Cochran Elem Final DR Report 2018-2019

February 11–14, 2019
Results for: Gavin H. Cochran 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 .................................................................................................................. 19
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 20
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 21
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 23
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 23
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 26
© Advance Education, Inc. 2 www.advanc-ed.org

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

District-level Administrators 1
Building-level Administrators 2
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology Coordinator) 5
Certified Staff 13
Non-certified Staff 7
Students 21
Parents 4
Total 53

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

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

The capacity of leadership to ensure an institution’s progress toward its stated objectives is an essential element of
organizational effectiveness. An institution’s leadership capacity includes the fidelity and commitment to its
purpose and direction, the effectiveness of governance and leadership to enable the institution to realize its stated
objectives, the ability to engage and involve stakeholders in meaningful and productive ways, and the capacity to
implement strategies that improve learner and educator performance.
Leadership Capacity Standards Rating
1.1 The institution commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching Meets
and learning, including the expectations for learners. Expectations
1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces Needs
evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and Improvement
professional practice.
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve Needs
professional practice and organizational effectiveness. Improvement
1.7 Leaders implement operational process and procedures to ensure organizational 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 Meets
effectiveness. Expectations
1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder Emerging
groups to inform decision-making that results in 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 Emerging
and learning priorities established by the institution.
2.2 The learning culture promotes creativity, innovation and collaborative problem- Emerging
solving.
2.5 Educators implement a curriculum that is based on high expectations and prepares Emerging
learners for their next levels.
2.7 Instruction is monitored and adjusted to meet individual learners’ needs and the Emerging
institution’s learning expectations.
2.9 The institution implements, evaluates, and monitors processes to identify and Meets
address the specialized social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs of Expectations
students.
2.10 Learning progress is reliably assessed and consistently and clearly communicated. Meets
Expectations
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

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 Emerging
collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational
effectiveness.
3.4 The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s Exceeds
purpose and direction. Expectations
3.7 The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long- Emerging
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and
direction.
3.8 The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the Meets
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and Expectations
organizational effectiveness.

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

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

A. Equitable Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 2.1 45% 20% 15% 20%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 3.6 0% 5% 35% 60%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
A3 3.5 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 0% 5% 40% 55%
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 2.4 25% 25% 40% 10%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.9
B. High Expectations Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

B1 2.3 15% 45% 35% 5%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

B2 2.7 0% 50% 35% 15%
but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 2.2 20% 50% 20% 10%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

B4 2.5 tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., 10% 40% 40% 10%
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

B5 2.8 10% 20% 50% 20%
learning.
point scale: 2.5

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 3.2 0% 15% 55% 30%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 3.2 0% 5% 70% 25%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or

C3 3.3 0% 15% 45% 40%
other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 3.4 0% 0% 65% 35%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale: 3.2
D. Active Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other

D1 3.0 0% 30% 40% 30%
and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 2.6 20% 25% 35% 20%
experiences.
D3 3.2 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 0% 15% 55% 30%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 3.0 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 5% 25% 40% 30%
assignments.
point scale: 2.9

E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 2.5 5% 50% 35% 10%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

E2 2.8 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 0% 35% 50% 15%
and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

E3 2.4 5% 60% 25% 10%
lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

E4 2.0 35% 40% 15% 10%
work is assessed.
point scale: 2.4
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and

F1 3.3 0% 5% 60% 35%
each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

F2 3.2 0% 15% 55% 30%
rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

F3 3.0 5% 30% 30% 35%
to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

F4 3.1 0% 30% 35% 35%
time or disruptions.
point scale: 3.1

G. Digital Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate,
G1 1.4 65% 30% 5% 0%
and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

G2 1.3 80% 15% 5% 0%
solve problems, and/or create original works for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

G3 1.2 80% 20% 0% 0%
work collaboratively for learning.
point scale: 1.3
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team collected data in 20 core content classroom settings. Data from classroom
observations revealed several strengths. First, students generally were well-behaved and followed classroom rules.
For example, in 85 percent of classrooms, students who “demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom rules
and behavioral expectations and work well with others” (F2) were evident/very evident. In addition, instances of
students who “speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and each other” (F1) were evident/very evident in
95 percent of classrooms. In 100 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “demonstrate a
congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher” (C4).
The classroom observation data showed that most instruction was center-based. The team typically observed
students working in small groups of two to four students. It was evident/very evident in 70 percent of classrooms
that “learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other and teacher predominate” (D1) and that “learners
collaborate with their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments” (D4).
Observation data revealed it was evident/very evident in 85 percent of classrooms that students were “actively
engaged in the learning activities” (D3). Although students had opportunities to work in collaborative groups, it
was evident/very evident in 35 percent of classrooms, for instance, that students engaged “in differentiated
learning opportunities and/or activities that [met] their needs” (A1).
Another concern related to the lack of high academic expectations in all classrooms, as it was evident/very evident
in 30 percent of classrooms that students demonstrate and/or were “able to describe high quality work” (B3). The
observation data further revealed it was evident/very evident in 50 percent of classrooms that students engaged in
“rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that [required] the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing,
applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4). It was evident/very evident in 40 percent of classrooms that students
strove to meet or were able to “articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher”
(B1). In addition, it was evident/very evident in 50 percent of classrooms that students engaged in “activities and
learning that [were] challenging but attainable” (B2). Collectively, these findings illustrate the need to establish
high academic expectations and instruction that embeds the appropriate level of rigor.
Likewise, observers noted it was evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms that students understood
“and/or [were] able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4). In addition, the team noted that students rarely

used rubrics or examples of high-quality work to guide their learning and help them understand the attributes of
proficiency. Instances of students who demonstrated and/or verbalized “understanding of the lesson/content”
(E3) were evident/very evident in 35 percent of classrooms.
The overall rating for the Digital Learning Environment was 1.3 on a four-point scale, which made it the lowest-
rated of the seven learning environments. Students who used “digital tools/technology to communicate and work
collaboratively for learning” (G3) were evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms. Also, instances of
students who used “digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for
learning” (G2) were evident/very evident in five percent of classrooms. Additionally, the data revealed that in five
percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students used “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 with little depth, differentiation, and rigor. Low scores for items within this learning
environment provide an opportunity to systemically increase the depth and breadth of student use of technology
to conduct research, solve problems, and create original work with a level of rigor that these tools enhance.
A careful examination of all items is warranted to identify additional areas that can be leveraged to increase
instructional capacity and improve student learning. In addition, the Improvement Priorities outlined within this
report can help prioritize 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
Systemically implement and monitor the existing supervision and evaluation system with fidelity. Establish
consistent and ongoing mechanisms to provide immediate, meaningful, and actionable feedback to teachers to
improve professional practice, increase student learning, and student performance. (Standard 1.6)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, revealed that the percentage of
students who scored Proficient/Distinguished on the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-
PREP) was significantly below the state average in all assessed areas and at all grade levels in 2017-2018.
Additionally, the percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade writing was significantly
below the state average in 2017-2018 and decreased from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. In addition, the Growth Index
in reading was 14.5 compared to the state Index of 19.7. The index in math was 13.2 compared to the state index
of 14.5., and the Growth Indicator was 13.9 compared to the state Growth Indicator of 17.1.
Additionally, the percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading was well below the state level.
For example, in third-grade reading the percentage was 27.1 compared to the state average of 52.3; in fourth-
grade reading the percentage was 25.5 compared to the state average of 53.7; and in fifth-grade reading the
percentage was 28.3 compared to the state average of 57.8 in 2017-2018. Reading scores in grades 3, 4, and 5 all
declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-
grade reading dropped significantly from 49 percent in 2016-2017 to 28.3 percent in 2017-2018.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, suggested the school did not monitor the
implementation of high-yield instructional practices and/or strategies (e.g., differentiation, higher order thinking
skills, student-centered technology). The data revealed that all 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 engaged in “differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that [met] their needs” (A1).
Instances of students who met or were able to “articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or
the teacher” (B1) were evident/very evident in 40 percent of classrooms. Additionally, it was evident/very evident
that students demonstrated and/or were “able to describe high quality work” (B3) in 30 percent of classrooms.
Students who used “digital tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) were
evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms. Also, instances of students who used “digital tools/technology
to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for learning” (G2) and “digital tools/technology
to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1) were evident/very evident in five percent of
classrooms.

Stakeholder Interview Data:

The interview data revealed that although systems existed for all teachers to create and calibrate their instruction,
the quality of instruction and classroom practices varied across the school. Interview data showed that many
teachers made upbeat comments about collaboration, resource availability, mentoring, and positive instructional
affirmation. Additionally, the survey data showed that 84 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with
the statement, “Our school’s leaders regularly evaluate staff members on criteria designed to improve teaching
and learning” (D7). Many teachers, however, expressed that leadership did not consistently provide feedback
through a formal observation and evaluation process. Few teachers could explain the formal or current informal
evaluation process as it related to obtaining feedback about instructional strategies, processes, and procedures.
Additionally, the teacher interview data showed that teachers received individual feedback following informal
observations; however, the Diagnostic Review Team found no planning process or system check that monitored
whether teachers applied the feedback to their instructional practices. Also, interview data showed that staff
members could not produce evaluation documents or articulate when evaluations were scheduled. The data
indicated that teachers could not confirm that they were observed regularly and formally, were trained on the
evaluation process, or received formal, timely, and actionable feedback to improve their instructional practices.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The survey data revealed that 84 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “School
leaders regularly evaluate staff members on criteria designed to improve teaching and learning” (D7). Additionally,
82 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school's leaders ensure all staff members use
supervisory feedback to improve student learning” (D8). Seventy percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed
that “In our school, a formal process is in place to support new staff members in their professional practice” (E16).
The Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning (Tell) survey data for the School Leadership section showed
similar findings. For example, results indicated strong agreement about teacher performance and evaluation by
leadership. For the question Q7.1g, “Teacher performance is assessed objectively,” the data showed that 95
percent agreed. In response to question Q7.1h, “Teachers receive feedback that can help them improve teaching,”
the results indicated that 100 percent agreed; for Q7.1“The procedures for teacher evaluation are consistent,” 100
percent of respondents agreed. Results from the Tell survey for School Leadership Q7.3i “New teacher support,”
indicated that 100 percent of respondents agreed.
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of documents and artifacts uncovered no evidence that evaluations were analyzed or that findings were
used to improve organizational effectiveness. The team did not see a written supervision and evaluation plan or
find evidence that the school consistently implemented such a plan for all staff or evidence that supervisors and
staff members were trained on such a plan.
Although the survey results indicated agreement that formal or informal observations occurred and feedback was
provided, the student performance data, observations data, teacher and principal interview data, and a review of
documents failed to corroborate that. Collectively, findings indicated the school did not establish formal systems
to evaluate and provide consistent and meaningful feedback to teachers.

Develop, implement, and document formal processes to continuously evaluate all academic and organizational
programs and services, using student performance data and research-based criteria to generate evidence. Use
findings to ensure programs and services are implemented effectively and with fidelity. Also, formally document
and communicate evaluation results used to make data-based decisions (e.g., adjust, add, or eliminate programs,
practices, initiatives). (Standard 2.12)
Evidence:

The Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) results for Cochran Elementary School
students, as detailed in an addendum to this report, suggested that the school did not establish an effective
process to monitor and adjust all programs, initiatives, services, and processes in order to increase organizational
and teacher capacity. The student performance data revealed the percentage of students who scored
Proficient/Distinguished was significantly below the state average in all assessed areas for “All Students” in 2017-
2018. The student performance data were among those data considered to develop Improvement Priority #2.

The stakeholder interview data revealed that teachers and administrators could not define or explain their process
for monitoring the effectiveness of the curriculum in meeting the rigor of the Kentucky Academic Standards. The
interview data further revealed that teachers could not articulate or describe the curriculum review process used
at the school. The data indicated that professional learning community (PLC) groups were established and met
weekly to discuss student work, common assessments, trends, and Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) systems.
While most teachers acknowledged PLC meetings occurred, no evidence showed that data reviewed during the
meetings were used to evaluate instructional effectiveness. Interview data indicated that the Measures of
Academic Progress (MAP) data were used during 2018-2019 for student intervention processes. Interview data
also revealed that although MAP assessments were administered several times throughout the school year,
teachers seldom used the results to modify instructional practices (e.g., differentiated teaching and learning). Also,
the interview data revealed that teachers used state standards to create grade-level common assessments in
reading and math. According to the observation and interview data, common assessments were reviewed for item
analysis and monitored for student progress. The interview data showed that Guided Reading was initiated in
2018-2019 and follow-up training was planned for 2018-2019 to address low student performance in reading
based on 2017-2018 K-PREP data.

The survey data revealed strong agreement regarding the use of assessment results for continuous improvement.
For example, the data showed that 98 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, 92 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school employs consistent assessment
measures across classrooms and courses” (G2). Also, 91 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that
“Our school has a systematic process for collecting, analyzing, and using data” (G3). Eighty-eight percent of staff
members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school ensures all staff members are trained in the
evaluation, interpretation, and use of data” (G4), and 96 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that
“Our school leaders monitor data related to student achievement” (G6).


A review of documents and artifacts uncovered no evidence that instructional programs, resources, or practices
were evaluated for effectiveness. There was also no evidence that research/evidence-based instructional
programs, resources, and practices that directly affect student learning were evaluated using student performance
data. Additionally, the team found minimal evidence that longitudinal results were used to evaluate programs and
organizational practices and the resulting impact on the progress of student achievement. Although there was
evidence that the school used multiple instructional programs, a formalized cycle and timeline to evaluate
academic and organizational programs and services were not evident.

Develop, plan, communicate, implement, monitor, and evaluate a professional learning process that continuously
improves teaching and learning and organizational capacity. (Standard 3.1)
Evidence:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed that the school did not establish
an effective, ongoing process that ensures all staff members engage in professional learning that consistently
improves teaching and learning. The percent of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished on the Kentucky
Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018, except for fourth-
grade math. The student performance data were among the data examined when identifying Improvement Priority
#3.

The stakeholder interview data revealed that stakeholders were unable to provide formally documented evidence
that a professional development (PD) plan existed for 2018-2019 to continuously improve the learning
environment and student achievement. The stakeholder interview data did provide evidence that PD activities
were available to teachers upon request to the administration. Additionally, the data indicated that school leaders
provided a variety of offerings, such as learning that was onsite or online, as well as at the local, state, and national
levels. The stakeholder interview and observation data showed embedded PD was provided by the Goal Clarity
Coach, who led grade-level professional learning community (PLC) meetings based on common formative
assessments. Also, PLCs provided opportunities to address misconceptions and needs by grade and core-content
areas. The stakeholder interview data revealed that expert teachers supported teachers and other staff
responsible for direct instruction and student interventions. The interview data indicated the existence of some
peer coaching and opportunities for observation of instructional strategies and collaborations. Additionally, the
stakeholder interview data revealed the school brought in experts and/or professional authors (e.g., Jan
Richardson).

The stakeholder survey data revealed that staff members participated in professional development for continuous
improvement. The survey data, for example, showed 95 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the
statement, “Our school's leaders support an innovative and collaborative culture.” (D3). In addition, 70 percent of
staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, a formal process is in place to support new staff
members in their professional practice” (E16). Also, the survey data revealed that 87 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, all staff members participate in continuous professional learning based
on identified needs of the school” (E17). Eighty-one percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “In our
school, a professional learning program is designed to build capacity among all professional and support staff
members” (E18). In addition, 89 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my child's
teachers work as a team to help my child learn” (E5).

A review of documents and artifacts showed the lack of a formal, school wide professional development plan
implemented with fidelity. Additionally, the team found no evidence that professional development activities were
aligned to a continuous improvement plan. The school provided no documents describing data-driven professional

learning activities identified from an examination of professional practices and student learning. Finally, the team
was unable to verify that professional development monitoring and continuous evaluation were used to improve
instructional capacity of all teachers.

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 Cochran Elementary School demonstrated a sense
of pride in their school and community. Staff members expressed commitment to and deeply cared about their
students. The principal was focused on creating a positive school culture to lessen the impact of the high rate of
poverty and transient student populations. His belief that all students are valued and can learn also supports his
efforts in 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 they were working to
establish high expectations for all students. The Diagnostic Review Team observed a supportive, well-managed
learning environment and a well-maintained and aesthetically pleasing facility. Many resources available at the
school allowed the leadership team to implement different programs and provided teachers with additional
support to help them meet their individual students’ unique needs. The Diagnostic Review Team observed and
found evidence of exemplary teaching practices across the school and observed teachers and school leaders who
were committed to making the improvements necessary to achieve academic success for all students. Students
were treated in a fair and consistent manner. It was evident, for example, that staff members consistently
implemented a school wide student behavior management system. Team members observed students speaking
and interacting respectfully with teachers and one another.
Continuous Improvement Process:

The interview and survey data, a review of documents and artifacts, and the classroom observation data indicated
that school leaders and teachers did not institutionalize or document systems of planning, quality implementation
and monitoring, and continuous evaluation. The Diagnostic Review Team found no processes, outside of the
formal evaluation process, for observing classroom instruction, giving immediate and meaningful feedback, and
providing ongoing support and follow-up in order to increase teachers’ instructional capacity. From observations, a
review of documents and artifacts, and stakeholder interviews, the Diagnostic Review Team found some
evaluation, program implementation, and professional learning activities at Cochran Elementary School. Many of
these activities were well-conceived and beneficial to student achievement.

While staff members and school leaders embraced their core belief that academic and social excellence is
attainable for all students, systemic documentation was lacking that showed staff members had access to targeted
professional learning based on their individual professional needs that could prepare them to bring this belief to
fruition.
In order to provide the level of instruction necessary to meet the individual needs of students and the learning
expectations of the school, school leaders are encouraged to establish and implement systematic documented
processes for monitoring and adjusting instruction, based on the rigor of the Kentucky Academic Standards (KAS)
and current research regarding the effectiveness of instructional practices and student learning needs. This
instruction could include frequent classroom observations, meaningful and targeted feedback, follow-up
observations and ongoing support, and data-driven decisions to identify and address individual student academic
needs.
A systemic approach would allow for constant connections, consistent implementation of research-based and
rigorous instruction practices, reliable and actionable data analysis, and effective student programming and high-
yield strategies for instructional success. Documentation of the plan, processes, monitoring, and evaluation allows
for situational adjustments as needed to ensure all processes are interconnected and effective.
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

Dan A. Long Dan Long currently serves as an educational consultant providing contracted
services to states, local educational agencies, and schools. Mr. Long provides
services related to assessment and accountability systems, teacher and leader
evaluation, curriculum standards and assessment alignment, principal mentoring,
growth modeling, and eLearning. He has been an educator for over 30 years,
serving as a high school teacher, high school assistant principal, K-12 principal,
district secondary supervisor of instruction, district assessment supervisor, district
career technical supervisor, district IT supervisor, district assistant superintendent,
and Tennessee (TN) deputy and executive director for assessment. Dan was a
writer and implementer for TN’s Race to the Top successful proposal. Additionally,
he served as an advisor to the Southern Region Education Board technology
committee on eLearning. He also has served as the chairperson for the South
Central Supervisor’s Study Council, Executive Committee for the Tennessee
Supervisor’s Association, and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
Assessment Committee. Dan has served as a CCSSO State Department of
Education coach for Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Utah, Vermont, Virgin
Islands, and Washington. He has provided direct assessment and accountability
assistance to the states of Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Mississippi, and Nevada. Mr.
Long holds a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree, certification in
administration and supervision, and curriculum and instruction certifications.
Dr. Lisa Carroll Dr. Lisa Carroll has served over 27 years in education. Dr. Carroll is currently
serving as an Education Recovery Leader for the Kentucky Department of
Education (KDE) where she is assigned to two Christian County elementary
schools. She is in her tenth year of school turnaround work with low-achieving
schools, having previously served three years as a Highly Skilled Educator. Dr.
Carroll completed her doctorate degree in education leadership from Morehead
State University in 2014 and has also taught principal preparation classes for the
University of the Cumberlands. She is a lifelong educator with a wide variety of
educational experience, including assistant superintendent for instruction,
districtwide curriculum specialist, K-12 principal, middle school principal, high
school assistant principal, and classroom teacher.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Denva Smith Denva Smith has over 20 years of experience as a teacher, literacy coach, and
district administrator. She is currently serving as Education Recovery Specialist for
the KDE. In that position, she works in a state-managed district to assist and
support staff in building sustainable core systems for school improvement and
student achievement. Mrs. Smith also serves three additional districts for Targeted
Support and Improvement (TSI) support to ensure regulations are in place for
comprehensive school and district improvement planning. Mrs. Smith holds
professional certificates for instructional leadership, supervisor of instruction, and
school superintendent, as well as an endorsement in teaching reading and writing.
She has a master’s degree and a bachelor’s degree in elementary education.
Heather Aldrich Heather Aldrich has worked for the Russell Independent School System for 26
years. Heather has enjoyed 12 years as an elementary classroom teacher and was
a National Board Certified Teacher. She had the pleasure of being the principal of
Russell-McDowell Intermediate School for 10 years. Currently, she is in her fourth
year as the chief academic officer and district assessment coordinator for Russell
Independent Schools. Additional roles are Site-Based Decision Making (SBDM)
coordinator and trainer, professional development coordinator, textbook
coordinator, teacher evaluation coordinator, and curriculum/instruction director.
Ms. Aldrich holds a Rank 1 certification in instructional leadership and supervision
from Morehead State University, a masters degree in instructional leadership-
principal from Marshall University, and a bachelor’s degree in elementary
education from Marshall University.

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: School and Student Proficiency and Separate Academic Indicator Results
Content Area %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
“All Student Group” “All Student Group”
rd
Reading 3 30.8 55.8 27.1 52.3
Reading 4th 27.8 49.9 25.5 53.7
Reading 5th 49.0 57.3 28.3 57.8
Math 3rd 46.2 50.9 27.1 47.3
Math 4th 24.1 47.9 29.1 47.2
Math 5th 59.2 48.9 21.7 52.0
Science 4th NA N/A 14.5 30.8
Social Studies 5th 63.3 60.0 20.0 53.0
Writing 5th 51.0 45.9 8.3 40.5
Plus
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in fourth-grade math increased from 24.1 in
2016-2017 to 29.1 in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade math was 59.2, which was
above the state average of 48.9 in 2016-2017.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in writing in 2016-2017 was 51, which was
above the state average of 45.9.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in social studies was 63.3 in 2016-2017,
which was above the state average of 60.
Delta
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading was below the state average in
grades three, four, and five in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading in grades three, four, and five
declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade reading dropped significantly
from 49 in 2016-2017 to 28.3 in 2017-2018.

• The percentages of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in third- and fourth-grade math was below
the state averages in both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in third-grade math dropped significantly
from 46.2 in 2016-2017 to 27.1 in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade math dropped from 59.2 in
2016-2017 to 21.7 in 2017-2018 and was below the state average in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in science was 16.3 percent below the state
average.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in writing dropped from 51 in 2016-2017 to
8.3 in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in social studies dropped from 63.3 in 2016-
2017 to 20 in 2017-2018.
• The percentages of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in writing and social studies were
significantly below the state averages in 2017-2018.
Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)

Content Area Index State Index
Reading 14.5 19.7
Math 13.2 14.5
EL NA 31.9
Growth Indicator 13.9 17.1
Plus
Delta
• The Student Growth Index in reading was below the State Index by 5.2 points.
• The Student Growth Index for math was below the State Index by 1.3 points.
Section III: 2017-18 Percentage Performance Data by Level

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Writing
%P/D %P/D %P/D Studies %P/D
%P/D
All Students 27.0 25.8 14.5 20.0 8.3
Female 27.6 22.4 20.8 17.2 6.9
Male 26.4 28.7 9.7 22.6 9.7
White 34.0 34.0 27.8 23.5 0.0
African American 21.8 16.1 3.6 20.0 14.3
Hispanic 40.0 60.0 NA NA NA
Asian NA NA NA NA NA

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D Studies %P/D
%P/D
American Indian or NA NA NA NA NA
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or NA NA NA NA NA
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races 27.3 27.3 NA NA NA
Title I 27.0 25.8 14.5 20.0 8.3
Migrant NA NA NA NA NA
Homeless NA NA NA NA NA
Foster NA NA NA NA NA
Military NA NA NA NA NA
English Learner (EL) NA NA NA NA NA
English Learner plus NA NA NA NA NA
Monitored
Economically 24.1 22.7 4.3 21.8 9.1
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented NA NA NA NA NA
Disability-With IEP 13.3 6.7 NA 7.1 7.1
(Total)
Disability-With IEP 12.5 NA NA NA NA
(No Alt)
Disability (no ALT) 20.0 NA NA NA NA
with Accommodation
Consolidated Student 22.7 19.3 7.1 17.4 10.9
Group
Plus
• Hispanic students outperformed all other groups of students in both reading and math.
• African-American students performed the same as All Students in social studies (20/20).
• African-American students outperformed All Students in writing (14.3/8.3).
• Economically Disadvantaged students outperformed the All Students group in social studies (21.8/20.0).
• Economically Disadvantaged students outperformed the All Students group in writing (9.1/8.3).
Delta
• Students in all Disability groups scored below the All Students group in all areas.
• African-American students performed below the All Students group in all areas except social studies and
writing.
• Economically Disadvantaged students performed below the All Students group in all areas except social
studies and writing..
• The Consolidated Student Group performed below the All Students group in all areas except writing.

Schedule
Monday, February 11, 2019
Time Event Where Who
3:30 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:00 p.m. – Principal Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
4:45 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:45 p.m. – Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Tuesday, February 12, 2019

8:15 a.m. Team arrives at Cochran Elementary School School office Diagnostic
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.
Room Members
Wednesday, February 13, 2019

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Cochran Elementary School School Diagnostic
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.
Room Members
Thursday, February 14, 2019

8:00 a.m. – Final Team Work Session School Diagnostic
10:30 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.

Cochran Elem Final DR Report 2018-2019

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cochran Elem Final DR Report 2018-2019

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

February 11–14, 2019

Results for: Gavin H. Cochran Elementary School

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

Stakeholder Groups Number

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

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

Leadership Capacity Domain

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

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

Learning Capacity Domain

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

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

Resource Capacity Domain

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

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

A. Equitable Learning Environment

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

© 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, and/or

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

D. Active Learning Environment

Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other

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 receive/respond to feedback (from

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

F. Well-Managed Learning Environment

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

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

G. Digital Learning Environment

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

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

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

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

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

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

Documents and Artifacts:

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