2018-19 The Academy at Shawnee Diagnostic Review

March 4–7, 2019
Results for: Academy at Shawnee

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 ...................................................................................................... 21
Next Steps............................................................................................................................. 22
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 24
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 26
Student Performance Data ................................................................................................... 26
Schedule ............................................................................................................................... 29
© 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 5
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology 8
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 3
Students 10
Parents 3
Total 30

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
Emerging
purpose and direction.
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
groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement. Emerging

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
address the specialized social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs of Emerging
students.
2.10 Learning progress is reliably assessed and consistently and clearly communicated. Emerging
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
collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational Emerging
effectiveness.
3.4 The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s Meets
purpose and direction. Expectations
3.7 The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long-
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and Emerging
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 17 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.

A. Equitable Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 1.4 71% 18% 12% 0%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 2.5 12% 29% 53% 6%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
A3 2.5 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 0% 47% 53% 0%
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 1.7 47% 35% 18% 0%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.0
B. High Expectations Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

B1 1.8 expectations established by themselves and/or the 35% 53% 6% 6%
teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are

B2 1.9 29% 47% 24% 0%
challenging but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.7 41% 47% 12% 0%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions,

and/or tasks that require the use of higher order
B4 1.9 29% 53% 18% 0%
thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating,
synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in

B5 2.1 18% 65% 12% 6%
their learning.
point scale:
1.9

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is
C1 1.9 24% 65% 12% 0%
positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.2 18% 47% 35% 0%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers,

C3 2.5 and/or other resources to understand content and 0% 53% 47% 0%
accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.5 6% 47% 41% 6%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale:
2.3
D. Active Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each

D1 1.7 29% 71% 0% 0%
other and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 1.8 41% 41% 18% 0%
experiences.
D3 2.2 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 6% 65% 29% 0%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 1.6 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 41% 53% 6% 0%
assignments.
point scale:
1.8

E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 1.8 35% 53% 12% 0%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

E2 2.2 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 6% 65% 29% 0%
and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

E3 2.0 24% 53% 24% 0%
lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

E4 1.7 47% 35% 18% 0%
work is assessed.
point scale:
1.9
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed

Evident
Evident
Not
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s)

F1 2.4 18% 47% 18% 18%
and each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow

F2 2.3 classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work 12% 59% 18% 12%
well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one

F3 1.7 53% 29% 12% 6%
activity to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal

F4 2.1 24% 53% 18% 6%
wasted time or disruptions.
point scale:
2.1

G. Digital Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather,
G1 1.9 53% 18% 12% 18%
evaluate, and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct

G2 2.0 research, solve problems, and/or create original works 47% 18% 24% 12%
for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate

G3 1.2 76% 24% 0% 0%
and work collaboratively for learning.
point scale:
1.7
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team conducted 17 classroom observations in core content classrooms. Findings revealed
that most instruction was whole group with few accommodations to meet the needs of individual students.
Overall, students did not collaborate, use digital tools/technology for learning, or engage in active learning
activities. The Supportive Learning Environment received the highest overall average rating of 2.3 on a four-point
scale. The lowest-rated was the Digital Learning Environment, which earned a rating of 1.7.
The Diagnostic Review Team, generally, observed whole-class, lecture-driven instruction or independent seat
work. In 12 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners “engage in differentiated learning
opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs.” (A1). In general, the practice of differentiation was rare.
Students also had few opportunities to interact with their teachers and peers via discussion and collaborative
learning activities. It was evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms that learners’
“discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other and teacher predominate” (D1) and in six percent of classrooms
that learners “collaborate with their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments”
(D4). The team found little evidence of collaboration/peer interaction, and the interview data supported the
findings that students infrequently engage in group work and projects.
Using formative assessments is a critical aspect of meeting students’ needs. Yet in 12 percent of classrooms, it was
evident/very evident that learners “monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning
progress is monitored” (E1). Further, it was evident/very evident in 18 percent of classrooms that learners
“understand and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4).
In the Digital Learning Environment, student use of technology was rare, despite the abundance of technology
present in each classroom. Observers noted few instances in which teachers asked students to use digital tools or
technology as learning instruments. When technology was used in a classroom, it was primarily to gather
information. It was evident/very evident in 30 percent of classrooms that learners “use digital tools/technology to
gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1). It was evident/very evident in 36 percent of

classrooms that learners “use digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original
works for learning” (G2). It was evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms that learners “use digital
tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) even though students were using
technology competently when it was used.

Findings
Improvement Priorities
Improvement priorities are developed to enhance the capacity of the school 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
Provide equitable opportunities for learners to develop skills and achieve the content and learning priorities
established by the school (Standard 2.1).
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed a decrease in the percentage of
students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in two content areas from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018: reading from
29.1 to 21 percent and science from 12.5 to eight percent. Even though students who scored
Proficient/Distinguished increased from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018 in math (from 12 to 14 percent) and in writing
(from 5.2 to 17.6 percent), scores in these two content areas were more than 20 percentage points below the
state average in both years. More specifically, the percentages of scores at Proficient/Distinguished levels in
writing were 53.3 percentage points below the state average in 2016-2017 and 34.2 percentage points below the
state average in 2017-2018.
The Diagnostic Review Team noted additional concerns with student performance on the ACT. The percentage of
grade 11 students who met benchmark on the ACT was significantly below the state average in 2016-2017 and
2017-2018; it was more than 20 percentage points below the state averages in all content areas. In addition, the
percentage of students who met benchmark on the ACT decreased in reading from 28 percent in 2016-2017 to 24
percent in 2017-2018. The 2018 transition readiness indicator was 36.7 percentage points below the state average.
The percentage of African-American students, Economically Disadvantaged students, and Disability-With IEP
(Total) students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018 was below that of All Students in all content
areas.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, generally revealed teacher-centered, whole-group
instruction with low levels of rigor, little attention given to the needs of individual students, and minimal
incorporation of technology for critical thinking or collaboration. The Diagnostic Review Team observed limited
examples of differentiated instruction, and some data pointed to inequitable access of resources and inconsistent
treatment of students. It was evident/very evident in 12 percent of classrooms that learners “engage in
differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). It was evident/very evident in
59 percent of classrooms that learners “have equal access to classroom discussions, activities, resources,
technology, and support” (A2) and in 53 percent of classrooms that learners “are treated in a fair, clear, and
consistent manner” (A3). The team observed that learners who “strive to meet or are able to articulate the high
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1) and learners who “demonstrate and/or are able
to describe high quality work” (B3) were evident/very evident in 12 percent of classrooms. In 24 percent of
classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners “engage in activities and learning that are challenging but
attainable” (B2). In 18 percent of classrooms it was evident/very evident that learners “engage in rigorous

coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying,
evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4) and “take responsibility for and are self-directed in their learning” (B5).
The team observed no instances of students working collaboratively with technology and found minimal evidence
of technology supporting learning. It was evident/very evident in 30 percent of classrooms that learners “use
digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1). In 36 percent of classrooms,
it was evident/very evident that learners “use digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or
create original works for learning” (G2). It was evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms that learners
“use digital tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3).
Stakeholder Interview Data:

In interviews, the Diagnostic Review Team inquired about lesson plans in order to determine whether lessons were
designed to develop skills and achieve the content and learning priorities established by the school. The interview
data revealed that teachers did not submit traditional lesson plans but were required to submit the standards
being taught for the week with learning targets and assessments. The teacher interview data further suggested
that little to no feedback was given on their submissions. The administrator interview data revealed that lesson
plans were initially divided among the principal and assistant principals for review and feedback. As this task
became more time-intensive, it was delegated to the Goal Clarity Coach.
The Diagnostic Review Team also inquired about how assessment results were used to personalize student
learning experiences and help achieve the content and learning priorities established by the school. Support staff
and teacher interview data revealed that counseling staff analyzed data from the Measures of Academic Progress
(MAP) assessments and shared this information with teachers. However, there was little intentional differentiation
of instruction based on these data.
The team inquired about professional development opportunities for faculty in the area of instruction. Teacher
interviews revealed that professional development about instructional strategies was provided by the district and
by the school. Topics included technology usage in classrooms (Google training), Illustrative Math, classroom
management (Restorative Practices), and instructional book studies. The district also provided cohort training on
how to institute more writing in the classroom and how to effectively use book circles. While teachers received
training on how to personalize instruction, the classroom observation data showed little implementation of
personalized strategies. The administrative interviews confirmed that there was little accountability for teacher
use of these strategies.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The stakeholder survey data revealed an overall perception among staff, parents, and students that learners do
not have equitable opportunities to develop skills and achieve the content and learning priorities established by
the school. Sixty-five 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). The survey data further revealed that 57 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school personalize instructional strategies and interventions to
address individual learning needs of students” (E2) and 67 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school,
challenging curriculum and learning experiences provide equity for all students in the development of learning,
thinking, and life skills” (E11).
There was limited agreement among parents that the school provided a challenging curriculum that addressed all
student learning needs. On the parent survey, 54 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the statements, “Our school
has high expectations for students in all classes” (D3) and “All my child’s teachers provide an equitable curriculum

that meets his/her learning needs” (E1). Sixty-three percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my
child’s teachers give work that challenges my child” (E2). Fifty percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All
of my child’s teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction” (E4), and 64 percent of parents
agreed/strongly agreed with the statement “My child knows the expectations for learning in all classes” (E10).
The student survey data revealed an absence of agreement among students that instruction was challenging and
adjusted as needed to meet their individual needs. Forty-five percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the
statement, “My school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2). Similarly, 46
percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers use a variety of teaching methods and
learning activities to help me develop the skills I need to succeed” (E8). Twenty-two percent of students
agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9), and 39
percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school prepares me for success in the next school year” (G3).
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of documents and artifacts provided by the school yielded little evidence that learners had equitable
opportunities to develop skills and achieve the content and learning priorities established by the institution. While
it was reported that teachers submitted weekly lesson plans via Google Drive, the team was not given access to
them. The team, however, reviewed samples of general unit plans. Also, the team observed that learning targets
were posted in 50 percent of classrooms. The school provided MAP data to the team as evidence; however, no
data were provided from the assessments about personalized learning experiences. Finally, there was minimal
evidence of student work from personalized learning activities posted in classrooms or common areas.

Implement and monitor a curriculum that is based on high expectations and prepares learners for their next levels
(Standard 2.5).
Evidence:

Student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, indicated that increases in student learning
did not occur across all grade levels and subject areas. In both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, the percentages of
students scoring at the Proficient/Distinguished levels were more than 20 percentage points below the state
average in all content areas. This data suggested that students were not prepared to succeed at their next levels of
learning. These and other student performance data were considered by the Diagnostic Review Team in identifying
Improvement Priority #2.

Classroom observation data revealed a general culture of low expectations for students’ academic success. In 12
percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners “strive to meet or are able to articulate the high
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1). It was evident/very evident in 24 percent of
classrooms that learners “engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2). In 12 percent
of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners “demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality
work” (B3). Learners who “engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher
order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4) and who “take responsibility for and are
self-directed in their learning” (B5) were evident/very evident in 18 percent of classrooms. It was evident/very
evident in 47 percent of classrooms that learners “are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or other
resources to understand content and accomplish tasks” (C3).
Further, the Diagnostic Review team did not find evidence that students understood their own learning goals or
how to monitor their learning progress. In 12 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners
“monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1). In 29
percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners “receive/respond to feedback (from
teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or revise work” (E2). It was evident/very evident
in 24 percent of classrooms that learners “demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content”
(E3). In 18 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners “understand and/or are able to explain
how their work is assessed” (E4).

The teacher interview data revealed that a variety of curricula were being used, including a district curriculum.
However, there was no formal process to evaluate and adjust curricula. The Open-Up curriculum was being piloted
in math classes. Teachers indicated a school-support staff member was assisting with pacing the curriculum and
making adjustments in the curriculum as needed.
There was consensus among stakeholders that high expectations for students were lacking. The administrator
interviews revealed that the teachers were not challenging the students, because the teachers did not believe
students could do challenging work. One stakeholder said, “Instruction is not where it needs to be. Teachers need
to increase the level of rigor. While teachers would not say that they have low expectations, they are operating as
if they do. They are teaching to the lowest end. Even in cases where students master the material, they are not

offered extension activities.” All of the parents interviewed stated that they did not feel their children were being
prepared for the next level.

The stakeholder survey data indicated that parents and students believed that teachers had low expectations for
students and that this contributed to students being unprepared for their next levels of learning. Fifty-four 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), and 63 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child's
teachers give work that challenges my child” (E2). Sixty-four percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the
statement, “My child knows the expectations for learning in all classes” (E10).
The survey data of students revealed that 34 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In my school, a
high quality education is offered” (C3) and 56 percent agreed/strong agreed that “In my school, the principal and
teachers have high expectations of me” (D3). Forty-five percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the
statement, “My school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2). In addition, 46
percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers use a variety of teaching methods and
learning activities to help me develop the skills I will need to succeed” (E8).

A review of documents and artifacts indicated that the school did not implement and systematically monitor a
curriculum based on high expectations or have a focus on preparing students for the next level. The school did not
provide any evidence beyond district-provided curriculum maps. There was no evidence of teachers taking this
information and articulating the curriculum via pacing guides, departmental curriculum maps, or lesson plans.
There was also no evidence of administrative support for teachers to understand and use content standards
effectively.

Implement a system to monitor and adjust instruction to meet individual learner’s needs and the school’s learning
expectations (Standard 2.7).
Evidence:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, suggested that the school did not
establish an effective process for monitoring and adjusting instruction based on the identified needs of students.
Student performance data were considered by the Diagnostic Review Team in identifying Improvement Priority #3.

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed in this report, suggested that instruction was rarely
personalized or differentiated to meet the specific needs of students. Instances of learners who “engage in
differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1) were evident/very evident in 12
percent of classrooms. In addition, it was evident/very evident in 24 percent of classrooms that learners
“demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content” (E3). The majority of students were not
challenged by instructional tasks, as learners who “engage in activities and learning that are challenging but
attainable” (B2) were evident/very evident in 24 percent of classrooms. The Diagnostic Review Team also did not
observe evidence of a progress-monitoring system that enabled students to understand their progress toward
learning goals. It was evident/very evident in 12 percent of classrooms that learners “monitor their own progress
or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1) and in 29 percent of classrooms that
learners “receive/respond to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or
revise work” (E2). Finally, it was evident/very evident in 18 percent of classrooms that learners “understand and/or
were able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4).

The interview data revealed that the administrative staff did not regularly attend professional learning community
(PLC)/collaborative meetings in which teachers were expected to review student data, design lessons, and develop
assessments. As a result, there was little accountability for the objectives of these meetings.

Stakeholder survey data indicated that the school did not implement a system to monitor and adjust instruction to
meet individual learner’s needs and the school’s learning expectations. Sixty-five 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, 57 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school personalize
instructional strategies and interventions to address individual learning needs of students” (E2). The survey data
also indicated limited use of multiple types of assessments and that teachers needed additional training to be able
to participate in rich professional discussions on student learning. Specifically, 60 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school use multiple types of assessments to
modify instruction and to revise curriculum” (E7). Furthermore, 68 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).

Fifty-nine percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my child’s teachers use a variety
of teaching strategies and learning activities” (E3), and 50 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of
my child’s teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction” (E4). Confirming the staff survey
data on the use of multiple assessments, 55 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement “My
school gives me multiple assessments to check my understanding of what was taught” (E1). Forty-five percent of
students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning
experiences” (E2), and 36 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides learning services
for me according to my needs” (E7). Further evidence that differentiation of instruction was rarely occurring was
that 22 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my teachers change their teaching
to meet my learning needs” (E9).

There was little evidence to support that instruction was being monitored and adjusted to meet individual
learner’s needs and the school’s learning expectations. No artifacts provided examples of differentiated learning
activities. No documents or artifacts provided evidence of any process to adjust instruction to meet students’
needs. A calendar and schedule were provided to the team to indicate that teachers were given regular
collaboration time; however, there was no evidence of how this time was being used or monitored. Further,
procedures for analysis of classroom instructional data were not evident.

Implement a process to gather, analyze, and use formative and summative data that leads to demonstrable
improvement of student learning (Standard 2.11).
Evidence:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, indicated that increases in student
learning did not occur across all grade levels and subject areas. These data were among the data considered by the
Diagnostic Review Team in identifying Improvement Priority #4.

Support staff and teacher interview data revealed that counselors completed data analyses from Measures of
Academic Progress (MAP) results, identifying lists of students who needed interventions (Tier 2 and Tier 3).
Although teachers were provided with the results of these analyses, there was no evidence that students received
the recommended interventions. The staff interview data further revealed non-academic data (e.g. attendance,
discipline referrals) were collected, reviewed, and analyzed to create a profile on each student.

Stakeholder survey data indicated similar perceptions among stakeholders regarding the use of formative and
summative assessment data to improve student learning. Sixty percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed
with the statement, “All teachers in our school use multiple types of assessments to modify instruction and to
revise the curriculum” (E7). Slightly more staff members, 69 percent, agreed/strongly agreed with the statement,
“In our school, all staff members use student data to address the unique learning needs of all students” (E14).
Similarly, 66 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school ensures all staff members are
trained in the evaluation, interpretation, and use of data” (G4).
The data from the parent and student surveys supported findings from the staff survey. Specifically, 63 percent of
parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My child is given multiple assessments to measure his/her
understanding of what was taught” (E12). Fifty-five percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school
gives me multiple assessments to check my understanding of what was taught” (E1). Further, 45 percent of
students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning
experiences” (E2), and 52 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers fairly grade and
evaluate my work” (E14).

A review of documents and artifacts yielded little evidence that learners had equitable opportunities to develop
skills and achieve the content and learning priorities established by the institution. Artifacts showed samples of
general unit plans. While it was reported that teachers submit weekly lesson plans via Google Drive, the team was
not given access to them. The team observed that learning targets were posted in many classrooms. MAP data
were made available; however, there were no data provided from the assessments that showed personalized
learning experiences. Finally, there was little evidence of personalized learning activities posted in classrooms or
hallways.

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:
Stakeholder interviews and survey results indicated strong student, staff, and parent relationships. Academy at
Shawnee administrators, faculty, and staff members were tireless advocates for their students and families. When
asked to name the best thing about the school, four building-level administrators, 10 students, and three parents
all stated that it was the principal and the people. One student indicated that the principal listened to him, so he,
in turn, listened to her. Multiple students shared that sentiment and extended it to the faculty. Students made
statements such as, “Staff cares about you like family,” “Teachers are easy to connect with,” “They ask me about
how my day is going, not just about school,” “Mrs. Rice shows students what they can do, instead of forcing them
to do it,” and “Mrs. Rice takes ownership for student problems.” Parents and staff expressed appreciation for the
principal, sharing that she was the best thing about the school. Many stakeholders noted the positive turnaround
in the school since the principal had arrived. The principal was seen as a relationship builder who focused her
energy on building a positive culture and climate at Academy at Shawnee. The team concluded that these
relationships resulted in a safer and more positive learning environment than had previously existed.
The team also noted that the Academy at Shawnee administration, faculty, and staff provided numerous support
services to meet the physical, social, and emotional needs of the student population. The school employed four
counselors, all of whom were dedicated to working with students individually and in small groups on academic and
social-emotional issues, as well as post-secondary planning. The school also employed additional support staff,
including a Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) coach, who provided support to students and
faculty to minimize discipline referrals. As a result, the principal reported that the number of disciplinary referrals
and out-of-school suspensions decreased from last school year. The stakeholder interviews revealed that efforts
were also made to collaborate with outside agencies to meet the social and emotional needs of students.
Concerted efforts were also made to ensure all students had multiple opportunities to explore and experience
extracurricular activities and extended school services. In addition to expanded athletic offerings and extended-day
academic support at the school, students reported that various events were held including a fall festival, a chili
cook-off, and movie nights. The students reported these events were open not only to them but also to their
families.

Continuous Improvement Process:

While the culture and climate of the school improved and was noted as a strength, an area of opportunity
identified by the Diagnostic Review Team was academics. The administration and staff members implemented
programs and processes in the last several months in an attempt to raise student academic performance. These
included a full-standing academy, PowerWalks, data analysis and review, the posting of standards and learning
targets, a weekly student advisory, and a racial equity plan. Going forward, the team suggests that all stakeholders
at Academy at Shawnee be intentional and consistent in their implementation of practices to ensure that their
efforts are aligned with the academic goals defined in the school improvement plan. This may mean limiting the
number of new programs and processes in order to ensure that existing efforts are implemented with fidelity. The
team recommends that a process be developed and implemented to ensure consistent monitoring of programs
and processes to measure effectiveness. Finally, to ensure consistency, the team suggests that professional
learning for faculty and staff become a component of any academic program or process that is implemented.
In addition to the academic programs and processes, the school implemented a system of supports, which could
be used to promote student learning. These programs included before- and after-school academic support,
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), extracurricular clubs and activities, and athletics. While
stakeholders shared that data were collected regarding student participation in each of these, there was no
analysis of how or whether participation affected student academic performance. It was the observation of the
team that this system of supports could be leveraged to promote the continuous improvement process.
Finally, the team noted that as the school begins this continuous improvement work, it is imperative that they
maintain high expectations for the students. As noted earlier in this report, multiple stakeholder interviews
revealed low academic expectations for students. The Diagnostic Review Team noted these low expectations
during classroom observations, as low levels of academic rigor and disruptive and, at times, defiant behavior were
observed. It will be important to Academy at Shawnee administration and staff members to hold students to high
levels of accountability, both academically and behaviorally. It will also be important for the administration to hold
the staff members to high levels of accountability with regard to their instructional practices, use of student data,
and design of engaging lessons. The administration will need to continue to provide support in the form of
providing professional development and monitoring for the fidelity of implementation of practices and strategies.
Ongoing classroom visits followed by prompt and comprehensive feedback will be necessary. The team concluded
that successful turnaround will require leveraging the already positive culture and climate to focus on high
academic and behavioral expectations and emphasizing engaging, differentiated, and rigorous instructional
practices in every classroom.
Next Steps
The results of the Diagnostic Review provide the next step to guide the improvement journey of the institution
with their efforts to improve the quality of educational opportunities for all learners. The findings are aligned to
research-based criteria designed to improve student learning and organizational effectiveness. The feedback
provided in the Diagnostic Review Report will assist the institution in reflecting on current improvement efforts
and adapting and adjusting their plans to continuously strive for improvement.
Upon receiving the Diagnostic Review Report, the institution is encouraged to implement the following steps:
• Review and share the findings with stakeholders.
• Develop plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the Diagnostic Review Team.
• Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution’s continuous improvement
efforts.

• Celebrate the successes noted in the report.

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

Dr. Staci Kimmons Dr. Staci Kimmons has 19 years of experience as an educator. She currently
serves as the director of curriculum and instruction for Georgia Cyber Academy
in Atlanta, Georgia. In this position, she coordinates the selection of
curriculum, as well as supplemental programs and tools for elementary,
middle, and high school students. She also is responsible for maintaining
institutional effectiveness by conducting academic compliance audits,
designing infrastructure, and drafting academic policies for the district. Dr.
Kimmons has a doctorate in educational leadership and policy from Marquette
University. She also has a master’s degree in educational psychology,
bachelor’s degree in psychology, and add-on certification in educational
leadership. Dr. Kimmons also has experience as an adjunct professor for
Concordia University, Grand Canyon University, and Eastern Washington
University, where she has developed and taught online courses in educational
leadership.
Dr. Lisa Carroll Dr. Lisa Carroll has over 27 years of experience in education. Dr. Carroll is
currently serving as an Education Recovery Leader for the Kentucky
Department of Education (KDE). She is in her tenth year of school turnaround
work with low achieving schools, having previously served three years as a
Highly Skilled Educator with KDE. Dr. Carroll completed her doctorate degree in
education leadership from Morehead State University in 2014 and also taught
principal preparation classes for the University of the Cumberlands. She is a
lifelong educator with a wide variety of educational experiences, including
assistant superintendent for instruction, districtwide curriculum specialist, K-12
principal, middle school principal, high school assistant principal, and
classroom teacher.
Curtis Higgins Mr. Curtis Higgins has been in education for 30 years. He is currently an
Education Recovery Leader (ERL) for the Kentucky Department of Education
(KDE), assigned to the west region. He is a retired educator working as a part-
time ERL, assisting districts that have Targeted School Improvement (TSI)
schools. He is currently assisting 10 districts with a total of 34 TSI schools. He
taught high school mathematics for 22 years. He was an assistant principal at
Myers Middle School in Jefferson County, Kentucky for two years and principal
at Hopkinsville High School in Hopkinsville, Kentucky for three years. During the
last three years, he has worked for KDE in school turnaround work with low
achieving schools across the western part of Kentucky.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Dr. Kathleen Smith Dr. Kathleen M. Smith has been an educator since 1975. She is currently a
regional director for the Mid-Atlantic States for AdvancEd/Measured Progress.
Her work as the Director of the Office of School Improvement with the Virginia
Department of Education has provided her with experience in school and
district improvement. Her past experience as a special educator, alternative
education specialist, career and technical director, pre-school specialist, and
school improvement specialist provides a diverse background of work with
diverse students for supporting schools and districts. She received her
doctorate from The College of William and Mary. Her dissertation, The Impact
of District Climate on Student Achievement, was a culmination of her desire to
support districts in finding systemic avenues to improve outcomes for
students.

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: School and Student Performance Results
Content %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State
Area (16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
Reading 29.1 55.8 21.1 45.4
Math 12.0 38.1 14.0 37.5
Science 12.5 41.2 8.4 29.6
Writing 5.2 58.5 17.6 51.8
Plus
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math increased by two percentage points
from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018 (from 12 to 14 percent).
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in writing increased by 12.4 percentage
points from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018 (from 5.2 to 17.6 percent).
Delta
• The percentages of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished were significantly below the state average in
all content areas in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science declined from 12.5 percent in
2016-2017 to eight percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading declined from 29.1 percent in
2016-2017 to 21 percent in 2017-2018.
Section II: Percentages of Students Meeting Benchmarks on ACT, Grade 11, at the School and in the State (2016-
2017, 2017-2018)
Content Area Percentage School Percentage State Percentage School Percentage State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17--18)
English 16.8 56.2 29.5 51.2

Math 7.9 43.9 15.4 38.9
Reading 27.7 53.6 24.4 47.1
Plus
• The percentage of students who met benchmark on the ACT in English increased from 17 percent in 2016-
2017 to 30 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who met benchmark on the ACT in math increased from eight percent in 2016-
2017 to 15 percent in 2017-2018.

Delta
• The percentage of students who met benchmark on the ACT was significantly below the state average in all
content areas in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who met benchmark on the ACT in reading decreased from 28 percent in 2016-
2017 to 24 percent in 2017-2018.
Section III: School Achievement of Transition Readiness and Graduation Rate (2017-2018)
Graduation Rate Year 4 Year 5 Indicator
(Average of Year 4 and 5)
2017 69.6 78.8
State 89.7 90.3
2018 78.1 76.9 77.5
State 90.8 91.3 90.8
Transition Readiness Indicator (Academic, Career, EL)

2018 24.2
State 60.9
Plus
• The graduation rate indicator (average of Year 4 and 5) increased from 74 percent in 2016-2017 to 77 percent
in 2017-2018.
Delta
• The graduation rate was significantly below the state average for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The transition rate was 36.7 percent below the state average.
Section IV: Gap Group Data Percent P/D for 2017-2018

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 21.1 14.0 8.4 - 17.6

Female 17.1 16.7 7.3 21.1
Male 24.1 11.8 9.3 15.1
White 31.1 24.4 11.4 19.0
African American 12.5 4.3 6.0 16.7
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
Other Pacific Islander

Two or more races
Title I 21.1 14.0 8.4 17.6
Migrant
Homeless
Foster
Military
English Learner (EL)
English Learner plus
Monitored
Economically 17.8 12.5 6.7 16.4
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 4.8 5.3 0.0 4.8
(Total)
Disability-With IEP (No
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with
Accommodation
Consolidated Student
Group
Plus
Delta
• The percentage of African-American students, Economically Disadvantaged students, and Disability-With IEP
(Total) students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018 was below that of All Students in all
content areas.
• The percentage of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math in 2017-2018 was
4.3 percent.
• The percentage of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science in 2017-2018 was
six percent.
• The percentage of Disabled Students-With IEP (Total) who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018 was
below 10 percent in all content areas: reading at 4.8 percent; math at 5.3 percent; science at zero percent;
and writing at four percent.

Schedule
Monday, March 4
Time Event Where Who
4:00 pm Team Meeting Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
Room Team Members
4:30 pm – Principal presentation Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
5:15 pm Room Team Members
5:30 pm – Team Work Session #1 Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
Tuesday, March 5
7:30 am Arrive at the Academy at Shawnee School Office Diagnostic Review
Team Members
7:40 am – Classroom observations & stakeholder interviews School Diagnostic Review
3:30 pm Team Members
4:00 pm – Team returns to hotel and has dinner on their own
6:00 pm
Wednesday, March 6
7:30 am Team arrives the Academy at Shawnee School Diagnostic Review
Team Members
7:40 am – Continue interviews and artifact review, conduct School Diagnostic Review
3:30 pm classroom observations Team Members
4:00 pm – Team returns to hotel and has dinner on their own.
6:00 pm
Thursday, March 7
7:40 am – Final Team Work Session Hotel Diagnostic Review
10:30 am 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 The Academy at Shawnee Diagnostic Review

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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 The Academy at Shawnee Diagnostic Review

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

March 4–7, 2019

Results for: Academy at Shawnee

© 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®)

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

A. Equitable Learning Environment

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

Learners engage in activities and learning that are

Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions,

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in

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

C. Supportive Learning Environment

Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers,

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

D. Active Learning Environment

Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each

Learners make connections from content to real-life

Learners collaborate with their peers to

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

E. Progress Monitoring 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

Indicators Average Description

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s)

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal

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

G. Digital Learning Environment

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate

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

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

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

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

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

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data: