Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4
Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4
Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 5
Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7
eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 13
Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 13
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 18
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 19
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 20
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 22
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 22
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Introduction
The AdvancED Diagnostic Review is carried out by a team of highly qualified evaluators who examine the
institution’s adherence and commitment to the research aligned to AdvancED Standards. The Diagnostic Review
Process is designed to energize and equip the leadership and stakeholders of an institution to achieve higher levels
of performance and address those areas that may be hindering efforts to reach desired performance levels. The
Diagnostic Review is a rigorous process that includes the in-depth examination of evidence and relevant
performance data, interviews with stakeholders, and observations of instruction, learning, and operations.
Standards help delineate what matters. They provide a common language through which an education community
can engage in conversations about educational improvement, institution effectiveness, and achievement. They
serve as a foundation for planning and implementing improvement strategies and activities and for measuring
success. AdvancED Standards were developed by a committee composed of educators from the fields of practice,
research, and policy. These talented leaders applied professional wisdom, deep knowledge of effective practice,
and the best available research to craft a set of robust standards that define institutional quality and guide
continuous improvement.
The Diagnostic Review Team used the AdvancED Standards and related criteria to guide its evaluation, looking not
only for adherence to standards, but also for how the institution functioned as a whole and embodied the
practices and characteristics of quality. Using the evidence they gathered, the Diagnostic Review Team arrived at a
set of findings contained in this report.
As a part of the Diagnostic Review, stakeholders were interviewed by members of the Diagnostic Review Team
about their perspectives on topics relevant to the institution's learning environment and organizational
effectiveness. The feedback gained through the stakeholder interviews was considered with other evidence and
data to support the findings of the Diagnostic Review. The following table lists the numbers of interviewed
representatives of various stakeholder groups.
1.1 The institution commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching 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.
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
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.
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.
2.8 2.9
2.4 2.4 2.3
2.1
1.5
Environment Averages
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.
A3 2.7 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 6% 24% 65% 6%
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Not
Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.1
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.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.8
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Not
D3 2.6 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 6% 41% 41% 12%
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.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.3
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Not
Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.9
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Section II:
Student Growth Index (2017-2018)
EL 26.8 31.9
Plus
Delta
Plus
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.
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
About AdvancED
professionals in the world. Founded on more than 100 years of work in continuous improvement,
AdvancED combines the knowledge and expertise of a research institute, the skills of a management
consulting firm and the passion of a grassroots movement for educational change to empower
Pre-K-12 schools and school systems to ensure that all learners realize their full potential.
©Advance Education, Inc. AdvancED® grants to the Institution, which is the subject of the Engagement Review Report,
and its designees and stakeholders a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license, and release to
reproduce, reprint, and distribute this report in accordance with and as protected by the Copyright Laws of the United
States of America and all foreign countries. All other rights not expressly conveyed are reserved by AdvancED.