Newport Independent Schools Audit

January 22–25, 2019
Results for: Newport Independent Schools

Diagnostic Review Report
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
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 22
Student Performance Data................................................................................................................ 22
Schedule............................................................................................................................................ 28
© 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 15
Building-level Administrators 3
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology 2
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 8
Non-certified Staff 2
Students 7
Parents 4
Community Members/Partners 1
Total 42

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 system commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching Needs
and learning, including the expectations for learners. Improvement
1.3 The system engages in a continuous improvement process that produces evidence,
Needs
including measurable results of improving student learning and professional
Improvement
practice.
1.4 The governing authority establishes and ensures adherence to policies that are
Emerging
designed to support system effectiveness.
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve Needs
professional practice and organizational effectiveness. Improvement
1.7 Leaders implement operational processes 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 system’s purpose Needs
and direction. Improvement
1.9 The system 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
1.11 Leaders implement a quality assurance process for its institutions to ensure system Needs
effectiveness and consistency. 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 system. 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
system’s learning expectations. Improvement
2.9 The system implements processes to identify and address the specialized needs of Needs
learners. Improvement
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 system 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 system plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning
Needs
environment, learner achievement, and the system’s effectiveness.
Improvement
3.2 The system’s professional learning structure and expectations promote collaboration
Needs
and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational effectiveness.
Improvement
3.4 The system attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the system’s
Needs
purpose and direction.
Improvement
3.7 The system demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long-range
planning and use of resources in support of the system’s purpose and direction. Needs
Improvement
3.8 The system allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the
Needs
system’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and
Improvement
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 49 observations at three schools 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.
Diagnostic Review eleot Ratings

A. Equitable Learning B. High Expectations C. Supportive Learning
D. Active Learning E. Progress Monitoring F. Well-Managed Learning
G. Digital Learning
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.0 2.0 1.9
1.4
Environment Averages

A. Equitable Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 1.8 39% 51% 6% 4%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 2.6 2% 43% 47% 8%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent

A3 2.7 2% 37% 47% 14%
manner.
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to

develop empathy/respect/appreciation for differences
A4 1.4 in abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or 73% 14% 12% 0%
other human characteristics, conditions and
dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.1
B. High Expectations Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed

Evident
Evident
Not
Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

B1 2.0 expectations established by themselves and/or the 29% 47% 22% 2%
teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are

B2 2.1 18% 55% 22% 4%
challenging but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.7 47% 43% 8% 2%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions,

and/or tasks that require the use of higher order
B4 2.0 33% 39% 24% 4%
thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating,
synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in

B5 2.0 24% 55% 16% 4%
their learning.
point scale:
2.0

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is
C1 2.3 16% 45% 31% 8%
positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.1 22% 47% 27% 4%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers,

C3 2.5 and/or other resources to understand content and 4% 47% 41% 8%
accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.6 6% 45% 37% 12%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale:
2.4
D. Active Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each

D1 2.0 24% 49% 24% 2%
other and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 1.8 49% 31% 12% 8%
experiences.
D3 2.1 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 18% 53% 27% 2%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 1.9 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 41% 37% 14% 8%
assignments.
point scale:
2.0

E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have
E1 1.8 mechanisms whereby their learning progress is 43% 41% 14% 2%
monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from
E2 2.1 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve 24% 53% 14% 8%
understanding and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of

E3 2.1 18% 57% 20% 4%
the lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how

E4 1.6 61% 29% 4% 6%
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 2.7 8% 31% 47% 14%
and each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow

F2 2.5 classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work 8% 45% 35% 12%
well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one

F3 2.4 20% 33% 33% 14%
activity to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal

F4 2.4 16% 43% 29% 12%
wasted time or disruptions.
point scale:
2.5

G. Digital Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather,
G1 1.5 69% 14% 10% 6%
evaluate, and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct

G2 1.4 research, solve problems, and/or create original works 78% 10% 8% 4%
for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate

G3 1.3 84% 8% 4% 4%
and work collaboratively for learning.
point scale:
1.4
eleot® Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Teams conducted 49 classroom observations at Newport Independent Schools. The seven
learning environment ratings for each of the three identified schools were essentially identical to the combined
district ratings that were detailed previously in eleot charts. The ratings indicated that student learning activities
were generally low level, which was supported by comments made during interviews: “Our issues are in the
classrooms,” “We have low expectations in the classrooms,” and “Technology is not being used adequately for
student learning.”
It was evident/very evident in 10 percent of classrooms that “Learners engage in differentiated learning
opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1), and similarly, it was evident/very evident in 55 percent
of classrooms that “Learners have equal access to classroom discussions, activities, resources, technology, and
support” (A2). In 61 percent of the classrooms, it was evident/very evident that “Learners are treated in a fair,
clear, and consistent manner” (A3). Observers noted across all three schools that most instruction was the same
for all students regardless of their specific performance, indicating a lack of differentiated learning opportunities
for students. Observers also noted that many students were frequently not called on or were not actively
participating in classroom activities.
In 24 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students met and were “able to articulate the high
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher (B1), and in 26 percent of classrooms, it was
evident/very evident that students “engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2).
Comparably, it was evident/very evident in 28 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). These findings supported the need for systemic development of clearly articulated
performance expectations for all grade levels and subjects, as well as intentional alignment of expectations to the
curriculum and instructional strategies through which students regularly engage in activities that develop their
critical thinking skills.

It was evident/very evident in 20 percent of classrooms that students “make connections from content to real-life
experiences” (D2); likewise, in 22 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students were
collaborating “with their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments” (D4).
Classroom observation data supported the use of peer collaboration activities to actively engage students in their
learning. The use of instructional strategies that encourage learners to make connections between classroom
content and their daily lives can serve as a strong motivator for learning.
It was evident/very evident in only 10 percent of classrooms that students “understand and/or are able to explain
how their work is assessed” (E4). In 16 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “monitor
their own learning progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1). Similarly, it
was evident/very evident in 22 percent of classrooms that students “receive/respond to feedback (from
teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or revise work” (E2). In 24 percent of classrooms,
it was evident/very evident that students demonstrated and/or verbalized “understanding of the lesson/content”
(E3). Students often displayed confusion about classroom assignments or how their work was assessed. By
implementing a systemic approach to self-monitoring, students can develop ownership of their learning and
progress, and when used intentionally, formative monitoring practices can provide both the teacher and student
valuable feedback on learning.
In 16 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students used “digital tools/technology to gather,
evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1), and in 12 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident
that students used “digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for
learning” (G2). Instances of students who used “digital tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively
for learning” (G3) were evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms. Digital tools and technology effectively
engage students in learning and, ultimately, provide an ideal opportunity to differentiate instruction, especially
when paired with tasks designed to help students develop critical thinking skills.
Classroom observation data supported the need for increased and targeted teacher training and support. A strong
instructional program includes a rigorous, standards-based curriculum, effective hands-on and high-engagement
learning strategies, and knowledgeable use of formative assessment practices.

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
Review and revise district processes and strategies for monitoring and supporting school improvement. Use
collaborative professional learning activities to guide district and school staff members in establishing processes
and procedures to monitor improvement initiatives. Define and clarify expectations for quality performance across
the district and provide supportive feedback targeted to improve professional practice of all district staff.
(Standard 1.11)
Evidence:
Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder interview data showed that while district and building-level administrators generally identified
significant leadership functions that needed improvement, they were unable to consistently articulate a formal
process for schoolwide improvement. One administrator stated, “We are going back to basic instructional design in
our PLCs.” Many interviewees made similar comments, such as “Too many initiatives in the pipeline, and principals
and teachers are feeling overwhelmed.” Several administrators noted that some teachers left the district, because
they were overwhelmed by the number of initiatives; for example, one stated, “Teachers feel overwhelmed by all
of the new programs.” Administrators echoed the same sentiment and also stated they were concerned about the
amount of time they were asked to be out of the building for meetings and district level initiatives.
Often, comments were made that central office administrators did not actively seek input from building-level staff,
and consequently, morale was low. As one example, interviewees frequently cited that all professional
development activities were determined at the district level, with virtually no input from teachers. Several cited
that a new professional learning community (PLC) process was implemented with no building-level input. The new
PLC process was selected and modeled after a process used by a turnaround school in another district; however,
administrators and teachers were not involved in determining whether the new PLC process fit the perceived
needs of their school.
Stakeholder interview data showed that many administrators pointed to the quality of instruction needing
improvement. One commented, “People are too happy around here,” and “It’s time to hold them accountable.”
Some building-level staff members reported that district administrators frequently “ruled by intimidation and
fear,” and it was also reported that teachers perceived that building-level principals had no real authority, because
most, if not all, decisions were made by district staff. Interview data showed several stakeholders mentioned that
principals were frequently pulled into weekly meetings and that district administrators did not spend significant
and meaningful time in the schools. Although district staff conducted frequent walkthrough observations in
schools, teachers rarely received useful, direct feedback. Several district administrators confirmed that feedback
from district walkthroughs was sporadic and lacked meaningful information to assist teachers with improvement.

District staff members and Board members often cited student mobility patterns and student poverty as reasons
for low student performance on standardized measures. Many connected these factors with student behavioral
issues, and some associated these reasons with the high rates of teacher turnover in the district.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

A review of survey data showed parent, staff member, and student survey results tended to be more positive at
Newport Primary School and Newport Intermediate School than at Newport High School, specifically in grades
seven and eight. Parent and student surveys were administered in grades seven and eight, but surveys were
administered to all Newport High School staff members (i.e., seventh through twelfth grade) rather than only to
seventh- and eighth-grade staff members. District leaders, however, confirmed that programs, supervision, and
activities were the same for all students and teachers in seventh through twelfth grades; therefore, high school
staff member survey data accurately and fairly represented seventh- and eighth-grade staff members.
Survey data revealed that 63 percent of staff members at Newport Primary School, 73 percent of staff members at
Newport Intermediate School, and 70 percent of staff members at Newport High School agreed/strongly agreed
that “In our school, a formal process is in place to support new staff members in their professional practice” (E16).
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of documents and artifacts found that numerous supporting documents were provided as evidence in the
System Quality Factors (SQF). One area of the SQF that was in conflict with staff interview data related to the
statement, “The Governing Board and leadership team has a healthy culture of shared values, beliefs, and positive
relationships.” It also noted, “Leadership of the district's actions demonstrate a belief that all students can reach
high standards regardless of barriers to learning. Evidence provided to support this rating was demonstrated
through the expectations set by the Instructional Nonnegotiable Classroom Structures for all teachers, the
implementation of continuous improvement strategies in school level 30-60-90 Day Plans, and focused work
during all PLC meetings.” Classroom observation data, however, did not support these statements. Additionally,
interviews with district administrators indicated that significant instructional issues existed in the schools.
According to one rating in the SQF, “Some system staff embrace and communicate the system’s vision, mission and
priorities to stakeholders” (A7a). This was true also for the question, “What proportion of the system staff agrees
with the vision, mission and priorities?” (A7c). The practice of “System staff supports its institutions' efforts to help
learners pursue challenging goals and success” was rated “Partially Embedded” in the institutional culture (C6a).
The district’s three-year strategic plan, offered to the Diagnostic Review Team as a guiding document, was
organized into four main areas: Academic Achievement, Workforce Excellence, Stakeholder Engagement, and
Operational Effectiveness. Each area contained a strategic objective heading and several strategy headings. There
was no indication of how the objectives were continually assessed.

Improvement Priority #2
Develop systemic strategies to ensure a successful learning culture in Comprehensive Support and Improvement
(CSI) schools. Work with building-level staff to align the curriculum to standards and focus on the development of
higher order thinking skills with all learners. Train teachers to choose and/or develop instructional strategies that
increase student engagement in creative, innovative, and problem-solving activities. Provide teachers with
intensive support for using selected strategies to ensure understanding and fidelity of implementation. (Primary
Standard 2.2)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The percentage of students in seventh and eighth grades categorized as Proficient/Distinguished on the Kentucky
Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) was lower than the state averages for all subjects. Seventh-
grade scores regressed in reading and in mathematics; eighth-grade math scores also declined from 2016-2017 to
2017-2018. The lowest Proficient/Distinguished score was in seventh-grade science (6.9 percent in 2017-2018).
Significant achievement gaps were in seventh and eighth grades among all races in reading (23.4 percent gap
between White and African-American students), mathematics (24.4 percent gap between Hispanic and White
students; 18.2 percent gap between White and African-American students), social studies (25.8 percent gap
between White and African-American students), and writing (16.1 percent gap between White and African-
American students).
Students at Newport Intermediate School performed below the state averages in all content areas for two
consecutive years (2016-2017 and 2017-2018) on the K-PREP. All student groups demonstrated significantly low
performance in science. The school did not meet the state index for the growth indicator in 2017-2018.
Growth index scores were below the state averages for 2017-2018 at all grade levels: elementary, intermediate,
and seventh and eighth grades.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder interview data showed several administrators had low expectations for students. District leaders
confirmed the absence of a standard curriculum or comprehensive assessment system. In many instances, there
were no curriculum guides to follow other than some provided by commercial programs purchased by the district
or schools, and those were infrequently used. Instructional plans for the district or for individual schools did not
exist. Similarly, the interview data showed limited evidence that the district had coherent plans or processes for
working with CSI schools. Also, the data indicated district leaders seldom assisted schools in providing quality
instruction for students, other than by adding programs.
Administrators reported using “six or seven different walkthrough instruments” for classroom observations and
indicated that teachers did not receive regular feedback from the walkthroughs. Many administrators noted that
too many initiatives were in the district, and one administrator commented, “There are so many different types of
walkthroughs right now, teachers don’t know what is going on, and teachers get little or no feedback.”
Teachers participated in two professional learning community (PLC) meetings per week; however, there were few
formative or summative common assessments to inform discussions. Administrators reported that teachers were
beginning to learn how to analyze performance data and that common assessments were not evaluated to

determine the appropriate level of rigor based upon state standards. One administrator stated, “Most people do
not know how to create assessments. Therefore, programs provide that component of our curriculum.”
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Survey data revealed 61 percent of staff members at Newport High School agreed/strongly agreed that “All
teachers in our school monitor and adjust curriculum, instruction, and assessment based on data from student
assessments and examination of professional practice” (E1). Forty-eight percent of staff members at Newport High
School agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school personalize instructional strategies and
interventions to address individual learning needs of students” (E2). Fifty-one percent of staff members at
Newport High School agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, challenging curriculum and learning experiences
provide equity for all students in the development of learning, thinking, and life skills” (E11).
Sixty-seven percent of staff members at Newport High School agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our
school use a process to inform students of their learning expectations and standards of performance” (E5). Fifty-
eight percent of staff members at Newport High School agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school use
multiple types of assessments to modify instruction and to revise the curriculum” (E7).
On the staff survey for Newport Intermediate School, 68 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our
school regularly use instructional strategies that require student collaboration, self-reflection, and development of
critical thinking skills” (E3). Seventy percent agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school provide
students with specific and timely feedback about their learning” (E6).
Survey data showed 62 percent of parents of seventh-and eighth-graders agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my
child's teachers provide an equitable curriculum that meets his/her learning needs” (E1) and “All of my child's
teachers give work that challenges my child” (E2). Forty-six percent agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child's
teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction” (E4).
Seventh- and eighth-grade student survey data showed 61 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “My school
provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2). Fifty-eight percent agreed/strongly
agreed that “All of my teachers use a variety of teaching methods and learning activities to help me develop the
skills I will need to succeed” (E8). The data also showed that 28 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my
teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9). Fifty-six percent agreed/strongly agreed that “In
my school, a high-quality education is offered” (C3). Sixty-one percent agreed/strongly agreed that “My school
provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2), and 58 percent agreed/strongly agreed
that “All of my teachers use a variety of teaching methods and learning activities to help me develop the skills I will
need to succeed” (E8).
Documents and Artifacts:

The district identified three problems of practice in the 2019 Needs Assessment Diagnostic. The problems of
practice included the following: “Schools (teachers and administrators) lack in-depth understanding of the intent of
all standards; thus, instruction and assessments are not congruent,” “Schools do not currently have a balanced
assessment system (formatives, interim, summatives) in place that informs instructional adjustments and
curricular changes,” and “Students are not cognitively engaged as a result of ineffective strategy/activity selection
that are congruent to the intent of the standard.”

According to the SQF, the practice of “Leadership monitors and evaluates the impact of instruction on learner
engagement, outcomes and overall success,” was described as only being fair (not good, not excellent) (D2b).
In the District’s 2018-2019 Comprehensive District Improvement Plan (CDIP), the following areas were identified
for improvement: 1) Revising all curriculum documents within the district to ensure that vertical and horizontal
alignment is being implemented and monitored for fidelity; 2) Focusing on effective reading, writing, and math
strategies across all grade levels and content areas; 3) Implementing and monitoring of the goals, strategies, and
activities included in the improvement plan; 4) Focusing on the mastery of all identified Essential Standards; and 5)
Focusing on improving the effectiveness of all PLC meetings through monitoring the new PLC protocol at all
schools.
Areas of Improvement in the Executive Summary of the CDIP described the need for a focus on professional
learning and instructional decisions in the following areas: 1) Data Driven Decisions—Data will be utilized … to
make instructional decisions and to monitor progress; 2) Monitoring progress through the use of data tracking
sheets & data meetings with teachers & school leaders; 3) PLC protocol implementation; 4) Effective Instructional
& Assessment Strategies—Data analysis informed the need for more training and resources for literacy and
mathematics; 5) Strategies are needed to meet the differentiated needs of the students to further their progress—
Areas of instructional data show a need for further training; 6) Lesson and unit development; 7) Literacy…Math…EL
Interventions…Assessment… Reading & Writing Instruction—Data shows a need across the district for
improvement in the writing and reading performance of our students; 8) An increased implementation and
monitoring of effective writing strategies will assist our students with writing skills needed to perform at higher
levels; 9) By providing additional professional learning opportunities for our teachers, they will be able to gain
knowledge of literacy strategies that target the needs of their students; 10) Teacher Effectiveness—A focused
effort on implementation of the evaluation system will help to provide our teachers with many professional
learning opportunities for their growth; 11) Teacher retention and the large number of turnovers are obstacles for
our district—Through teacher induction programs, utilization of mentors, training, and additional instructional
coaches at each building, teacher support is increasing; and 12) Technology—Although the availability of
technology in our district is a strength, the need for continued training on effective ways of implementation is still
an area for improvement.

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 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 district’s self-reported improvements in recent years addressed customer service and relationships,
implementation of continuous improvement strategies, individualized professional development for teachers,
development of a strategic plan, development of effective relationships with community partners, and solid fiscal
management. The superintendent noted, “The strategic plan drives everything we do.” The plan addressed four
main areas: student performance, effectiveness of all employees, stakeholder partnerships, and revision of internal
operating processes.
Additional district strengths cited in the SQF Report included the 30-60-90-Day plans that were also addressed in
both the CDIP and individual CSIPs. Home visits were implemented with a focus on relationship-building. Extensive
human, material, and fiscal resources were added along with a more targeted focus for professional development
activities. Self-identified leverages for improvement were described and included the development of a PLC
protocol and reorganized class structure. The efficacy of engagement areas were affected by planned development
of a leadership cadre, teacher retention initiatives (e.g., employee bonus, master’s degree tuition financial
reimbursement), and new strategies for both teacher and leader effectiveness. Deliberate district initiatives
resulted in a pointedly decreased student dropout rate with a significantly increased graduation rate.
Effective partnerships and external communication were developed in the community. The district is encouraged
to leverage those strategies in order to further develop and improve outreach opportunities to all stakeholder
groups. Many new curriculum initiatives were added in recent years; however, it was difficult to assess how well
they were implemented. The district is encouraged to establish processes and procedures to monitor all
improvement initiatives for implementation and effectiveness. District leaders are encouraged to collect
appropriate data and apply data analysis strategies to examine the efficacy of all programs and protocols used to
improve student performance.
Continuous Improvement Process:

The district identified “unique barriers for our learners.” These included a transient student population with a 25
percent annual mobility rate, while at the same time, district enrollment leveled off. Economic disadvantage
statistics were frequently cited (e.g., 90 percent of students receive free/reduced price lunch, 10 percent of

students are homeless). Parental involvement in school activities and their child’s education was described as low
due to “poverty and social barriers.” Teacher and leader retention issues were frequently cited (e.g., 30 percent
annual teacher turnover, 50 percent of administrators new in their positions with the senior principal having only
two years of experience). These challenges were frequently offered as explanations for the low student
performance scores in the three CSI schools. An internal study that compared the performance of students who
had been enrolled in the district for a significant length of time to students who moved “in-or-out” more
frequently demonstrated higher performance scores for students who attended district schools for significant
lengths of time. This “study” was often cited by district administrators, board members, and even some parents as
evidence that the district performance scores would be better if the student mobility rate were reduced. Engaging
students and parents in meaningful interactions remains a continuing challenge for the district.
The district described three priorities for improving curricular, instructional, and assessment practices. The
Diagnostic Review Team agreed that these priorities were supported by data reported in this document and
included a discussion of these priorities in Improvement Priority #1 and Improvement Priority #2. The priorities for
improvement were as follows: 1) ensure that all instructional staff possess an in-depth understanding of the intent
of all standards and that instruction and assessments are aligned and congruent; 2) create and implement a
balanced assessment system (including formative, interim, and summative assessments) that inform curriculum
changes and instructional adjustments; and 3) increase student engagement through cognitively challenging
classroom activities.
Engaging and involving stakeholders (e.g., parents, students, staff) effectively remains an unmet challenge. The
district demonstrated success at engaging community partners and is encouraged to leverage a similar process to
improve engagement internally. Also, the district should consider using a methodical and well-planned review of
district curriculum practices, instructional processes, and effective use of data to develop engaging and
collaborative working relationships among all staff members. Finally, the district launched numerous new
improvement initiatives and secured significant fiscal and material resources to support implementation; however,
data indicate that a need remains for the district to measure implementation fidelity and evaluate the impact of
the initiatives. No evidence was provided during the Diagnostic Review to indicate that a data-based process
existed for determining which practices were working and which practices should be eliminated.
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

Dr. George Griffin Dr. Griffin holds a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree from Duke
University and a Ph.D. in special education from the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Concentration areas included the education of students
with learning disabilities/behavior problems and educational administration.
Dr. Griffin has been a special education teacher, high school principal, central
office program director, state department program director, and university
professor. Dr. Griffin is the author of several entries in the Encyclopedia of
Educational Leadership and Administration and a contributor to special
education textbooks and professional journals. He serves as a Lead Evaluator
Mentor with AdvancED and has led reviews in numerous schools and school
districts throughout the United States and in the Middle East. He was the
keynote speaker at the first AdvancED International Learning Disabilities
Conference (2013) in Beirut, Lebanon, and has presented interactive training
sessions at AdvancED Global Education Conferences in the United Arab
Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
Sam Watkins Sam Watkins has had a positive impact on students, schools, and districts he
led in Kentucky. During his 33 years as an educator, he has served students as
teacher, coach, athletic director, assistant principal, principal, director of
districtwide programs, and Education Recovery Leader. Mr. Watkins earned a
master’s degree in business administration from Eastern Kentucky University
and a superintendent’s certification from the University of Kentucky.
Recognized as a leader across the state of Kentucky, he successfully led two
high schools and has helped numerous districts in Kentucky increase student
achievement.
Jesse Bacon Jesse Bacon is the superintendent of Bullitt County Public Schools in Kentucky
and is working toward a doctorate in educational leadership at the University
of Kentucky. He previously served as the principal of Simons Middle School in
Fleming County. Jesse has participated in numerous leadership programs,
including the Leadership Institute for School Principals through the Center for
Creative Leadership (CCL), the National Institute for School Leaders (NISL)
Executive Development Program, as well as the American Association of School
Administrators (AASA) Aspiring Superintendents Academy. He has also
presented at numerous conferences on school leadership and is an active
participant in AdvancED school and district accreditation teams.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Michael Murphy Mike Murphy has more than 20 years of experience as a teacher and
administrator. He is currently serving as a State Manager for Kentucky
Department of Education (KDE), Office of Continuous Improvement and
Support. He has been an Education Recovery Leader with KDE since 2015.
Previously, he served as an elementary and high school principal in Pulaski
County, where he also taught special education. Murphy holds a bachelor’s
degree, a master’s degree, Rank 1, and his superintendent certification from
Eastern Kentucky University.

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Newport High School (Grades 7 and 8)
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)
Reading 7th 36.4 54.6 29.7 57.4
Reading 8th 29.4 57.1 50.5 62.9
Math 7th 36.4 43.3 34.7 47.4
Math 8th 48.6 48.7 41.2 46.1
Science 7th n/a n/a 6.9 25.9
Social Studies 8th 32.1 60.5 33.0 60.2
Writing 8th 8.3 37.2 30.9 44.3
Plus
• Positive trends were observed in eighth-grade reading (29.4 percent to 50.5 percent), eighth-grade social
studies (32.1 percent to 33.0 percent), and eighth-grade writing (8.3 percent to 30.9 percent).
• According to 2017-2018 data, eighth-grade students performed stronger in reading assessments as
opposed to other content areas. Nearly half of eighth-grade students achieved Proficient/Distinguished in
reading.
Delta
• Student performance data indicated that the school performed below state average in all state
assessments (reading, math, science, social studies, and writing) in both seventh and eighth grades for
two consecutive years.
• Student performance data indicated a regression in student achievement for seventh-grade reading,
seventh-grade mathematics, and eighth-grade mathematics.
• Seventh-grade science had the lowest proficiency score (6.9 percent in 2017-2018).

Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)
Content Area Index State Index
Reading 9.1 16.1
Math -0.5 8.0
EL n/a 8.0
Growth Indicator 4.3 12.1
Plus
• Reading had the highest growth index at 9.1. This is consistent with the growth displayed in eighth-grade
reading. The number of students achieving Proficient/Distinguished in eighth-grade reading nearly
doubled.
Delta
• The student growth index indicated performance growth levels below the state index in reading and
math. Additionally, mathematics scores displayed a negative regression in their growth index.
• Mathematics had the lowest index score (-0.5).
• The mathematics growth index score was consistent with accountability scores. For example, both
seventh- and eighth-grade math scores declined from the 2016-2017 school year to the 2017-2018 school
year (-1.7 in seventh grade and -7.4 in eighth grade).
Section III: Gap Groups
Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D Studies %P/D
%P/D
All Students 39.9 37.9 6.9 33.0 30.9
Female 46.8 44.7 0.0 41.3 50.0
Male 33.7 31.7 13.2 25.5 13.7
White 43.4 34.9 7.5 43.4 39.6
African American 20.0 16.7 7.7 17.6 23.5
Hispanic 40.7 59.3 10.0
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native


%P/D
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or More Races 45.7 48.6 0.0 20.0 15.0
Title I 39.9 37.9 6.9 33.0 30.9
Migrant
Homeless 39.4 31.8 0.0
English Learner (EL)
English Learner plus

Monitored
Free/Reduced-Price 38.0 34.1 5.3 27.4 28.6

Meals
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 5.3 0.0 0.0 10.0

(Total)
Disability-With IEP (No 0.0

Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with

Accommodation
Disability-With IEP Alt

Only
Consolidated Student 33.3 37.3 5.7 18.4 20.4

Group
Plus
Delta
• Female students outscored males in reading, math, social studies, and writing. Male students outscored
females in science.
• No female proficiency in science was demonstrated.
• Significant achievement gaps between all races existed in reading (23.4 percent difference between White
and African-American students), mathematics (24.4 percent difference between Hispanic and White
students; 18.2 percent difference between White and African-American students), social studies (25.8

percent difference between White and African-American students), and writing (16.1 percent difference
between White and African-American students).
• A small achievement gap existed between economically disadvantaged students compared to all students.
• Disability/IEP students performed well below the all students peer group. Disability/IEP students scored
zero percent Proficient/Distinguished in mathematics and social studies. Disability/IEP students scored
34.6 percent lower than all students in reading and 20.9 percent lower than all students in writing.
• Each student group demonstrated significantly low performance in science.
Newport Intermediate School
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 33.6 55.8 21.5 52.3
Reading 4th 29.4 49.9 33.3 53.7
Reading 5th 39.0 57.3 40.3 57.8
Reading 6th 43.5 58.9 35.3 59.7
Math 3rd 32.1 50.9 28.9 47.3
Math 4th 20.6 47.9 37.2 47.2
Math 5th 22.0 48.9 24.4 52.0
Math 6th 24.1 49.1 34.5 47.5
Science 4th na N/A 14.0 30.8
Social Studies 5th 20.3 60.0 20.2 53.0
Writing 5th 19.5 45.9 12.6 40.5
Plus:
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished on K-PREP in fourth-grade math
increased by 16.6 percentage points in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished on K-PREP in sixth-grade math increased
by 10.4 percentage points in 2017-2018.

Delta
• Newport Intermediate School performed below the state average in every content area for two
consecutive years (2016-2017 and 2017-2018) on the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational
Progress (KPREP).
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished on K-PREP in third-grade reading
decreased from 33.6 in 2016-2017 to 21.5 points in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished on K-PREP in sixth-grade reading
decreased from 43.5 in 2016-2017 to 35.3 points in 2017-2018.
Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)
Content Area Index State Index
Reading 19.1 19.7

Math 11.2 14.5
EL 35.9 31.9
Growth Indicator 15.2 17.1
Plus
• Newport Intermediate School scored above the state index in student growth for English Learners in
2017-2018.
Delta
• Newport Intermediate School did not meet the state index for the growth indicator for the 2017-2018
school year.
Section III: Gap Group Data

%P/D
Female 36.6 33.1 11.3 20.8 15.3
Male 28.1 29.4 17.2 19.1 8.5
White 37.7 33.7 12.7 24.3 14.3
African American 18.2 18.2 9.1 5.0 10.0
Hispanic 36.1 42.6 17.6 17.6 11.8
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races 26.0 27.4 19.2 25.0 8.3


%P/D
Title I 32.6 31.3 14.0 20.2 12.6
Migrant
Homeless 19.7 24.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Foster
Military
English Learner (EL) 21.9 31.3 0.0
English Learner plus 29.3 34.1 13.3
Monitored
Economically 31.4 29.6 13.4
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 14.7 10.3 5.0 9.5 9.5
(Total)
Disability-With IEP (No
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with
Accommodation
Consolidated Student 25.0 25.8 14.3 12.1 9.1
Group
Plus
• The percentage of Hispanic students who scored Proficient/Distinguished on K-PREP math was 42.6 in
2017-2018.
Delta
• In 2017-2018, the percentage of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished on K-

PREP in reading was 18.2, in math was 18.2, in science was 9.1, in social studies was 5.0, and in writing
was 10.0.
• The percentage of students identified as homeless who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science, social
studies, and writing on K-PREP was zero in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students identified as English Learners who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science
on K-PREP was zero in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students with disability with IEP who scored Proficient/Distinguished on K-PREP in
reading was 14.7, in math was 10.3, in science was 5.0, in social studies was 9.5, and in writing was 9.5 in
2017-2018.

Schedule
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
5:00 p.m. – Superintendent Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
5:45 p.m. Review Team
Members
6:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Members
Wednesday, January 23, 2019

7:45 a.m. Team arrives at district office District office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
8:00 a.m. – Superintendent’s Interview Diagnostic
9:00 a.m. Review Team
Members
9:15 am – Stakeholder Interviews District office Diagnostic
5:30 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 District office Diagnostic
Members
6:30 p.m. Board Meeting District Office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
Thursday, January 24, 2019

7:45 a.m. Team arrives at district office District office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
8:00 a.m. – Continue artifact review, visit school sites to conduct classroom observations; School/District Diagnostic
4:15 p.m. and continue stakeholder interviews Review Team
Members
6:30 p.m. Team Work Session #3 Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
Friday, January 25, 2019

8:00 a.m. – Final Team Work Session District Diagnostic

11:00 a.m. 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.

Newport Independent Schools Audit

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

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

Newport Independent Schools Audit

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

January 22–25, 2019

Results for: Newport Independent Schools

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7

© 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®)

Diagnostic Review eleot Ratings

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

A. Equitable Learning Environment

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

Indicators Average Description

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

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data: