Olmsted Acad North Final DR Report 2018-2019

February 25–28, 2019
Results for: Frederick Law Olmsted Academy North

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 ............................................................................................................................. 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 13
Building-level Administrators 4
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology 8
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 33
Non-certified Staff 16
Students 67
Parents 4
Total 143

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 Needs
and learning, including the expectations for learners. Improvement
1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces Needs
evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and Improvement
professional practice.
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve Emerging
professional practice and organizational effectiveness.
1.7 Leaders implement operational process and procedures to ensure organizational Needs
effectiveness in support of teaching and learning. Improvement
1.8 Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the institution’s Needs
purpose and direction. Improvement
1.9 The institution provides experiences that cultivate and improve leadership Needs
effectiveness. Improvement
1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder Needs
groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement. Improvement

Learning Capacity Domain

The impact of teaching and learning on student achievement and success is the primary expectation of every
institution. An effective learning culture is characterized by positive and productive teacher/learner relationships;
high expectations and standards; a challenging and engaging curriculum; quality instruction and comprehensive
support that enable all learners to be successful; and assessment practices (formative and summative) that
monitor and measure learner progress and achievement. Moreover, a quality institution evaluates the impact of its
learning culture, including all programs and support services, and adjusts accordingly.
Learning Capacity Standards Rating
2.1 Learners have equitable opportunities to develop skills and achieve the content Needs
and learning priorities established by the institution. Improvement
2.2 The learning culture promotes creativity, innovation and collaborative problem- Needs
solving. Improvement
2.5 Educators implement a curriculum that is based on high expectations and prepares Needs
learners for their next levels. Improvement
2.7 Instruction is monitored and adjusted to meet individual learners’ needs and the Needs
institution’s learning expectations. Improvement
2.9 The institution implements, evaluates, and monitors processes to identify and Needs
address the specialized social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs of Improvement
students.
2.10 Learning progress is reliably assessed and consistently and clearly communicated. Needs
Improvement
2.11 Educators gather, analyze, and use formative and summative data that lead to Needs
demonstrable improvement of student learning. Improvement
2.12 The institution implements a process to continuously assess its programs and Needs
organizational conditions to improve student learning. Improvement

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 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 Emerging
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and
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 28 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
2.2 2.3
2.0 2.0 2.0
1.8 1.7
Environment Averages

A. Equitable Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 1.3 86% 4% 11% 0%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 2.8 4% 39% 36% 21%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
A3 2.6 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 4% 46% 36% 14%
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 1.3 86% 4% 7% 4%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.0
B. High Expectations Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high
B1 1.9 21% 64% 14% 0%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

B2 2.3 4% 68% 29% 0%
but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.4 61% 36% 4% 0%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

B4 2.2 tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., 18% 46% 32% 4%
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

B5 2.1 21% 46% 29% 4%
learning.
point scale:
2.0

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 2.1 18% 61% 11% 11%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 1.9 39% 32% 29% 0%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or

C3 2.3 4% 71% 14% 11%
other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.4 11% 43% 39% 7%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale:
2.2
D. Active Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other
D1 2.3 11% 64% 14% 11%
and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 1.6 61% 25% 7% 7%
experiences.
D3 2.4 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 4% 68% 18% 11%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 1.8 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 46% 25% 29% 0%
assignments.
point scale:
2.0

E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 1.4 68% 25% 4% 4%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

E2 2.2 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 11% 61% 29% 0%
and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

E3 2.2 7% 71% 18% 4%
lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

E4 1.4 64% 29% 7% 0%
work is assessed.
point scale:
1.8
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and
F1 2.6 7% 43% 36% 14%
each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

F2 2.5 11% 39% 39% 11%
rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

F3 1.9 39% 36% 18% 7%
to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

F4 2.0 25% 54% 18% 4%
time or disruptions.
point scale:
2.3

G. Digital Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate,
G1 2.1 36% 29% 25% 11%
and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

G2 1.4 75% 11% 11% 4%
solve problems, and/or create original works for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

G3 1.6 64% 11% 21% 4%
work collaboratively for learning.
point scale:
1.7
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team for Frederick Law Olmsted Academy North conducted 28 classroom observations in
core content classes, which provided sufficient insight into instructional practices and student learning across the
school. Of the seven learning environments, the Well-Managed Learning Environment received the highest overall
average rating of 2.3 on a four-point scale. The Digital Learning Environment had the lowest overall average rating
of 1.7, and the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment was the next lowest with a rating of 1.8.
Classroom observation data revealed four strengths. Occurrences in which learners had “equal access to classroom
discussions, activities, resources, technology, and support” (A2) were evident/very evident in 57 percent of
classrooms. In 50 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners were treated “in a fair, clear,
and consistent manner” (A3). It was evident/very evident in 50 percent of classrooms that learners spoke and
interacted “respectfully with teacher(s) and each other” (F1). It was also evident/very evident in 50 percent of
classrooms that learners demonstrated “knowledge of and/or [followed] classroom rules and behavioral
expectations and [worked] well with others” (F2).
The school was a recipient of the Verizon Innovative Schools Grant that provided iPads for all students. The
Diagnostic Review Team, however, seldom observed technology being used effectively by students to enhance
learning. Although the team observed students using technology in most classrooms, it was evident/very evident
in 15 percent of classrooms that learners used “digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems,
and/or create original works for learning” (G2). It was evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms that
learners used “digital tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3). Additionally, it
was evident/very evident in 36 percent of classrooms that learners used “digital tools/technology to gather,
evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1). The availability of technology for all students and the low
scores within this learning environment could serve as levers to increase student engagement in rigorous
instructional activities.
Other troubling findings from observation data included the four lowest items found within the Progress
Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment and the Equitable Learning Environment. In seven percent of
classrooms, for example, it was evident/very evident that learners understood and/or were able “to explain how

their work is assessed” (E4). It was evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms that learners monitored
“their own learning progress or [had] mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1).
Additionally, in 11 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners engaged “in differentiated
learning opportunities and/or activities that [met] their learning needs” (A1) and demonstrated and/or had
“opportunities to develop empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds,
cultures, and/or other human characteristics, conditions, and dispositions” (A4).
A deliberate and focused analysis of data from classroom observations for all items within the seven learning
environments by school staff and leaders will serve to identify additional areas that may be leveraged to improve
instructional capacity and student learning. The Improvement priorities delineated in this report will serve to guide
teachers and leaders with the development of a plan to 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
Implement a consistent and deliberate instructional planning process that embeds high-yield strategies (e.g.,
learning targets, exemplars, active learning, differentiation, higher-order thinking skills, student feedback) and
requires student collaboration and self-reflection and the development of critical thinking skills to ensure
personalized and equitable learning experiences. Monitor the impact of instructional strategies and adjust as
necessary to increase student learning. (Standard 2.1)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed that students at Frederick Law
Olmsted Academy North scored significantly below the state average in all content areas and at all grade levels on
the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) assessment. The percentages of students who
scored Proficient/Distinguished in sixth-grade reading and mathematics, seventh-grade reading, and eighth-grade
reading and writing rose slightly from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. Conversely, the percentages of students who
scored Proficient/Distinguished in seventh-grade and eighth-grade math decreased from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, suggested the school did not systematically implement
an instructional process that clearly informed students of expectations and standards of performance. Instances of
learners who strived “to meet or [were] able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or
the teacher” (B1) were evident/very evident in 14 percent of classrooms. The team noted that learners engaged in
“activities and learning that [were] challenging but attainable” (B2) were evident/very evident in 29 percent of the
classrooms. The team also found that learners who monitored “their own learning progress or [had] mechanisms
whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1) were evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms. An
area of concern for the team was the lack of instructional rigor and tasks that required higher order thinking.
Learners engaged “in rigorous coursework, discussions and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking
(e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4) were evident/very evident in 36 percent of classrooms.
Some students used technology “to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1), as it was
evident/very evident in 36 percent of classrooms. In addition, the team observed few students who used “digital
tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems and/or create original works for learning” (G2), as it was
evident/very evident in 15 percent of classrooms. These results suggested a need to establish a systematic
instructional process to leverage academic expectations.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data revealed that Frederick Law Olmsted Academy North leaders established systems
for monitoring and facilitating stakeholder input through the implementation of Admin Data Team (ADT);
Instructional Leadership Team (ILT); Administrative Team; Verizon Innovative Learning “A-Team’” Science,
Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics (STEAM) Team; and a writing committee. Staff Interview data

confirmed that not all teams met on a regular basis. Several staff members cited other duties and scheduling
conflicts that limited their participation (e.g., covering a class for a teacher who was absent). A few professional
staff members stated that they felt marginalized by the systems/structures that were implemented to address
monitoring and facilitating stakeholder input, as they were not invited to participate on a regular basis.
In addition, the interview data indicated that interventions were based on the academic needs of students.
Content area teams prioritized the needs of students and provided daily intervention during first period through a
class called What I Need (WIN). Moreover, students who needed Tier II instruction were pulled from their related
arts classes on Fridays. A review of the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) confirmed that content
area teams were supposed to monitor formative data (e.g., student work, common formative assessments [CFA],
and Measures of Academic Progress [MAP] data) and provide enrichment and remediation to improve student
mastery of essential standards through the WIN and Friday Tier II interventions. Many structures were available
through which staff members could use data to drive decisions and improve and monitor the quality of
interventions and Tier II Response to Intervention (RtI) implementation; however, Tier I (core) instruction was
seldom mentioned during staff interviews. Stakeholder interviews revealed that leaders conducted walkthroughs
and feedback was provided to staff members through email. Some staff members commented that the feedback
was seldom explicit. Most feedback lacked the specificity needed to target and improve instructional practices.
During interviews, staff members often discussed the different types of professional learning community (PLC)
meetings that occurred. Many staff members reported that they worked on similar tasks in all PLCs. Staff members
were concerned about student behavior and the academic learning gaps for many students. The interview data
suggested that teachers need support and help to meet the learning needs of all students. Some stakeholders
indicated that not all staff members participated in all facets of the PLC process and that committees did not
consistently meet.
School leaders described how teachers met weekly in content area grade-level teams to design instruction and
analyze learning outcomes. Departmental meeting discussions were generally about standards within and across
grade levels. Additionally, school leaders revealed that students had access to the STEAM magnet and the
engineering programs. Stakeholder interview data and classroom observation data revealed that the process was
not consistently understood and/or effectively implemented by all internal stakeholders. In addition, Tier I (core)
instruction was not yielding significant increases in the percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished on
the K-PREP assessment.
School leaders implemented systems and structures to address the continuous improvement cycle and
instructional needs of staff. Interview and classroom observation data, however, revealed that the process was
inconsistently and ineffectively implemented by internal stakeholders and did not result in improved student
performance.
During interviews, parents expressed support for the school and its program offerings. They reported being
pleased with the education their children were receiving. Parents were unaware that their participation was
identified as an area in need of improvement by several staff members. The team found minimal evidence of
systemic efforts to increase parental involvement.

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The survey data showed that 67 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All
teachers in our school monitor and adjust curriculum, instruction, and assessment based on data from the student
assessments and examination of professional practice” (E1). The data indicated that 55 percent of students
agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9). Similarly,
classroom observation data also showed that students seldom engaged in differentiated learning activities and/or
opportunities that met their needs. In addition, 50 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my
child's teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction” (E4) and 57 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). Sixty-seven percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that
“My school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2). Collectively, these findings
suggested a lack of challenging, rigorous curriculum, instructional practices, coursework, discussions, and learning
tasks that require the use of critical thinking skills. These findings also provide an opportunity to leverage job-
embedded professional learning and support for teachers to effectively implement Tier I core instruction.
Professional learning should focus on in-depth planning that targets the use of research-based instructional
strategies (e.g., learning targets, use of exemplars, active learning, differentiation, higher-order thinking skills) in
the instructional process.
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of documents and artifacts (e.g., Olmsted Academy North Plus/Delta, Comprehensive School
Improvement Plan [CSIP], 30-60-90 Day Plan, principal presentation, district monitoring presentation, teacher
coaching plan, system monitoring mechanism, teacher formative assessment action plans, content area team
expectations overview) confirmed the need for deliberate planning that embeds research-based instructional
strategies, ongoing monitoring, and specific feedback to strengthen Tier I core instruction.

Improvement Priority #2
Refine the process for instructional staff to consistently analyze formative and summative assessment data and
use the findings to verify learner progress and modify instructional practices in order to improve student learning.
Plan, implement, modify, and evaluate the effectiveness of core instruction based on an analysis of formative and
summative assessment data to ensure the core instruction meets individual learner needs and the learning
expectations of the school. (Primary Standard 2.11, Secondary Standard 2.7)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, indicated that Frederick Law Olmsted
Academy North performed significantly below the state average on the K-PREP assessment in all content areas for
two consecutive years (2016-2017 and 2017-2018). The percentage of students who scored
Proficient/Distinguished in seventh-grade mathematics dropped from 18.4 percent to 14.6 percent from 2016-
2017 to 2017-2018. The percentage of eighth-grade students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in mathematics
dropped from 22.2 percent in 2016-2017 to 11.3 percent in 2017-2018.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, indicated that students were rarely informed of how their
work would be assessed, which was shown by the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment
receiving an overall rating of 1.8 on the four-point scale. Learners who understood and/or were able “to explain
how their work is assessed” (E4) were evident/very evident in seven percent of classrooms. A concern of the
Diagnostic Review Team was that learners who monitored “their own learning progress or [had] mechanisms
whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1) were evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms. In
addition, students engaged “in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that [met] their needs” (A1)
were evident/very evident in 11 percent of classroom.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data revealed that content area team meetings were sporadic and not mandatory.
Additionally, stakeholders indicated that the professional learning community (PLC) protocol lacked structure,
consistency, and an expectation that all professional staff members participate. Stakeholder interview data
revealed many staff members could not describe how they used evidence from daily (short cycle) formative
assessments to make “in the moment” instructional adjustments.
The interview data showed that school leaders planned for the implementation of teacher PLCs to continue and
focus on short-cycle formative assessment techniques. School leaders verified that core instruction needed to
become an intentional focus. Also, school leaders agreed that curriculum needed to be taught at the level of rigor
in the standards and that essential standards and success criteria needed to be identified. School leaders discussed
the coaching protocol for new and struggling teachers. However, classroom observation data did not support a
positive correlation between coaching and effective classroom environments.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The stakeholder survey data revealed that 63 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement
“All teachers in our school use multiple types of assessments to modify instruction and to revise the curriculum”
(E7). Fifty-nine percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child's teachers use a variety of teaching
strategies and learning activities” (E3). Stakeholder perception data indicated that 55 percent of students

agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9). A review
of classroom observation data supported these findings. Teachers seldom engaged students in differentiated
learning opportunities.
Survey data indicated that 85 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement “Our school
uses multiple assessment measures to determine student learning and school performance” (G1). The data
revealed that 67 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides learning services for me
according to my needs” (E7). This discrepancy between the responses of staff members and students about
meeting student needs revealed a leverage point. The school could increase student achievement by providing
professional development designed to show teachers how to develop and use formative assessment data in order
to customize instruction and meet the individual needs of students.
Documents and Artifacts:

According to a review of documents, school leaders conducted learning walks; however, these observations did
not specifically provide data that show whether instructional changes were driven by daily (short cycle) formative
assessments. A review of content area team meeting minutes did not reveal that changes were made to
curriculum, instruction, or assessments based on data. The interview data did not confirm that a developed
protocol for mentoring new teachers was fully implemented. Teacher formative assessment action plans did not
include coaching with feedback to improve practice.
The Trifecta Implementation Plan stated that content area teams monitored formative data (i.e., student work,
CFA, MAP) and provided enrichment and remediation to ensure student growth toward mastery of essential
standards through the What I Need (WIN) and Friday Tier II interventions. The plan also indicated that data
analysis occurred in PLCs, with attention to achievement gaps. The Diagnostic Review Team reviewed PLC data
analysis meeting agendas but found no meeting minutes or next steps. The Instructional Leadership Team (ILT)
notes indicated that a lack of monitoring and clear expectations around content area team work resulted in
inconsistencies.

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:
The leadership team, teachers, and support staff demonstrated a genuine commitment to the students at
Frederick Law Olmsted Academy North. Stakeholder interviews with parents and students revealed they supported
the school and its vision. Parents reported that their children were receiving a good education and were excited
with the school-wide implementation and use of technology. Parents also discussed the related arts program as
another area they supported.
The Diagnostic Review Team observed adult supervision throughout the building and when students transitioned
between classes, which contributed to a safe, orderly, and equitable learning environment. Stakeholders
acknowledged the important role that non-certified staff members had in student learning. Also permeating the
school was a sense of pride, comradery, and support for each member of the team and job-related role they
played in improving the learning environment.
The principal and his leadership team established structures and systems designed to facilitate conversations and
solicit input from internal stakeholders. The principal was knowledgeable with clear expectations as to how the
systems/structures should function to improve student achievement. These systems and structures also addressed
the mechanisms designed to support teachers, students, and the instructional process.
Continuous Improvement Process:

The interview and survey data and a review of documents and artifacts indicated that structures and systems were
designed to support the continuous improvement and decision-making processes. Inconsistent implementation
and lack of adherence to the processes, however, were barriers to maximizing instructional and organizational
capacity. While leaders and staff members supported the school’s vision of all students being engaged, inspired,
empowered, and prepared for college and career, professional development activities and ongoing support for
professional staff members were inconsistently available.
Classroom observation, interview, and stakeholder perception data validated that students rarely engaged in
personalized or differentiated learning, rigorous instruction, or discussions that required higher-order thinking. In
addition, teachers inconsistently monitored student learning and seldom provided meaningful feedback to
students about their learning progress. Finally, teachers did not routinely use high-yield strategies.

Intervention instruction was provided to students during the daily What I Need (WIN) period and the Response to
Intervention (RTI) Friday Tier II interventions. Over the last two years, leaders restructured the process to ensure
that data-driven decision making drives the instructional process. Instructional materials were provided that
specifically support intervention instruction, using computer programs such as Study Island and ST Math. Interview
data showed that some leaders and teachers reported the use of student work, CFAs, Measures of Academic
Progress (MAP), and state assessment data to guide interventions; however, stakeholders did not refer to using
those tools for guiding daily core instruction. The Diagnostic Review Team suggests the school provide job-
embedded professional development (i.e., ongoing coaching cycle) for all teachers, rather than only addressing the
learning needs of novice or struggling staff members. Specifically, the team encourages school leadership to
provide teachers professional development in classroom management, effective instructional practices, and the
use of instructional technology.
A review of stakeholder perception data indicated that parents and students were not routinely engaged in efforts
to support the achievement of the school’s purpose and direction. In contrast, during stakeholder interviews, most
leaders, teachers, and support staff revealed that parental involvement was an area of concern. Stakeholders
described multiple attempts annually to get input and increase parental involvement at the school, but the
interview data showed that internal stakeholders perceived most attempts to increase parental involvement were
unsuccessful. A review of the school and district websites revealed links to pages providing all types of information
for parents. The information was in English on both websites although the school and district had a significant
number of English learners (EL), and no options were found to translate the information into other languages. The
district website had two sections with links to information on Language Services and English as a Second Language
Services. In addition, there was an option for Over-the-Phone (OPI) interpreting services to help non-English
speaking parents resolve issues or get questions answered. However, all information was provided in English;
contact information was provided for parents via email and telephone numbers. Collectively, these data suggest
that improving parent involvement and communication could serve as a lever to increase family engagement.
The team suggests that the school provide intentional coaching and mentoring for teachers to maximize the
implementation of high-yield instructional practices that will ensure continued growth toward proficiency and
facilitate school improvement. Finally, the Diagnostic Support Team suggests the school provide support to help all
classroom teachers effectively analyze data so that they can differentiate instruction and implement deliberate in-
depth lesson planning that embeds high-yield instructional strategies (e.g., learning targets, exemplars, active
learning, collaboration, differentiation, higher-order thinking skills, feedback, monitoring). This would leverage
improvement in student academic performance and instructional capacity.
Next Steps
The results of the Diagnostic Review provide the next step for guiding the improvement journey of the institution
with their efforts to improve the quality of educational opportunities for all learners. The findings are aligned to
research-based criteria designed to improve student learning and organizational effectiveness. The feedback
provided in the Diagnostic Review Report will assist the institution in reflecting on current improvement efforts
and adapting and adjusting their plans to continuously strive for improvement.
Upon receiving the Diagnostic Review Report, the institution is encouraged to implement the following steps:
• Review and share the findings with stakeholders.
• Develop plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the Diagnostic Review Team.
• Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution’s continuous improvement
efforts.

• Celebrate the successes noted in the report.

Team Roster
Diagnostic Review Teams comprise professionals with varied backgrounds and professional experiences. All Lead
Evaluators and Diagnostic Review Team members complete AdvancED training and eleot® certification to provide
knowledge and understanding of the AdvancED tools and processes. The following professionals served on the
Diagnostic Review Team:
Team Member Name Brief Biography

Dr. Maria P. de Armas Dr. Maria P. de Armas serves as a consultant working with schools, universities,
and educational entities. During her 36-year career as a K-12 educator and
administrator, she was a classroom teacher, a bilingual teacher, and an English as
a second language teacher in urban settings in New Jersey and Florida. Her
administrative experiences include supervising the implementation of curriculum
at the district and region levels, overseeing the operations of schools and
principals within feeder patterns, creating professional development programs for
teachers and administrators, writing and supervising federal grants targeting
special populations, supporting schools identified in need of improvement,
facilitating the development and implementation of school improvement plans,
and building teacher capacity in the identification of underrepresented students
for gifted and advanced academic programs. She was supervisor for advanced
academic programs, administrative director of advanced academics and gifted
programs, region administrative director, assistant superintendent for academic
support, and assistant superintendent for academics. Dr. de Armas holds a
bachelor’s degree in education (specializing in early childhood education), a
master’s degree in elementary education (specializing in bilingual and ESL
education), and an education doctorate (specializing in early childhood education
and supervision).
Todd Tucker Mr. Todd Tucker is an Education Recovery Leader at Pulaski County High School
(PCHS). During his six years at PCHS, he assisted the leadership team in the
transformation of PCHS from a school labeled as priority to a distinguished high
school. He led a similar transformation in 2009 while serving as the principal of
Green County High School, which improved from a level III school in crisis to one
that ranked in the top 20 percent of all high schools in Kentucky. Mr. Tucker has
his master’s degree in counseling and a bachelor’s degree in mathematics. He also
has professional certificates in instructional leadership for principal and
superintendent. With Mr. Tucker serving as Education Recovery Leader, PCHS was
identified in 2013 by the Department of Education as a Hub School, which
designates it as a lab of support and HUB of learning for both students and adults
for schools within the region. Mr. Tucker is responsible for scheduling and
providing guidance for visiting schools to support their school improvement
efforts. He is also a trainer for LEAD Kentucky’s National Institute for School
Leadership and served on numerous AdvancEd Diagnostic Reviews during his
tenure at the Kentucky Department of Education.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Kim Bullard Ms. Kim Bullard is an Education Recovery Leader for the Kentucky Department of
Education. In that position, she works closely with principals to develop systems
and processes to sustain school turnaround. She is currently serving in that
capacity in Breathitt County at Breathitt High School. Mrs. Bullard holds a Rank I in
supervision with certification for supervisor of instruction. She also has her
bachelor’s degree in mathematics and secondary education and master’s degree
in educational leadership. Mrs. Bullard has experience in K-12 education as a
teacher, math coach, curriculum specialist, and assistant principal.
Lisa Ehrlich, Ph.D. Dr. Lisa Ehrlich serves as Vice President of Business Development for
AdvancED/Measured Progress, providing strategic and tactical support to clients in
assessment policy and solutions to ensure delivery of the highest quality
assessment programs and services. Over the last 25 years, she has held senior
leadership positions, serving as senior vice president of client services, responsible
for oversight of program management activities related to state-level assessments
(general education and alternate assessments) and assessments associated with
national programs. And as chief operating officer, she provided general oversight
of business operations for all operational divisions, including testing services,
which supports all areas of test development and publications; distribution; log-in;
scanning; scoring; data operations, psychometrics; and reporting. Dr. Ehrlich has
over 35 years of management experience in this role. She also holds a Ph.D. in
educational measurement and instructional design from the University of Iowa.
Her dedication to education is also reflected through her teaching experience that
includes courses at Boston University and Lesley University. In addition, she also
co-chaired the Joint CCSSO/ATP effort to develop Industry Operational Best
Practices released in September 2010 and Version two released in 2013. She was
also a member of the Board of Directors for the Association of Test Publishers
(ATP) from 2010-2014 and served as Chair in 2012-2013.
Chad Simms Mr. Chad Simms has over 15 years of experience as a teacher and administrator.
He is currently the director of student engagement for the Boone County School
district in Northern Kentucky. In the position, he helps coordinate the social and
emotional learning work for all 26 schools and uses the resiliency survey data to
work with schools to set goals and make decisions based on the data. He also
works with individual schools to bring new programs to schools for students. Chad
holds an instructional leadership certificate from Northern Kentucky University. He
has a master’s degree in special education also from Northern Kentucky University
and a director of pupil personnel certificate from Eastern Kentucky University.

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: School and Student Proficiency and Separate Academic Indicator Results
%P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State

Content Area
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
Reading 6th 19.2 58.9 23.5 59.7
Reading 7th 20.1 54.6 23.1 57.4
Reading 8th 26.5 57.1 27 62.9
Math 6th 9.3 49.1 12.8 47.4
Math 7th 18.4 43.3 14.6 47.4
Math 8th 22.2 43.3 11.3 46.1
Science 7th N/A N/A 7.5 25.9
Social Studies 8th 30.3 60.5 30.9 60.2
Writing 8th 4.3 37.2 8.3 44.3
Plus
• The percentages of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in sixth-grade reading and mathematics
rose slightly from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in seventh-grade reading improved
slightly from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in eighth-grade writing slightly increased
from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
Delta
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was significantly below the state average
in all content areas and at all grade levels in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The percentages of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in seventh-grade and eighth-grade math
decreased from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)

Content Area Index State Index
Reading 11.1 16.1
Math 3.9 8.0
EL 12 8.0
Growth Indicator 7.5 12.1
Plus
• The English Learners (EL) index was four points higher in 2017-2018 than the state Index.
Delta
• The math index was four points below the 2017-2018 state index.
• The reading index was five points below the 2017-2018 state index.

Section III: Gap Groups 2017-2018 % P/D
Gap Group Reading %PD Math %PD Science %PD Social Studies Writing %PD
%PD
All Students 24.5 12.9 7.5 30.9 8.3
Female
Male 24.5 12.9 7.5 30.9 8.3
White 33.7 20.3 15.7 44.3 6.6
African 15.7 7.8 2.3 16.1 6.5
American
Hispanic 25.8 9.7 6.5 39.4 18.2
Asian 34.9 20.9 5.9 46.2 7.7
American Indian
or Alaska native
Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific
Islander
Two or More 20.0 6.7
Races
Title I 24.5 12.9 7.5 30.9 8.3
Migrant
Homeless
Foster
Military
English Learner 12.2 6.1 0.0 15.0 10.0
English Learner 14.4 6.4 0.0 17.1 9.8
plus Monitored
Economically 24.7 13.0 7.5 30.2 8.4
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability – With 9.6 2.1 3.6 12.2 4.9
IEP (Total)
Disability – With 9.6 2.1 3.6 12.2 4.9
IEP (No Alt)
Disability (No 10.0 1.3 15.2 6.1
Alt) with
Accommodation
Disability – With
IEP Alt Only
Consolidated 18.3 8.4 3.4 23.3 9.3
Student Group
Plus
Delta
• The percentage of students with Individual Education Plans (IEP) who scored Proficient/Distinguished was
below the All Students Gap Group in all content areas.
• The percentage of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below the All
Students Gap Group in all content areas.

• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science was lowest of all content areas
in all gap groups.

Schedule
Monday, February 25, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m.- Team Member introductions and set-up for Principal Hotel Conference Team members
4:30 p.m. Presentation Room
4:30 p.m. – Principal Presentation Hotel Conference Principal and

5:15 p.m. Room Diagnostic Review
Team Members
5:30 p.m. – Team Work Session #1 Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
9:00 p.m. Room Team Members
Tuesday, February 26, 2019

7:15 a.m. Team arrives at Frederick Law Olmsted Academy North School Diagnostic Review
Team Members
7:40 a.m. – Stakeholder interviews, eleot observations, and evidence School Diagnostic Review
12:33 p.m. review Team Members
12:33 p.m.- Lunch – Team meeting School Diagnostic Review
1:27 p.m. Team Members
1:33 p.m. – Continued stakeholder interviews, eleot observations, and School Diagnostic Review
2:30 p.m. evidence review Team Members
2:30 p.m. – Principal Interview Travel Diagnostic Review
4:30 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 Hotel conference Diagnostic Review
8:30 p.m. room Team Members
Wednesday, February 27, 2019

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Frederick Law Olmsted Academy North School Diagnostic Review
Team Members
7:40 a.m. – Stakeholder interviews, informal observations and evidence School Diagnostic Review
12:33 p.m. review Team Members
12:33 p.m. – Lunch and Team Meeting School Diagnostic Review
1:27 p.m. – Continue stakeholder interviews, informal observations and School Diagnostic Review
2:30 p.m. evidence review Team Members
3:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel Travel Diagnostic Review
4:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 (Agenda provided by Lead Evaluator) Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
8:00 p.m. Room Team Members
Thursday, February 28, 2019

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

11:00 a.m. 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.

Olmsted Acad North 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

Olmsted Acad North Final DR Report 2018-2019

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

February 25–28, 2019

Results for: Frederick Law Olmsted Academy North

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

Stakeholder Groups Number

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

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

Leadership Capacity Domain

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

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

Learning Capacity Domain

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

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

Resource Capacity Domain

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Diagnostic Review eleot Ratings

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

A. Equitable Learning Environment

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

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 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 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:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

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

Documents and Artifacts:

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