Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4
Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4
Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 5
Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7
eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 13
Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 13
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 18
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 19
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 20
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 22
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 22
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 25
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.
1.1 The institution commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching Needs
and learning, including the expectations for learners. Improvement
1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces Needs
evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and Improvement
professional practice.
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve Needs
professional practice and organizational effectiveness. Improvement
1.7 Leaders implement operational process and procedures to ensure organizational Needs
effectiveness in support of teaching and learning. Improvement
1.8 Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the institution’s Needs
purpose and direction. Improvement
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
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
3.1 The institution plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning Needs
environment, learner achievement, and the institution’s effectiveness. Improvement
3.2 The institution’s professional learning structure and expectations promote Needs
collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational Improvement
effectiveness.
3.4 The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s Needs
purpose and direction. Improvement
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 Emerging
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and
organizational effectiveness.
Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team was eleot certified and passed a certification exam that established
inter-rater reliability. Team members conducted 14 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.
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.3
Environment Averages
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or
A1 1.9 43% 29% 21% 7%
activities that meet their needs.
A3 3.3 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 0% 7% 57% 36%
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 2.6 14% 29% 43% 14%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
C2 2.5 Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative feedback). 14% 29% 50% 7%
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description Observed
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
D2 1.7 Learners make connections from content to real-life experiences. 29% 71% 0% 0%
D3 2.9 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 0% 21% 64% 14%
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby
E1 1.9 36% 36% 29% 0%
their learning progress is monitored.
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or
G1 1.6 64% 7% 29% 0%
use information for learning.
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team for Johnsontown Road Elementary School conducted 14 core content classroom
observations that provided team members with insight into instructional practices and student learning across the
seven learning environments. Rating averages on a four-point scale ranged from 3.1 in the Well-Managed Learning
Environment to 1.3 in the Digital Learning Environment. Although data showed that teachers were successful in
engaging students in the classroom and managing student behavior, the data also suggested a need for careful
monitoring of high expectations and rigor in instructional practices.
The Diagnostic Review Team identified seven indicators in the learning environments as strengths. Two indicators
emerged as the strongest. It was evident/very evident in 93 percent of the classrooms that students “are treated in
a fair, clear and consistent manner” (A3) and “speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and each other” (F1).
Other strengths emerged in the Equitable, Supportive, Active, and Well-Managed Learning Environments. In 86
percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident students had “equal access to classroom discussions, activities,
resources, technology, and support” (A2). Instances in which students demonstrated “a congenial and supportive
relationship with their teacher” (C4) were evident/very evident in 86 percent of classrooms. Students who were
actively “engaged in learning activities” were evident/very evident in 78 percent of classrooms (D3), and in 86
percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow
classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others” (F2).
While student engagement in learning activities is critical, students learn best when they understand the relevance
of what they have learned. Classroom observation data showed it was evident/very evident that students made
“connections from content to real-life experiences” (D2) in zero percent of classrooms.
The Diagnostic Review Team identified the High Expectations Learning Environment as an area to leverage to
increase student achievement. It was evident/very evident in 21 percent of classrooms that students
demonstrated or were able to describe “high-quality work” (B3). Instances in which students strove to meet or
were able “to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1) were
evident/very evident in 29 percent of classrooms. Interview data gathered from all stakeholder groups showed
that low expectations were a part of the school culture. Students who engaged in “rigorous coursework,
discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating,
synthesizing)” were evident/very evident in 36 percent of classrooms (B4).
Another area of concern for the Diagnostic Review Team was the absence of differentiated learning opportunities.
Grouping students was often observed, but students who engaged “in differentiated learning opportunities and/or
activities” that met their needs (A1) were evident/very evident in 28 percent of classrooms.
Other items to leverage for increased student learning emerged in the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning
Environment. Instances in which students understood and/or were able to “explain how their work is assessed”
(E4) were evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms.
Finally, the Diagnostic Review Team identified the Digital Learning Environment as the lowest rated. The team
often observed technology being used for programs such as Dreambox or Lexia; however, the school provided no
data that reflected student progress in these programs or showed how these programs were being monitored.
Instances in which students used technology to “conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original work for
learning” (G2) and “communicate and/or work collaboratively for learning” (G3) were evident/very evident in zero
percent of classrooms. The use of technology to “gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” was
evident/very evident in 29 percent of classrooms (G1).
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
Develop and monitor a systematic process to review and revise the existing curriculum in all subject areas to
ensure rigor and alignment with the Kentucky Academic Standards. Create and use a process to collect and analyze
data to monitor the quality and effectiveness of curriculum implementation and to inform instructional decisions.
Establish high expectations for all learners. (Primary Standard 2.5, Secondary Standard 1.8)
Evidence:
From 2016-2017 to 2017-2018, third-grade and fourth-grade students had slight increases in the percent scoring
Proficient/Distinguished in reading, while fifth-grade students showed a slight decrease. In math, third- and fourth-
grade scores decreased for Proficient/Distinguished, while fifth-grade students showed an increase. During the
principal’s presentation, the principal indicated this kind of variation in scores had been common over her 18-year
tenure as principal. She stated, “One year we would meet our Annual Measurable Objective (AMO), and the next
year we wouldn’t.” The lowest percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished on K-PREP was in
writing for both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, at 14.6 percent and 16.7 percent, respectively. The student growth
indicator for 2017-2018 lagged behind the state indicator by 1.6 points. However, the 15.1 index for math was
higher than the state index by six-tenths of a point.
In the disaggregated data, the white subgroup consistently outscored other ethnic groups, with the exception of
the Hispanic students, in reading and math. Fifty percent of Hispanic students scored Proficient/Distinguished in
reading, compared to 37.8 percent of white students. In math, 37.5 percent of Hispanic students scored
Proficient/Distinguished compared to 36.9 percent of white students. Of concern to the Diagnostic Review Team
were the African-American students and students with disability with IEPs. Sixteen percent of students with
disabilities scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading; four percent in math. The African-American students also
performed at a lower level in all subject areas than their peers, except students with disabilities.
The analysis of Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) 2018 winter data revealed that percentile ranks of students
in grades three through five ranged from the third percentile to the sixteenth percentile in reading and math. The
highest Conditional Growth Percentile (CGP) was the ninth percentile in fifth-grade reading; the second highest
was the third percentile in fourth-grade math. All other SCG percentiles in reading and math were first percentiles.
The interview data revealed that some groups of students could relate their MAP scores with their targets, not
only for themselves, but for other classmates. However, for daily learning targets and activities, students were
unaware of how their work was assessed.
Another area of concern to the Diagnostic Review Team was in the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning
Environment. For example, students rarely monitored their own progress toward the learning target of the day or
had opportunities to understand the metrics by which their work would be evaluated. Students had few exemplars
detailing expectations for proficiency. It was evident/very evident in 29 percent of classrooms, for instance, that
students “monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1).
Finally, it was evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms that students “understand and/or are able to
explain how their work is assessed” (E4).
District leadership and some stakeholders described school leadership as “responsive and transparent.” They
further indicated that leadership used and responded to data. The survey data largely supported those interview
statements; however, there was indication that some stakeholders feared repercussions regarding their survey
answers or had not clearly understood the questions. Some interview data described the school culture as full of
mistrust and further indicated a prevailing negative perception of school leadership. Stakeholder groups, with the
exception of a few individuals, revealed that they did not feel their voices were heard by the principal. In the 2018
School Quality Factors (SQF) Section A, the school indicated that learners did not have systemic input. Parent
support and participation were reported as low in the SQF, a viewpoint substantiated by interview data.
The 2018 SQF contradicted classroom observation data and interview data. In the SQF, it was noted that most
learners “experience rigorous and challenging” work. However, classroom observation data indicated rigorous
instruction and higher order thinking activities were evident/very evident in 36 percent of classrooms. All
stakeholder groups remarked that rigor was lacking in the curriculum (B4). A concern that emerged in the CSIP was
that “Learners do not frequently demonstrate success on challenging goals.”
Improvement Priority #2
Develop, implement, and monitor processes that ensure instructional practices are adjusted for rigor and quality
to meet the academic needs of all students. Execute processes that monitor the quality and fidelity of instructional
practices as they pertain to differentiated learning. Collect, analyze, and use data to identify needed changes in
instructional practices and adjust practices to meet student needs. (Standard 2.7)
Evidence:
The interview data further indicated that most staff members had received training in trauma-informed care
strategies for their students, which had suggested a need for intensive, readily accessible counseling services for
students. Interview data showed that the school counselor went into classrooms once a month, not twice a month,
as indicated in the SQF.
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:
Teachers and support staff at Johnsontown Road Elementary School demonstrated a deep commitment to their
students and one another. The Diagnostic Review Team observed many instances that demonstrated staff were
engaged with and genuinely cared about their students. The school environment was very welcoming; several staff
members greeted students each morning and intervened immediately if a student came in upset, angry, or
unhappy. Discipline was identified as an issue of concern in interview data across all stakeholder groups, but
observation data indicated leadership and staff members had implemented strategies to ensure a safe and orderly
learning environment for all students. Students were treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. In classroom
observation data and observations of common spaces, students exhibited knowledge of and/or followed
classroom rules and behavioral expectations. Teachers were able to understand their students’ needs through
professional learning topics such as trauma-informed care and implementation of a school wide student behavior
management system, Academic and Behavioral Response to Intervention (ABRI).
Multiple resources existed for core classrooms. Support staff members assisted to provide direct instruction to
students, and each classroom contained a class library. Staff survey data showed 89 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed with the statemen, “Our school provides sufficient material resources to meet student
needs” (F3). Additionally, 86 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school provides a variety
of information resources to support student learning” (F5). Technology was available for every classroom, and
students and staff were using technology for learning. The Goal Clarity Coach had created a BlogSpot for
instructional materials and data that could be accessed and edited by any teacher as needed.
The related arts program provided students ample opportunities beyond the core curriculum in art, music, physical
education, and library. The related arts teachers provided intervention during the dedicated intervention time in
the master schedule.
While the school had created structures to provide time for teachers to learn and plan collaboratively, data
brought to PLC meetings by teachers and school leadership were not used to inform instruction. Classroom
observation and interview data confirmed that students had few opportunities to engage in personalized or
differentiated learning tasks. Few students were engaged in rigorous coursework, discussions, or tasks that
required the use of higher order thinking.
Effective, results-driven continuous improvement planning processes with systems, programs, and practices were
not established or used to monitor and communicate results to stakeholders. Further, the school did not routinely
use data to evaluate program effectiveness, monitor the impact of specific strategies, or determine attainment of
school goals. While the Diagnostic Review Team observed some research-based teaching, instruction in many
classrooms lacked rigor and was not grounded in best practices or research. The student performance data
showed that instructional practices were not resulting in increased student achievement. Interview and survey
data and a review of documents and artifacts indicated that teachers and leaders inconsistently engaged in a
continuous improvement and decision-making process to build instructional and organizational capacity. The
established PLC structures could be leveraged to develop, implement, and monitor data-driven processes and
procedures that inform instructional practices and result in higher levels of student achievement.
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:
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”
rd
Reading 3 27.5 55.8 31.2 52.3
Plus
• The percentage of third-grade students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading increased from 27.5
percent in 2016-2017 to 31.2 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of fourth-grade students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading increased from 30.3
percent in 2016-2017 to 34.6 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of fifth-grade students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in math increased from 23.6
percent in 2016-2017 to 37.5 percent in 2017-18.
• The percentage of fifth-grade students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in writing increased from 14.6
percent in 2016-2017 to 16.7 percent in 2017-2018.
Delta
• In both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, the percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished was below
the state average in all content areas and at all grade levels.
• The lowest percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 was in
fifth-grade writing at 14.6 percent and 16.7 percent, respectively.
• The percentage of scores at the Proficient/Distinguished levels in third-grade math declined from 30
percent in 2016-2017 to 26 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of scores at the Proficient/Distinguished levels in fourth-grade math declined from 32.9
percent in 2016-1017 to 24.4 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of scores at the Proficient/Distinguished levels in fifth-grade social studies declined from
41.6 percent in 2016-2017 to 33.3 percent in 2017-2018.
EL N/A 31.9
Plus
• The student growth index in 2017-2018 in math was 15.1, which exceeded the state index of 14.5.
Delta
• The student growth index for 2017-2018 in reading and the growth indicator were below the state index.
Military
English Learner (EL)
English Learner plus
Monitored
Economically 29.8 24.5 18.2 29.3 15.5
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 16.0 4.0
(Total)
Disability-With IEP (No 16.0 4.0
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with
Accommodation
Consolidated Student 26.2 19.7 2.6 22.0 14.6
Group
Plus
• In reading, 39.4 percent of female students and 50 percent of Hispanic students scored
Proficient/Distinguished.
• The percentage of Hispanic students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in math was 37.5.
• The percentage of males scoring Proficient/Distinguished in social studies was 36.1.
Delta
• In writing, the highest percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in any gap area was less
than 23 percent.
• Four percent of disabled students with IEPs scored Proficient/Distinguished in math.
• In science, 2.6 percent of the consolidated student group scored Proficient/Distinguished.
• In writing, 11.1 percent of male students scored Proficient/Distinguished compared to 22.2 percent of
female students.
• The percentage of African-American students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in writing was 10.3 percent,
as compared to 16.7 percent of all students.
Schedule
Monday, February 11, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:30 p.m.– Principal/Superintendent Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
5:15 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
5:15 p.m.– Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
9:00 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
About AdvancED
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.