2018-19 T. T. Knight Middle School Diagnostic Reveiw

February 25–28, 2019
Results for: T.T. Knight Middle School

Diagnostic Review Report
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4
Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4
Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 5
Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7
eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 13
Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 13
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 18
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 19
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 20
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 9
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 25
Non-certified Staff 5
Students 26
Parents 5
Partners/District 5
Total 80

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

Learning Capacity Domain

The impact of teaching and learning on student achievement and success is the primary expectation of every
institution. An effective learning culture is characterized by positive and productive teacher/learner relationships;
high expectations and standards; a challenging and engaging curriculum; quality instruction and comprehensive
support that enable all learners to be successful; and assessment practices (formative and summative) that
monitor and measure learner progress and achievement. Moreover, a quality institution evaluates the impact of its
learning culture, including all programs and support services, and adjusts accordingly.
Learning Capacity Standards Rating
2.1 Learners have equitable opportunities to develop skills and achieve the content Needs
and learning priorities established by the institution. Improvement
2.2 The learning culture promotes creativity, innovation and collaborative problem- Needs
solving. Improvement
2.5 Educators implement a curriculum that is based on high expectations and prepares Needs
learners for their next levels. Improvement
2.7 Instruction is monitored and adjusted to meet individual learners’ needs and the Needs
institution’s learning expectations. Improvement
2.9 The institution implements, evaluates, and monitors processes to identify and Emerging
address the specialized social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs of
students.
2.10 Learning progress is reliably assessed and consistently and clearly communicated. 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 Needs
collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational Improvement
effectiveness.
3.4 The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s Needs
purpose and direction. Improvement
3.7 The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long- Emerging
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and
direction.
3.8 The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the Needs
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and Improvement
organizational effectiveness.

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Results
The eProve™ Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot) is a learner-centric classroom observation
tool that comprises 28 items organized in seven environments aligned with the AdvancED Standards. The tool
provides useful, relevant, structured, and quantifiable data on the extent to which students are engaged in
activities and demonstrate knowledge, attitudes, and dispositions that are conducive to effective learning.
Classroom observations are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes.
Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team was eleot certified and passed a certification exam that established
inter-rater reliability. Team members conducted 16 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
2.5 2.5
2.3 2.2 2.1
1.9 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 1.5 63% 25% 13% 0%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 2.8 0% 25% 69% 6%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent

A3 3.0 0% 6% 88% 6%
manner.
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to

develop empathy/respect/appreciation for differences
A4 1.9 in abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or 44% 25% 31% 0%
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 1.9 expectations established by themselves and/or the 25% 63% 13% 0%
teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are

B2 2.0 13% 75% 13% 0%
challenging but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.8 44% 38% 19% 0%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions,

and/or tasks that require the use of higher order
B4 1.9 25% 63% 13% 0%
thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating,
synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in

B5 2.2 13% 56% 31% 0%
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 2.8 0% 31% 63% 6%
positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.1 19% 50% 31% 0%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers,

C3 2.6 and/or other resources to understand content and 0% 38% 63% 0%
accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.7 6% 25% 63% 6%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale:
2.5
D. Active Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each

D1 2.4 19% 31% 44% 6%
other and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 2.0 31% 44% 19% 6%
experiences.
D3 2.3 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 6% 69% 19% 6%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 2.2 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 31% 25% 38% 6%
assignments.
point scale:
2.2

E. Progress Monitoring & Feedback Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have
E1 2.1 mechanisms whereby their learning progress is 25% 38% 38% 0%
monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from
E2 2.2 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve 25% 31% 44% 0%
understanding and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of

E3 2.3 6% 56% 38% 0%
the lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how

E4 1.9 31% 44% 25% 0%
their work is assessed.
point scale:
2.1
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s)

F1 2.8 6% 19% 69% 6%
and each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow

F2 2.8 classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work 0% 25% 69% 6%
well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one

F3 2.1 38% 19% 44% 0%
activity to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal

F4 2.4 6% 50% 44% 0%
wasted time or disruptions.
point scale:
2.5

G. Digital Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather,
G1 2.2 19% 50% 25% 6%
evaluate, and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct

G2 1.6 research, solve problems, and/or create original works 56% 25% 19% 0%
for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate

G3 1.7 56% 25% 13% 6%
and work collaboratively for learning.
point scale:
1.8
eleot Narrative
The Knight Middle School Diagnostic Review Team conducted 16 classroom observations, which provided
information about teaching and learning throughout the school. Collectively, the data suggested that school
leaders need to ensure the use of high expectations when planning and implementing rigorous instruction, as well
as the need to differentiate instruction to meet the specific needs of students.
Several strengths were identified, but the most significant ones were found in the Well-Managed Learning
Environment. Students generally were compliant and obedient in their behaviors. For example, students who
“speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and each other” (F1) and “demonstrate knowledge of and/or
follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others” (F2) were evident/very evident in
75 percent of classrooms. Also, the team noted that instances of learners who “demonstrate a sense of community
that is positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful” (C1) were evident/very evident in 69 percent of classrooms
and who “are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or other resources to understand and accomplish tasks”
(C3) were evident/very evident in 63 percent of classrooms.
Conversely, the Diagnostic Review Team found a lack of high academic expectations in most classrooms. It was
evident/very evident in 13 percent of classrooms that “Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1). Additionally, it was evident/very evident in 13
percent of classrooms 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). Instances in which “Learners
engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2) were evident/very evident in 13 percent
of classrooms. The High Expectation Learning Environment could serve as a leverage point to increase achievement
for all students.
The team rarely observed students working on differentiated learning tasks based on their individual needs. While
the team observed students engaged with one another through the use of Google Classroom and partner work,
most instruction was teacher-directed with few instances of differentiation. For example, it was evident/very
evident in 13 percent of classrooms that “Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities

that meet their needs” (A1). In many observations, learners could not articulate to team members what
constituted proficient work, as it was evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms that “Learners understand
and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4). Also, in 38 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very
evident that students could “demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content” (E3). The
Diagnostic Review Team identified the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment as another
leverage point to increase student academic performance.
Finally, a few students used digital tools or technology for learning in a variety of ways. For example, in 31 percent
of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners “use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or
use information for learning” (G1). It was evident/very evident in 19 percent of classrooms that students “use
tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) and to “conduct research, solve
problems, and/or create original works for learning” (G2).
Collectively these findings could serve as levers for the school to increase instructional capacity of core-content
teachers through focused professional learning opportunities. School and district leaders are encouraged to
carefully review these findings to identify additional areas to leverage to improve student learning at Knight
Middle School and to establish priorities for areas of 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
Develop and adjust a master schedule that supports operations and procedures to ensure academic effectiveness
in support of teaching and learning. Maximize the amount of instructional time in all core content classes. Analyze
and use data to evaluate the effectiveness of and inform the review and revision to the master schedule. (Standard
1.7)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) student performance data, as detailed in an
addendum to this report, revealed that the percentage of students at Knight Middle School who scored
Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all content areas in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The
Diagnostic Review Team was concerned by the decrease in the percentages of students who scored
Proficient/Distinguished in sixth-grade math (from 18.3 to 11.3 percent), seventh-grade math (from 18.8 to 12.2
percent), eighth-grade math (from 26.4 to 13.3 percent), and sixth-grade reading (from 43.5 to 24 percent) from
2016-2017 to 2017-2018. Additionally, Knight Middle School students scored below the state index in all areas.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data revealed that wasted instructional time was a barrier to providing high-quality
lessons. After time to travel between classes, only 44 minutes of instructional time remained for each class period.
In addition, travel time between classes was not calculated into the master schedule. In over half of the
classrooms, instructional time was not maximized. For instance, it was evident/very evident in 44 percent of
classrooms that learners transitioned “smoothly and efficiently from one activity to another” (F3) and used “class
time purposefully with minimal wasted time or disruption” (F4).
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data indicated that school leaders and staff members acknowledged the need to
develop and adjust the master schedule in order to maximize instructional time. Many stakeholders reported that
school leaders and staff members previously discussed the impact of a block schedule for the school. Students
reported frustration over the amount of work given and the lack of class time to complete activities and
assignments. The interview data indicated that other forms of scheduling were discussed. While the current
schedule provided common time for interventions and accelerations, it did not address the need for instructional
planning time to address student needs within the core content classes.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The stakeholder survey data indicated a need to alter the master schedule to increase time for instruction and
student learning. The interview data suggested that more time would allow students to work on learning tasks
with high cognitive demand. In addition, interview data showed that many stakeholders wanted more instructional
time to implement differentiated learning activities. For example, the survey indicated that 48 percent of students

agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides learning services for me according to my needs” (E7).
Additionally, 41 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers change their teaching to meet
my learning needs” (E9). Also supporting this priority, the students indicated that 59 percent agreed/strongly
agreed that “My school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2).
Conversely, the parent survey indicated 88 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school has high
expectations for students in all classes” (D3). Similarly, the staff survey indicated that 78 percent of staff
agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school’s leaders support an innovative and collaborative culture” (D3).
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of the master schedule revealed that while the current schedule provided common time for interventions
and accelerations, it did not address time to plan and provide instruction that meets students’ needs within the
core content classes. Additionally, the schedule did not provide ample time for students to travel between classes
or, in each class, to develop understanding around content standards, provide high-quality discussions, and
practice skills that would lead to mastery of the standards.

Develop, implement, and monitor a systemic process to adjust instruction to meet the academic needs of
individual students. Ensure the use of evidence-based practices that produce rigorous instruction, support higher-
order thinking skills, and actively engage students in learning. Collect and analyze data and use findings to identify
gaps in student learning and adjust instructional practices to meet student academic needs. (Standard 2.7)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, suggested that an instructional
framework of high expectations and processes essential to supporting student learning and ensuring student
success at all levels was not developed, monitored, or evaluated. Student performance data summarized under
Improvement Priority #1 of this report were also considered by the Diagnostic Review Team to identify
Improvement Priority #2.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, revealed leverage areas around instructional processes.
Instances of students who “engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities to meet their needs”
(A1) were evident/very evident in 13 percent of classrooms. It was evident/very evident in 25 percent of
classrooms that students understood and/or were “able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4). Classroom
observation data further revealed students who “demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3)
were evident/very evident in 19 percent of classrooms. Instances in which students “engage in rigorous
coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying,
evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4) were evident/very evident in 13 percent of classrooms. Finally, it was evident/very
evident in 13 percent of classrooms that students “strive to meet or are able to articulate the high expectations
established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1).

The interview data suggested that continuous academic improvement efforts did not expand beyond attempts to
improve the health and culture of the school. Specifically, school leaders and staff members at Knight Middle
School acknowledged that they worked to create a safe, positive, and caring environment, which was evident
throughout the school. Interview data showed that the curriculum was inconsistently developed, implemented,
and monitored to ensure congruency from instruction to the level of rigor in content standards. The interview data
also indicated that although learning expectations were a regular part of the instructional process, they failed to
reach the rigor of the intended grade level. School leaders indicated that a focus on instructional processes was a
next step for the school.
The interview data revealed that many students perceived their classes as bell work, projects, or Chromebook
assignments instead of where the focus is on learning targets and proficient performance. Students indicated that
while exit tickets were used for classes, they rarely received feedback or revisited the information from the exit
tickets. Students also indicated frustration with a lack of consistency in instructional practices and the perceived
lack of understanding of content by some teachers.
Stakeholder interviews indicated that the lack of high expectations may be a result of the perceptions that are held
by staff members about the students. Many staff members made comments such as, “People just need to
understand the obstacles we have to deal with,” and “Other schools don’t look like ours demographically.”


The staff survey indicated that 63 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school
personalize instructional strategies and interventions to address individual learning needs of students” (E2). Also,
70 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school use multiple types of
assessments to modify instruction and to revise the curriculum” (E7).
The student survey indicated that 48 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My school provides
learning services for me according to my needs” (E7), and 41 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the statement,
“All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9). Also, 56 percent of the students
agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In my school, a high-quality education is offered” (C3).

A review of documents and artifacts showed that numerous initiatives were implemented. Many of these
initiatives were part of the Backpack for Success program. A review of meeting minutes revealed that leaders
addressed items for daily school operations. However, there was a lack of evidence of professional discussion and
learning about depth of knowledge in the core content areas. While structures were in place to foster collaborative
discussions, the meeting minutes, classroom observations, and stakeholder interviews could not confirm that
these structures were used to build understanding of the standards or instructional practices to affect student
learning.

Establish professional learning structures that promote collaboration and collegiality to improve student
performance and organizational effectiveness. (Standard 3.2)
Evidence:

The interview data revealed that a professional learning community (PLC) structure was established. However,
teachers indicated that formal processes within the structure did not allow for data analysis or for professional
learning of how to design rigorous and differentiated learning tasks aligned to grade-level core content standards
and use evidenced-based instructional practices. Interview data indicated staff members recognized the need for
better organized and structured PLC meetings that promote more collaboration and in-depth analysis of student
data to make a positive impact on instructional practices.

The parent survey indicated that 86 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child’s teachers work as a team
to help my children learn” (E5). Seventy-eight percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the
statements, “Our school’s leaders support an innovative and collaborative culture” (D3) and “All teachers in our
school participate in collaborative learning communities that meet both formally and informally across grade levels
and content areas” (E9). Additionally, 79 percent of the 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).
These data were inconsistent with other evidence found by the team. While meetings do take place, the school
focus was on implementing programs that promote a safe, positive, and caring climate. This enabled the school to
move toward improving data in the area of attendance, suspensions, and behavior disruptions.

A review of documents (i.e., team meeting minutes) revealed that meetings involved information on operations
and daily procedures rather than true collaborative instructional planning or data analysis. The meeting minutes
indicated that most meeting time was focused on student behavior. Documents and artifacts revealed that
structures and procedures were written regarding PLC meetings. A review of the master schedule revealed that
common planning time was set aside, but use of the processes and protocols for true collaborative planning for
academics and rigorous instructional practices was not evident. During the principal presentation, the principal
stated that this was an area for focused improvement and next steps.

Insights from the Review

The Diagnostic Review Team engaged in professional discussions and deliberations about the processes, programs,
and practices within the institution to arrive at the findings of the team. These findings are organized around
themes guided by the evidence, examples of programs, and practices and provide direction for the institution’s
continuous improvement efforts. The insights from the Review narrative should provide contextualized
information from the team deliberations and provide information about the team’s analysis of the practices,
processes, and programs of the institution within the Levels of Impact of Engagement, Implementation, Results,
Sustainability, and Embeddedness.
Engagement is the level of involvement and frequency with which stakeholders are engaged in the desired
practices, processes, or programs within the institution. Implementation is the degree to which the desired
practices, processes, or programs are monitored and adjusted for quality and fidelity of implementation. Results
represent the collection, analysis, and use of data and evidence to demonstrate attaining the desired result(s).
Sustainability is results achieved consistently to demonstrate growth and improvement over time (minimum of
three years). Embeddedness is the degree to which the desired practices, processes, or programs are deeply
ingrained in the culture and operation of the institution.
Strengths:
The principal demonstrated visionary leadership. The school was a safe, caring place for students. The principal
successfully obtained programs and services for the students. Over the last four years, the principal focused on
relationship practices. In addition, the principal was respected by staff, students, parents, and district leaders.
The observation data supported that leadership and staff members implemented strategies that ensure a safe and
orderly learning environment for all students. Students were treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. It was
evident, for example, that staff members consistently implemented school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports (PBIS) and Restorative Practices. Teachers consistently implemented these strategies in their
classrooms and in common areas. Anchor charts displaying the desired behaviors and attitudes expected were
displayed in classrooms. Students interacted with these charts throughout the day. Students were knowledgeable
of and followed classroom rules and behavioral expectations while working well with others. The interview data
indicated that students also spoke and interacted respectfully with teachers and each other. Teachers engaged in
further understanding their students’ needs through professional learning topics such as Trauma Informed Care
and Restorative Practices. A sense of community and a supportive learning environment were evident, and staff
members and students fostered a congenial and supportive relationship among one another.
Over the past four years, the school evolved into a comprehensive care center for students by providing free
breakfast and lunch for all students, afterschool tutoring, and project-based learning activities. In addition,
students were provided additional food and clothing when needed. Mental health services were also available at
the school. Supports were in place to help students who arrived with trauma from various outside sources. Social
and emotional supports were readily available for students. The school was seen as a refuge by the parents of the
students who attended Knight Middle School.
Continuous Improvement Process:

The interview and survey data and a review of documents and artifacts indicated that teachers and leaders
inconsistently engaged in a continuous improvement process to build instructional and organizational capacity.
The Diagnostic Review Team found little ongoing and effective use of data to drive instruction by teachers.

Coaches and leaders were knowledgeable about the data, but there was a lack of ownership among the majority of
teachers about the use of data. In addition, while staff members and school leaders embraced the core belief that
academic and social excellence is attainable for all students, staff members lacked access to targeted and
individualized professional learning activities that build instructional capacity and thereby improve student
achievement. The Diagnostic Review Team found few established, ongoing processes to nurture instructional
improvements.
While the school had created structures (e.g., professional learning communities, faculty meetings) to provide time
for teachers to collaboratively learn and plan, the data brought to the meetings by teachers and school leadership
were not used to inform instruction. Classroom observation and interview data confirmed that students had few
opportunities to engage in personalized or differentiated learning. Few students were engaged in rigorous
coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that required the use of higher-order thinking.
The school could benefit from teachers unpacking the standards and teaching to the highest levels while providing
the necessary scaffolding for underperforming students. Grade-level teacher groups would benefit from analyzing
the learning tasks that students are required to complete prior to the lesson and to reach agreement that these
learning tasks meet the standards or learning targets at higher levels of thinking, problem-solving, and creativity.
The school also could benefit from establishing and committing to a clear set of performance benchmarks aligned
with grade-level standards-based instruction and using those to monitor and determine progress toward meeting
improvement goals. Finally, the Diagnostic Review Team encourages the school to find ways to maximize and
protect valuable instructional time.
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

Dr. Karen Barron Dr. Karen Barron currently serves as an independent consultant and coach to
teachers, schools, and districts. As a consultant and teacher, she has experience in
all levels, K-12. She has taught both graduate and undergraduate courses at
Tennessee State University and Vanderbilt University. She has extensive
experience working with low-performing schools and school turnaround. Dr.
Barron’s administrative experience includes principalships in both elementary and
middle schools for 20 years in Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. Other
administrative experience includes program specialist at Edvantia (non-profit, now
called McRel), school improvement specialist in Tennessee, Research and
Development Specialist at Appalachian Regional Resource Center at Edvantia,
program manager and coach for Race to the Top District Grant. Dr. Barron holds a
bachelor’s degree in elementary education from the University of Tennessee. She
also has a master’s degree, educational specialist degree, and a doctorate degree
in curriculum and instruction from Peabody College of Vanderbilt University.
Zachary Hibbs Currently serving as an Education Recovery Specialist with the Kentucky
Department of Education, Zachary Hibbs has worked in many areas of education,
including teaching mathematics, instructional coaching, special education, and
various coaching roles from elementary to high school. His success in continuous
improvement is due in part to having been a teacher within a priority school. He
has also served as a teacher leader. Mr. Hibbs holds degrees from Kentucky
Wesleyan College, Murray State University, and the University of the
Cumberlands.
Teresa Miller-Ruiz Teresa Miller-Ruiz currently serves as an Education Recovery Specialist with the
Division of Consolidated Plans and Audits for the Kentucky Department of
Education. She has over 20 years of experience in education. The primary focus in
her current role is to improve student achievement by building leadership
capacity, improving instructional practices within the classroom, and creating
sustainable systems to ensure future student success. She holds a master’s degree
in instructional leadership and a bachelor’s degree in elementary education.
John Hurt John Hurt is currently retired, having enjoyed a 32-year career in public education.
The first ten years were spent as a classroom vocational teacher followed by 22
years in administrative leadership. He has a wide range of experience in
administrative responsibilities, including high school assistant principal, district
director of special education services, district director of pupil personnel, assistant
superintendent, and ten years as superintendent. He served on the Governor’s
Advisory Council for Gifted and Talented Students and numerous state and
regional committees. He has experience teaching in Georgia, Tennessee, and
Kentucky.

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 Student Performance %P/D
Content Area %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
Reading 6th* 43.5 58.9 24.0 59.7
Reading 7th 37.0 54.6 41.0 57.4
Reading 8th 33.3 57.1 38.5 62.9
Math 6th* 18.3 49.1 11.3 47.5
Math 7th 18.8 43.3 12.2 47.4
Math 8th 26.4 48.7 13.3 46.1
Science 7th n/a n/a 11.5 25.9
Social Studies 8th 34.1 60.5 30.1 60.2
Writing 8th 21.7 37.2 25.9 44.3
Plus
• The percentages of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in seventh- and eighth-grade reading
increased from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in eighth-grade writing slightly increased
from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
Delta
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all grade
levels and content areas.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in sixth-grade reading declined 1.95
percentage points from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentages of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade math
declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in eighth-grade social studies declined from
2016-2017 to 2017-2018.

Section II: Growth Indicator

Content Area Index State Index
Reading 13.1 16.1
Math 3.6 8.0
EL n/a 8.0
Growth Indicator 8.4 12.1
Plus
Delta
• The reading and math growth indices and the growth indicator were all below the state average.
Section III: 2017-2018 Student Gap Group %P/D

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 34.3 12.3 11.5 30.1 25.9

Female 36.1 12.2 10.7 27.9 33.8
Male 32.6 12.3 12.5 32.0 18.7
White 37.9 16.3 15.2 36.5 28.2
African American 21.9 3.5 7.5 7.1 14.3
Hispanic 40.8 12.7 8.0 30.4 34.8
Two or more races 33.3 0.0
Title I 34.3 12.3 11.5 30.1 25.9
English Learner (EL) 23.1 0.0
English Learner plus
Monitored 26.3 5.3
Economically
Disadvantaged 34.7 12.4 11.0 31.9 25.9
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP
(Total) 17.4 8.7 0.0 7.7 15.4
Disability-With IEP (No
Alt) 12.9 1.6 4.8
Disability (no ALT) with
Accommodation 16.7 0.0
Consolidated Student
Group 27.5 7.8 6.0 17.1 21.4

Plus
Delta
• The percentage of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was lower than white
students and Hispanic students in all content areas.
• The percentage of students with disabilities with an IEP who scored Proficient/Distinguished was lower
than the All-Students group in reading and in math.
• The percentage of students with disabilities with an IEP who scored Proficient/Distinguished was lower in
writing (4.8 percent) than all other groups of students.

Schedule
Monday, February 25, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. – Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
5:00 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
5:00 p.m. – Principal Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
5:45 p.m.– Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Tuesday, February 26, 2019

7:00 a.m. – Team arrives at Knight Middle School School office Diagnostic
7:45 a.m. Review Team
Members
7:45 a.m. – Principal Interview
8:15 a.m.
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 #2 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Wednesday, February 27, 2019

7:00 a.m. – Team arrives at Knight Middle School School Diagnostic

Members
7:40 a.m. – Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact School Diagnostic
3:00 p.m. Review Review Team
Members
3:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
4:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Thursday, February 28, 2019

8:00 a.m. – Final Team Work Session Hotel 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 T. T. Knight Middle School Diagnostic Reveiw

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 T. T. Knight Middle School Diagnostic Reveiw

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

February 25–28, 2019

Results for: T.T. Knight Middle School

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

Stakeholder Groups Number

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

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

Leadership Capacity Domain

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

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

Learning Capacity Domain

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

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

Resource Capacity Domain

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Diagnostic Review eleot Ratings

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

A. Equitable Learning Environment

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

Indicators Average Description

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 & Feedback Learning Environment

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how

F. Well-Managed Learning Environment

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s)

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal

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

G. Digital Learning Environment

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate

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

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

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

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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