Foster Traditional Academy Final DR Report 2018-2019

February 11–14, 2019
Results for: Foster Traditional Academy

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 10
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 14
Non-certified Staff 12
Students 15
Parents 8
Total 62

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 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 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 Emerging
address the specialized social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs of
students.
2.10 Learning progress is reliably assessed and consistently and clearly communicated. Needs
Improvement
2.11 Educators gather, analyze, and use formative and summative data that lead to 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 Needs
collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational Improvement
effectiveness.
3.4 The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s Needs
purpose and direction. Improvement
3.7 The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long- Needs
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and Improvement
direction.
3.8 The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the Needs
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and Improvement
organizational effectiveness.

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 29 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
2.4 2.4
2.1
1.8 1.9
1.7
1.2
Environment Averages

A. Equitable Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 1.7 55% 21% 21% 3%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 2.6 3% 41% 48% 7%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
A3 2.8 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 3% 24% 62% 10%
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 1.4 69% 17% 14% 0%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.1
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 1.8 38% 45% 17% 0%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

B2 2.2 14% 55% 31% 0%
but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.5 59% 38% 0% 3%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

B4 1.7 tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., 48% 41% 7% 3%
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

B5 2.0 31% 45% 21% 3%
learning.
point scale:
1.8

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is
C1 2.3 14% 45% 38% 3%
positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.0 24% 52% 24% 0%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers,

C3 2.4 and/or other resources to understand content and 10% 38% 48% 3%
accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.7 3% 31% 55% 10%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale:
2.4
D. Active Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each

D1 2.1 21% 48% 31% 0%
other and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 1.7 45% 41% 10% 3%
experiences.
D3 2.2 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 17% 48% 31% 3%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 1.5 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 69% 10% 21% 0%
assignments.
point scale:
1.9

E. Progress Monitoring & Feedback Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have
E1 1.3 mechanisms whereby their learning progress is 76% 21% 3% 0%
monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from
E2 2.1 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve 21% 55% 21% 3%
understanding and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of

E3 2.1 24% 41% 31% 3%
the lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how

E4 1.2 83% 10% 7% 0%
their work is assessed.
point scale:
1.7
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s)

F1 2.7 3% 31% 62% 3%
and each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow

F2 2.6 classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work 7% 31% 55% 7%
well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one

F3 2.1 28% 38% 28% 7%
activity to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal

F4 2.3 14% 48% 34% 3%
wasted time or disruptions.
point scale:
2.4

G. Digital Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather,
G1 1.3 79% 10% 7% 3%
evaluate, and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct

G2 1.2 research, solve problems, and/or create original works 90% 0% 10% 0%
for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate

G3 1.1 97% 0% 3% 0%
and work collaboratively for learning.
point scale:
1.2
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team conducted 29 classroom observations, providing ample opportunity to observe
learning environments in all core classrooms. Several items emerged in the seven learning environments that
could serve as levers to improve instructional capacity and student learning. The Supportive Learning Environment
and the Well-Managed Learning Environment earned the highest overall average rating of 2.4 on a four-point
scale, while the Digital Learning Environment had the lowest overall average rating of 1.2.
In the Supportive Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident in 51 percent of classrooms that students
were “supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks”
(C3). In 65 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “demonstrate a congenial and
supportive relationship with their teacher” (C4). When observing the Well-Managed Learning Environment, it was
evident/very evident in 65 percent of classrooms that students “speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and
each other” (F1). It was evident/very evident in 62 percent of classrooms that students “demonstrate knowledge
of and/or follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others” (F2). These data revealed
that students were compliant and demonstrated behaviors consistent with a respectful and supportive learning
environment.
While the Digital Learning Environment earned the lowest overall average rating of 1.2 on the four-point scale, the
Diagnostic Review Team was more concerned about the Progress Monitoring and Feedback, High Expectations,
Equitable Learning, and Active Learning Environments. Several items within the Progress Monitoring and Feedback
Learning Environment were of particular concern. For example, it was evident/very evident in three percent of
classrooms that students “monitor their own learning progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning
progress is monitored” (E1) and in seven percent of classrooms that students “understand and/or are able to
explain how their work is assessed” (E4). The team rarely observed students using rubrics or checklists to monitor
their progress or to understand the criteria by which their work would be assessed. This suggested a need for
students to be provided exemplars, rubrics, and explanations to guide their understanding of the attributes of
proficient work.

While high academic expectations were mentioned by teachers and school leaders, the ratings in the High
Expectations Learning Environment were rated low. Instances in which students “demonstrate and/or are able to
describe high quality work” (B3) were evident/very evident in three percent of classrooms. Students who “engage
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 10 percent of classrooms. The observation
data suggested a need for school leaders to monitor instructional practices that ensure students are engaged in
rigorous tasks requiring higher order thinking.
The Equitable Learning Environment ratings revealed the need for increased opportunities for students to be
engaged in learning activities that meet their needs. It was evident/very evident in 24 percent of classrooms that
students “engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). In 14
percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “demonstrate and/or have opportunities to
develop empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other
human characteristics, conditions and dispositions” (A4). These percentages suggested the need to design
instruction aligned to student needs, including high-yield instructional practices.
Finally, the Active Learning Environment emerged as another area to leverage for improvement. This learning
environment received an overall average rating of 1.9 and had two specific areas of concern: connecting content to
the real-world and creating a collaborative learning environment for students. It was evident/very evident in 13
percent of classrooms that students “make connections from content to real life experiences” (D2). Instances in
which students “collaborate with their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or
assignments” were evident/very evident in 21 percent of classrooms (D4). Collectively, these data build upon the
need described above in the High Expectations Learning Environment to provide rigorous tasks connected to
authentic real-world and collaborative learning experiences for students.
By carefully reviewing all items across the seven learning environments, school leaders and staff members can
identify additional areas that can be leveraged to improve instructional capacity and increase student learning.

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 and monitor a continuous improvement process that identifies specific goals, a limited number of
manageable strategies, activities, and measures (e.g., incremental benchmarks, data sources to determine the
degree to which goals are attained). Continuously monitor the process to determine adjustments needed to reach
or exceed all goals within the school improvement plan. Establish and communicate stakeholder involvement
needed for a comprehensive plan and identify persons responsible for implementing, monitoring, and revising
each component of the continuous improvement process. (Standard 1.3)
Evidence:
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The interview data revealed that while teachers recognized the existence of a Comprehensive School Improvement
Plan (CSIP), most stakeholders indicated they had not participated in the development of the plan and did not
know its contents. Additionally, the data indicated that teachers could describe their current work as it related to
the CSIP but did not realize it was chronicled in the plan with goals, actions, and specific measures. Most
stakeholders also reported that the creation of the CSIP was a compliance piece and did not systematically drive
the work of the school. The interview data revealed that staff members were unclear about the process used to
determine needs for improvement or the identification of strategies for the development of the CSIP. However,
staff members expressed the importance of reviewing the CSIP for sustainability of the work, but shared that this
had not happened yet. The team found no evidence that the school used a systematic continuous improvement
process and fully implemented the CSIP.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The survey results revealed that 66 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our
school has a continuous improvement process based on data, goals, actions, and measures of growth” (C5). Fifty-
five percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school's leaders engage effectively with all
stakeholders about the school's purpose and direction” (D9), and 56 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “Our
school has a systematic process for collecting, analyzing, and using data” (G3).
The student survey data revealed that 49 percent agreed with the statement, “My principal and teachers ask me
what I think about school” (G1). The parent survey results indicated that 86 percent agreed/strongly agreed that
“Our school has established goals and a plan for improving student learning” (C3) and that 90 percent
agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school communicates effectively about the school’s goals and activities” (D5).
Additionally, the parent survey data showed that 86 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school ensures that
all staff members monitor and report the achievement of school goals” (G1). A disconnect was observed among
the survey data and interview data related to using the CSIP process to implement, monitor, and revise the
continuous improvement plan.

Documents and Artifacts:

A review of the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) showed several strategies that require many steps
and processes rather than a focus on one or two strategies to be used as a vehicle to achieve goals. The
involvement of multiple stakeholders during the development of the CSIP was not evident. The Evidence-Based
Practices Narrative suggested that the evidence-based practice was the Journeys reading program, which was to
be monitored weekly through administrative walkthroughs. No evidence of this monitoring was found in the
documents and artifacts or in interview data. The Diagnostic Review Team also saw no evidence of the CSIP
implementation or of monitoring or evaluating the strategies outlined in the plan. These findings were congruent
with the evidence from the interview and survey data.

Ensure that a complete lesson cycle with research-based practices is followed to deliver quality, first-time
instruction that prompts and supports higher-order thinking skills and active student learning. Develop,
implement, and monitor a systemic process to adjust instruction to meet individual student needs. Collect and
analyze data to identify gaps in student learning and adjust instructional practices to meet student academic
needs. (Standard 2.7)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in the addendum to this report, were below the state average in all
areas on the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) assessment. The student
performance data were among the data considered to determine Improvement Priority #2.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, showed that while the team noted some high-yield
instructional strategies occurring in the school, many classrooms operated without instruction to address the
posted learning target. Students were given instructions on behavior expectations and the procedures for
transitioning to their seats to complete their independent work, without the benefit of receiving Tier I instruction
based on highly effective, culturally responsive, and evidence-based core instruction. The classroom observation
data revealed that all students were completing the same learning tasks or activities with little rigor,
personalization, or differentiation. It was evident/very evident in 24 percent of classrooms that students “engage
in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). It was evident/very evident in
31 percent of classrooms that students “engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2).
In addition, students were found rarely monitoring “their own progress or [having] mechanisms whereby their
learning progress is monitored” (E1), as it was evident/very evident in three percent of classrooms. Students were
not observed using exemplars or rubrics that detailed expectations for proficiency or having an opportunity to
understand the criteria by which their work would be evaluated. Additionally, it was evident/very evident in 10
percent of classrooms that students “engage in rigorous coursework, discussions and/or tasks that require the use
of higher order thinking (e.g. analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4). Instances in which students
“receive/respond to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or revise
work” (E2) were evident/very evident in 24 percent of classrooms. It was evident/very evident in 34 percent of
classrooms that students “demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content” (E3) and in seven
percent of classrooms that students “understand and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4).

The interview data suggested that many stakeholders reported their desire to have heterogeneous groups within
each classroom so that students could serve as role models to one another. Interview data also revealed that there
was one Advanced Placement (AP) class within each of the three grade levels, resulting in higher performing
students being grouped together in one classroom. The interview data reflected conflicting beliefs about of high
expectations for all students. One teacher responded that “Every student can learn to be the best of their ability.
Our job is to find out how they learn. We have to believe and put it in them.” This belief was sharply contrasted by
another response, “Once a novice, always a novice. What do you want me to do about that?” Many stakeholders
indicated that they liked that the building leadership encouraged celebrations about improvement, including
growth within the novice performance level.

Many stakeholders indicated concerns about inconsistencies in instruction, assessments, and expectations across
and among grade levels. These data revealed the need to develop specific student goals, using a systematic
process for adjusting instruction to meet individual student needs. The resulting data could be used to change the
belief system of teachers who believe students will remain at the novice level. Additionally, providing a system of
support for students based on specific needs was identified by many parents who reported a need for additional
tutoring time either before or after school to help their child improve academically.

The survey data suggested that while teachers analyzed some data, findings were not systematically used to
support continuous use of differentiation or to ensure rigorous instruction within classrooms. The stakeholder
survey data showed that 51 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) and “All teachers in our school personalize instructional strategies and
interventions to address individual learning needs of students” (E2). In addition, 57 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In our school, all staff members use student data to address the
unique learning needs of all students” (E14).
Data from classroom observations and staff interviews suggested that teachers frequently lacked understanding of
how to effectively monitor student learning to inform and adjust instruction to meet differentiated learning needs.
Survey data showed 51 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our
school have been trained to implement a formal process that promotes discussion about student learning (e.g.,
action research, examination of student work, reflection, study teams, and peer coaching)” (E10).

A review of documents and artifacts showed that the Racial Equity Improvement Plan stated that the “biggest
challenge to student growth is the complete teacher ownership of student learning, teacher buy in, and teacher
support of individual student needs.” A review of lesson plans, lesson frames, and Response to Intervention (RtI)
plans revealed that teachers identified students for tiered levels of instruction and planned instruction using
structures to address standards. In addition, a review of the Foster Academy Multi-Tiered System of Support(s)
(MTSS) Handbook 2018-2019 indicated the school provided guidelines to staff about providing, monitoring, and
evaluating the MTSS framework to support the academic and behavioral needs of all students. The use of these
guidelines was not evident during the classroom observations, as students were completing the same task without
regard to their specific learning needs.

Ensure the effectiveness of professional learning community (PLC) meetings by engaging in activities (e.g., creating
common formative assessments, differentiating student assignments, using upper-level questioning, implementing
small group instruction, planning vertically, reviewing student data, making instructional changes based on data)
that address the needs of students. Monitor implementation of strategies discussed in PLC meetings for impact in
the classroom. Differentiate information introduced within the various PLC grade-level groups. (Standard 3.2)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in the addendum to this report, were below the state average in all
areas on the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) assessment. The student
performance data were among the data considered to determine Improvement Priority #3.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, showed the school did not maximize professional
learning time through PLC meetings to improve instructional delivery designed to meet the needs of all students.
The Diagnostic Review Team rarely observed differentiated teaching and learning. It was evident/very evident in
24 percent of classrooms, for example, that students were engaged “in differentiated learning opportunities
and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). Also, in 10 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that
students engaged “in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking
(e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4).

The interview data showed that while the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) benchmark assessment results
were presented during PLC meetings, data were not individually disaggregated by question or learning target to
develop or modify instruction to meet individual student needs. Some staff members indicated they looked at the
MAP data before PLC meetings and did not see the value of going over the same data again during the meetings.
Many stakeholders reported they could delve deeper into the data if permitted. Many also indicated that no
instructional adjustments were made based on data analysis findings. Additionally, the interview data indicated
that teachers wanted to have more teacher-led PLC time. Interview data showed that the Goal Clarity Coach and
two Education Recovery Specialists (ERSs) were frequently present at PLC meetings, but many staff members
confirmed the coach and ERSs were seldom asked to provide specific help. In addition, several teachers expressed
a desire for the coach and the ERS personnel to be invited to help. Finally, many teachers indicated they would like
to see consistent teaching across their grade level based on shared expectations for students.

The staff survey results indicated that 57 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school's
leaders support an innovative and collaborative culture” (D3). In addition, 56 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school participate in collaborative learning communities that meet
both informally and formally across grade levels and content areas” (E9). Fifty-one percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school have been trained to implement a formal process that
promotes discussion about student learning (e.g., action research, examination of student work, reflection, study
teams, and peer coaching)” (E10). Finally, 56 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school
has a systematic process for collecting, analyzing, and using data” (G3).


A review of documents revealed that common PLC structures were in place. A schedule of PLC meeting activities
was established by the administration, but a discrepancy in how PLCs operated was identified across grade levels.
Documents revealed that while some grade-level PLCs were facilitated by school leaders, some operated with a
teacher leader. A review of the CSIP showed that PLC meetings were mentioned as a place where many of the
strategies were to be completed. However, teachers generally were unaware of what was contained in the CSIP.
A district Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) person was present at the PLC meeting on February 13, 2019.
Discussion ensued to determine whether she would present her information or whether the meeting would be
team-led. It was determined to be team-led. The principal and assistant principal were both present. At one point,
the district support person added necessary instruction to be taught and showed some modeling of the lesson to
be done in the classroom before an independent assignment would be given to students. Collectively, the
interview and observation data indicated a need to differentiate information introduced within the various PLC
grade-level groups and establish specific protocols for operation.

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 school operates through a strong belief in the vision and mission. The mission statement, “Touch the heart,
teach the mind,” was referenced as a basis for the school’s work several times by administrators and other
stakeholders. The Diagnostic Review Team observed students enter the school in the mornings and be greeted by
name, hugged, or comforted. Parents indicated that they felt their children were safe and well taken care of at
school. Students reported that their teachers were the best thing about the school. The retention of staff members
was 100 percent last year, providing continuity as the same teachers developed and continued relationships with
the students. Stephen Foster Traditional Academy is at the implementation stage concerning its mission, vision,
and beliefs.
The administration is visible throughout the building, in classrooms, and in PLC meetings. The walkthrough
observations (i.e., “PowerWalk” system) provide teachers with immediate feedback concerning particular criteria
of the lesson being observed. Interviews with staff indicated mostly positive responses about the process. One
teacher said, “I am being observed to death,” which indicated that school leaders frequently monitored
classrooms.
Community partnerships (e.g., area stores, churches, sororities, fraternities) provide support (e.g., school supplies,
snacks, and/or volunteer time) and help the school gather necessary resources.
Stephen Foster Traditional Academy staff members have implemented numerous student behavior programs and
initiatives that are evident in common areas and in most classrooms. Other supports for students who need to cool
down have also been initiated.
Staff members have been awarded the Ron Clark grant, which allows five teachers to attend the Ron Clark
Academy in July 2019. After these teachers attend, the school plans to have them train the remaining teachers.
The Academy provides professional development experiences in school culture, reflection, rigor, and student
engagement that can advance significant changes.

Continuous Improvement Process:

In theory, the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) would focus on student needs through a
collaborative process involving all stakeholders. Many stakeholders, however, indicated they had no knowledge of
the CSIP components. They also reported little involvement in the development of the plan. Many of the various
strategies and activities identified teachers as responsible for the implementation, but the interview data showed
that many teachers were unaware of that responsibility. No data were found to show that the plan was being
monitored or adjusted as necessary to reach or exceed goals.
The school designed the PLC model to ensure that students were not only taught, but also to ensure that they
learned, requiring the PLC team to disaggregate common grade-level assessment data and redistribute students
for reteaching in a new way. The PLC groups were based, in theory, upon the four DuFour questions: 1) What do
we want students to learn? 2) How will we know if they have learned? 3) What will we do if they do not learn, and
4) What will we do if they already know it?
While the school had established structures (e.g., professional learning communities, multi-tiered system of
supports [MTSS], faculty meetings) to provide time for teachers to collaboratively review and analyze some
student data, the Diagnostic Review Team suggests that the school focus on non-negotiable items to ensure each
teacher implements quality instruction with fidelity and embeds differentiation and rigor into teaching and
learning. Although the Diagnostic Team observed some research-based teaching practices, instruction in many
classrooms lacked the depth and consistency necessary to promote high levels of student learning. While time
spent achieving behavior objectives was beneficial, the school should build on this investment and focus on
instructional goals. Additionally, instructional time could be maximized by using organized and effective transitions
between classes and by starting classes on time.
An analysis of data indicated the need for a systematic teaching process that uses strategies to meet student
needs, including differentiation in learning tasks. In addition, the team suggests that the school focus on raising the
level of questions posed to students and increase the rigor in instructional activities. The Diagnostic Review Team
encourages the school to use these findings as leverage points for engaging students in differentiated learning
tasks that meet their diverse needs. The Diagnostic Review Team also suggests that school leaders monitor and
adjust strategies that help teachers improve their professional practices.
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

Barb Lesselyong Barb Lesselyong currently serves as a Lead Evaluator for AdvancED/Measured
Progress. Ms. Lesselyong is a retired administrator from the Cypress Fairbanks
Independent School District. As part of her administrative experience, Ms.
Lesselyong has supervised and evaluated teachers, analyzed student data, and
provided professional development. She has also served as a teacher, school
media specialist, and technology liaison within elementary, middle, and high
school grade levels. Her bachelor’s degree was obtained from the University of
Houston and her master’s degree from Sam Houston University.
Susan Greer Mrs. Susan Greer served as a Kentucky language arts teacher for nine years,
three years on the middle school level and six years in a high school. Following
this tenure, Mrs. Greer became a high school administrator and held this position
for 10 years. From there, she joined the Kentucky Department of Education to
serve as a Highly Skilled Educator and Education Recovery Leader. For the last 10
years, she has served as an Education Recovery Director. Currently, she also
facilitates cadres for LEAD-KY based on the curriculum from the National Institute
for School Leadership and serves as the coordinator of Novice Reduction work
across the state. Mrs. Greer has served on Diagnostic Review Teams for the last
ten years.
Osiris Jolayemi Osiris Jolayemi is a senior learning specialist with AdvancED/Measured Progress,
a global organization specializing in school improvement and accreditation. Her
current role merges her experience working in childhood education and her
expertise in teaching adults in the corporate world. She served as a classroom
teacher for 14 years, teaching kindergarten through sixth grade and high school
English. Ms. Jolayemi also worked in learning and development in the corporate
world, cultivating her skills as an adult educator. She holds a bachelor’s degree in
elementary education/English and a master’s degree in adult education and
development.
Teresa Miller-Ruiz Teresa Miller-Ruiz currently serves as an Education Recovery Specialist with the
Division of Consolidated Plans and Audits for the Kentucky Department of
Education. She has over 20 years of experience in education. The primary focus
in her current role is to improve student achievement by building leadership
capacity, improving instructional practices within the classroom, and creating
sustainable systems to ensure future student success. Ms. Miller-Ruiz holds a
master’s degree in instructional leadership and a bachelor’s degree in
elementary education.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Claudia Godbey Claudia Godbey received her bachelor’s, master’s, and Rank I in Special
Education, Learning and Behavior Disorders from Eastern Kentucky University.
She has over 21 years of experience as an educator and over 18 years as a
Director of Exceptional Education. Her career began with the Madison County
Schools as an LBD teacher. Later, she moved into administration as the director
of special education for the Danville Schools for 10 years. Following that, Ms.
Godbey became a special education consultant for the Madison County Schools
and then the director of special education for Kentucky School for the Deaf and
Kentucky School for the Blind. Following her tenure at both state schools, she
served as the director of exceptional children for the Woodford County School
and is currently serving as the director of exceptional children for the Lincoln
County School system.

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 “All Student Group”
Group”
Reading 3rd 28.7 55.8 35.4 52.3
Reading 4th 24.1 49.9 30.3 53.7
Reading 5th 30.2 57.3 32.1 57.8
Reading 6th 58.9 59.7
Math 3rd 28.7 50.9 15.6 47.3
Math 4th 27.6 47.9 25.3 47.2
Math 5th 33.3 48.9 34.5 52.0
Math 6th 49.1 47.5
Science 4th N/A 13.1 30.8
Social Studies 5th 25.0 60.0 15.5 53.0
Writing 5th 12.5 45.9 9.5 40.5
Plus:
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading increased 6.7 percentage points in
third grade and 6.2 percentage points in fourth grade from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished increased 1.9 percentage points in fifth-grade
reading and 1.2 percentage points in fifth-grade math from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
Delta:
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all content areas
and at all grade levels in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.

Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)
Content Area Index State Index
Reading 16.6 19.7
Math 14.5 14.5
EL 31.9
Growth Indicator 15.6 17.1
Plus:
• Both the math index and the state index in 2017-2018 were 14.5.
Delta:
• The reading index and growth indicator were both below the state index.
Section III: Student Gap Groups 2017-2018 P/D %

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 32.6 24.7 13.1 15.5 9.5

Female 38.6 31.0 14.3 18.4 10.5
Male 26.1 17.9 11.6 13.0 8.7
White 47.6 47.6 36.4
African-American 30.8 22.5 8.8 12.7 9.9
Hispanic 27.3 27.3
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Two or more races
Title I 32.6 24.7 13.1 15.5 9.5
Migrant
Homeless

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
Foster
Military
English Learner (EL)
English Learner plus
Monitored
Economically 30.1 22.9 10.1 13.8 8.8
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 10.3 10.3 8.3 0
(Total)
Disability-With IEP 10.3 10.3 8.3 0
(No Alt)
Disability (no ALT) 5.6 5.6
with
Accommodation
Consolidated 31.3 22.8 10.1 11.7 9.1
Student Group
Plus:
• The African-American gap group scored above the All Students group in writing by 0.4 percentage points.
Delta:
• The African-American gap group scored below the All Students group in all content areas, except in writing.
• The Disability group with IEPs (Total) scored below the All Students group in reading, math, science, and social
studies.
• The Disability group with IEPs (No Alt) scored below the All Students group in reading, math, science, and
social studies.
• The Disability group (No Alt) with Accommodations scored significantly lower in reading and math than all
other groups.
• The Consolidated Student Group scored below the All Students group in all content areas.

Schedule
Monday, February 11, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. – Brief Team Meeting Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
4:30 p.m. Room Team Members
4:30 p.m. – Principal Presentation Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
5:30 p.m. – Dr. Meyer Interview – JCPS support for CSI schools Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
6:00 p.m. – Team Work Session Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
Tuesday, February 12, 2019

8:30 a.m. – Team arrives at Foster Traditional Academy School office Diagnostic Review
9:00 a.m. Team Members
9:00 a.m. – Principal’s Interview School Diagnostic Review
10:00 a.m. – Classroom observations and stakeholder interviews School Diagnostic Review
11:45 a.m. – Lunch – Team Members eat when it can fit into their individual schedule School
12:30 p.m.
11:45 a.m. – Continued classroom observations and stakeholder interviews School Diagnostic Review
4:30 p.m. Team Members
4:30 p.m. – Team returns to hotel (after dismissal) and has dinner on their own
6:00 p.m.
6:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 (Agenda provided by Lead Evaluator) Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
Wednesday, February 13, 2019

8:30 a.m. Team arrives at Foster Traditional Academy School Diagnostic Review
Team Members
8:30 a.m. – Continue interviews and artifact review, conduct classroom School Diagnostic Review
4:00 p.m. observations Team Members
11:30 a.m.- Lunch – Team Members eat when it can fit into their individual schedule School Diagnostic Review
12:30 p.m. Team Members
12:30 p.m. – Continue interviews and artifact review, conduct classroom School Diagnostic Review
4:30 p.m. observations Team Members
4:30 p.m. – Team returns to hotel (after dismissal) and has dinner on own
6:00 p.m.
6:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 (Agenda provided by Lead Evaluator) Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
Thursday, February 14, 2019

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

10:30 a.m. Team Members review all components of the Diagnostic Review Team 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.

Foster Traditional Academy Final DR Report 2018-2019

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Foster Traditional Academy Final DR Report 2018-2019

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

February 11–14, 2019

Results for: Foster Traditional Academy

© 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 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,

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

D. Active Learning Environment

Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each

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 & Feedback Learning Environment

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how

F. Well-Managed Learning Environment

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s)

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal

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

G. Digital Learning Environment

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate

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

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

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

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

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data: