2018-19 Wellington Elementary Diagnostic Review

March 4–7, 2019
Results for: Wellington Elementary

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 .................................................................................................................. 17
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 18
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 19
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 21
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 21
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 24
© 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 4
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology 3
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 6
Non-certified Staff 5
Students 10
Parents 5
Total 34

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

The AdvancED Performance Standards Diagnostic was used by the Diagnostic Review Team to evaluate the
institution’s effectiveness based on the AdvancED’s Performance Standards identified as essential for realizing
growth and sustainable improvement in underperforming schools. The diagnostic consists of three components
built around each of the three Domains: Leadership Capacity, Learning Capacity, and Resource Capacity. Point
values are established within the diagnostic, and a percentage of the points earned by the institution for each
Standard is calculated from the point values for each Standard. Results are reported within four categories: Needs
Improvement, Emerging, Meets Expectations, and Exceeds Expectations. The results for the three Domains are
presented in the tables that follow.
Leadership Capacity Domain

The capacity of leadership to ensure an institution’s progress toward its stated objectives is an essential element of
organizational effectiveness. An institution’s leadership capacity includes the fidelity and commitment to its
purpose and direction, the effectiveness of governance and leadership to enable the institution to realize its stated
objectives, the ability to engage and involve stakeholders in meaningful and productive ways, and the capacity to
implement strategies that improve learner and educator performance.
Leadership Capacity Standards Rating
1.1 The institution commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching Needs
and learning, including the expectations for learners. Improvement
1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces Needs
evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and Improvement
professional practice.
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve Emerging
professional practice and organizational effectiveness.
1.7 Leaders implement operational process and procedures to ensure organizational Needs
effectiveness in support of teaching and learning. Improvement
1.8 Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the institution’s Needs
purpose and direction. Improvement
1.9 The institution provides experiences that cultivate and improve leadership Needs
effectiveness. Improvement
1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder Needs
groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement. Improvement

Learning Capacity Domain

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

Resource Capacity Domain

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Results
The eProve™ Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot) is a learner-centric classroom observation
tool that comprises 28 items organized in seven environments aligned with the AdvancED Standards. The tool
provides useful, relevant, structured, and quantifiable data on the extent to which students are engaged in
activities and demonstrate knowledge, attitudes, and dispositions that are conducive to effective learning.
Classroom observations are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes.
Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team was eleot certified and passed a certification exam that established
inter-rater reliability. Team members conducted 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.
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
2.9 2.8
2.5
2.3
2.2 2.2
1.8
Environment Averages

A. Equitable Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 1.9 53% 18% 12% 18%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 2.9 0% 29% 53% 18%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
A3 3.0 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 0% 18% 65% 18%
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 1.5 59% 29% 12% 0%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.3
B. High Expectations Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

B1 2.1 29% 35% 35% 0%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

B2 2.8 12% 24% 41% 24%
but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.6 53% 29% 18% 0%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

B4 2.2 tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., 24% 35% 35% 6%
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

B5 2.4 12% 47% 35% 6%
learning.
point scale:
2.2

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 2.8 6% 18% 71% 6%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.7 6% 24% 65% 6%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or

C3 3.1 0% 24% 47% 29%
other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.9 6% 6% 76% 12%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale: 2.9
D. Active Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other

D1 2.9 0% 24% 65% 12%
and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 1.5 65% 24% 12% 0%
experiences.
D3 2.9 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 0% 29% 53% 18%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 2.6 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 6% 35% 47% 12%
assignments.
point scale: 2.5

E. Progress Monitoring & Feedback Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 1.8 41% 35% 24% 0%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

E2 2.6 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 0% 47% 47% 6%
and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

E3 2.8 12% 12% 65% 12%
lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

E4 1.6 76% 0% 12% 12%
work is assessed.
point scale: 2.2
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and

F1 2.9 6% 12% 65% 18%
each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

F2 2.9 6% 12% 65% 18%
rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

F3 2.7 6% 29% 53% 12%
to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

F4 2.7 6% 29% 53% 12%
time or disruptions.
point scale: 2.8

G. Digital Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate,
G1 2.1 35% 29% 24% 12%
and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

G2 1.6 53% 35% 6% 6%
solve problems, and/or create original works for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

G3 1.7 65% 12% 12% 12%
work collaboratively for learning.
point scale: 1.8
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team collected data in 17 core content classrooms. Data from classroom observations
revealed strengths and areas of concern within the seven learning environments. The major strength identified
from observation data was in the Supportive Learning Environment. It was evident/very evident in 88 percent of
classrooms that “Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher” (C4).
Additionally, it was evident/very evident in 76 percent of classrooms that “Learners are supported by the teacher,
their peers, and/or other resources to understand and accomplish tasks” (C3). Also, in 78 percent of classrooms,
students who “demonstrate a sense of community that is positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful” (C1) was
evident/very evident.
The second strength identified from the observation data was in the Well-Managed Learning Environment. It was
evident/very evident in 83 percent of classrooms, for example, that “Learners speak and interact respectfully with
teacher(s) and each other” (F1). Also, it was evident/very evident in 83 percent of classrooms that “Learners
demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others”
(F2).
Another strength was noted in the Active Learning Environment. In 77 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very
evident that “Learners’ discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other and teacher predominate” (D1). Lastly, it
was evident/very evident in 77 percent of classrooms that “Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding
of the lesson/content” (E3).
While the Diagnostic Review Team identified items needing improvement in all seven of the learning
environments, two of the lowest-rated items were in the Equitable Learning Environment and the Active Learning
Environment. It was evident/very evident in 12 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). Likewise, it was evident/very
evident in 12 percent of classrooms that “Learners make connections from content to real-life experiences” (D2).
Another area of concern was in the High Expectations Learning Environment. In 41 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). It was evident/very evident that “Learners demonstrate and/or able to
describe high quality work” (B3) in 18 percent of classrooms. Additionally, it was evident/very evident in 35
percent of classrooms that “Learners strive to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or
the teacher” (B1).
An additional area of concern of the team was that it was evident/very evident in 24 percent of classrooms that
“Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1). It
was also evident/very evident in 24 percent of classrooms that “Learners understand and/or are able to explain
how their work is assessed” (E4).
Finally, in the area of the Digital Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident in 12 percent of classrooms
that “Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for
learning” (G2). Likewise, it was evident/very evident that “Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate
and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) in 24 percent of the classrooms.
These findings could serve as levers to increase the instructional capacity of core content teachers through
professional learning opportunities focused on implementing a rigorous curriculum and using a formative and
summative assessment system that informs instruction to ensure student growth. School and district leaders are
encouraged to carefully review these findings in order to identify and leverage additional areas for improving
student learning and establishing priorities for improvement.

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
Revise and implement a systematic process to monitor the quality and fidelity of a rigorous curriculum framework
that is horizontally and vertically aligned to the Kentucky Academic Standards. Create an intentional focus on rigor
and a commitment to high learning expectations that prepare students for their next level of learning. Establish an
annual process that involves all teachers in the analysis of data for the review and potential revision of the
curriculum. (Standard 2.5)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed that the percentage of students
who scored Proficient/Distinguished on the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 Kentucky Performance Rating for
Educational Progress (K-PREP) assessments was below the state average in all tested content areas at all grade
levels. Additionally, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished declined in all tested areas
from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. The reading and math growth indices and the overall growth indicator were below
the 2017-2018 state indices. Also, the growth indicator in reading was nearly five points below the state average.
The percentage of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was lower than the All-Students
group in all content areas and was lower than white students in reading, math, science, and social studies. The
percentage of students with disabilities with an IEP who scored Proficient/Distinguished was lower than the All-
Students group in all content areas.
The Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) data were used for three years, and teachers reported they had an in-
depth understanding of how these data can help guide instruction. The 2017-2018 end-of-year MAP data showed
significant growth for kindergarten and first-grade students in both reading and math. There was also significant
growth in math for second-grade and fourth-grade students and slight growth for fifth-grade students in both
reading and math.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, showed that in 41 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). Additionally, learners who “demonstrate and/or able to describe high
quality work” (B3) were evident/very evident in 18 percent of classrooms. Learners who “monitor their own
progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1) were evident/very evident in 24
percent of classrooms. Lastly, learners who “understand and/or able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4)
were evident/very evident in 24 percent of classrooms.

Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data revealed that administrators and some teachers reported a lack of rigor in teaching
and learning. One teacher specifically stated, “We need to be mindful of growing students who are already high
level.” School leaders identified a “North Star Goal” of improving student outcomes. District leaders described
instructional practices that “stood out” in comparison to other identified schools and reported that Wellington had
a commitment to high expectations. Although school leaders routinely observed teaching and learning while using
the PowerWalk framework that focused on five instructional practices, no stakeholders referenced a formal or
official curriculum that guided their instructional practices.
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of documents and artifacts found no evidence that staff members used a curriculum or an assessment
framework. Within the instructional framework, there was a lack of evidence of high-quality instruction.
Wellington used Six Essential Systems for a Strong Learning Climate. The school rated System One (Standards
Implementation) a three out of four in response to the implementation. Evidence showed that there was a
working list of essential standards and opportunities to work as vertical teams. System Three (Instructional
Planning and Practice for Deeper Learning) was rated two out of four. Teachers “sometimes” developed a clear
scope and sequence that indicated what/when will be taught/assessed while also ensuring time for personalized
pacing that allowed for flexibility based on student needs.
The team found that a vertical alignment tool was used to assess the current Multi-Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) process in kindergarten through fifth-grade math and reading. Results from the process showed several
gaps and inconsistencies. The school is encouraged to continually evaluate the process (e.g., to ensure students
are appropriately grouped and regrouped, instruction meets the needs of students, staff members are assigned to
students based on their strengths).
The Diagnostic Review team found evidence that PowerWalks were used to monitor the delivery of instruction
regarding the “how,” rather than the curriculum expectations about the “what.” Within the Scope and Sequence
documents created in the school year 2018-2019, there was little evidence of monitoring curriculum
implementation. During the principal overview presentation, however, this process was described as a “work in
progress.”
A review of the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) for 2018-2019 showed that a proficiency goal was
to ensure congruency among standards, lesson frames, and assessment measures through implementation of the
“Fundamental Five” that included the identification of Essential Standards and Common Formative Assessments at
each grade level.

Improvement Priority #2
Develop, implement, and monitor a process that involves all grade-level teams in the development of formative
and summative assessments that can be used to track all students and ensure their academic growth. Refine
professional learning community (PLC) meetings to include regular checks of multiple forms of data in order to
monitor and adjust, if necessary, instructional strategies. (Standard 2.11)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data from the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 K-PREP assessments, as detailed in an
addendum to this report, revealed the lack of a systematic process for monitoring and adjusting instruction to
maximize student growth in academic performance. The student performance data were among those data
reviewed to determine Improvement Priority #2.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, showed that in 53 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). Additionally, it was evident/very evident in 24 percent of
classrooms that learners “monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is
monitored” (E1) and “understand and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4). Learners would
benefit from more formative assessments, with classroom discussion based on those assessments to clarify
expectations.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The stakeholder survey data showed that 76 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement,
“Our school ensures all staff members are trained in the evaluation, interpretation and use of data” (G4). Also, 82
percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school employs consistent assessment measures
across classrooms and courses” (G2). These results indicated that the staff reported data systems were in place to
monitor student academic progress, which conflicted with the data from document reviews, student performance
data, and classroom observation data.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data revealed that professional learning community (PLC) processes had been
inconsistent due to district initiatives that consumed time and took priority. Some staff members blamed a lack of
PLC time on “teacher contract issues” and reported that because of those time constraints “no more than one
PLC/staff meeting can be conducted each week.” None of the teachers interviewed mentioned the use of common
assessments to track learning progress other than MAP benchmark assessments (three times annually). During
interviews, district leaders stated that “more intentionality” needed to be placed on formal PLC practices.
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of the evidence that the school provided to the Diagnostic Review Team showed folders organized by
grade levels, with each grade level containing a subfolder for summative and formative assessments. Evidence in
these folders, however, was inconsistent. The fifth-grade folder had multiple samples of assessments, but most
other grade-level folders contained minimal evidence of assessments and assessment results.

The school used the Six Essential Systems for a Strong Learning Climate. System Two (Effective Use of Data) was
rated two out of four by the school. Evidence showed inconsistent systems for monitoring student data (transition
readiness from grade to grade). The team found a lack of a systematic approach to committee work related to the
analysis of school data. In addition, classroom or grade-level team rubrics and protocols were rarely used in PLC
meetings to ensure quality. Within System Three (Instructional Planning and Practice for Deeper Learning), there
was evidence that teachers sometimes created common formative assessments that demonstrated mastery of
skills and standards to provide clarity and feedback to the learner. System Four (Progress Monitoring and Analysis
of Student Work) showed that multiple and varied sources of data were sometimes collected, monitored, and
analyzed to inform progress toward meeting mastery of standards and ensure equitable opportunities. During PLC
meetings, staff members sometimes used a protocol to analyze student work in order to identify trends and needs
for determining effective, equitable, and varied instructional practices.

Insights from the Review

The Diagnostic Review Team engaged in professional discussions and deliberations about the processes, programs,
and practices within the institution to arrive at the findings of the team. These findings are organized around
themes guided by the evidence, examples of programs, and practices and provide direction for the institution’s
continuous improvement efforts. The insights from the Review narrative should provide contextualized
information from the team deliberations and provide information about the team’s analysis of the practices,
processes, and programs of the institution within the Levels of Impact of Engagement, Implementation, Results,
Sustainability, and Embeddedness.
Engagement is the level of involvement and frequency with which stakeholders are engaged in the desired
practices, processes, or programs within the institution. Implementation is the degree to which the desired
practices, processes, or programs are monitored and adjusted for quality and fidelity of implementation. Results
represent the collection, analysis, and use of data and evidence to demonstrate attaining the desired result(s).
Sustainability is results achieved consistently to demonstrate growth and improvement over time (minimum of
three years). Embeddedness is the degree to which the desired practices, processes, or programs are deeply
ingrained in the culture and operation of the institution.
Strengths:
PowerWalks and the book, The Fundamental Five, The Formula for Quality Instruction, by Sean Cain and Mike
Laird, strengthened teacher confidence in their instructional practices and provided opportunities for
improvement and reflection. The focus on high-yield instructional strategies was an effective use of staff member
time and resources. In addition, leadership provided meaningful feedback to teachers in a timely fashion. Most
teachers discussed student-goal-setting activities as a method used to increase student awareness of and
knowledge about personal and stretch goals. Celebrations and activities were implemented to recognize those
students who achieved their stretch goals.
A Backpack for Success Skills Program was implemented this year for fifth-grade students. The interview data
indicated that stakeholders reported the program was a driving force in maintaining a student-centered focus.
Fifth-grade students generally indicated that the program was a challenging but worthwhile activity.
The principal is an energetic, positive force within the school. The majority of staff members espoused the mission
and vision for improving the culture and climate of the school. The team found staff members collaborating to
create a “family atmosphere,” with a focus on building positive relationships among staff and students. Many
stakeholder comments included the description that the school had a “family atmosphere.” The principal
implemented, with support from community partners, a program to meet the social and emotional needs of
students, as well as to provide strategies for Teacher Child Interaction Training (TCIT). This program is two-fold, as
it is designed to improve student behavior and enhance student-adult relationships.
Continuous Improvement Process:

While the school established and scheduled weekly PLCs, there was no formal process to protect the time set aside
for the meetings. The interview data suggested that a major concern of many staff members was that district
initiatives sometimes take priority over PLC time. The Diagnostic Review Team suggests that stakeholders use PLC
meetings for analyzing data from formative assessments to drive instructional decisions about reteaching and next
instructional steps. Furthermore, the team found little evidence of any existing processes that support curriculum
protocols and monitoring.

Many stakeholders expressed the need to increase rigor for students in all grades. The School Quality Factors
2018-2019 document showed that “Some learners experience rigorous and challenging tasks, activities, and
projects that focus on developing higher order thinking skills and problem solving” (C1). Also, the document
showed that sometimes “parents, families and legal guardians support their children in their pursuit of challenging
goals” (C9).
Results from the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) assessment data showed a
negative trend in all areas and grade levels in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The Diagnostic Review Team suggests
that each grade level team set goals for each student in each grading period and consistently use formative
assessments to monitor progress toward mastering the standards being taught. The team suggests that
instructional coaches help teachers increase their use of high-yield instructional strategies, especially for standards
that students have had difficulty mastering.
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

Ruth Ann Kirk Ruth Ann Kirk graduated from Western Kentucky University. She also completed a
master’s degree in counseling from Georgia State University and a specialist in
education degree in curriculum from Lincoln Memorial University. Ruth Ann
retired from Blount County Schools, having taught biology, worked as a guidance
counselor, and served as lead teacher at an alternative school. She also taught in
Atlanta, Georgia for two years. Following retirement, she worked for the
Tennessee (TN) State Department of Education for 12 years as a consultant with
the Exemplary Educator program. Following that, she worked for the Public
Consulting Group to manage a team of 14 Tennessee Academic Specialists for the
East TN area. She has supervised student teachers for TN Tech University and
currently serves as a part-time supervisor in the federal programs department for
Knox County Schools.
Jim Hamm Jim Hamm has more than 34 years of experience as a teacher and administrator.
He is currently serving the Kentucky Department of Education as co-Lead for
Diagnostic Reviews and providing support for Targeted Support and Improvement
(TSI) schools. He has served as both an elementary and high school principal. He
has also held central office positions. The last nine years of his career were spent
with the Kentucky Department of Education. He served as a Professional Growth
and Effectiveness Lead, Education Recovery Leader, State Assistance Monitor, and
State Manager during this time. His last assignment was as State Manager of the
Breathitt County School District. Jim graduated from Eastern Kentucky University
with a bachelor’s degree in history education and a master’s degree in history. He
obtained his principal certification and Rank 1 from Union College and completed
his superintendent certification at Eastern Kentucky University.
Denva Smith Denva Smith has over 20 years of experience as a teacher, literacy coach, and
district administrator. She is currently serving as Education Recovery Specialist for
the Kentucky Department of Education. In that position, she works in a state-
managed district to assist and support staff in building sustainable core systems
for school improvement and student achievement. Mrs. Smith also serves three
additional districts that have more than one school where gap groups are low-
performing. Resources and support are provided to ensure Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) regulations are in place for comprehensive school and district
improvement planning. Mrs. Smith holds professional certificates for instructional
leadership, supervisor of instruction, and school superintendent, as well as an
endorsement in teaching reading and writing. She also has a master’s degree and
bachelor’s degree in elementary education. Her experiences include professional
development, curriculum, instruction, and assessment implementation,
monitoring, and supervising a variety of district initiatives and evaluation.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Michael Gregg Michael Gregg grew up in Somerset, KY, and completed his bachelor’s and
master’s degree from Eastern Kentucky University. He taught fourth grade for four
years at Southern Elementary School before serving as assistant principal for three
years in the same location. In 2011-2012, he began his post as principal at Nancy
Elementary School where he still serves.

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”
Reading 3rd 26.5 55.8 21.9 52.3
Reading 4th 29.9 49.9 24.4 53.7
Reading 5th 44.7 57.3 43.8 57.8
Math 3rd 27.7 50.9 26.0 47.3
Math 4th 34.3 47.9 24.4 47.2
Math 5th 45.9 48.9 31.3 52.0
Science 4th N/A N/A 2.3 30.8
Social Studies 5th 44.7 60.0 27.5 53.0
Writing 5th 22.4 45.9 13.8 40.5
Plus
Delta
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all
content areas and all grade levels in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished declined in all tested areas from 2016-
2017 to 2017-2018.

Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)
Content Area Index State Index
Reading 15.1 19.7
Math 14.4 14.5
EL - 31.9
Growth Indicator 14.8 17.1
Plus
• Math is only one-tenth of a point below the state index.
Delta
• The growth indices in reading and math and the overall growth indicator were below the 2017-2018 state
indices.
• The growth index in reading was nearly five points below the state average in 2017-2018.
Section III: Gap Group Data 2017-2018 %P/D
Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 30.1 27.2 2.3 27.5 13.8

Female 37.3 31.4 0.0 30.6 22.2
Male 23.1 23.1 4.5 25.0 6.8
White 37.7 33.3 4.8 27.3 9.1
African American 24.1 22.1 0.0 23.9 13.0
Hispanic 30.0 30.0
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races 57.1 42.9
Title I 30.1 27.1 2.3 27.5 13.8
Migrant
Homeless
Foster

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
Military
English Learner (EL)
English Learner plus
Monitored
Economically 27.8 27.3 2.8 25.8 12.9
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 7.1 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
(Total)
Disability-With IEP (No 5.9 5.9
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with 4.3 4.3
Accommodation
Consolidated Student 26.4 23.6 1.5 26.2 14.8
Group
Plus
• The percentage of Hispanic students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was higher than the All-
Students group in math.
• The percentage of Economically Disadvantaged students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was higher
than the All-Students group in math and science.
Delta
• The percentage of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was lower than the All-
Students group in all content areas.
• The percentage of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was lower than white
students in reading, math, science, and social studies.
• The percentage of students with disabilities with an IEP who scored Proficient/Distinguished was lower
than the All-Student group in all content areas.

Schedule
Date March 4, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. – Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
4:30 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:30 p.m.– Principal/Superintendent Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
5:15 p.m.– Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Date March 5, 2019

7:15 a.m. – Team arrives at Wellington School office Diagnostic
7:45 a.m. Review Team
Members
7:40 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
Date March 6, 2019

7:30 a.m. – Team arrives at Wellington School Diagnostic
Members
7:45 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 #3 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Date March 7, 2019

8:00 a.m. – Final Team Work Session School Diagnostic
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 Wellington Elementary Diagnostic Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018-19 Wellington Elementary Diagnostic Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

March 4–7, 2019

Results for: Wellington Elementary

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

Stakeholder Groups Number

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

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

Leadership Capacity Domain

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

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

Learning Capacity Domain

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

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

Resource Capacity Domain

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Diagnostic Review eleot Ratings

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

A. Equitable Learning Environment

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

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

C. Supportive Learning Environment

Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

D. Active Learning Environment

Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other

Learners make connections from content to real-life

Learners collaborate with their peers to

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

E. Progress Monitoring & Feedback Learning Environment

Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

F. Well-Managed Learning Environment

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

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

G. Digital Learning Environment

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

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

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

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

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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