2018-19 Shelby Traditional Academy Diagnostic Review

February 11–14, 2019
Results for: Shelby 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 .................................................................................................................. 18
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 3
Building-level Administrators 2
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology 3
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 36
Non-certified Staff 9
Students 50
Parents 8
Total 111

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 Needs
professional practice and organizational effectiveness. Improvement
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 Emerging
institution’s learning expectations.
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 Emerging
demonstrable improvement of student learning.
2.12 The institution implements a process to continuously assess its programs and Needs
organizational conditions to improve student learning. Improvement

Resource Capacity Domain

The use and distribution of resources support the stated mission of the institution. Institutions ensure that
resources are distributed and utilized equitably so that the needs of all learners are adequately and effectively
addressed. The utilization of resources includes support for professional learning for all staff. The institution
examines the allocation and use of resources to ensure appropriate levels of funding, sustainability, organizational
effectiveness, and increased student learning.
Resource Capacity Standards Rating
3.1 The institution plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning Emerging
environment, learner achievement, and the institution’s effectiveness.
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- Emerging
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and
direction.
3.8 The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the 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 31 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
2.7 2.6
2.5
2.1 2.2
2.1 2.0
Environment Averages

A. Equitable Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 2.4 12% 44% 32% 12%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 3.1 0% 8% 76% 16%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
A3 3.0 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 4% 16% 52% 28%
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 1.5 56% 36% 8% 0%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.5
B. High Expectations Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high
B1 2.3 12% 52% 32% 4%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

B2 2.5 4% 48% 44% 4%
but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.6 56% 32% 8% 4%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

B4 2.1 tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., 16% 60% 20% 4%
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

B5 2.2 16% 52% 24% 8%
learning.
point scale:
2.1

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 2.6 8% 36% 48% 8%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.7 4% 36% 44% 16%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or

C3 2.8 4% 24% 56% 16%
other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.8 0% 36% 44% 20%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale:
2.7
D. Active Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other
D1 2.7 8% 24% 56% 12%
and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 1.9 44% 28% 24% 4%
experiences.
D3 2.6 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 0% 48% 44% 8%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 1.7 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 56% 24% 12% 8%
assignments.
point scale:
2.2

E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 1.8 52% 20% 28% 0%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

E2 2.5 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 8% 48% 28% 16%
and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

E3 2.2 12% 60% 20% 8%
lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

E4 1.7 56% 24% 16% 4%
work is assessed.
point scale:
2.1
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and
F1 3.0 0% 24% 56% 20%
each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

F2 2.6 12% 36% 36% 16%
rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

F3 2.4 24% 28% 32% 16%
to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

F4 2.6 4% 44% 36% 16%
time or disruptions.
point scale:
2.6

G. Digital Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate,
G1 2.5 24% 16% 48% 12%
and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

G2 1.7 64% 4% 28% 4%
solve problems, and/or create original works for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

G3 1.8 60% 8% 28% 4%
work collaboratively for learning.
point scale:
2.0
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team conducted 31 classroom observations, providing ample information about the
classroom learning environments at Shelby Traditional Academy. Two items emerged as strengths in the Equitable
Learning Environment, which was rated 2.5 on a four-point scale. These items related to students being treated
fairly and equitably. From observation data, it was evident/very evident in 92 percent of classrooms that students
“have equal access to classroom discussions, activities, resources, technology, and support” (A2) and in 80 percent
of classrooms that students were “treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner” (A3).
While the Digital Learning Environment earned the lowest overall rating of 2.0 on the four-point scale, the team
was more concerned about the High Expectations Learning Environment. In most classrooms, the rigor in student
assignments and instruction did not match the depth of knowledge required by the Kentucky Academic Standards
(KAS) for that grade level. In 12 percent of classrooms, for example, it was evident/very evident that students
could “demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3). In 24 percent of classrooms, it was
evident/very evident 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). Also, students who “strive to
meet or are able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1) were
evident/very evident in 36 percent of classrooms.
Another area of concern emerged in the Well-Managed Learning Environment. The Diagnostic Review Team noted
that the absence of a consistently implemented school wide student behavior plan created a barrier to learning for
many students and in many classrooms. In 52 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students
“demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others”
(F2). In 52 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “use class time purposefully with
minimal wasted time or disruptions” (F4), suggesting that in almost half of the classrooms, observers could not
confirm that students routinely followed rules so that instructional time was maximized. In addition, in 48 percent
of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity to
another” (F3).

The Diagnostic Review Team found other items to leverage in order to improve student learning, including creating
classrooms where students feel a sense of belonging. Instances of students who “demonstrate a sense of
community that is positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful” (C1) were evident/very evident in 56 percent of
classrooms, suggesting that observers could not confirm the presence of this important condition in almost half of
the classrooms. Further, observers noted students rarely engaged in group discussions or worked with peers to
complete a learning task. In 20 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “collaborate with
their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments” (D4).
The Diagnostic Review Team encourages school leaders, staff members, and other stakeholders to carefully
examine each item within the seven learning environments in order to identify and commit to consistently and
effectively implement high-leverage practices. In addition, the team suggests the school build on the strength of
equity in the classroom to increase a sense of community where students thrive and learn.

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
Collaboratively develop, implement, and clearly communicate a comprehensive continuous improvement process
that provides a plan with specific goals, strategies, activities, and measures based on identified needs from a
review of multiple forms of data (e.g., student performance, perception, discipline, survey). Systematically monitor
the implementation and outcomes and adjust to the plan as necessary to improve teaching and learning. (Standard
1.3)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed the percentages of students
scoring Proficient/Distinguished on the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) in 2016-
2017 and 2017-2018 were below the state averages at every grade level and in every content area.
The percentage of African-American students scoring Proficient/Distinguished was lower in all content areas than
the percentages of their white and Hispanic peers. The English Learner (EL) index was far below the state index.
The percentage of students with disabilities scoring Proficient/Distinguished was lower than the percentage in all
gap groups for all content areas. In 2017-2018, the percentage of students with disabilities scoring
Proficient/Distinguished was in the single digits in all assessed areas. The team found no Comprehensive School
Improvement Plan (CSIP) strategies that specifically addressed the achievement gap for students with disabilities.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The interview data were noticeably inconsistent when compared to survey data. Survey data indicated that 92
percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school has established goals and a plan for
improving student learning“(C3); however, during interviews, parents could not confirm knowledge of the plan.
The survey data indicated that 91 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school has a
continuous improvement process based on data, goals, actions, and measures of growth” (C5). The stakeholder
interview data revealed that several interviewees reported being coached on what to say to the Diagnostic Review
Team about the topics of mission, vision, and curriculum. The interview data indicated that students with
disabilities faced challenges, as evidenced by the significant learning gap; however, school leaders had no clear
system to provide support for students with disabilities. The exceptional child education teachers were provided
the same training as other teachers.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The stakeholder survey data showed that staff members generally indicated agreement about the school having a
continuous improvement process; however, interview data did not support those findings. The survey data, for
example, showed that 91 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school has a
continuous improvement process based on data, goals, actions, and measures for growth” (C5); however, the
interview data showed that staff members could seldom discuss a continuous improvement process and knew
little of the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP). While the interview data showed that staff members

could not consistently provide information about an improvement process, the survey data revealed that 77
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). In addition, 92 percent of parents also agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school has established goals and a
plan for improving student learning” (C3), but the interview data did not support that parents were aware of a
continuous improvement process. In addition, the interview data revealed that many staff members reported
feeling pressure to answer the survey questions positively.
Documents and Artifacts:
The Diagnostic Review Team examined the Shelby Traditional Academic Phase 1 plan. Contents of the plan
included the Continuous Improvement Diagnostic document, which stated that the “Instructional Leadership
Team—teacher leaders from every team—will meet twice a month in open meetings to review, refine, and revise
processes to ensure that communication streams provide accurate and timely information that allows staff to ask
questions, offer input, and provide feedback. A Student Leadership Team is being created to ensure students have
a voice and … students will meet once a month with administrators to discuss school initiatives, provide feedback,
and offer suggestions. Updates will be provided to all students during the daily announcement broadcast and
pushed out as part of Google Classroom. In addition, a Parent Leadership Team is being created. The goal is to
have at least two parents from each grade on the team, representing the diverse student population.”
The Diagnostic Review Team found these initiatives were in the infancy stage of development.

Improvement Priority #2
Develop, implement, and monitor a process to ensure that curriculum, instruction, and assessments are seamlessly
aligned with the Kentucky Academic Standards and that core instruction is at the appropriate depth-of-knowledge
level. Align instructional rigor with the Kentucky Academic Standards rather than the content of programs,
textbooks, and resources. Establish a system that requires school leaders to observe teaching and learning and
provide teachers with meaningful feedback and ongoing support to improve tiered instruction and student
performance. Establish a process to hold one another accountable (i.e., principal and teachers) for improving
instructional capacity. (Standard 2.5)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, suggested core instruction had not been
developed, monitored, or evaluated to increase instructional capacity and student learning. Shelby Traditional
Academy student performance data showed that the percentages of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished
were below the state averages in every content area and at every grade level in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The
student performance data were among the data used to determine Improvement Priority #2.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data suggested the institution had not systematically implemented core instruction
that clearly informed students of expectations and standards of performance. The High Expectations Learning
Environment received an overall rating of 2.1 on a four-point scale. During classroom observations, students who
“demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3) were evident/very evident in 12 percent of
classrooms. The Diagnostic Review Team noted that students who demonstrated and or verbalized “understanding
of the lesson/content” (E3) were evident/very evident in 28 percent of classrooms. The team also found little
evidence that students were informed about how their work would be assessed, and the Progress Monitoring and
Feedback Learning Environment received an overall rating of 2.1. Students who understand and/or are able to
“explain how their work is assessed” (E4) were evident/very evident in 20 percent of classrooms. A concern of the
Diagnostic Review Team was that students who 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) were evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms.
Collectively, these data suggested the absence of a systematic instructional process that engaged students in
learning to ensure achievement of academic expectations. Student performance data corroborated the need to
significantly improve teaching and learning through high-yield strategies and core instruction for reading and
math.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data indicated a discrepancy among the survey, interview, and observation data.
Stakeholders reported that faculty members answered the survey in the school library in a whole group setting.
Furthermore, the interview data suggested that faculty members were told that survey results would be reflective
of the faculty and not the school leaders. One interviewee stated the principal was in the room as teachers filled
out the survey, and stated, “We were led during the survey and told that if we had a problem with her, don’t put it
on here but come let me know.” This comment was corroborated by other stakeholders. In addition, many
stakeholders reported that faculty members were told what to say around the topics of mission, vision, and
curriculum.

The school organized a formal interview session with five students, but the Diagnostic Review Team interviewed 45
additional students. The principal was asked to select students who represented a cross-section by age and
demographics for the team to interview. The principal provided five students for interviews who represented two
grade levels and two ethnic groups. The interview data showed that students used technology for approximately
five hours daily for independent work. Students worked primarily on adaptive technology. The data also showed
that a professional learning community system existed and provided extended time for meetings. Most students
shared that their teachers were fun, helpful, and caring.
The interview data also indicated that parents were pleased with the faculty and administration at Shelby
Traditional Academy. Parents were unable to articulate the vision or mission of the school or speak to a continuous
improvement process. Although the principal reported that informational folders went home with all students
weekly on Tuesdays, few parents indicated they consistently received those.
The interview data revealed that few staff members could describe any processes for curriculum, assessment, and
instruction. Data were being collected through the teacher data dashboard; however, teachers rarely analyzed
data to provide ongoing support for tiered instruction. Also according to interview data, PLCs were led primarily by
the administration with little teacher input. Stakeholders often expressed concern that PLCs focused almost
exclusively on Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) data and that MAP goals were set by the administration
without input from teachers. The Diagnostic Review Team found limited evidence that PLC groups intentionally
and strategically planned the creation of PLC meeting agendas, improvement plans, or next steps.
The interview data showed that the school leaders concurred that core instruction was an issue at Shelby
Traditional Elementary School. In addition, this concern was also raised by other stakeholder groups. The interview
data showed many stakeholders expressed a need for an effective process to improve professional practices. One
comment echoed the statements of many: “We need a stronger support system to help us determine what we
should teach to meet the needs of our kids.” One concern raised by the stakeholders was that students spent too
much time and depended too heavily on computers for their instruction. One teacher stated, “We do not break
down the standards and have a common interpretation of the standards.” Another teacher commented, “I just
wish I knew what to teach my kids.” Several teachers indicated that walkthroughs were conducted in addition to
formal evaluations. One teacher captured the sentiment of many by saying, “Feedback is hardly ever given for
strengths or growth areas.” When feedback is given, there is little consistent follow-up according to interview data.
The interview data indicated that a secretary passed out index cards daily to determine which classrooms would
receive walkthroughs on that day. Moreover, interview data showed that school leaders rarely completed all of the
walkthroughs that were on their list each day. According to interview data from multiple stakeholders, the
walkthrough process was inconsistently implemented. More concerning to the team, however, was that interview
data also showed that school leaders did not always adhere to the formal evaluation process or its timelines.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The survey data indicated that 88 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child’s teachers
provide an equitable curriculum that meets his or her learning needs” (E1). Likewise, the parent interview data
showed that parents generally believed the school provided an appropriate curriculum for all students. The survey
data also indicated that 89 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child’s teachers give work
that challenges my child” (E2). Eighty-four percent of students agreed that “In my school, I am learning new things
that will help me” (C2). Interview data showed that the students generally wanted to use computers less for
learning and spend more time engaged in other learning activities (e.g., collaborative, direct instruction, projects).

Interview data also showed that teachers wanted a consistent curriculum. Finally, the interview data indicated that
teachers were not consistently provided meaningful feedback about their instructional practices.
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of the principal’s PowerPoint presentation and the stakeholder interview data indicated that the principal
purchased programs such as Jan Richardson and Zearn for student instruction. Upon purchase of Jan Richardson
materials, professional development was provided for teachers on August 7, 2018. The review team, however,
found no follow-up trainings specific to Jan Richardson in the 2018-2019 Professional Development Plan. On the
plan, the team found that the dates of January 16, 17, 22, and 23 were designated as “reading instruction.” A
review of documents and artifacts and interview data uncovered no evidence of a core curriculum.
The school did not provide the team with a schedule for walkthroughs; rather, the team learned during interviews
that a secretary handed out index cards to determine which classrooms would be visited that day. When the team
requested information about feedback on lesson plans, a Planbook.com document was produced for one lesson
from one teacher. The document revealed several thank you statements from the observer and comments, such as
“I assume you are keeping information on guided reading on each child separately,” and “Do you have different
things planned during Monday and Friday Intervention Time?” The team, however, found no detailed feedback on
planned instruction. The interview data suggested that the school had not established a system to consistently and
effectively review lesson plans and provide meaningful feedback to teachers about their instructional practices.

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 Diagnostic Review Team identified strengths across the school. The facilities were clean and well-maintained.
Students indicated they felt cared about by their teachers. Teachers expressed concern about their students, both
social-emotionally and academically. Teachers were generally reflective about their practices and expressed a
desire to increase their instructional capacity.
An expanded leadership team had been established for 2018-2019. In addition, the school had a teacher
dashboard. MAP data were used by some classroom teachers to make instructional decisions. The administration
allocated resources based on the need to implement a 1:1 technology initiative and to purchase leveled readers
for the Jan Richardson reading program.
Parents indicated that the school had an open-door policy and that they were treated with respect. Parents
expressed favorable impressions of Shelby Traditional Academy.
Continuous Improvement Process:
A functional, comprehensive, continuous improvement process had not been developed and fully implemented. In
addition, the school did not have an aligned, rigorous curriculum; rather, teachers used a variety of programs in
lieu of a rigorous curriculum aligned to the Kentucky Academic Standards. Also, instructional capacity was
inconsistent across classrooms.
When asked for a professional development plan, the principal produced a calendar but not a plan. While staff
members indicated that a survey had been conducted about their professional learning needs, they were unable to
describe any follow-up or learning opportunities based on the survey results. The professional learning
communities (PLCs) are primarily used to review data, but little evidence was found that this time was deliberately
used to increase teacher instructional capacity. Information from the principal presentation indicated PLCs were
restructured to focus on reporting, monitoring, and analyzing data. The teacher interview data and limited meeting
agendas and minutes from PLCs revealed that data were being collected; however, consistent monitoring and
adjusting instruction were infrequent practices. The teacher interview data showed that during grade-level PLCs,
MAP data were reported, but follow-up discussions about next steps for instruction were limited. The team

suggests that relevant, job-embedded, and ongoing professional learning opportunities, based on student, teacher,
and school needs be provided to increase teacher instructional capacity.
The Diagnostic Review Team found effective core instruction was inconsistently occurring across all classrooms.
Classroom observations revealed that most instructional time was spent with students working on educational
software programs, but direct instruction, collaborative learning, and discussions among teachers and students
were not the norm in most classrooms. The classroom instruction was generally technology-driven. Interview and
classroom observation data verified that students spend several hours a day on computer programs such as Zearn.
Jan Richardson’s Guided Reading was introduced this school year; however, the other components of a balanced
literacy program were not apparent. Also, an important observation of the Diagnostic Review Team was the lack of
an articulated process to address the learning gap for students with disabilities.
The team suggests that school leaders and instructional staff provide teachers non-evaluative feedback on a
regular basis and assist them to grow professionally through follow-up, support, and other coaching practices. In
addition, teachers would benefit from observing exemplary model lessons.
A major barrier to student learning was the inconsistent use of a behavior management system in all classrooms
and common areas. The team observed many students disrupting class throughout the visit, which caused loss of
valuable instructional time. While the interview data indicated that the Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) program had been implemented school wide for the past five years and that a monthly PBIS team
meeting occurred, the results from these efforts were inconsistently observed in classrooms. Class Dojo was widely
used throughout the school. The Diagnostic Review Team, therefore, suggests that the school implement a
behavior management system with fidelity in all classrooms and common areas and that consequences be fairly
and equitably implemented. The team suggests that school leaders and staff members collaborate to develop or
identify the system with the most potential to improve student behavior and to unite in their efforts to
aggressively implement the process.
In summary, although the principal has served in that position for more than six years, the school did not have a
rigorous curriculum deliberately aligned to the Kentucky Academic Standards. Rather, programs were generally
substituted for core instruction. There was no comprehensive system to support the effective governance of the
expanded leadership team.
Interview data indicated that the vision and mission were recently shared with staff members through email with
directions for staff members to use the statements in their email signature line. The vision and mission also were
recently posted by administrators on each classroom door. According to interview data, the vision and mission
statements had not been revisited or revised since 2016-2017.
All stakeholders reported the principal is rarely visible in classrooms and does not use any type of reliable,
consistent walkthrough schedule. Teachers could not describe examples of meaningful feedback provided to them
as a result of walkthrough observations. In addition, when asked, staff members could seldom provide examples of
instructional support. The team learned that instructional support and feedback varied depending on the person
who conducted the observation or walkthrough or who facilitated learning, as some instructional staff members
(e.g., administrators, coaches) assisted and provided feedback and follow-up more than others.
In summary, the Diagnostic Review Team suggests that school leaders develop processes to address student
behavior, instructional capacity, leadership capacity, an aligned curriculum, and the learning gap for students,
especially those who are disabled. Finally, the team was concerned about the disparity that existed between the
survey data and other data (e.g., student performance, classroom observations, and interviews). According to the

interview data, the discrepancy in data occurred because many staff members perceived they were pressured by
the principal to respond favorably to survey questions, leaving many stakeholders and the Diagnostic Review Team
concerned about the integrity of the survey process.
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

Karen Woolridge Karen Woolridge currently serves as a Lead Evaluator with AdvancED/Measured
Progress. She also is an adjunct instructor at Lipscomb University and holds both
bachelor’s and master’s degrees. She has nearly 20 years of experience in
education, having served in several roles throughout her career in urban and rural
areas. In addition, she has experience as a teacher, instructional coach, Response
to Intervention (RTI) coordinator, and educational consultant. She was selected as
an Exemplary Leader by Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. Mrs. Woolridge has
worked with educators in numerous states.
Jim Hamm Jim Hamm has more than 34 years of experience as a teacher and administrator.
He is currently serving the Kentucky Department of Education as a co-lead for
Diagnostic Reviews and as support for Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI)
schools. He has served as both an elementary and high school principal. He has
also held central office positions. The last nine years of his career were spent on a
memorandum of agreement with the Kentucky Department of Education. He
served as a Professional Growth and Effectiveness Lead, Education Recovery
Leader, State Assistance Monitor, and State Manager during this time. His last
assignment was as State Manager of the Breathitt County School District. Jim
graduated from Eastern Kentucky University with a bachelor’s degree in history
education and a master’s degree in history. He obtained his principal certification
and Rank I from Union College and completed his superintendent certification at
Eastern Kentucky University.
Sabrina McElroy Sabrina McElroy has over 25 years of experience as a teacher and administrator.
She is currently the principal at Highland Turner Elementary in Breathitt County. In
this position, she assists teachers and staff with strategic teaching and planning of
activities to ensure classroom improvement. Building systems and growing
professionally allows for school wide improvement. Ms. McElroy served as a
middle school teacher for 16 years and administrator for A6 schools for seven
years before becoming principal at the elementary level. In addition, she has
certification as a superintendent and instructional supervisor. Mrs. McElroy
obtained her bachelor’s degree from Eastern Kentucky University and master’s
degree and Rank I from Morehead State University.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Melissa Evans Mrs. Evans is currently serving as an Education Recovery Leader with the Kentucky
Department of Education, assisting schools with turnaround efforts. Mrs. Evans
holds a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree from Union College in middle
school education in science and language arts, a Rank I in supervision of
instruction, and superintendent certification from University of the Cumberlands.
Prior experience includes 18 years in the Corbin Independent School District.
While there, she taught at the middle and high school levels, authored numerous
grants, and served as director of the summer science program. Administrative
experience includes five years serving the Knox County School District as director
of district wide programs. Major duties included district assessment coordinator;
curriculum, assessment, and instruction director; external grant director; and
career and technical education director.
Kevin Sanders Kevin Sanders has over 20 years of experience as a teacher and administrator. Mr.
Sanders has completed his master’s degree in administration. He currently serves
as the assistant principal at Flemingsburg Elementary in Fleming County, Kentucky.
He has also recently completed the National Institute for School Leadership
program through the Kentucky Department of Education.

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 20.3 55.8 32.0 52.3
Reading 4th 24.3 49.9 16.9 53.7
Reading 5th 36.9 57.3 33.3 57.8
Math 3rd 19.5 50.9 28.8 47.3
Math 4th 19.1 47.9 18.6 47.2
Math 5th 26.2 48.9 29.5 52.0
Science 4th n/a N/A 8.5 30.8
Social Studies 5th 38.5 60.0 30.3 53.0
Writing 5th 24.6 45.9 12.1 40.5
Plus
• The percentages of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in third-grade reading and math and fifth-grade
math increased from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentages of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished was highest in third-grade reading and fifth-
grade math in 2017-2018.
Delta
• The percentages 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.
• The percentages of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in fourth-grade reading and math, fifth-grade
reading, fifth-grade social studies, and fifth-grade writing declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The lowest percentages of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished occurred in fifth-grade writing, fourth-
grade reading, fourth-grade math, and fourth-grade science in 2017-2018.

Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)

Content Area Index State Index
Reading 15.6 19.7
Math 14.1 14.5
EL 22.6 31.9
Growth Indicator 14.9 17.1
Plus
• The math index is close to the state index.
Delta
• The EL index is far below the state index.
Section III: Gap Groups 2017-2018

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 27.7 25.9 8.5 30.3 12.1

Female 31.1 28.8 10.9 31.4 15.7
Male 23.4 22.8 6.3 29.0 8.1
White 47.5 43.8 22.2 34.8 17.4
African American 18.0 18.9 4.1 24.4 8.5
Hispanic 29.7 24.3 9.1 46.7 33.3
Two or more races 36.4 22.7 - - -
Title I 27.7 25.9 8.5 30.3 12.1
English Learner (EL) 12.2 8.2 5.6 16.7 16.7
English Learner plus 27.3 21.2 4.3 47.6 23.8
Monitored
Economically 23.4 23.4 7.8 29.6 13.0
Disadvantaged
Disability-With IEP (Total) 6.3 3.1 0.0 3.6 3.6
Disability-With IEP (No 6.3 3.1 0.0 3.6 3.6
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with 6.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 -
Accommodation
Consolidated Student 20.5 19.2 4.2 25.7 10.6
Group

Plus
• Hispanic students scored higher in writing than their peers.
Delta
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in all gap groups was lower for students with
disabilities in all content areas.
• African-American students scored lower in all content areas than their white and Hispanic peers.
• The highest percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished occurred in social studies by English
Leaner plus Monitored.

Schedule
Monday, February 11, 2019

Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
5:30 p.m. – Principal/Superintendent Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
6:30 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
6:30 p.m.– Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Tuesday, February 12, 2019

8:45 a.m. Team arrives at Shelby Traditional School Office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
9:05 a.m. – Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact School Diagnostic
3:45 p.m. Review Review Team
Members
4:15 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
4:45 p.m.
4:45 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 / working dinner Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Wednesday, February 13, 2019

7:45 a.m. Team arrives at Shelby Traditional School Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
8:00 a.m. – Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact School Diagnostic
3:00 p.m. Review Review Team
Members
3:30. Team returns to hotel
4:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Thursday, February 14
8:30 a.m. – Final Team Work Session School Diagnostic
11:30 a.m. Review Team
Members

advanc-ed.org
Toll Free: 888.41EDNOW (888.413.3669) Global: +1 678.392.2285, ext. 6963

9115 Westside Parkway, Alpharetta, GA 30009
About AdvancED
AdvancED is a non-profit, non-partisan organization serving the largest community of education
professionals in the world. Founded on more than 100 years of work in continuous improvement,
AdvancED combines the knowledge and expertise of a research institute, the skills of a management
consulting firm and the passion of a grassroots movement for educational change to empower
Pre-K-12 schools and school systems to ensure that all learners realize their full potential.
©Advance Education, Inc. AdvancED® grants to the Institution, which is the subject of the Engagement Review Report,
and its designees and stakeholders a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license, and release to
reproduce, reprint, and distribute this report in accordance with and as protected by the Copyright Laws of the United
States of America and all foreign countries. All other rights not expressly conveyed are reserved by AdvancED.

2018-19 Shelby Traditional Academy Diagnostic Review

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

2018-19 Shelby Traditional Academy Diagnostic Review

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

February 11–14, 2019

Results for: Shelby 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 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:

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:

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

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Insights from the Review