational improvement, institution 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 composed of educators from the fields of practice,
research, and policy. These talented leaders 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.
The Diagnostic Review Team used the AdvancED Standards and related criteria to guide its evaluation, looking not
only for adherence to standards, but also for how the institution functioned as a whole and embodied the
practices and characteristics of quality. Using the evidence they gathered, the Diagnostic Review Team arrived at a
set of findings contained in this report.
As a part of the Diagnostic Review, stakeholders were interviewed by members of the Diagnostic Review Team
about their perspectives on topics relevant to the institution's learning environment and organizational
effectiveness. The feedback gained through the stakeholder interviews was considered with other evidence and
data to support the findings of the Diagnostic Review. The following table lists the numbers of interviewed
representatives of various stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder Groups Number

District-level Administrators 1
Building-level Administrators 2
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology 5
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 40
Non-certified Staff 8
Students 175
Parents 6
Total 237

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

The AdvancED Performance Standards Diagnostic was used by the Diagnostic Review Team to evaluate the
institution’s effectiveness based on the AdvancED’s Performance Standards identified as essential for realizing
growth and sustainable improvement in underperforming schools. The diagnostic consists of three components
built around each of the three Domains: Leadership Capacity, Learning Capacity, and Resource Capacity. Point
values are established within the diagnostic, and a percentage of the points earned by the institution for each
Standard is calculated from the point values for each Standard. Results are reported within four categories: Needs
Improvement, Emerging, Meets Expectations, and Exceeds Expectations. The results for the three Domains are
presented in the tables that follow.
Leadership Capacity Domain

The capacity of leadership to ensure an institution’s progress toward its stated objectives is an essential element of
organizational effectiveness. An institution’s leadership capacity includes the fidelity and commitment to its
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
implement strategies that improve learner and educator performance.
Leadership Capacity Standards Rating
1.1 The institution commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching Meets
and learning, including the expectations for learners. Expectations
1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces Emerging
evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and
professional practice.
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve Meets
professional practice and organizational effectiveness. Expectations
1.7 Leaders implement operational process and procedures to ensure organizational Meets
effectiveness in support of teaching and learning. Expectations
1.8 Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the institution’s Emerging
purpose and direction.
1.9 The institution provides experiences that cultivate and improve leadership Needs
effectiveness. Improvement
1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder Needs
groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement. Improvement

Learning Capacity Domain

The impact of teaching and learning on student achievement and success is the primary expectation of every
institution. An effective learning culture is characterized by positive and productive teacher/learner relationships;
high expectations and standards; a challenging and engaging curriculum; quality instruction and comprehensive
support that enable all learners to be successful; and assessment practices (formative and summative) that
monitor and measure learner progress and achievement. Moreover, a quality institution evaluates the impact of its
learning culture, including all programs and support services, and adjusts accordingly.
Learning Capacity Standards Rating
2.1 Learners have equitable opportunities to develop skills and achieve the content Needs
and learning priorities established by the institution. Improvement
2.2 The learning culture promotes creativity, innovation and collaborative problem- Needs
solving. Improvement
2.5 Educators implement a curriculum that is based on high expectations and prepares Needs
learners for their next levels. Improvement
2.7 Instruction is monitored and adjusted to meet individual learners’ needs and the Needs
institution’s learning expectations. Improvement
2.9 The institution implements, evaluates, and monitors processes to identify and Needs
address the specialized social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs of Improvement
students.
2.10 Learning progress is reliably assessed and consistently and clearly communicated. Needs
Improvement
2.11 Educators gather, analyze, and use formative and summative data that lead to Needs
demonstrable improvement of student learning. Improvement
2.12 The institution implements a process to continuously assess its programs and Needs
organizational conditions to improve student learning. Improvement

Resource Capacity Domain

The use and distribution of resources support the stated mission of the institution. Institutions ensure that
resources are distributed and utilized equitably so that the needs of all learners are adequately and effectively
addressed. The utilization of resources includes support for professional learning for all staff. The institution
examines the allocation and use of resources to ensure appropriate levels of funding, sustainability, organizational
effectiveness, and increased student learning.
Resource Capacity Standards Rating
3.1 The institution plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning Emerging
environment, learner achievement, and the institution’s effectiveness.
3.2 The institution’s professional learning structure and expectations promote Emerging
collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational
effectiveness.
3.4 The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s Emerging
purpose and direction.
3.7 The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long- Emerging
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and
direction.
3.8 The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the Meets
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and Expectations
organizational effectiveness.

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Results
The eProve™ Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot) is a learner-centric classroom observation
tool that comprises 28 items organized in seven environments aligned with the AdvancED Standards. The tool
provides useful, relevant, structured, and quantifiable data on the extent to which students are engaged in
activities and demonstrate knowledge, attitudes, and dispositions that are conducive to effective learning.
Classroom observations are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes.
Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team was eleot certified and passed a certification exam that established
inter-rater reliability. Team members conducted 28 observations during the Diagnostic Review process, including
all core content learning environments. The following charts provide aggregate data across multiple observations
for each of the seven learning environments.

A. Equitable Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 1.9 46% 21% 29% 4%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 3.0 0% 32% 32% 36%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
A3 3.3 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 0% 14% 39% 46%
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 2.1 32% 36% 21% 11%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.6
B. High Expectations Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

B1 2.1 expectations established by themselves and/or the 29% 39% 21% 11%
teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are

B2 2.3 21% 39% 29% 11%
challenging but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.8 50% 29% 11% 11%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions,

and/or tasks that require the use of higher order
B4 2.0 32% 39% 25% 4%
thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating,
synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in

B5 2.0 39% 36% 7% 18%
their learning.
point scale:
2.1

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is
C1 2.6 18% 25% 32% 25%
positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.6 21% 18% 39% 21%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers,

C3 2.8 and/or other resources to understand content and 4% 32% 43% 21%
accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.9 11% 18% 46% 25%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale:
2.7
D. Active Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each

D1 2.3 18% 36% 43% 4%
other and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 2.2 36% 21% 32% 11%
experiences.
D3 2.4 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 14% 43% 29% 14%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 1.8 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 43% 32% 25% 0%
assignments.
point scale:
2.2

E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have
E1 1.5 mechanisms whereby their learning progress is 64% 25% 11% 0%
monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from
E2 2.4 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve 11% 50% 29% 11%
understanding and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of

E3 2.3 21% 43% 25% 11%
the lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how

E4 1.6 57% 25% 14% 4%
their work is assessed.
point scale:
1.9
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s)

F1 2.9 7% 21% 43% 29%
and each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow

F2 2.8 classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work 7% 36% 32% 25%
well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one

F3 2.4 29% 25% 25% 21%
activity to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal

F4 2.3 18% 50% 18% 14%
wasted time or disruptions.
point scale:
2.6

G. Digital Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather,
G1 1.8 57% 21% 11% 11%
evaluate, and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct

G2 1.3 research, solve problems, and/or create original works 86% 4% 11% 0%
for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate

G3 1.0 100% 0% 0% 0%
and work collaboratively for learning.
point scale:
1.3
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Team conducted 28 classroom observations in core content classes, which provided insight into
instructional practices and student learning across the school. Collectively, data suggested a need for district and
school leaders to carefully monitor instructional practices and student learning to ensure academic growth.
An important strength that was evident/very evident in 85 percent of classrooms was that students were treated
in a “fair, clear, and consistent manner” (A3). Students were observed working with teachers in small reading
groups where they had an opportunity to read aloud and ask and answer questions. Teachers were observed
having students “clip up” when positive behavior was identified.
The Digital Learning Environment emerged as an area of great concern. Students who used “digital
tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1) were evident/very evident in 22
percent of classrooms. In addition, it was evident/very evident in 11 percent of classrooms that students used
“digital tools to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for learning” (G2). It was
evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms that students “use digital tools/technology to communicate
and/or work collaboratively for learning” (G3). Stakeholders reported having limited access to technology (i.e., six
to seven iPads per classroom). Stakeholders used resources such as Brainpop, Flocabulary, and YouTube to
introduce or reinforce content. Students were observed using iPads (i.e., Reading Eggs and Prodigy) as they
completed class assignments.
Another area of concern emerged in the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment. Students who
“monitor their own learning progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1)
were evident/very evident in 11 percent of classrooms. It was evident/very evident in 18 percent of classrooms
that those students “understand and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4). Many students stated
that they did not know what grade they had earned until they received their report card. Students stated that
there were times when they would be allowed to “fix work” and other times when they were not allowed to “fix”
their work.
Another area of concern was found in the High Expectations Learning Environment. It was evident/very evident in
22 percent of classrooms that students “demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3). It was

also evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms that students “take responsibility for and are self-directed in
their learning” (B5). Students who “engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use
of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4) were evident/very evident in 29
percent of classrooms. Finally, students who “strive to meet or are able to articulate the high expectations
established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1) were evident/very evident in 32 percent of classrooms. One
lesson plan reviewed by the Diagnostic Review Team included questions that reached the higher levels of Bloom’s
Taxonomy; however, another lesson plan contained questions and activities at a lower level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
The observation data revealed items of concern in the Active Learning Environment. In 47 percent of classrooms, it
was evident/very evident that student “discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other and the teacher
predominate” (D1). In 43 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “make connections from
content to real-life experiences” (D2) and “are actively engaged in the learning activities” (D3). In 25 percent of
classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “collaborate with their peers to accomplish/complete
projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments” (D4). Students were observed working in small groups; many
students chose to work alone even while in the small group setting.
The Diagnostic Review Team suggests that school staff and leadership carefully review items in all seven learning
environments and identify and build upon strengths and leverage the low-rated items to improve teaching and
learning across the school.

Findings
Improvement Priorities
Improvement priorities are developed to enhance the capacity of the institution to reach a higher level of
performance and reflect the areas identified by the Diagnostic Review Team to have the greatest impact on
improving student performance and organizational effectiveness.
Improvement Priority #1
Establish, implement, and monitor a schoolwide instructional/curricular process that is based on high expectations
and the Kentucky Academic Standards (KAS) to prepare learners for their next level of learning. (Standard 2.5)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, revealed that McFerran Preparatory
Academy’s Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) scores in all content areas were below
the state average for proficiency attainment and for separate academic indicators in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
For example, in third-grade reading, scores were 41.7 percent Proficient/Distinguished in 2016-2017; however,
that dropped to 25 percent in 2017-2018. Comparatively, state averages for third-grade reading were 55.8 percent
in 2016-2017 and 52.3 percent in 2017-2018. The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in third-
grade math dropped significantly as well. In 2016-2017, third-grade math was 34.2 percent; in 2017-2018, that
percent dropped to 25 percent. In addition, the lowest area of performance in 2017-2018 was in science, with 8.4
percent Proficient/Distinguished as compared to the state at 30.8 percent. As stated above, all content areas were
below the state average for proficiency attainment.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, suggested that the school had not implemented a
curriculum based on high expectations or that prepared students for the next level of learning. During
observations, students often were unable to “articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or
the teacher” (B1), as that was evident/very evident in 32 percent of classrooms. The team observed that students
rotated from activity to activity (e.g., paper/pencil activities, silent reading, iPads) while staying in their physical
location. In many classrooms, students would rotate when it was time to go meet with their teacher. It was
evident/very evident in 40 percent of classrooms that students “engage in activities and learning that are
challenging but attainable” (B2). Few students were able to “demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality
work” (B3), as it was evident/very evident in 22 percent of classrooms. Further observations showed few students
“engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g.,
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4), as those practices were evident/very evident in 29 percent of
classrooms. Students were rarely observed taking “responsibility” for and “self-directing” their learning (B5), which
was evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms.

Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data revealed that student performance data were reviewed during PLC meetings.
Comments such as, “A scope and sequence was developed and implemented based on MAP data,” were common
when asking staff members about which data sources were used and how they used them. While the interview
data suggested that stakeholders used data to group students by ability, classroom observations showed that most
students worked on the same worksheet/activity in their small groups, and the classroom observation data
indicated that it was evident/very evident in 33 percent of classrooms that students “engage in differentiated
learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). While there were other forms of assessment
data (K-PREP, Common Formative Assessments), interview data showed that MAP assessments were the primary
method through which data were gathered and used to adjust instruction based on student needs.
These findings were also supported throughout the School Quality Factors (SQF) document. Also noted in the SQF
document was that “More effective teaching in more classrooms, more of the time is the key to moving our
students forward.” The stakeholders also expressed a need to increase “rigor” and improve classroom instruction.
The classroom observation data indicated it was evident/very evident in 29 percent of classrooms that students
“engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g.,
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing (B4).
Stakeholder Survey Data:

The stakeholder survey data showed mixed agreement about instruction designed to meet student needs. For
example, while 77 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school personalize
instructional strategies and interventions to address individual learning needs of students” (E2), it was
evident/very evident in 33 percent of classrooms that students “engage in differentiated learning opportunities
and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). Students were observed working on the same worksheet and doing
the same activities in table groups. Also, 76 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement,
“All teachers in our school use multiple types of assessments to modify instruction and to revise the curriculum”
(E7). During a professional learning community (PLC) meeting, a scope and sequence for the remainder of the
school year, based solely on Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) data, was observed. During a PLC meeting for
third grade, several teachers commented that they were unsure of what they would be teaching from one unit to
the next because, as one commented, they “were pulling things as they went.”
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of PLC meeting agendas and minutes showed no evidence of a curricular/instructional process to ensure
alignment to the high expectations of KAS. A review of sample lesson plans (i.e., kindergarten, second, third, and
fifth grades) suggested that some grade levels could benefit from professional development focused on higher
order thinking. The Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP), Goal 1, “Activities to deploy strategy,”
showed that the school would “Ensure ongoing professional development in the area of KCAS standards and the
Backpack of Success Skills. Teachers will focus on providing the following: engaging, individualized, and real-world
learning experiences.” However, the Diagnostic Review Team could find no evidence that these practices were
occurring.

Develop a system to regularly monitor classroom instruction to ensure it is effective and individualized as needed.
Provide in-depth, immediate, and actionable feedback to teachers to improve instructional practices and improve
student learning. (Standard 2.7)
Evidence:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, suggested instructional systems had not
been developed, implemented, or monitored to support individual student learning needs. As stated previously,
the K-PREP scores in all content areas were below the state average in Proficient/Distinguished attainment and for
separate academic indicators in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The percentage of fourth-grade math scores at
Proficient/Distinguished decreased from 33.9 percent in 2016-2017 to 22.7 percent in 2017-2018.
Proficient/Distinguished scoring in fifth-grade writing decreased from 26.9 percent in 2016-2017 to 18.5 percent in
2017-2018. In addition, student performance data indicated that the student growth indices for reading,
mathematics, and English Learners were all below the state indices in 2017-2018.
The student performance data were among the data considered when the Diagnostic Review Team identified
Improvement Priority #2.

The classroom observation data revealed that most students were completing the same learning tasks or activities
with little rigor, personalization, or differentiation. It was evident/very evident in 33 percent of classrooms that
students engaged “in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). Students
were observed working on the same worksheet at each table group. Students stated that they “copy and write”
what the teacher says on the worksheets. It was evident/very evident in 40 percent of classrooms that students
engaged “in activities and learning that [were] challenging but attainable” (B2). Students had limited opportunities
to “monitor their own progress” or had “mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1). This was
evident/very evident in 11 percent of classrooms, as students were observed working through the activity as
dictated or written by the teacher. In some classes, color groups defined what the students would be doing in class
(e.g., packet of worksheets that students would work on individually, iPads, small group with teacher, writing
definitions for vocabulary). It was evident/very evident in 40 percent of classrooms that students had
opportunities to “receive/respond to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding
and/or revise work” (E2). In 64 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students were “supported
by the teacher, their peers and/or other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks” (C3). In 36
percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students demonstrated and/or verbalized “understanding
of the lesson/content” (E3). Additionally, students understood or were able “to explain how their work is assessed”
(E4) in 18 percent of classrooms. When asked how their work would be graded, students generally were unable to
articulate how their work would be graded.

The stakeholder interview data revealed that staff members received limited feedback from PowerWalks, which
were three- to five-minute classroom walkthroughs conducted by school leadership. Teachers were invited to
participate in PowerWalks with leadership during a conference period. PowerWalks were not part of the
evaluation process; rather, their purpose was to help teachers “be mindful and do better” with implementing the
Fundamental Five. After a PowerWalk occurred, stakeholders were supposed to receive an email when three to
five elements of the Fundamental Five were observed. After 15 PowerWalks, a coaching session with feedback was

supposed to occur. Stakeholders, however, stated that it might be two months before a coaching session was
conducted. One stakeholder stated, “Walkthroughs should be about quality not quantity,” which summed up the
comments of many interviewees.
Stakeholders indicated that the learning progress was monitored through the MAP assessment administered three
times annually. Stakeholders stated they were minimally using formative and summative data based on standards
to determine if student achievement was reaching the high levels of rigor within the standards. Stakeholders
analyzed data during PLC meetings.

While 77 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school
personalize instructional strategies and interventions to address individual learning needs of students” (E2), the
student observation data suggested it was evident/very evident in 33 percent of classrooms that students engaged
“in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1).
While 83 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school have
been trained to implement a formal process that promotes discussion about student learning (e.g., action
research, examination of student work, reflection, study teams, and peer coaching)” (E10), a review of PLC
meeting minutes did not indicate that sufficient time was allotted to accomplish the tasks identified in the
minutes. Rather, much of the time was spent discussing data and grouping students to meet their needs.
Eighty-four percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child's teachers meet his/her learning needs
by individualizing instruction.” However, student interview and observation data indicated that students
completed the same worksheets/activities regardless of their learning level.

In the principal presentation, four areas of growth to affect instruction were identified. First, there must be
“Intentionality when it comes to Progress Monitoring and use of Quality Work Protocol.” Currently, teachers are
using a 3-6-9 assessment cycle. A second goal was to align professional development with the “Quality Work
Protocol.” A third area of growth was to increase “effective classroom instruction, specifically, in the areas of
reading, writing, and math.” To address this concern, professional development would emphasize writing and
school wide centers to engage students in authentic experiences. Currently, the principal reported that the “use of
rubrics and exemplars for student work” were used by some teachers, and the principal reported that “all must
use rubrics and exemplars for student work.” Finally, the fourth area cited by the principal was the need to
“decrease the number of level 2 and level 3 behaviors” that negatively impact instruction.

Create and monitor a process to develop a balanced formative and summative assessment system that is
seamlessly aligned to the Kentucky Academic Standards (KAS). Monitor to ensure the system is used effectively
and promotes needed adjustments in instructional practices. (Standard 2.10)
Evidence:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, suggested that the school had not
established an effective balanced assessment system to measure the rigor of instruction and aligned with the
Kentucky Academic Standards. Student performance data were among the data examined to identify Improvement
Priority #3.

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, showed a lack of rigor in most classrooms. Instances of
students who were able to “demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3) were evident/very
evident in 22 percent of classrooms. The team observed few students monitoring their own progress. It was
evident/very evident in 11 percent of classrooms, for example, that students “monitor their own progress or have
mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1). Also, it was evident/very evident in 40 percent of
classrooms that students “receive/respond to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve
understanding and/or revise work” (E2). When students were questioned about their understanding of the lesson,
few students could articulate what they were learning and why, which was evident/very evident in 36 percent of
classrooms that students “demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content” (E3). Finally, it was
evident/very evident in 18 percent of classrooms that students “understand and/or are able to explain how their
work is assessed” (E4).

The survey data indicated that 63 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All
teachers in our school provide students with specific and timely feedback about their learning” (E6). Students
commented that they did not know how they were doing in class until they received their report cards. Also,
according to the survey data, 76 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school
use multiple types of assessments to modify instruction and to revise the curriculum” (E7). The survey data
suggested that 70 percent of students agreed with the statement, “My teachers listen to me” (E3).

The stakeholder interview data indicated that student reading levels were assessed using various running record
assessments with no common assessment, even within a single grade level. Other stakeholders indicated that they
were uncomfortable creating an assessment. Some stakeholders indicated that they were unable to determine
whether assessments that they were given to use were reliable and accurately measured mastery of the content.
The stakeholder data revealed that some teachers used resources (i.e., Teachers Pay Teachers) to instruct and
assess students without ensuring the resources were effective or research-based. The interview data indicated
that teachers had limited input into assessments, as they were dependent upon team leads to provide
assessments. Students indicated that they “do worksheets every day and don’t get them back,” indicating that
many students did not know how they performed on their worksheets.


The Diagnostic Review Team learned that in PLC meetings, student learning progress was monitored using data
from the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment, which was administered three times a year. The team
examined a second-grade lesson plan and found no evidence of formative or summative assessments. In a fifth-
grade lesson plan, the lesson topics were listed by the standard numbers (i.e., SS-05.2.20 Declaration of
Independence, 5.NBT.7 Decimals x Decimals, RI.5.10 Comprehend Texts). In addition, the principal’s overview
presentation revealed that, as part of the McFerran’s Prep Action Plan, staff members would “intentionally plan
lessons around what students are ready to learn next from MAP data in the areas of reading and math.” Also, the
presentation suggested that “intentionality when it comes to progress monitoring and use of Quality Work
Protocol” and “the use of rubrics and exemplars for student work” were identified as areas of needed growth.
Collectively, interview data and a review of lesson plans, however, showed inconsistencies about the extent to
which instruction was aligned to the KAS.

Insights from the Review

The Diagnostic Review Team engaged in professional discussions and deliberations about the processes, programs,
and practices within the institution to arrive at the findings of the team. These findings are organized around
themes guided by the evidence, examples of programs, and practices and provide direction for the institution’s
continuous improvement efforts. The insights from the Review narrative should provide contextualized
information from the team deliberations and provide information about the team’s analysis of the practices,
processes, and programs of the institution within the Levels of Impact of Engagement, Implementation, Results,
Sustainability, and Embeddedness.
Engagement is the level of involvement and frequency with which stakeholders are engaged in the desired
practices, processes, or programs within the institution. Implementation is the degree to which the desired
practices, processes, or programs are monitored and adjusted for quality and fidelity of implementation. Results
represent the collection, analysis, and use of data and evidence to demonstrate attaining the desired result(s).
Sustainability is results achieved consistently to demonstrate growth and improvement over time (minimum of
three years). Embeddedness is the degree to which the desired practices, processes, or programs are deeply
ingrained in the culture and operation of the institution.
Strengths:
The principal led the school community in establishing and communicating “mission and vision and collective
promises” by creating positive relationships with all stakeholders. By nurturing a culture responsive to student,
teacher, and family needs, the principal has earned the respect of staff members, parents, and district leaders. At
the district level, the principal was described as a “student-centered leader” and the “right person” to lead the
school.
Words that stakeholders used to describe the school environment/culture included family, supportive, caring, and
nurturing, just to name a few. Interview and observation data verified that school leaders and staff members cared
about their students.
Stakeholders stated the principal had been creative and resourceful in providing teachers the time and resources
needed for professional learning. Stakeholders met weekly in professional learning community meetings where
MAP data were reviewed, and student focus groups were created for instructional purposes. The principal
established a clear system for walkthroughs/PowerWalks, using the “Fundamental Five” initiative. The principal is
responsive to student and teacher needs based on continuous data from high-impact reflection strategies (e.g.,
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats [SWOT], plus/deltas, performance data analysis, PowerWalk
data). The principal created a clear process for ongoing teacher evaluation and engaged with multiple stakeholders
to establish a school wide behavior plan that emphasized self-control and responsibility.
The school also had many programs (e.g., Compassionate Schools Project, Promoting Alternative Thinking
Strategies [PATHS], The Student Safety Team) to support the social and emotional needs of the students. While
many supports existed, the stakeholder interview data revealed that the severity of student behavior infractions
was increasing rather than declining, which negatively affected student learning.
Continuous Improvement Process:

The student performance, classroom observation, interview, and stakeholder feedback data and a review of
documents and artifacts indicated the need for a systematic process that uses data to improve instructional

effectiveness and student learning at McFerran Preparatory Academy. While the Diagnostic Review Team observed
some research-based practices, instruction in many classrooms lacked rigor and was not grounded in best practices
or research.
The school had structures (e.g., professional learning communities, professional development, faculty meetings) to
provide time for teachers to collaborate, review, and analyze student data. The master schedule allowed for small
intervention groups. However, while teachers were trained in a variety of instructional strategies, inconsistent
implementation of effective teaching strategies was observed in many classrooms.
The principal and leadership team have not developed a protocol to monitor and adjust instruction based on the
rigor and high expectations in the Kentucky Academic Standards (KAS). Interview data showed the school uses
MAP data to determine student levels, and this drives instruction. There is little evidence that teachers use
summative and formative classroom data to determine next steps to direct student learning. According to the
interview data, teachers are grouping students and determining which skills to target based on MAP data. There is
little evidence that teachers are aligning assessments to standards to determine student mastery. The Diagnostic
Review Team recommends that the principal and staff analyze longitudinal data across grade levels and content
areas and align curriculum and formative and summative assessments based on the rigor and high expectations in
the KAS.
Based on the current walkthrough system (PowerWalks), teachers are observed from three to five minutes per
visit on a regular basis. A coaching session is offered after 15 PowerWalks. When three to five components of the
“Fundamental Five” are observed, the teacher can expect to receive feedback via email from the administrative
team. The Diagnostic Review Team recommends that the principal “develop a system to regularly monitor
individualized classroom instruction” and provide teachers with in-depth, immediate, and actionable feedback to
improve instructional practices and student learning.
As mentioned earlier, the school has programs and processes to support and build a rigorous and intentional
learning environment. The Diagnostic Review Team uncovered the need to be “intentional” and purposeful in
those programs and processes around the three identified improvement priorities.
Next Steps
The results of the Diagnostic Review provide the next step for guiding the improvement journey of the institution
with their efforts to improve the quality of educational opportunities for all learners. The findings are aligned to
research-based criteria designed to improve student learning and organizational effectiveness. The feedback
provided in the Diagnostic Review Report will assist the institution in reflecting on current improvement efforts
and adapting and adjusting their plans to continuously strive for improvement.
Upon receiving the Diagnostic Review Report, the institution is encouraged to implement the following steps:
• Review and share the findings with stakeholders.
• Develop plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the Diagnostic Review Team.
• Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution’s continuous improvement
efforts.
• Celebrate the successes noted in the report.

Team Roster
Diagnostic Review Teams comprise professionals with varied backgrounds and professional experiences. All Lead
Evaluators and Diagnostic Review Team members complete AdvancED training and eleot® certification to provide
knowledge and understanding of the AdvancED tools and processes. The following professionals served on the
Diagnostic Review Team:
Team Member Name Brief Biography

Nancy Lee Nancy Lee has over 30 years of experience as a teacher and administrator. In her
most recent position as district wide secondary instructional technology
coordinator, she identified instructional technology tools for middle schools and
high schools in her district. She led professional development efforts at the district
and school levels with a focus on technology integration in core curriculum areas.
Mrs. Lee holds a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction and a supervision
certificate from the University of Houston. She also has her bachelor’s degree in
math and biology for secondary schools from Houston Baptist University. Mrs. Lee
also has experience teaching math online and has assisted state universities with
an accelerated online approach for learning.
Tim Huddleston Tim Huddleston currently serves as an Education Recovery Leader for the
Kentucky Department of Education and is assigned to Carr Elementary School. He
is in his 28th year of education in which his experience consists of middle school
classroom educator, high school assistant principal, middle school and high school
principal, as well as school improvement specialist. For the past 19 years, he has
been actively involved with school improvement work for K-12 and has extensive
experience with analysis of data, curriculum, instruction, assessments, and
systems. He holds a bachelor’s and master’s degrees in secondary mathematics
education, Rank I in administration and supervision of instruction, and completion
of the school improvement specialist (CSIS) and National Institute of School
Leadership programs (NSIL).
Stephanie Emmons Stephanie Emmons is the principal at Fleming County High School in Flemingsburg,
Kentucky. She was previously a special education teacher at both the elementary
and high school level. After her tenure as a teacher, she began her administrative
career as principal at Flemingsburg Elementary (FES) in Fleming County where she
served for one year. Upon finishing her first year as principal at FES, she was
transferred to serve as principal at Fleming County High School where she is
leading the school through the turnaround process. Mrs. Emmons received her
bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and special education director certification at
Morehead State University.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Shawn Justice Shawn Justice has 27 years of experience as a teacher and administrator. She
currently works as field staff for the Kentucky Department of Education in the
position of Education Recovery Specialist. In that position, she provides support
for schools to increase student achievement through professional learning,
teacher efficacy, and organizational systems implementation. Mrs. Justice holds a
master’s degree in early childhood education, a master’s degree in school
administration K-12, and a bachelor’s degree in elementary education with an
emphasis in social studies and English language arts from Morehead State
University. Mrs. Justice’s experience includes classroom teacher in kindergarten
through fifth grades and elementary school principal. She also has experience in
curriculum and instruction, state and national technical assistance coaching, and a
professional development presentation for the Kentucky Collaborative for
Teaching and Learning. In addition, she has presented at many statewide
conferences, including the Kentucky Conference for Mathematics and the
Kentucky Behavior Institute. She spent five years as the Writing Project co-director
at Morehead State University.
Mary Scott Mary Scott has been a professional educator for over 18 years. During that time,
she has been in several teaching positions at Camp Dick Robinson Elementary
School in Lancaster, KY. Mrs. Scott holds a master’s degree in instructional
leadership. She also has a master’s degree in education with an endorsement for
teaching computer science, a bachelor’s degree in elementary education, and an
associate’s degree. Mrs. Scott was part of the Garrard County focus group in the
development of the New Teacher Effectiveness System and Pilot Process for
Kentucky Department of Education, 50/50 committee teacher representative for
Professional Growth and Effectiveness System, Comprehensive School
Improvement Plan chairperson, district literacy committee member, vice
chairperson for site based decision-making council, Kentucky Teacher Internship
Program resource teacher, peer evaluator, mentor, and school leadership team.

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: School and Student Proficiency and Separate Academic Indicator Results
Content Area %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
“All Student Group” “All Student Group”
Reading 3rd 41.7 55.8 25 52.3
Reading 4th 23.7 49.9 25.2 53.7
Reading 5th 29.6 57.3 27.4 57.8
Reading 6th 58.9 59.7
Math 3rd 34.2 50.9 25 47.3
Math 4th 33.9 47.9 22.7 47.2
Math 5th 24.1 48.9 25.8 52.0
Math 6th 49.1 47.5
Science 4th N/A 8.4 30.8
Social Studies 5th 28.7 60.0 28.2 53.0
Writing 5th 26.9 45.9 18.5 40.5
Plus
Delta
• In all grades, the percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading was below
the state average in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• In all grades, the percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in math was below the
state average in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in social studies was below the state
average in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in science was below the state
average in 2017-2018.
• In all grades, the percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in writing was below
the state average in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.

Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)
Content Area Index State Index
Reading 17.6 19.7
Math 10.3 14.5
EL 29.8 31.9
Growth Indicator 14 17.1
Plus
Delta
• The Student Growth Index in 2017-2018 was below the state average in reading.
• The Student Growth Index in 2017-2018 was below the state average in math.
• The Student Growth Index in 2017-2018 was below the state average for English Learners.
• The Student Growth Indicator in 2017-2018 was below the state average.
Section III: Gap Data

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
Female 28.2 21 9.4 31.7 23.8

Male 23.6 28 7.3 24.6 13.1
White 20 26.7
African American 24.4 22.6 9 26.4 17.2
Hispanic 32.5 30 6.3 33.3 33.3
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races 53.3 46.7
Title I 25.9 24.5 8.4 28.2 18.5
Migrant
Homeless
Foster
Military
English Learner (EL) 13.6 10.6 0 0 0
English Learner plus 20.5 15.7 0 26.7 13.3
Monitored

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
Economically 24.6 23.1 6.6 27.1 20.6

Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 19.7 22.7 9.5 22.7 22.7
(Total)
Disability-With IEP (No 12.5 19.6
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with
Accommodation
Consolidated Student 25.9 23.9 26.3 17.8
Group
Plus
• The percentage of students in the Two or More Races group scoring Proficient/Distinguished in
reading was 53.3 in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students in the Two or More Races group scoring Proficient/Distinguished in
math was 46.7 in 2017-2018.
Delta
• The percentage of female students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in science was 9.4 in 2017-
2018.
• The percentage of male students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in science was 7.3 in 2017-
2018.
• The percentage of African-American students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in science was 9 in
2017-2018.
• The percentage of Hispanic students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in science was 6.3 in 2017-
2018.
• The percentage of English Learner students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in science, social
studies, and writing was zero in 2017-2018.

Schedule
Monday, February 11, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:30 p.m. – Principal Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
5:15 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
5:20 p.m. – Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Tuesday, February 12, 2019

7:25 a.m. Team arrives at McFerran Preparatory School School office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
7:30 a.m. – Principal’s Interview School Diagnostic
8:15 a.m. Review Team
Members
8:30 a.m. – Classroom observations and stakeholder interviews School Diagnostic
5:30 p.m. Review Team
Members
5:30 p.m. – Travel to hotel and dinner Diagnostic
Members
7:30 p.m. – Work Session #2 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Wednesday, February 13, 2019

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at McFerran Preparatory School School Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
9:00 a.m. – Continue interviews and artifact review, conduct classroom observations School Diagnostic
Members
4:30 p.m. – Work Session #3 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Thursday, February 14, 2019

7:25 a.m. – Final work session – informal interviews, informal classroom observations, School Diagnostic
10:30 a.m. meet with principal Review Team
Members

advanc-ed.org
Toll Free: 888.41EDNOW (888.413.3669) Global: +1 678.392.2285, ext. 6963

9115 Westside Parkway, Alpharetta, GA 30009
About AdvancED
AdvancED is a non-profit, non-partisan organization serving the largest community of education
professionals in the world. Founded on more than 100 years of work in continuous improvement,
AdvancED combines the knowledge and expertise of a research institute, the skills of a management
consulting firm and the passion of a grassroots movement for educational change to empower
Pre-K-12 schools and school systems to ensure that all learners realize their full potential.
©Advance Education, Inc. AdvancED® grants to the Institution, which is the subject of the Engagement Review 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.

McFerran Final DR Report 2018-2019

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

McFerran Final DR Report 2018-2019

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

February 11–14, 2019

Results for: McFerran Preparatory Academy

© Advance Education, Inc. 2 www.advanc-ed.org

Stakeholder Groups Number

© Advance Education, Inc. 3 www.advanc-ed.org

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

Leadership Capacity Domain

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

© Advance Education, Inc. 4 www.advanc-ed.org

Learning Capacity Domain

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

© Advance Education, Inc. 5 www.advanc-ed.org

Resource Capacity Domain

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

© Advance Education, Inc. 6 www.advanc-ed.org

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

© Advance Education, Inc. 7 www.advanc-ed.org

A. Equitable Learning Environment

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

Learners engage in activities and learning that are

Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions,

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in

© Advance Education, Inc. 8 www.advanc-ed.org

C. Supportive Learning Environment

Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers,

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

D. Active Learning Environment

Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each

Learners make connections from content to real-life

Learners collaborate with their peers to

© Advance Education, Inc. 9 www.advanc-ed.org

E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how

F. Well-Managed Learning Environment

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s)

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal

© Advance Education, Inc. 10 www.advanc-ed.org

G. Digital Learning Environment

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate

© Advance Education, Inc. 11 www.advanc-ed.org

© Advance Education, Inc. 12 www.advanc-ed.org

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

© Advance Education, Inc. 13 www.advanc-ed.org

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Survey Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

© Advance Education, Inc. 14 www.advanc-ed.org

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

© Advance Education, Inc. 15 www.advanc-ed.org

Stakeholder Survey Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

© Advance Education, Inc. 16 www.advanc-ed.org