2018-19 Milburn T Maupin Elementary Diagnostic Review

March 4–7, 2019
Results for: Milburn T. Maupin Elementary School

Diagnostic Review Report
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4
Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4
Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 5
Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7
eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 13
Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 13
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 19
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 20
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 21
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 23
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 23
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 26
© Advance Education, Inc. 2 www.advanc-ed.org

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

District-level Administrators 1
Building-level Administrators 2
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology Coordinator) 1
Certified Staff 12
Non-certified Staff 7
Students 39
Parents 6
Total 68

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

Learning Capacity Domain

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

Resource Capacity Domain

The use and distribution of resources support the stated mission of the institution. Institutions ensure that
resources are distributed and utilized equitably so that the needs of all learners are adequately and effectively
addressed. The utilization of resources includes support for professional learning for all staff. The institution
examines the allocation and use of resources to ensure appropriate levels of funding, sustainability, organizational
effectiveness, and increased student learning.
Resource Capacity Standards Rating
3.1 The institution plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning Emerging
environment, learner achievement, and the institution’s effectiveness.
3.2 The institution’s professional learning structure and expectations promote Emerging
collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational
effectiveness.
3.4 The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s Needs
purpose and direction. Improvement
3.7 The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long- Meets
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and Expectations
direction.
3.8 The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the Meets
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and Expectations
organizational effectiveness.

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Results
The eProve™ Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot) is a learner-centric classroom observation
tool that comprises 28 items organized in seven environments aligned with the AdvancED Standards. The tool
provides useful, relevant, structured, and quantifiable data on the extent to which students are engaged in
activities and demonstrate knowledge, attitudes, and dispositions that are conducive to effective learning.
Classroom observations are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes.
Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team was eleot certified and passed a certification exam that established
inter-rater reliability. Team members conducted 12 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
2.4
2.3
1.9 2.0
1.8
1.4
Environment Averages




eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team collected data in twelve core content classrooms. Data from classroom observations
revealed that students generally were well-behaved and followed classroom rules. For example, in 41 percent of
classrooms, students who “demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations
and work well with others” (F2) were evident/very evident. Additionally, in 66 percent of classrooms, it was
evident/very evident that “Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and each other” (F1).
Conversely, the classroom observation data also showed that most instruction was whole group or center based. It
was evident/very evident in 16 percent of classrooms, for instance, that students “engage in differentiated
learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). Additionally, it was evident/very evident in 17
percent of classrooms that “Learners 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).
Another concern of the team was the lack of expectations in most classrooms, as it was evident/very evident in 16
percent of classrooms that students “take responsibility for and are self-directed in their learning.” (B5). The
observation data further revealed that it was evident/very evident in 17 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). It was evident/very evident in 17 percent of classrooms that
students “strive to meet or are able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the
teacher” (B1). In addition, students who “engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2)
were evident/very evident in 33 percent of classrooms. Collectively, these findings illustrate the need to establish
high academic expectations and implement instruction that embeds the appropriate level of rigor.
Similarly, it was evident/very evident in 8 percent of classrooms that students “understand and/or are able to
explain how their work is assessed” (E4) and “monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their
learning progress is monitored” (E1). In addition, the team noted that students rarely used rubrics or examples of
high-quality work to guide their learning and help them understand the attributes of proficiency. Instances of
students who “demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content” (E3) were evident/very evident

in 33 percent of classrooms. Finally, observers noted that in 17 percent of classrooms, students who “collaborate
with their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments” (D4) were evident/very
evident.
The overall average rating for the Digital Learning Environment was 1.4 on a four-point scale, which made it the
lowest-rated of the seven learning environments. Students who use “digital tools/technology to communicate and
work collaboratively for learning” (G3) were evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms. Also, instances of
students who use “digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for
learning” (G2) were evident/very evident in 8 percent of classrooms. The observation data also revealed that in 33
percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students use “digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate,
and/or use information for learning” (G1). The Diagnostic Review Team observed students using technology
individually and in groups with little depth, differentiation, and rigor. The low scores for items within this learning
environment provide an opportunity to systemically increase the depth and breadth of student use of technology
to conduct research, solve problems, and create original work with a level of rigor that is enhanced by these tools.
The Diagnostic Review Team suggests school administration and staff members carefully examine all items to
identify additional areas that can be leveraged to increase instructional capacity and improve student learning. In
addition, each Improvement Priority outlined within this report can help prioritize areas of focus.

Findings
Improvement Priorities
Improvement priorities are developed to enhance the capacity of the institution to reach a higher level of
performance and reflect the areas identified by the Diagnostic Review Team to have the greatest impact on
improving student performance and organizational effectiveness.
Improvement Priority #1
Systematically implement and monitor the adopted curriculum. Ensure faculty and staff are highly skilled in
understanding and delivering rigorous instruction. Ensure instructional practices are based on high expectations
and prepare learners for the next level. (Standard 2.5)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data indicated that the school did not implement effective instructional practices that
met the needs of all students. The Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) results for
Maupin Elementary School students, as detailed in an addendum of this report, revealed that the percentage of
students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was significantly below the state average in all assessed areas and at
all grade levels in both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished
in fifth-grade social studies was significantly below the state average in 2017-2018 and lower than the 2016-2017
performance data.
The 2017-2018 student performance data showed that the student growth index in reading was 12 compared to
the state index of 19.7, math was 18.4 compared to the state index of 14.5, and the student growth indicator was
15.2 compared to the state growth index of 17.1. The math growth index of Maupin Elementary was higher than
the state growth index for 2017-2018.
The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in third-grade reading in 2016-2017 was 19
percent but declined to 8.9 in 2017-2018. However, 2017-2018 reading performance data showed fourth-grade
increased from 8.1 percent to 17 percent from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018, and fifth-grade increased from 5.9
percent to 16.4 percent during the same time.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, revealed that instances of students who “monitor their
own progress” (E1) were evident/very evident in 8 percent of classrooms. It was evident/very evident in 8 percent
of classrooms that students “understand and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4). Classroom
observation data further revealed that students who “demonstrate or are able to describe high quality work” (B3)
were evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms. Instances in which students “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 17 percent of classrooms. Finally, 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 17 percent of classrooms. It was evident/very evident in 50 percent of classrooms that
learners “demonstrate a sense of community that is positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful” (C1).

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder interview data revealed that both the rigor in instruction and the lack of fidelity in implementing
instructional processes emerged as concerns. Most stakeholder interview data indicated that a barrier to student
learning was the behavioral, social, and emotional needs of the students. The data revealed that the
implementation of a highly structured environment was minimal and had no clear expectations for students and
staff. Some stakeholders expressed concern about the lack of grade-level appropriate instruction. Stakeholders
were optimistic that academic program changes made in the past two years would yield higher student
achievement with consistent monitoring and implementation.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The survey data indicated that 70 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school
use a process to inform students of their learning expectations and standards of performance” (E5) and 56 percent
of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school provide students with specific and timely
feedback about their learning” (E6). Also, survey data showed that 73 percent of staff members agreed/strongly
agreed that “All teachers in our school use multiple types of assessments to modify instruction and to revise the
curriculum” (E7).
The survey data indicated that 78 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “My child knows the
expectations for learning in all classes” (E10). Eighty-nine percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “My child
is given multiple assessments to measure his/her understanding of what was taught” (E12). The student survey
data showed that 86 percent agreed with the statement, “In my school I am learning new things that will help me”
(C2), and 90 percent of students agreed that “My teachers help me learn things I will need in the future” (E1).
Additionally, 91 percent of students agreed that “My teachers tell me how I should behave and do my work.” (E4).
The Diagnostic Review Team observed disconnect amongst the survey, interview, and classroom observation data
related to using data-driven instructional strategies that engage students in rigorous activities and higher-order
thinking skills.
Documents and Artifacts:

The Diagnostic Review Team reviewed many documents and artifacts submitted by the school. Among them were
the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP), Maupin Backpack of School Success, Multi-Tiered Systems of
Support Plan (MTSS), and 2018 Maupin School Quality Factors (SQF). Development of these plans did not result in
significantly improving student learning, as indicated by the 2017-2018 K-PREP assessment results. However,
stakeholder interviews revealed praise for various extracurricular activities (e.g., drum corps, Spoken Word) that
positively affected the students and the Maupin school community. These activities were sponsored by Maupin’s
Family Resource Center and community partnerships.

Establish clear and concise expectations for all staff. Monitor instructional practices to include differentiation to
meet the need of students. Include formal guidelines for the expectations of the instructional process, meaningful
engagement of all students, and a system to ensure instruction is adjusted to meet individual student needs.
(Standard 2.7)
Evidence:

The student performance results from the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 K-PREP assessments, as detailed in an
addendum of this report, revealed that Maupin Elementary School performed significantly below the state average
in every content area for the last two years. The student performance data were among those data considered to
determine Improvement Priority #2.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, suggested that the school did not consistently monitor
the implementation of instructional practices to ensure the needs of all students were met. Classroom observation
data revealed that students were completing the same learning tasks or activities with little personalization or
differentiation. It was evident/very evident in 16 percent of classrooms that students “engage in differentiated
learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). Instances of 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 17 percent of classrooms. Also, it was evident/very evident that students “demonstrate and/or are able
to describe high quality work” (B3) in 25 percent of classrooms. Additionally, it was evident/very evident in 17
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). Few students were observed who
“understand and/or are able to explain how their work was assessed” (E4), as it was evident/very evident in 8
percent of classrooms.
Students who “use digital tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) were
evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms. Also, instances of students who “use digital tools/technology
to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for learning” (G2) were evident/very evident in 8
percent of classrooms. It was evident/very evident in 33 percent of classrooms that students “use digital
tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1).

A major concern of the Diagnostic Review Team was that while it was clear that data were discussed during
professional learning community (PLC) meetings, little evidence indicated that school leadership and staff
consistently used data to inform instructional decisions, promote innovation, increase professional learning, and
promote higher student achievement. The team discovered disconnect about data discussions with stakeholders
and the process for using data in instructional planning and delivery to students for academic improvements. The
interview data revealed that many stakeholders expressed concern that school leaders and teachers lacked
involvement and understanding of the data analysis process and development of common formative assessments.
However, stakeholders appreciated the principal’s “open door policy” and willingness to listen to their concerns,
their perspectives, and their views.


The survey data revealed that 73 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). The data also showed that 56 percent of staff members agreed/strongly
agreed that “All teachers in our school personalize instructional strategies and interventions to address individual
learning needs of students” (E2). The survey data showed that 73 percent of staff members agreed/strongly
agreed that “All teachers in our school use multiple types of assessments to modify instruction and to revise the
curriculum” (E7). Sixty-seven 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).
The survey data indicated that 81 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child's teachers use a
variety of teaching strategies and learning activities” (E3) and 87 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that
“All of my child's teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction” (E4). Student survey data
showed that 86 percent of students agreed with the statement, “In my school I am learning new things that will
help me” (C2), and 90 percent agreed that “My teachers help me learn things I will need in the future” (E1).
Additionally, 91 percent of students agreed that “My teachers tell me how I should behave and do my work.” (E4).
The Diagnostic Review Team observed disconnect amongst the survey, interview, and classroom observation data
related to using data-driven instructional strategies that engage students in rigorous activities and higher-order
thinking skills.

A major concern of the Diagnostic Review Team was that while it was clear that data were discussed during PLC
meetings, evidence was lacking for how data informed instructional decisions, promoted innovation, increased
professional learning, and promoted higher student achievement. In addition, the team found no clear
expectations for the implementation of the workshop instructional model or procedures about how it was
monitored. The school’s assessment system was not formally documented with clear expectations about the
collection of data (e.g., when, by whom) and how it would be used and monitored.

Design and implement a process for teachers to develop, analyze, and use formative and summative assessments
based on the Kentucky Academic Standards. Create a protocol for all instructional staff to engage in data analysis
and data-based instructional decision-making that leads to improved student learning. (Standard 2.11)
Evidence:

The student performance results from the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 K-PREP assessments, as detailed in an
addendum of this report, revealed that Maupin Elementary School performed significantly below the state average
in every content area for the last two years. These data were among those data reviewed to identify Improvement
Priority #3.

The stakeholder interview data showed that Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) and Common Formative
Assessment (CFA) data were collected and analyzed. Stakeholders, however, were unable to explain a process of
systematically collecting and analyzing data or the use of the findings to measure program effectiveness,
organizational conditions, and improvement of student learning. In addition, interview data indicated the school
had no formalized cycle and timeline to evaluate academic and organizational programs and services

The stakeholder perception data revealed that 73 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the
statement, “All teachers in our school monitor and adjust curriculum, instruction, and assessment based on data
from student assessments and examination of professional practice” (E1). In addition, the data revealed that 73
percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school use multiple types of
assessments to modify instruction and to revise the curriculum” (E7). The survey data indicated 64 percent of staff
members agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, all staff members use data to address the unique learning
needs of all students” (E14). A review of the survey data showed that 81 percent of parents agreed/strongly
agreed with the statement, “All of my child’s teachers provide an equitable curriculum that meets his/her learning
needs” (E1).
The parent survey data showed that 89 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “My child is given multiple
assessments to measure his/her understanding of what was taught” (E12). The data revealed that 82 percent of
staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school uses multiple assessment measures to determine student
learning and school performance” (G1). Also, the survey data indicated that 64 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school employs consistent assessment measures across classrooms and courses”
(G2) and “Our school ensures all staff members are trained in the evaluation, interpretation, and use of data” (G4).
The survey data revealed that 93 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school leaders
monitor data related to student achievement” (G6). Finally, survey data showed that 82 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school uses data to monitor student readiness and success at the
next level,” (G5).

A review of documents and artifacts revealed no formal process for assessing and evaluating programs to
determine their effectiveness and return on investment. The school provided no evidence of a formal process that
systematically collected and analyzed data and used the findings to measure program effectiveness, organizational
conditions, and improvement of student learning. Finally, the team found no documents or artifacts that indicated

how instructional programs, resources, and practices were evaluated for effectiveness. Additionally, there was
minimal evidence that showed longitudinal results were used to evaluate instructional programs and
organizational practices to determine the impact on student learning. Although there was evidence that the school
used multiple instructional programs, the team found no evidence suggesting a formalized cycle and timeline
existed to evaluate academic and organizational programs and services.

Insights from the Review

The Diagnostic Review Team engaged in professional discussions and deliberations about the processes, programs,
and practices within the institution to arrive at the findings of the team. These findings are organized around
themes guided by the evidence, examples of programs, and practices and provide direction for the institution’s
continuous improvement efforts. The insights from the Review narrative should provide contextualized
information from the team deliberations and provide information about the team’s analysis of the practices,
processes, and programs of the institution within the Levels of Impact of Engagement, Implementation, Results,
Sustainability, and Embeddedness.
Engagement is the level of involvement and frequency with which stakeholders are engaged in the desired
practices, processes, or programs within the institution. Implementation is the degree to which the desired
practices, processes, or programs are monitored and adjusted for quality and fidelity of implementation. Results
represent the collection, analysis, and use of data and evidence to demonstrate attaining the desired result(s).
Sustainability is results achieved consistently to demonstrate growth and improvement over time (minimum of
three years). Embeddedness is the degree to which the desired practices, processes, or programs are deeply
ingrained in the culture and operation of the institution.
Strengths:
Parents, teachers, support staff, and the administrative team at Maupin Elementary School demonstrated a sense
of pride for their school and community. Staff members expressed commitment to and deeply cared about their
students. The principal was focused on creating a positive school culture to lessen the impact of a high rate of
poverty and transient student populations and that is based on her belief that all students are valued and can
learn. District administrators, staff members, parents, and students all expressed confidence and support for the
school leadership team and were optimistic that the school was working to establish high expectations for all
students. The Diagnostic Review Team observed a well-maintained and aesthetically pleasing facility. Many
resources were available at the school, which allowed the leadership team to implement different programs and
provided teachers with additional support to help them meet the unique needs of their individual students.
Students were treated in a fair and consistent manner.
Continuous Improvement Process:

Interview, classroom observation, and survey data and a review of documents and artifacts indicated that school
leaders and teachers did not institutionalize documented systems for planning, quality implementation,
monitoring, and continuous evaluation of programs and practices. Thus, the improvement priorities identified by
the team related to a process to ensure rigorous instructional practices and program evaluation.
School leaders are encouraged to establish and implement systematic processes that monitor and adjust student
behavior and the level of instruction necessary to meet the individual needs of students and the learning
expectations of the school. The processes should be based on the rigor of Kentucky Academic Standards, current
research regarding the effectiveness of instructional practices and student learning needs, and schoolwide positive
behavioral management. The processes could include frequent classroom observations; consistent, meaningful
and targeted feedback; follow-up observations and ongoing support; data-driven decisions to identify and address
individual student academic needs and positive student behaviors.

While many positive initiatives were being implemented, the Diagnostic Review Team encourages stakeholders to
focus on a few priorities with consistent monitoring and data analysis to inform instructional improvements and
achieve the desired outcomes. Additionally, streamlining and formalizing the PLC process to ensure standard
mastery through assessment reviews and adjustments to instruction would potentially provide for immediate,
positive, and productive collegial experiences. Developing next steps, monitoring the fidelity of implementation,
and evaluating effectiveness provides for optimal opportunities for professional growth and increased student
achievement and acceptable student behavior. A systemic approach would allow for continual connections,
consistent implementation of research-based and rigorous instructional practices, reliable and actionable data
analysis, and consistent student programing and high-yield strategies for instructional success. Documentation of
processes, monitoring, and evaluation provides for replicable outcomes and situational adjustments as desired.
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

Rhonda Booker Long Rhonda is a lifelong educator with 31 years of experience, including serving as a
principal from preschool to high school. She has awarded diplomas to students
from ages five through 80. Her professional roles have included principal of
elementary through high school, adult education supervisor, and career and
technical education coordinator. As a student athlete and later as a girls’
basketball coach, Rhonda learned the importance of teamwork, motivation, and
strategic planning and the roles they plan in successful outcomes. She has
served as a mentor to aspiring educators and administrators throughout
Tennessee. Rhonda has served as a team member on several Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools Leadership teams. Her vast educational
experiences have afforded her many professional development opportunities.
Rhonda was chosen as a participant in Diversity Leadership training at the
National Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Additionally, she was selected
for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education
training by the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Rhonda received her
bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in administration and supervision from
Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee.
Tim Huddleston Tim currently serves as an Education Recovery Leader for the Kentucky
Department of Education and is assigned to Carr Elementary Schools. He has
over 27 years of experience in education, which consists of a middle school
classroom educator, high school assistant principal, middle school and high
school principal as well as school improvement specialist. For the past 19 years,
he has been actively involved with school improvement work K-12 and has
extensive experience with analysis of data curriculum, instruction, assessments,
and systems. He holds a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in secondary
mathematics education and a Rank I in administration and supervision of
instruction. In addition, he is a school improvement specialist (CSIS) and been
trained through the National Institute of School Leadership programs (NSIL).
Jeanne M. Crowe Jeanne has over 29 years of experience as an educator, including more than a
decade working in school improvement. She has experience at the school,
district, state, and post-secondary levels in Kentucky. Ms. Crowe currently
serves as the Education Recovery Leader at East Carter High School, a school
that was previously identified as a Priority School and is now high achieving and
has been designated as a Hub School, providing a resource to schools
designated for Targeted Support and Improvement in Kentucky and to act as a
lab of learning for both students and adults in order to address additional needs
within its geographical region. Ms. Crowe obtained her Rank I, master’s degree,
and bachelor’s degree from Eastern Kentucky University and currently holds
professional certifications as a teacher (K-8), instructional supervisor, director of
pupil personnel, and superintendent in Kentucky.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Jonica Ray Jonica has 22 years of education experience in various capacities. She taught
elementary education for 10 years. She also served as an elementary
instructional coach for four years, elementary assistant principal for three years,
and elementary principal for three years. Currently she is the elementary
supervisor of instruction for Carroll County Schools. Mrs. Ray obtained her
bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Northern Kentucky University. She also
earned instructional leadership and supervisor of instruction certifications from
the University of the Cumberlands. Currently, she is completing superintendent
certification.

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: School and Student Proficiency and Separate Academic Indicator Results
Content Area %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
“All Student Group” “All Student Group”
rd
Reading 3 19 55.8 8.9 52.3
Reading 4th 8.1 49.9 17.0 53.7
Reading 5th 5.9 57.3 16.4 57.8
Reading 6th N/A 58.9 N/A 59.7
Math 3rd 13.8 50.9 5.4 47.3
Math 4th 1.6 47.9 8.5 47.2
Math 5th 2.0 48.9 5.5 52.0
Math 6th N/A 49.1 N/A 47.5
Science 4th N/A N/A 6.4 30.8
Social Studies 5th 9.8 60.0 5.5 53.0
Writing 5th 0 45.9 12.7 40.5
Plus
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in fourth-grade reading increased by 8.9
percentage points from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade reading increased by 10.5
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in fourth-grade math increased by 6.9
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade math increased by 3.5
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade writing increased by 12.7

Delta
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all content
areas in all grade levels in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)

Content Area Index State Index
Reading 12.0 19.7
Math 18.4 14.5
EL N/A 31.9
Growth Indicator 15.2 17.1
Plus
• The growth index for math was above the state index by 3.9 points in 2017-2018.
Delta
• The growth index for reading was below the state index by 7.7 points in 2017-2018.
• The growth indicator was below the state indicator by 1.9 points in 2017-2018.
Section III: Student Gap Groups 2017-2018 %P/D

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Writing
%P/D %P/D %P/D Studies %P/D
%P/D
Female 11.4 3.8 7.7 3.2 16.1
Male 16.5 8.9 4.8 8.3 8.3
White
African American 12.6 3.5 7.0 2.1 12.5
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races
Title I 13.9 6.3 6.4 5.5 12.7
Migrant

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D Studies %P/D
%P/D
Homeless
Foster
Military
English Learner (EL)
English Learner plus
Monitored
Economically 12.5 5.3 5.5 12.7
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 8.3 8.3
(Total)
Disability-With IEP 8.3 8.3
(No Alt)
Disability (no ALT)
with Accommodation
Consolidated Student 13.5
Group
Plus
Delta
• The percentage of students in the Disability-with IEP (Total) group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in
reading was 8.3 percent and in math was 8.3 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students in the Disability-with IEP (No Alt) group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in
reading was 8.3 percent and in math was 8.3 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students in the Female group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math was 3.8 percent,
in science was 7.7 percent, and in social studies was 3.2 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students in the Male group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math was 8.9 percent, in
science was 4.8 percent, in social studies was 8.3 percent, and in writing was 8.3 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students in the African-American group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math was
3.5 percent, in science was 7 percent, and in social studies was 2.1 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students in the Title 1 group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math was 6.3 percent,
in science was 6.4 percent, and in social studies was 5.5 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students in the Economically Disadvantaged group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in
math was 5.3 percent in 2017-2018.

Schedule
Monday, March 4, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
5:00 p.m.– Principal Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
5:45 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
5:50 p.m.– Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Tuesday, March 5, 2019

8:30 a.m. Team arrives at Maupin Elementary School School office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
8:30 a.m. – Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact School Diagnostic
4:00 p.m. Review Review Team
Members
4:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
5:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Wednesday, March 6, 2019

8:30 a.m. Team arrives at Maupin Elementary School School Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
9:05 a.m. – School Administrators and Leadership Team Interviews / Stakeholder School Diagnostic
12:05 p.m. Interviews / Artifact Review Review Team
Members
1:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
2:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Thursday, March 7, 2019

8:00 a.m. – Final Team Work Session Hotel Diagnostic
10:30 a.m. Review Team
Members

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

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

2018-19 Milburn T Maupin Elementary 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 Milburn T Maupin Elementary Diagnostic Review

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

March 4–7, 2019

Results for: Milburn T. Maupin Elementary School

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

Stakeholder Groups Number

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

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

Leadership Capacity Domain

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

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

Learning Capacity Domain

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

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

Resource Capacity Domain

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Diagnostic Review eleot Ratings

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

© Advance Education, Inc. 8 www.advanc-ed.org

© Advance Education, Inc. 9 www.advanc-ed.org

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

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

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

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

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

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:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

© Advance Education, Inc. 18 www.advanc-ed.org

Insights from the Review

Continuous Improvement Process:

© Advance Education, Inc. 19 www.advanc-ed.org

© Advance Education, Inc. 20 www.advanc-ed.org

Team Member Name Brief Biography

© Advance Education, Inc. 21 www.advanc-ed.org

Team Member Name Brief Biography

© Advance Education, Inc. 22 www.advanc-ed.org

Reading 4th 8.1 49.9 17.0 53.7

Reading 5th 5.9 57.3 16.4 57.8

Reading 6th N/A 58.9 N/A 59.7

Math 3rd 13.8 50.9 5.4 47.3

Math 4th 1.6 47.9 8.5 47.2

Math 5th 2.0 48.9 5.5 52.0

Math 6th N/A 49.1 N/A 47.5

Science 4th N/A N/A 6.4 30.8

Social Studies 5th 9.8 60.0 5.5 53.0

Writing 5th 0 45.9 12.7 40.5

© Advance Education, Inc. 23 www.advanc-ed.org

Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)

Reading 12.0 19.7