You are on page 1of 26

February 11–14, 2019

Results for: H. B. Slaughter Elementary School


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
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 20
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 22
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 22
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 25

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


Diagnostic Review Report

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 19
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 17
Non-certified Staff 9
Students 31
Parents 12
Total 91

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


Diagnostic Review Report

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 Emerging
and learning, including the expectations for learners.
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 Emerging
professional practice and organizational effectiveness.
1.7 Leaders implement operational process and procedures to ensure organizational Emerging
effectiveness in support of teaching and learning.
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 Emerging
effectiveness.
1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder Emerging
groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement.

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


Diagnostic Review Report

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 Emerging
and learning priorities established by the institution.
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 Emerging
address the specialized social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs of
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 Emerging
demonstrable improvement of student learning.
2.12 The institution implements a process to continuously assess its programs and Needs
organizational conditions to improve student learning. Improvement

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


Diagnostic Review Report

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 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- Needs
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and Improvement
direction.
3.8 The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the Needs
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and Improvement
organizational effectiveness.

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


Diagnostic Review Report

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 17 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.

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

2.8 2.9
2.4 2.4 2.3
2.1
1.5

Environment Averages

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


Diagnostic Review Report

A. Equitable Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 2.3 12% 53% 29% 6%
and/or activities that meet their needs.

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,


A2 2.5 6% 35% 59% 0%
activities, resources, technology, and support.

A3 2.7 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 6% 24% 65% 6%

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop


empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 2.0 41% 24% 29% 6%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.4

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not

Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high


B1 2.3 12% 47% 41% 0%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.

Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging


B2 2.2 6% 71% 24% 0%
but attainable.

Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high


B3 1.9 29% 53% 18% 0%
quality work.

Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or


B4 2.1 tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., 6% 82% 12% 0%
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their


B5 2.2 6% 65% 29% 0%
learning.

Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.1

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


Diagnostic Review Report

C. Supportive Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 2.7 6% 29% 53% 12%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.

Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative


C2 2.5 6% 41% 47% 6%
feedback).

Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or


C3 2.8 6% 18% 71% 6%
other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks.

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive


C4 3.0 6% 12% 59% 24%
relationship with their teacher.

Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.8

D. Active Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not

Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other


D1 2.6 6% 29% 59% 6%
and teacher predominate.

Learners make connections from content to real-life


D2 2.1 35% 24% 35% 6%
experiences.

D3 2.6 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 6% 41% 41% 12%

Learners collaborate with their peers to


D4 2.1 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 41% 24% 24% 12%
assignments.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.4

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


Diagnostic Review Report

E. Progress Monitoring & Feedback Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 2.2 6% 71% 24% 0%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.

Learners receive/respond to feedback (from


E2 2.5 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 6% 41% 47% 6%
and/or revise work.

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the


E3 2.4 18% 29% 47% 6%
lesson/content.

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their


E4 1.9 24% 59% 18% 0%
work is assessed.

Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.3

F. Well-Managed Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and


F1 3.1 6% 6% 59% 29%
each other.

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom


F2 2.9 6% 12% 65% 18%
rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others.

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity


F3 2.8 12% 18% 47% 24%
to another.

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted


F4 2.5 6% 41% 47% 6%
time or disruptions.

Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.9

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


Diagnostic Review Report

G. Digital Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate,
G1 1.7 41% 53% 0% 6%
and/or use information for learning.

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,


G2 1.3 71% 29% 0% 0%
solve problems, and/or create original works for learning.

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and


G3 1.4 82% 6% 6% 6%
work collaboratively for learning.

Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 1.5

eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team conducted 17 classroom observations in core content classes, which provided
sufficient insight into instructional practices and student learning across the school. Collectively, data suggested a
need for school leaders to carefully monitor instructional practices and student learning tasks to ensure academic
growth.

Several strengths emerged from classroom observation data, all related to interactions among students and
teachers. Two of the strengths were identified in the Well-Managed Learning Environment and one was identified
in the Supportive Learning Environment. The Well-Managed Learning Environment earned a rating of 2.9 on a four-
point scale and focused on students having respectful relationships with their teachers and peers. The observation
data revealed that it was evident/very evident in 88 percent of classrooms that students “speak and interact
respectfully with teacher(s) and each other” (F1). The data further revealed it was evident/very evident that
students “demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well
with others” (F2) and “demonstrate a congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher” (C4) in 83 percent
of classrooms. These data supported the team’s observations throughout the school that students were compliant
and demonstrated behaviors consistent with a respectful and supportive learning environment.

While the Diagnostic Review Team identified items needing improvement in all seven learning environments, two
of the lowest-rated items emerged in the Digital Learning Environment. It was evident/very evident, for example,
in zero percent of classrooms that students “use digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems,
and/or create original works for learning” (G2), and it was evident/very evident in six percent of classrooms that
students “use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1). The
Diagnostic Review Team observed students using technology individually and in groups, completing learning tasks
with little complexity, differentiation, and rigor. Low scores for items within this learning environment provide an
opportunity to systematically increase the depth of technology use by students. This increased depth will provide
students with differentiated learning experiences and opportunities to conduct research, solve authentic
problems, and create original works with a level of rigor that is heightened by using digital tools.

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


Diagnostic Review Report

The Diagnostic Review Team also identified items that were minimally observed in classrooms, which provide
additional areas of leverage to increase student learning. Several of these items, in the Equitable, High
Expectations, and Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environments, are related to opportunities for
students to be engaged in effective instructional practices.

Within the Equitable Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident that students “engage in differentiated
learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1) and “demonstrate or have opportunities to
develop empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other
human characteristics, conditions and dispositions” (A4) in 35 percent of classrooms.

Areas that could serve as leverage points for increased student achievement emerged in the High Expectations
Learning Environment. It was evident/very evident in 24 percent of classrooms that students “engage in activities
and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2). It was evident/very evident that students “demonstrate
and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3) in 18 percent of classrooms. The observation data further
revealed that it was evident/very evident in 12 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).

Finally, in the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident that students
in 24 percent of classrooms “monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is
monitored” (E1) and in 18 percent of classrooms “understand and/or able to explain how their work is assessed”
(E4). The team rarely observed students using rubrics or checklists to monitor their progress or to identify criteria
by which they would be assessed. The interview data revealed that most teachers were unable to clearly articulate
how formative assessment strategies were used to drive instructional choices. These findings could be leveraged
to increase student understanding of expectations and create an environment for student ownership of learning.

A careful examination by the leaders and staff members is warranted regarding all items within the seven learning
environments to leverage additional areas to improve instructional capacity and increase student learning. In
addition, the Improvement Priorities outlined within this report will guide the school in prioritizing areas of focus.

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


Diagnostic Review Report

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, implement, and monitor a formal instructional process that ensures teachers are consistent and
deliberate in planning and using instructional strategies that engage students in rigorous activities and higher
order thinking skills. Use data to identify needed improvements in student learning and adjust instructional
practices to meet student academic needs. (Standard 2.7)

Evidence:

Student Performance Data:


The student performance data indicated that the school had not implemented effective instructional practices that
met the needs of all students. The Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) results for
Slaughter Elementary School students, as detailed in an addendum of this report, revealed that the percentage of
students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was significantly below the state average in most assessed areas for
2017-2018. Additionally, the percentage at Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade social studies was also lower
than the 2016-2017 performance data. The 2017-2018 student performance data showed the student growth
index in reading was 17.9 compared to the state index of 19.7, math was 11.9 compared to the state index of 14.5,
English Learners was 26.8 compared to the state index of 31.9, and the Growth Indicator was 14.9 compared to the
state index of 17.1.

Additionally, the percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading was well below the state
average in grades three (25.9 compared to 52.3), four (30.4 compared to 53.7), and five (27.3 compared to 57.8).
Also, grades three and five reading declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. However, grade four reading went up
from 20.3 percent in 2016-2017 to 30.4 percent in 2017-2018.

Classroom Observation Data:


The classroom observation data, as detailed previously in this report, suggested that the school had not
intentionally monitored the implementation of instructional practices to ensure the needs of all students were
met. The observation data revealed that students were completing the same learning tasks or activities with little
personalization or differentiation. It was evident/very evident in 35 percent of classrooms that students “engage in
differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). Instances of 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 41 percent of classrooms. Additionally, it was evident/very evident that students
“demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3) in 18 percent of classrooms.

Also, it was evident/very evident in 12 percent of classrooms that students “demonstrated and/or are engaged in
rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing,
applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4). Few students were observed who “understand and/or are able to explain
how their work was assessed” (E4), as it was evident/very evident in 18 percent of the classrooms.

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


Diagnostic Review Report

Students who “use digital tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) were
evident/very evident in 12 percent of classrooms. Also, instances of students who “use digital tools/technology to
conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for learning” (G2) were evident/very evident in
zero percent of classrooms. The observation data revealed it was evident/very evident in six percent of classrooms
that students “use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1).

Stakeholder Interview Data:


The stakeholder interview data revealed that the quality of instruction and classroom practices varied across the
school, although systems existed for all teachers to create and calibrate their instruction. The interview data
showed that teachers used data to monitor student readiness and success at the next level. However, it could not
be ascertained if these data were analyzed and to what degree the results were monitored for individualized
instructional value and trends. In addition, the team found no evidence to show that data were examined at a level
to alter instructional strategies.

The teacher interview data showed the curriculum was developed by Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) but
was inconsistently implemented and monitored. Also, the teacher interview data suggested that vertical team
planning existed but often did not provide clear content alignment or articulation of rigorous learner expectations
across grade levels. The interview data revealed that classroom observations did occur and feedback was provided
to the teachers. However, teachers indicated that the feedback was not always timely and beneficial, as instruction
continued unaltered for some period of time. The interview data revealed that professional learning community
(PLC) meetings had focused on data and next steps. Teachers shared the need for additional data training and
consistent PLC experiences that could help them with instructional rigor and personalized instruction.

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:


The survey data revealed that 80 percent of staff members 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). The data also revealed that 84 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). Also, 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). Seventy-three percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “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).

The survey data indicated 86 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child's teachers use a
variety of teaching strategies and learning activities” (E3), and 85 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that
“All of my child's teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction” (E4). Student survey data
indicated that 92 percent agreed with the statement, “In my school I am learning new things that will help me”
(C2), and 91 percent of students agreed that “My teachers help me learn things I will need in the future” (E1).
Additionally, 84 percent of students agreed that “My teachers tell me how I should behave and do my work” (E4).
The Diagnostic Review Team observed a disconnect among the survey, interview, and classroom observation data
related to using data-driven instructional strategies that engage students in rigorous activities and higher order
thinking skills.

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


Diagnostic Review Report

Documents and Artifacts:


A major concern of the Diagnostic Review Team was that while it was clear that data were discussed during the
PLC meetings, evidence was lacking for how the data informed instructional decisions, promoted innovation,
increased professional learning, and promoted higher student achievement. A review of the School Quality Factors
(SQF) self-assessment showed that some learners engaged in rigorous activities and higher order thinking skills but
that the practice was only partially embedded in the institutional culture. The SQF self-assessment also reported
that some learners sometimes set challenging goals for learning that they established on their own or
collaboratively with teachers. A review of PLC meeting templates revealed the templates were not consistently
completed. Many PLC meeting records included data but lacked the completion of the analysis or reflection of
change in the practice section of the template. PLC meeting documentation showed a lack of consistency in the
types of documents saved by each grade level within their team Google folders. Clear expectations for what should
be documented were not evident. In addition, clear expectations for the implementation of the workshop
instructional model or how it was monitored were not evident. The school’s assessment system was not formally
documented with clear expectations about how data were to be collected, when, and by whom, and also detailing
how data would be used and monitored.

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


Diagnostic Review Report

Improvement Priority #2
Develop, implement, and monitor a process to continuously assess programs for impact on student
learning. Use data to analyze the quality and fidelity of the implementation of programs and services to
inform decisions. (Standard 2.12)

Evidence:

Student Performance Data:


The student performance results from the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 K-PREP assessments, as detailed in an
addendum of this report, revealed that Slaughter Elementary School performed below the state average in every
content area for the last two years. A detailed analysis of student performance data was addressed in
Improvement Priority #1, and these data were among the data considered when developing Improvement Priority
#2.

Stakeholder Interview Data:


The teacher interview data indicated that the Exceptional Child Education (ECE) and Program Service Plan (PSP)
teacher and student schedules were “All over the place,” resulting in a schedule revision that allowed students to
receive services in the core classroom setting. Teacher interview data indicated that this reallocation of resources
to ensure equity and efficiency was a good first step in assessing programs and organizational conditions to
improve student learning. The interview data indicated no formal training for effective “push-in” services or
specific co-teaching models was identified for implementation.

The interview data showed that teachers could not articulate how the English Learner program was monitored for
effectiveness. While interview data revealed that stakeholders referenced decisions regarding programs to be
purchased or implemented, the school leader and teacher interview data provided no evidence that action
research was conducted or of the evaluation process used to make these decisions. The interview data indicated
that a “revamp” of the Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS) was done, which clarified expectations, groupings,
and strategies. The data revealed a lack of a clear, systematic protocol for progress monitoring and determining
the flow of students among tiers.

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:


The survey data revealed that the school used assessment results for continuous improvement. For example, 89
percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school uses multiple assessment
measures to determine student learning and school performance” (G1). In addition, 87 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school employs consistent assessment measures across classrooms and courses”
(G2). Eighty-eight percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school has a systematic process for
collecting, analyzing, and using data” (G3). The survey data also revealed that 81 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school ensures all staff members are trained in the evaluation, interpretation,
and use of data” (G4), and 95 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school leaders monitor data related to
student achievement” (G6).

Documents and Artifacts:


Although data, such as from Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) and Common Formative Assessments (CFA),
were collected and analyzed, a formal process to systematically collect and analyze data and use the findings to
measure program effectiveness, organizational conditions, and improvement of student learning was not provided

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


Diagnostic Review Report

to the team as evidence. A review of documents and artifacts revealed a lack of evidence that stipulated how
instructional programs, resources, and practices were evaluated for effectiveness. Additionally, there was minimal
documented evidence that showed longitudinal results were used to evaluate instructional programs and
organizational practices regarding the impact on the progress of student achievement. Although there was
evidence of multiple instructional programs used by the school, a formalized cycle and timeline to evaluate
academic and organizational programs and services were not evident.

© Advance Education, Inc. 17 www.advanc-ed.org


Diagnostic Review Report

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:

Parents, teachers, support staff, and the administrative team at Slaughter Elementary School demonstrated a
sense of pride in their school and community. Staff members were committed to and cared deeply about their
students. A positive school culture was noted, including a collegial professional atmosphere among staff. The
principal was focused on creating a positive school culture. District administrators, staff members, parents, and
students all expressed confidence and support for the school leadership team and were optimistic that the school
was working to establish high expectations for all students. The Diagnostic Review Team observed a supportive,
well-managed learning environment and a well-maintained, clean, and inviting facility. Many resources were
available at the school, which allowed the leadership team to implement different programs and provide teachers
with additional support to meet the unique needs of their individual students. The Diagnostic Review Team
observed and found evidence of exemplary teaching practices within some core content classrooms and observed
teachers and school leaders who were committed to making the improvements necessary to achieve the academic
success of all students. Students were treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. It was evident, for example,
that staff members consistently implemented a school wide student behavior management system (Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports). It was evident that teachers feel comfortable discussing ideas and
reflections with administration. The team noted that the administration takes risks in learning with staff without
fear of feedback or difference of opinions. It was observed that students spoke and interacted respectfully with
teachers and each other.

Continuous Improvement Process:


The interview and survey data, a review of documents and artifacts, and classroom observation data indicated that
school leaders and teachers had no institutionalized, documented systems for planning, quality implementation,
monitoring, and continuous evaluation of programs and practices. Thus, the improvement priorities identified by
the team are related to a process that ensures rigorous instructional practices and program evaluation. The
Diagnostic Review Team observed learning environments, reviewed documents and artifacts, and interviewed
stakeholders to find some emerging instructional program implementation and professional learning activities at

© Advance Education, Inc. 18 www.advanc-ed.org


Diagnostic Review Report

Slaughter Elementary School. Many of these learning activities were well-conceived and beneficial for increased
student achievement.
Staff members and school leaders embraced their core belief that all students can attain academic and social
excellence when they are met where they are. However, no documentation showed that staff members had
access to the targeted professional learning activities that would prepare them to realize this core belief. Also, to
provide the level of instruction necessary to meet the individual needs of students and the learning expectations of
the school, school leaders should establish and implement systematic, documented processes for monitoring and
adjusting instruction based on the rigor of Kentucky Academic Standards (KAS) and current research regarding the
effectiveness of instructional practices and student learning needs. This instruction could include frequent
classroom observations; consistent, meaningful, and targeted feedback; follow-up observations and ongoing
support; and data-driven decisions to identify and address individual student academic needs.

While many positive initiatives are being implemented, a focus on a few priorities with consistent monitoring and
data analysis to inform instructional change will support effectiveness and the desired outcome. Additionally,
streamlining and formalizing the PLC process, to ensure standards mastery through assessment reviews and
adjustments would potentially provide immediate, positive, and productive collegial experiences. A systematic
approach would allow for continual connections, consistent implementation of research-based and rigorous
instructional practices, reliable and actionable data analysis, and consistent student programing and high-yield
strategies for instructional success. Documentation of processes, monitoring, and evaluation would provide for
replicable outcomes and situational adjustments as required.

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.

© Advance Education, Inc. 19 www.advanc-ed.org


Diagnostic Review 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
Rhonda Long Mrs. Long is a lifelong educator with 31 years of formal educational experiences,
which include serving as a principal from preschool to high school, adult
education supervisor, and a career and technical education coordinator. She has
served as a mentor to aspiring educators and administrators throughout
Tennessee. Mrs. Long has served as a team member on several Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools Leadership teams. Her vast educational
experiences have afforded her many professional development opportunities.
She was chosen as a participant in Diversity Leadership training at the National
Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Additionally, she was selected for STEM
education training by the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. She was a
recipient of the Tennessee Commissioner’s Award of Excellence in Adult
Education. Other awards include being named Hickman County Tennessee
Chamber of Commerce Boss of the Year and Maury County Tennessee Principal
of the Year. Mrs. Long received her bachelor’s degree and master’s + degrees in
administration and supervision from Austin Peay State University.

Kevin Gay Kevin Gay moved into the role of Education Recovery Leader for the Kentucky
Department of Education (KDE) in July of 2014. He began this role at Lee County
High School and is currently serving in that capacity at Breathitt High School.
Previously, Mr. Gay served as principal at Leslie County High School for five
years from 2009-2014, where he led the school from priority to distinguished
status. Mr. Gay began his educational career as a social studies teacher and
head football coach at Leslie County Middle School. His experiences also include
principal at Hayes Lewis Elementary and Big Creek Elementary. Mr. Gay earned
his Rank I in supervision with certification for superintendent, supervisor of
instruction, and director of pupil personnel from Eastern Kentucky University.
He received his master’s degree in educational leadership and his bachelor’s
degree in history. He is affiliated with the Kentucky Department of Education
School Turnaround Training, Kentucky Leadership Academy, National Institute of
School Leaders, and Kentucky Association of School Administrators. Mr. Gay has
been a lifelong resident of southeastern Kentucky and strives to create positive
change in educational policy and processes.

© Advance Education, Inc. 20 www.advanc-ed.org


Diagnostic Review Report

Team Member Name Brief Biography


Ruth Swanson Mrs. Swanson is an Education Administration Program Consultant with the
Kentucky Department of Education. She supports schools and educational
agencies in the development, coordination, implementation, and monitoring of
state and federal programs. Ruth has experience as a teacher, administrator,
program coordinator, and adjunct instructor. Her 30 year career has been
dedicated to programs and processes that support at-risk learners. Mrs.
Swanson holds a bachelor’s degree in elementary education, a master’s degree
in curriculum and instruction, and a master’s degree in school administration.

Jan Stone Jan Stone is currently the director of assessment, data, and research for Bullitt
County Public Schools. Prior to her position with Bullitt County, she served as a
Highly Skilled Educator with the Kentucky Department of Education. She has 27
years of experience as a teacher and an administrator. Mrs. Stone holds a
bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, and a Rank 1. She also holds certification
as supervisor of instruction and is National Board Certified.

© Advance Education, Inc. 21 www.advanc-ed.org


Diagnostic Review Report

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: School and Student Proficiency and Separate Academic Indicator Result

Content Area %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
“All Student “All Student Group”
Group”
Reading 3rd 28.8 55.8 25.9 52.3

Reading 4th 20.3 49.9 30.4 53.7

Reading 5th 31.1 57.3 27.3 57.8

Math 3rd 25.8 50.9 27.6 47.3

Math 4th 43.0 47.9 27.5 47.2

Math 5th 39.2 48.9 48.1 52.0

Science 4th N/A 13.0 30.8

Social Studies 5th 33.8 60.0 18.2 53.0

Writing 5th 37.8 45.9 33.8 40.5

Plus

• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade math increased from 39.2
percent in 2016-2017 to 48.1 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of fourth-grade students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in math in 2016-2017 was 43.
The percentage of fifth-grade students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in math in 2017-2018 increased to
48.1.
Delta

• The percentages of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in all content areas and at all grade levels
were below the state averages in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade reading was 30.5 percentage
points below the state average.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade social studies was 34.8
percentage points below the state average.

© Advance Education, Inc. 22 www.advanc-ed.org


Diagnostic Review Report

Section II:
Student Growth Index (2017-2018)

Content Area Index State Index

Reading 17.9 19.7

Math 11.9 14.5

EL 26.8 31.9

Growth Indicator 14.9 17.1

Plus

Delta

• All growth index scores were below the state index.

Section III: Gap Group Scores for 2017-2018 % P/D

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing


%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D

Female 34.0 36.2 13.9 7.5 37.5


Male 22.7 34.5 12.1 29.7 29.7
White 44.0 40.0 30.0 20.0
African American 23.9 28.4 4.5 11.5 30.8
Hispanic 24.3 38.8 11.4 20.5 41.0
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races
Title I 27.9 35.3 13.0 18.2 33.8
Migrant
Homeless
Foster
Military
English Learner (EL) 16.9 23.4 7.4 8.0 20.0
English Learner plus 25.0 35.6 15.2 14.0 32.6
Monitored

© Advance Education, Inc. 23 www.advanc-ed.org


Diagnostic Review Report

Economically 25.4 33.1 11.3 16.9 33.8


Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 12.1 9.1 8.3
(Total)
Disability-With IEP (No 11.1 17.4
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with
Accommodation
Consolidated Student 24.6 33.9 9.7 15.9 34.8
Group

Plus

• The percentage of Hispanic students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in writing was 41.

Delta

• In the African-American gap group, 4.5 percent of students scored Proficient/Distinguished in science.
• In the Disability with IEP (Total) gap group, 12.1 percent of students scored Proficient/Distinguished in
reading.
• In the English Learner (EL) gap group, 16.9 percent of students scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading.

© Advance Education, Inc. 24 www.advanc-ed.org


Diagnostic Review Report

Schedule

Date
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m– Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
4:30 .m. 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

Date
Time Event Where Who
7:15 a.m. – Team arrives at Slaughter Elementary School School office Diagnostic
7:40 a.m. Review Team
Members
7:40 a.m. – Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact School Diagnostic
4:00 p.m. Review Review Team
Members
4:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
5:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 Hotel Diagnostic
9:00 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members

Date
Time Event Where Who
7:30 a.m. – Team arrives at Slaughter Elementary School School Diagnostic
7:45 a.m. Review Team
Members
7:45 a.m. – Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact School Diagnostic
4:00 p.m. Review Review Team
Members
4:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
5:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 Hotel Diagnostic
8:00 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members

Date
Time Event Where Who
8:00 a.m. – Final Team Work Session School Diagnostic
10:30 a.m. Review Team
Members

© Advance Education, Inc. 25 www.advanc-ed.org


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.

You might also like