Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4
Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4
Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 5
Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7
eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 13
Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 13
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 18
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 19
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 20
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 22
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 22
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Introduction
The AdvancED Diagnostic Review is carried out by a team of highly qualified evaluators who examine the
institution’s adherence and commitment to the research aligned to AdvancED Standards. The Diagnostic Review
Process is designed to energize and equip the leadership and stakeholders of an institution to achieve higher levels
of performance and address those areas that may be hindering efforts to reach desired performance levels. The
Diagnostic Review is a rigorous process that includes the in-depth examination of evidence and relevant
performance data, interviews with stakeholders, and observations of instruction, learning, and operations.
Standards help delineate what matters. They provide a common language through which an education community
can engage in conversations about educational improvement, institution effectiveness, and achievement. They
serve as a foundation for planning and implementing improvement strategies and activities and for measuring
success. AdvancED Standards were developed by a committee composed of educators from the fields of practice,
research, and policy. These talented leaders applied professional wisdom, deep knowledge of effective practice,
and the best available research to craft a set of robust standards that define institutional quality and guide
continuous improvement.
The Diagnostic Review Team used the AdvancED Standards and related criteria to guide its evaluation, looking not
only for adherence to standards, but also for how the institution functioned as a whole and embodied the
practices and characteristics of quality. Using the evidence they gathered, the Diagnostic Review Team arrived at a
set of findings contained in this report.
As a part of the Diagnostic Review, stakeholders were interviewed by members of the Diagnostic Review Team
about their perspectives on topics relevant to the institution's learning environment and organizational
effectiveness. The feedback gained through the stakeholder interviews was considered with other evidence and
data to support the findings of the Diagnostic Review. The following table lists the numbers of interviewed
representatives of various stakeholder groups.
1.1 The institution commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching Emerging
and learning, including the expectations for learners.
1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces Emerging
evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and
professional practice.
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve Emerging
professional practice and organizational effectiveness.
1.7 Leaders implement operational process and procedures to ensure organizational Needs
effectiveness in support of teaching and learning. Improvement
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 Needs
effectiveness. Improvement
1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder Emerging
groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement.
2.1 Learners have equitable opportunities to develop skills and achieve the content 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
3.1 The institution plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning Emerging
environment, learner achievement, and the institution’s effectiveness.
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 Needs
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and Improvement
organizational effectiveness.
Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team was eleot certified and passed a certification exam that established
inter-rater reliability. Team members conducted 25 observations during the Diagnostic Review process, including
all core content learning environments. The following charts provide aggregate data across multiple observations
for each of the seven learning environments.
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.6 1.6
1.3
Environment Averages
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team conducted 25 classroom observations. A strength that emerged from the classroom
observation data related to the manner in which teachers treated students. Students, for instance, who were
“treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner” (A3) were evident/very evident in 74 percent of classrooms.
Conversely, the team identified areas of concern across all seven learning environments. Some practices were
absent or inconsistently implemented. The inconsistent classroom management practices across the school
troubled the team, as students who demonstrated “a congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher”
(C4) were evident/very evident in 40 percent of classrooms. Students who spoke and interacted “respectfully with
teacher(s) and each other” (F1) and demonstrated knowledge of and/or followed “classroom rules and behavioral
expectations and [worked] well with others” (F2) were evident/very evident in 52 and 48 percent of classrooms
respectively.
The Team found a pervasive culture of low academic expectations throughout the school. For example, students
who could “demonstrate and/or [be] able to describe high quality work” (B3) and “monitor their own progress or
have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1) were evident/very evident in zero percent of
classrooms. Additionally, students who strove to meet or were able to “articulate the high expectations
established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1); engaged in “activities and learning that are challenging but
attainable” (B2); and took “responsibility for and [were] self-directed in their learning” (B5) were evident/very
evident in eight and twelve percent of classrooms respectively.
In addition, students who received/responded “to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve
understanding and/or revise work” (E2); demonstrated and/or verbalized “understanding of the lesson/content”
(E3); and understood and/or were “able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4) were evident/very evident in
eight, twelve, and eight percent of classrooms. Team members observed limited use of strategies that engaged
students in discussions with their peers and teachers. Students who engaged in “discussions/dialogues/exchanges
with each other and teacher predominate” (D1), for example, were evident/very evident in 16 percent of
classrooms.
Another area that emerged as a concern was the Digital Learning Environment. Students who used “digital
tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1) were evident/very evident in 16
percent of classrooms. Students who used digital tools/technology to “conduct research, solve problems, and/or
create original works for learning” (G2) and “communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) were
evident/very evident in eight and four percent of classrooms respectively.
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
Establish a data-driven system for the development of a collaborative and shared leadership structure that
includes multiple stakeholders, ongoing monitoring, leadership coaching, and regular reflective practices.
(Standard 1.9)
Evidence:
ACT data results showed that all content-area scores (English, math, and reading) were below the state average in
the percentage of students who met benchmarks on ACT in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The percentage of students
who met benchmark on the English portion of the ACT was 26.9 percent in 2016-2017 and 15.9 percent in 2017-
2018, a decrease of 11 percentage points. The percentage of students meeting benchmark on the math portion of
the ACT was 12.3 percent in 2016-2017 and 12.7 percent in 2017-2018, an increase of 0.4 percentage points. The
percentage of students who met benchmark in reading on the ACT was 25.7 percent in 2016-2017 and 24.6
percent in 2017-2018, a decrease of 1.1 percent.
The transition readiness indicator showed that the four- and five-year graduation rates were below the state
averages in 2017 and 2018. The graduation rate for Western High School in 2017 was 71.3 compared to the state
rate of 89.7. The graduation rate for Western High School for 2018 was 79.2 compared to the state at 90.3. The
transition readiness indicator for Western High School was 14.8 while the state transition readiness indicator was
60.9.
The interview data from multiple stakeholder groups indicated that the Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) program was implemented inconsistently across the school. Although administrators indicated that
the PBIS program was being revised, the team found little evidence that other stakeholders were involved or
informed of the revision process.
The administrator interviews revealed that discipline intervention was a primary activity of leadership and required
much of their time during the day. The team found little evidence that the PBIS program was embedded into daily
operations.
Improvement Priority #2
Develop and deploy a system for the implementation and monitoring of a rigorous instructional framework that
includes high expectations, alignment to academic standards, and clear connections to the college and career
readiness pipeline. (Standard 2.5)
Evidence:
who used technology to “gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1) were evident/very evident in
16 percent of classrooms.
The interview data also revealed that school administrators inconsistently monitored instructional practices. While
administrators monitored instruction through the PowerWalk system, multiple stakeholders revealed that most
instructional conversations focused on surface-level, compliance-oriented instructional tasks. The school was well
resourced with highly skilled instructional support staff (e.g., resource teachers); however, multiple stakeholders
indicated that resource teachers had limited authority and flexibility to provide meaningful and consistent
coaching to teachers.
While staff members and administrators used appropriate language (e.g., high-yield instructional strategies) to
discuss rigor, they generally were unable to elaborate on the specific instructional strategies that were
implemented, how they were monitored, or which professional development opportunities were offered.
Improvement Priority #3
Refine and expand existing systems to regularly monitor and adjust instruction in order to meet individual learner
needs. Ensure all learners have equal access to rigorous and appropriate instruction that accelerates progress
toward proficiency. (Standard 2.7)
Evidence:
In interviews, staff members were unable to explain how data were routinely and systematically reviewed and
monitored to adjust instructional practices that meet identified student needs. While the school administered a
universal screener and common formative and summative assessments, teacher and administrator stakeholders
were unable to articulate how those data were used. In some cases, the interview data revealed that staff
members could not articulate the implications of using data to guide instructional decisions. While some students
discussed the merits of the assessments, most did not understand the connection between the assessments and
instruction as a predictor of long-term success.
Teacher interviews also revealed that the professional learning community (PLC) protocols were implemented but
lacked a focus on instructional rigor. PLC time primarily was used for lesson planning and discussing essential
standards. There was limited interview evidence to suggest that teachers used student data in a meaningful way
during the meetings to adjust instruction or create differentiated student groups or learning tasks.
Student and parent stakeholder groups both reported limited opportunities for students to receive remediation or
intensive support. While the parent stakeholder group indicated that tutoring opportunities were available after
school, they expressed that students had minimal opportunities for remediation and support during school.
In contrast, staff member responses differed slightly from parent and student perceptions. Sixty percent of staff
members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school personalize instruction strategies
and interventions to address individual learning needs of students” (E2), and 62 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school monitor and adjust curriculum, instruction, and assessment
based on data from student assessments and examination of professional practice” (E1).
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 administrators, teachers, support staff, parents, and students at Western High School modeled a welcoming
and supportive spirit during the Diagnostic Review Team’s visit. Overall, the school had a welcoming and friendly
atmosphere. Teachers genuinely cared about students. During the principal’s overview presentation, the principal
shared that Western High School was focused on the Western Core Values: Perseverance, Responsibility, Integrity,
Diversity, and Excellence. The principal shared that in an effort to support the Western Core Values, relationships
had to be built within the community, teacher to teacher, teacher to student, and student to student. As a result,
the school had learning expectations visible in classrooms via the daily learning framework and behavioral
expectations clearly posted throughout the building.
The school developed and refined a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) to address the school’s
improvement efforts. The principal stated during his principal’s presentation that “Every initiative within the
building is tied back to the school’s CSIP, and if it did not support the plan, then the initiative was not added.” Also,
during the principal’s overview presentation, it was noted that the school had opportunities for stakeholder
engagement. For example, the school increased the number of community partners and student access to them,
especially those supporting the career pathways in The Academies of Louisville initiative. School administrators
developed a supportive relationship with business partners, such as Super Chef, Heine Brothers, Louisville Builders
Association, Western High School Alumni, Louisville Rotary, Jefferson Community and Technical College, and the
City of Shively Police.
instructional processes and teachers participating in learning communities, instruction in many classrooms was not
research-based or high yield, rigorous, or supportive of best practices that foster improved student outcomes.
The team observed structures that afforded teachers an opportunity to collaborate (e.g., professional learning
communities), a common time for planning, and the process of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA); but these structures
were being implemented with minimal fidelity and were not monitored to evaluate their effectiveness in
improving teacher efficacy and learner outcomes. The school also did not have a master schedule that provided
time for interventions for all students.
The Diagnostic Review Team suggests that school administrators, teachers, and support staff evaluate the existing
structures within the school’s CSIP to increase the rigor in classrooms, improve teacher and staff capacity, and
develop and implement a Response to Intervention (RTI) program to ensure differentiation. Although the school
had PLCs focused on planning instruction, staff members spent little time reflecting on data and making changes to
instruction.
Finally, the school is encouraged to focus on expanding its use of high-yield instructional strategies to provide
lessons that are rigorous and relevant. Further, the school needs to expand the Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) program to include a focus on restorative practices, ensuring that students can continue to receive
core instruction and have their diverse needs met through teaching and learning that is grounded in high academic
expectations for instructional practices and learning opportunities. Lastly, the Diagnostic Review Team suggests
that the principal lead a process to develop, implement, and foster an effective professional learning community
where administrators, teachers, staff, and support staff are held accountable for learning together and following
through with practices, processes, and procedures.
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:
Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: School and Student Performance Results
Plus
Delta
Section II: Percentages of Students Meeting Benchmarks on ACT, Grade 11, at the School and in the
State (2016-2017, 2017-2018)
Content Area Percentage School Percentage State Percentage School Percentage State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
Plus
Delta
• Scores in all content areas (English, math and reading) were below the state average for
students meeting benchmarks on ACT in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• Scores in all content areas, except math, declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
Section III. School Achievement of Transition Readiness and Graduation Rate (2017-2018)
2018 14.8
State 60.9
(The accountability measure changed from College and/or Career Readiness to Transition Readiness, which has
added components making the two not compatible to compare).
Plus
• The four year graduation rate increased 3.3 percentage points from 2017 to 2018.
Delta
• The four- and five-year graduation rates were below the state averages for 2017 and 2018.
• The combined graduation rate for 2018 was below the state average.
• The transition readiness indicator was 46.1 percentage points below the state average.
Plus
Delta
Schedule
Monday, March 4, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:45 p.m. – Principal Presentation (45 minutes) Hotel Diagnostic
5:30 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
5:30 p.m. – Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
7:30 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
About AdvancED
professionals in the world. Founded on more than 100 years of work in continuous improvement,
AdvancED combines the knowledge and expertise of a research institute, the skills of a management
consulting firm and the passion of a grassroots movement for educational change to empower
Pre-K-12 schools and school systems to ensure that all learners realize their full potential.
©Advance Education, Inc. AdvancED® grants to the Institution, which is the subject of the Engagement Review Report,
and its designees and stakeholders a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license, and release to
reproduce, reprint, and distribute this report in accordance with and as protected by the Copyright Laws of the United
States of America and all foreign countries. All other rights not expressly conveyed are reserved by AdvancED.