2018-19 Marion C Moore Diagnostic Review

February 25–28, 2019
Results for: Marion C. Moore 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 .................................................................................................................. 19
Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................... 21
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 22

Addenda................................................................................................................................... 25
Student Performance Data................................................................................................................ 25
Schedule............................................................................................................................................ 28
© 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 comprised 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 4
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 31
Non-certified Staff 7
Students 104
Parents 5
Community Members/Partners 3
Total 159

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
and learning, including the expectations for learners. Emerging
1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces

evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and Emerging
professional practice.
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve
Emerging
professional practice and organizational effectiveness.
1.7 Leaders implement operational process and procedures to ensure organizational
Emerging
effectiveness in support of teaching and learning.
1.8 Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the institution’s
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
address the specialized social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs of Emerging
students.
2.10 Learning progress is reliably assessed and consistently and clearly communicated. Needs
Improvement
2.11 Educators gather, analyze, and use formative and summative data that lead to Needs
demonstrable improvement of student learning. Improvement
2.12 The institution implements a process to continuously assess its programs and Needs
organizational conditions to improve student learning. Improvement

Resource Capacity Domain

The use and distribution of resources support the stated mission of the institution. Institutions ensure that
resources are distributed and utilized equitably so that the needs of all learners are adequately and effectively
addressed. The utilization of resources includes support for professional learning for all staff. The institution
examines the allocation and use of resources to ensure appropriate levels of funding, sustainability, organizational
effectiveness, and increased student learning.
Resource Capacity Standards Rating

3.1 The institution plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning
Emerging
environment, learner achievement, and the institution’s effectiveness.
3.2 The institution’s professional learning structure and expectations promote
collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational Emerging
effectiveness.
3.4 The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s
Emerging
purpose and direction
3.7 The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long-
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and Emerging
direction.
3.8 The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and Emerging
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 41 observations during the Diagnostic Review process, including
all core content learning environments. Two observations were not included in aggregate data due to one core
course being taught by a substitute teacher and a self-contained special needs classroom having fewer than 10
students present on the day observations were scheduled. 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
2.4 2.5
2.3
2.1 2.0 2.0
1.5
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 59% 31% 10% 0%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 2.6 3% 38% 54% 5%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
A3 2.9 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 3% 26% 54% 18%
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 1.5 59% 31% 10% 0%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 2.1
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 26% 41% 31% 3%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

B2 2.2 23% 46% 23% 8%
but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.8 38% 46% 15% 0%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

B4 2.1 tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., 23% 49% 21% 8%
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

B5 2.0 21% 64% 8% 8%
learning.
point scale: 2.0

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 2.4 10% 46% 38% 5%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.2 21% 38% 38% 3%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or

C3 2.5 3% 49% 44% 5%
other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.7 8% 31% 49% 13%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale: 2.4
D. Active Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other

D1 2.5 10% 36% 44% 10%
and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 2.0 36% 31% 28% 5%
experiences.
D3 2.4 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 10% 44% 41% 5%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 2.1 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 38% 23% 26% 13%
assignments.
point scale: 2.3

E. Progress Monitoring & Feedback Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 2.1 26% 46% 26% 3%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

E2 2.2 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 10% 62% 23% 5%
and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

E3 2.1 21% 54% 18% 8%
lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

E4 1.7 46% 36% 18% 0%
work is assessed.
point scale: 2.0
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and
F1 2.7 5% 36% 44% 15%
each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

F2 2.6 3% 44% 44% 10%
rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

F3 2.3 15% 46% 33% 5%
to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

F4 2.4 10% 51% 31% 8%
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, evaluate,
G1 1.6 77% 0% 13% 10%
and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

G2 1.4 85% 3% 5% 8%
solve problems, and/or create original works for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

G3 1.5 69% 21% 5% 5%
work collaboratively for learning.
point scale: 1.5
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team conducted 41 classroom observations, providing ample opportunity to observe
learning environments in all core content classes. Of the seven learning environments, the Well-Managed Learning
Environment earned the highest overall average rating of 2.5 on a four-point scale. The Digital Learning
Environment had the lowest overall average rating of 1.5.
In the Well-Managed Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident in 59 percent of classrooms that learners
spoke and interacted “respectfully with teacher(s) and each other” (F1). While clearly defined behavioral
expectations and classroom procedures were observed in most classrooms, it was evident/very evident in only
about half (54 percent) of the classrooms that learners followed “classroom rules and behavioral expectations and
[worked] well with others” (F2). When observing the Well-Managed Learning Environment, the Diagnostic Review
Team noted it was evident/very evident in 38 percent of classrooms that students transitioned “smoothly and
efficiently from one activity to another” (F3). In 39 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that
students used “class time purposefully with minimal wasted time or disruptions” (F4). These findings suggested
that while classrooms were generally well-managed, time available for planned learning experiences was
compromised by inefficient transitions and numerous disruptions (e.g., students asking to call home or requesting
to use the restroom).
In the Supportive Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident in 62 percent of classrooms that students
demonstrated “a congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher” (C4). While the Diagnostic Review
Team found that relationships between teachers and students were caring, the students were not always active
and the learning environment was not always equitable in meeting the needs of individual learners. In the Active
Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident in 46 percent of classrooms that students were “actively
engaged in the learning activities” (D3) and in 33 percent of classrooms that they made “connections from content
to real-life experiences” (D2).
In the Equitable Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident in 10 percent of classrooms that students were
engaged “in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). While the team
observed digital technology being used in most classrooms, it was only evident/very evident in 13 percent of
classrooms that students used “digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create

original works for learning” (G2) and in 10 percent of classroom that they used “digital tools/technology to
communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3). These findings suggested the learning experience for
students was largely passive with little individualization of instruction.
The Diagnostic Review Team was most concerned with the High Expectations and Progress Monitoring and
Feedback Learning Environments, which each received an overall average rating of 2.0. It was evident/very evident
in 15 percent of classrooms that students demonstrated and/or were “able to describe high quality work” (B3) and
in 16 percent of classrooms that they took “responsibility for and [were] self-directed in their learning” (B5). While
most classrooms had evidence of a lesson framework and learning targets, the team found minimal evidence of a
rigorous curriculum associated with high expectations for all learners. Specifically, it was evident/very evident in 31
percent of classrooms that students were engaged “in activities and learning that [were] challenging but
attainable” (B2), while in 34 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students strove to meet or
were “able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1).
In the Progress Monitoring Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident in 26 percent of classrooms that
student demonstrated and/or verbalized “understanding of the lesson/content” (E3), while it was evident/very
evident in 28 percent of classrooms that students received and/or responded “to feedback (from
teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or revise work” (E2). When examining the extent
to which students demonstrated self-monitoring, it was evident/very evident in 18 percent of classrooms that they
understood or were “able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4).
The dominant trends from learning environment data suggested that better and consistent monitoring of
classroom instructional practices was needed to ensure that students “engage in rigorous coursework” (B4),
“engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1), “are able to
articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1), and “understand and/or are
able to explain how work is assessed” (E4).

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 deploy a system that ensures the adopted district curriculum is implemented with fidelity, provides
high expectations for all students, and results in timely feedback to students and teachers. (Primary Indicator 2.5)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, indicated the percentage of students
who scored Proficient/Distinguished increased in sixth-grade reading from 32.1 percent in 2016-2017 to 42.1
percent in 2017-2018. This was also true in eighth-grade reading, which increased from 38.5 percent in 2016-2017
to 44.6 percent in 2017-2018. Similarly, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished increased
in eighth-grade social studies from 39.9 percent in 2016-2017 to 42.6 percent in 2017-2018. Finally, the percentage
of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished increased in eighth-grade writing from 18.6 percent in 2016-2017
to 23.8 percent in 2017-2018.
The Diagnostic Review Team was concerned that the overall Growth Indicator of 8.0 for Marion C. Moore Middle
School was below the state index of 12.1. Moreover, the indices for reading and math were at least four points
below the state indices. The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished decreased in seventh-
grade reading and in seventh-grade and eighth-grade math from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. Overall, the percentage
of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018 was substantially below the state average in all core
content areas. In disaggregating the data further, the Diagnostic Review Team found trends in student
performance data among specific student populations. For example, fewer than 10 percent of African-American
and Hispanic students and zero percent of English Learners (EL) scored Proficient/Distinguished in science.
Economically disadvantaged students scored below the All-Student group in all core content areas.
Classroom Observation Data:

Classroom observation data, as previously discussed, suggested the school had not implemented the adopted
district curriculum with fidelity. In examining the High Expectations Learning Environment, it was evident/very
evident in 34 percent of classrooms that students strove to meet or were “able to articulate the high expectations
established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1). Similarly, students who were engaged “in activities and
learning that [were] challenging, but attainable” (B2) were evident/very evident in 31 percent of classrooms.
Instances of learners who demonstrated and/or were “able to describe high quality work” (B3) were evident/very
evident in 15 percent of classrooms. Other areas in the High Expectations Learning Environment that concerned
the Diagnostic Review Team included learners who engaged “in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks
that require the use of high order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4), which was
evident in only 29 percent of classrooms. Furthermore, it was evident/very evident in 16 percent of classrooms
that learners took “responsibility for and [were] self-directed in their learning” (B5).

In addition, the Diagnostic Review Team found it evident/very evident in 29 percent of classrooms that students
monitored “their own progress or [had] mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1). Similarly,
learners who received/responded “to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding
and/or review work” were evident/very evident in 28 percent of classrooms. Also, it was evident/very evident in
26 percent of classrooms that students demonstrated and/or verbalized “understanding of the lesson/content”
(E3) and in 18 percent of classroom that they understood and/or were “able to explain how their work is assessed”
(E4).
Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder interview data suggested the school had a strong focus on improving its perception, but they had a
lack of attention related to ensuring fidelity with respect to implementing an adopted district curriculum of high
expectations. School administrators and teachers noted the use of professional learning community (PLC) meetings
but described them as largely administrator-led and focused on instructional planning around prescribed learning
targets at each grade level. Some teachers expressed frustration over the few teacher-led conversations about
student progress and the need for adjustments to instructional practice based on available formative and
summative assessment data.
Interview data revealed that students repeatedly shared their frustration with completing worksheets and/or what
they described as “busy work.” Parents expressed concern about the volume of worksheets being assigned and the
absence of student projects. Students and parents both expressed a desire for more collaborative learning.
Regarding progress monitoring and feedback, students were able to discuss their Measures of Academic Progress
(MAP) scores and growth targets but could not describe how coursework was assessed or explain how MAP scores
were used to support and remediate their learning. The school instituted a “back pack” program to support
mastery of essential skills. Sixth- and seventh-grade students expressed frustration with the program, citing a lack
of clarity about expectations for fulfilling program requirements in their eighth-grade year. Students were
concerned about academic rigor and the extent to which they felt they were being prepared for college
opportunities. Regarding digital technologies, students provided examples of how teachers used technology to
communicate, but there was no evidence of an effort to use technology to differentiate learning or support
collaborative learning projects. The Diagnostic Review Team was concerned with the frequency and range of
comments expressed about the length and disorganization of class period transitions and the frequency and
severity of disruptions regularly occurring in the classroom. Such concerns were stated by parents, students, and
staff members.
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of documents and artifacts suggested that school administrators were complying with district-required
“power walks,” but no evidence demonstrated that school leaders provided timely and appropriate feedback to
ensure the district’s adopted curriculum was implemented with fidelity. In examining the sixth-grade team PLC
notes, the team found a link to the school’s curriculum framework, but no documentation demonstrated evidence
of regular monitoring of curricular pacing or ensured content was taught at prescribed taxonomy (i.e., depth of
knowledge). Similarly, a review of the math department PLC notes revealed that specific standards were
referenced with associated learning targets and proposed assessments, but the team found no evidence of
formalized curriculum documents to monitor fidelity of implementation or ensure high expectations for all
students.

Use multiple sources of data to monitor Tier 1 classroom instruction and ensure teachers are selecting appropriate
high-yield instructional strategies and providing differentiated instruction for all students. (Primary Indicator 2.7)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed the percentage of students who
scored Proficient/Distinguished on the K-PREP assessment was below the state average in 2016-2017 and 2017-
2018. The student performance data were among those data considered to identify Improvement Priority #2.

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, showed that in the Equitable Learning Environment, it
was evident/very evident in 10 percent of classrooms that students engaged “in differentiated learning
opportunities and/or activities that [met] their needs” (A1). In the High Expectations Learning Environment, data
showed it was evident/very evident in 31 percent of classrooms that learners engaged “in activities and learning
that [were] challenging but attainable” (B2). The Diagnostic Review Team was greatly concerned by the lack of
high-yield instructional strategies that would ensure active learning for all students. In the Active Learning
Environment, it was evident/very evident in 46 percent of classrooms that learners were “actively engaged in the
learning activities” (D3). Moreover, it was evident/very evident in 39 percent of classrooms that students
collaborated “with their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments” (D4). As
noted previously in this report, the Diagnostic Review Team found that learners who monitored “their own
progress or [had] mechanism whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1) were evident/very evident in 29
percent of classrooms. Similarly, it was evident/very evident in 28 percent of classrooms that learners
received/responded “to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or revise
work” (E2). These findings suggested the school did not use multiple sources of data to effectively monitor Tier 1
instruction or ensure teachers are differentiating instruction to meet the needs of all learners.

The stakeholder interview data revealed a lack of evidence to suggest multiple sources of data were used to
effectively monitor Tier 1 classroom instruction. While efforts were made to implement MAP assessments, scores
were managed without the support of a robust assessment system. One of the master teachers created a working
assessment dashboard in an Excel spreadsheet that provided teachers with the ability to monitor Response to
Intervention (RTI) scores and growth targets and populate an online remedial platform called Study Island.
Interview data suggested the school had yet to adopt common formative assessments or a robust assessment
system to allow for assessments to become a diagnostic function at the classroom level. As a result, data-driven
conversations were largely characterized by administrators, teachers, and students as an awareness of growth
ranges to be achieved within a specified learning period.
School administrators acknowledged that professional learning communities were “good, but not great.”
Comments demonstrated that the Instructional Leadership Team of the school still had substantial work ahead to
create linked systems between curriculum and assessment that would allow for effective monitoring of
instructional practices. The Diagnostic Review Team was also concerned with the lack of evidence to support the
use of high-yield instructional strategies in the classroom. Interview data showed that worksheets were
overutilized and most planned learning experiences were passive, not active. Interviews with school administrators
further suggested that grades reported on student learning were not an accurate reflection of student

achievement at grade level, but rather those grades reflected content-area grades based on teachers delivering a
remedial curriculum in reaction to a belief that students were incapable of mastering grade-level content.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The stakeholder survey data revealed 55 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of
my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9). Seventy percent of students agreed/strongly
agreed that “My school provides learning services for me according to my needs” (E7). In responding to the
statement, “All of my teachers keep my family informed of my academic progress” (E13), 68 percent of students
agreed/strongly agreed. Finally, 70 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In my school,
I have access to counseling, career planning, and other programs to help me in school” (F7).

The Diagnostic Review Team reviewed a select number of documents and artifacts that the school provided in
order to identify that high-yield instructional strategies were present in the learning environment, that instruction
was individualized, and the extent to which multiple sources of data were used to monitor instruction. Among
those documents was a Goal Setting sheet in math that demonstrated efforts to begin conversation around the
use of student growth data. The information found in a Tier 3 math intervention spreadsheet suggested a lack of
understanding of the data needed to inform instructional practice. The information was unclear and in the form of
an instructional log rather than a data tool that could support the ability of teachers to adjust instruction. Finally,
documentation from school administrator power walks demonstrated an attempt to monitor classroom
instruction. The power walk tool emphasized compliance with the district’s Fundamental Five for instruction but
provided no evidence of feedback to teachers to support the use of high-yield instructional strategies when
teaching grade-level curriculum for mastery.

Develop and implement a robust assessment system that embeds rigorous common assessments for gathering,
analyzing, and using formative and summative data to make instructional decisions and drive continuous
improvement. (Primary Indicator 2.11)
Evidence:

In the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident in 29 percent of
classrooms that learners monitored “their own progress or [had] mechanisms whereby their learning progress is
monitored” (E1). With respect to learners receiving/responding to “feedback (from teachers/peers/other
resources) to improve understanding and/or revise work” (E2), it was evident/very evident in 28 percent of
classrooms. In examining the extent to which learners “demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the
lesson/content” (E3), it was evident/very evident in 26 percent of classrooms. Finally, it was evident/very evident
in only 18 percent of classrooms that learners understood and/or were “able to explain how their work is
assessed” (E4). While the Diagnostic Team observed learning targets visibly displayed in most classrooms and
occasionally referenced as part of lesson framing, the team found no evidence of assessment data used to adjust
instruction or to individualize student learning.

The stakeholder interview data suggested that the school did not establish a robust assessment system to gather,
analyze, and drive instructional decisions at either the classroom level (i.e., for instructional planning) or at a
schoolwide level (i.e., for continuous improvement). Interviews with school leaders and staff members often
resulted in an acknowledgement that leadership was focused primarily on improving the public perception of the
school, rather than on increasing the school’s capacity to improve academic quality. Often, students were unable
to demonstrate or describe how their work was assessed. Although administrators, teachers, counselors, students,
and parents could describe the purpose of MAP assessments (i.e., to measure growth), stakeholders were unable
to cite examples of how such information was used to develop new programs or improve existing ones to support
the needs of students. The Diagnostic Review Team informally observed several professional learning community
meetings and concluded that conversations were largely administrator-led and focused exclusively on prescribed
learning targets rather than on teachers analyzing data to plan collaboratively, adjust instruction, and use data to
support tiered intervention.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The stakeholder survey data was positively skewed with respect to teacher perceptions of data usage. Ninety-four
percent of teachers agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school uses data to monitor student readiness and success
at the next level” (G5), while 93 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school leaders monitor data related to
student achievement” (G6). Although one staff member referenced use of a data dashboard (i.e., that was teacher-
developed to help the school track MAP results through an Excel spreadsheet), few stakeholders could describe or
provide evidence of how data were used to adjust instruction, differentiate and individualize learning, or support
decisions related to continuous school improvement.

The Diagnostic Review Team reviewed the Marion C. Moore Assessment Plan submitted in conjunction with the
School Quality Factors (SQF) Report. While the school’s assessment plan referenced current assessments, it did not
establish protocols for gathering and analyzing data by either the Instructional Leadership Team or classroom
teachers. In studying the school’s Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP), the Diagnostic Review Team

noted that it was linked only to the assessment plan and did not show evidence of intentionally gathering,
analyzing, or using data to adjust instruction or drive continuous improvement. Lastly, the team was unable to
confirm that a process for collecting data was part of the Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Plan. In summary,
the team concluded that due to the lack of a robust assessment system, the school was able to describe
assessments but not demonstrate evidence of using data measures to diagnose and respond to learning challenges
or address systemic issues associated with continuous school improvement.

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 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:
School leaders, teachers, parents, and students were proactively engaged in rebranding the perception of Marion
C. Moore Middle School. These efforts resulted in improved relational health within the school and within the local
community and a growing sense of optimism that the school is moving in the right direction. All stakeholders
expressed a strong sense of pride regarding student diversity. The diversity of Moore Middle School was greatly
valued and appreciated within the school. The school effectively used social media, primarily through the school’s
Twitter account and through regular posts that have used the hashtag #KnowMoore. A growing number of
stakeholders desired to be at Moore Middle School; most importantly, these stakeholders were dedicated to the
school’s mission of educating children. Parents and students appreciated opportunities for stakeholder input and
an increase in the extracurricular opportunities available to students. The school experienced an increase in
community involvement and support.
Stakeholders reported a level of transparency that they suggested was not present previously. The growth of the
school population resulted in overcrowding, and administrators stated they were operating at 125 percent of their
physical capacity. The Diagnostic Review Team believed the school was leveraging resources to best meet the
needs of the growing enrollment (i.e., for both English Learners and overall student growth). The district was
examining options to alleviate tensions that the growing enrollment created. The school was working to increase
mental health resources and to proactively raise awareness with internal and external constituency groups of the
importance of social and emotional training, such as restorative intervention that Moore Middle School planned to
implement. The school hired many new teachers; many of whom are in their first few years of teaching. In
response, the school created a program to onboard and retain new staff through peer mentoring.
When visiting classrooms, the Diagnostic Review Team observed that learning targets were visible in many
classrooms. MAP testing was implemented, and teachers were discussing student growth scores and targets with
students. There were examples of emerging best practices, as evidenced by a small number of teachers who
demonstrated exemplary teaching within each grade level. Team members who visited English as a Second
Language (ESL) resource rooms observed exemplary ESL teaching practices. During classroom observations, team
members saw examples of lesson framing in most classrooms (e.g., bell ringers, exit slips). Technology was used by
teachers to introduce lesson content and assignments. In addition, the school made it a priority to schedule
students requiring special education, intervention, or language learning assistance.

The school implemented two planning periods, allowing for greater collaboration among certified staff members.
Staff members used weekly professional learning communities to discuss teaching and learning. The school had a
clear instructional leadership team hierarchy with protocols for acquiring resources and resolving concerns. The
school worked to empower students with voice and choice, and students appreciated their caring teachers and
more extracurricular activities. The school has taken ownership of the “Back Pack” program, which is a program
designed to ensure mastery of success skills.
Continuous Improvement Process:

The Diagnostic Review Team concluded that for Marion C. Moore School to further progress academically, the
Instructional Leadership Team must move beyond theory to practice, which will require creating systems for
gathering, analyzing, and using data to improve instruction. Instructional leaders are encouraged to improve their
own self-awareness with respect to professional leadership dispositions that are essential to continuous school
improvement. The principal is encouraged to exhibit a high degree of professionalism in both written and oral
communications, particularly when interacting with staff. He should be cautious to not shape messages that
achieve his own objective. Rather, he is encouraged to develop a shared approach in communicating the needs
and priorities of the school. School leaders are encouraged to take advantage of all available help within the
district and from the Kentucky Department of Education, particularly when developing systems for monitoring
instructional practice and ensuring the alignment of planned learning experiences to curriculum standards and the
taxonomy level (or depth of knowledge) to which each standard is measured.
The Diagnostic Review Team suggests moving away from administrator-led conversations within the school’s
professional learning communities. Teachers need to engage in dialogue around using multiple sources of data to
drive instructional practice. The school is encouraged to develop a robust assessment system, with support from
the district, to allow certified staff to quickly disaggregate formative and summative assessment data for the
purpose of diagnosing student learning. Classroom instruction needs to pivot from passive learning experiences
(e.g., recall activities, worksheets) to active learning experiences that promote problem-solving, higher-order
thinking, and the use of technologies to research, communicate, and work collaboratively.
The school is encouraged to provide professional development opportunities for certified staff members that focus
on the ability to select high-yield instructional strategies that best cover learning targets within the district’s
adopted curriculum and are of an appropriate depth of knowledge as prescribed in the Kentucky Academic
Standards. The team recommends that school leaders collaborate with district staff to implement a walk-through
model that allows for effective monitoring of instruction and gives classroom teachers timely feedback about
desired instructional practices. The Diagnostic Review Team recommends the principal work more with district
administrators to address the overcrowding at the school and the challenges associated with overusing the
available space so that all students are ensured a highly effective learning environment. Lastly, the Instructional
Leadership Team is encouraged to examine scheduling practices so that more equitable strategies are created to
address class size and improve the transition of students between class periods.

Next Steps
The results of the Diagnostic Review provide the next step to guide the improvement journey of the institution
with their efforts to improve the quality of educational opportunities for all learners. The findings are aligned to
research-based criteria designed to improve student learning and organizational effectiveness. The feedback
provided in the Diagnostic Review Report will assist the institution in reflecting on current improvement efforts
and adapting and adjusting their plans to continuously strive for improvement.
Upon receiving the Diagnostic Review Report, the institution is encouraged to implement the following steps:
• Review and share the findings with stakeholders.
• Develop plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the Diagnostic Review Team.
• Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution’s continuous improvement
efforts.
• Celebrate the successes noted in the report.

Team Roster
Diagnostic Review Teams are comprised of 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. Brad E. Oliver Dr. Brad Oliver is an education specialist with a private education management
firm in Fort Wayne, Indiana, that specializes in school improvement. Brad is an
adjunct professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Purdue
University, Fort Wayne. His previous K-12 experience includes service as a
classroom teacher, principal, and district and school administrator. He is the
former academic dean for the School of Educational Leadership at Indiana
Wesleyan University and is a past member of the Indiana State Board of
Education. Brad earned his doctorate in educational leadership from Ball State
University in 2003, and he holds professional certificates in Indiana as a school
superintendent and K-12 school administrator. He has served as a Lead
Evaluator for the AdvancED/Measured Progress Diagnostic Review process
since 2016, leading reviews in Kentucky and South Carolina.
Julia Rawlings Julia Rawlings is currently an Education Recovery Director for the Kentucky
Department of Education. In this role, her primary responsibility is to work
collaboratively to support priority schools in the East Region by developing
partnerships with universities, educational agencies, and external stakeholders.
Prior to working with the Kentucky Department of Education, Mrs. Rawlings
was a district administrator for Fleming County Schools, a rural school district
in northeastern Kentucky. Her duties included Title 1, limited English
proficiency, preschool, and curriculum/assessment/instruction. Mrs. Rawlings
has also served as a state science consultant and a high school classroom
science teacher.
Charlotte Jones Charlotte Jones has 21 years of experience in the education field. Currently she
is working with the Kentucky Department of Education as an Education
Recovery Specialist, serving schools that are identified as a Comprehensive
Support and Improvement School. Prior to this position, Charlotte was a high
school social studies teacher at Montgomery County High School in Mount
Sterling, Kentucky. She also served as the gifted and talented coordinator,
building assessment coordinator, site-based decision making vice chair, and a
volunteer for various student support organizations and events. Ms. Jones has
a bachelor’s degree in history, a master’s degree in school administration, a
Rank 1 in instructional supervision, and certificates for gifted and talented
education, and director of pupil personnel.


Dr. Matthew Courtney Dr. Matthew Courtney currently serves as an Educational Program Consultant
at the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE). In addition to his experience
at KDE, Dr. Courtney has teaching experience at the elementary and collegiate
levels. As a teacher, he served on multiple district-level committees, including
district instructional rounds teams. He has taught both undergraduate and
graduate classes in education, leadership, and professional growth and has
been a guest lecturer on topics related to teacher professional learning and
classroom level leadership. Dr. Courtney has served in leadership and research
roles in the nonprofit sector, specializing in teacher quality and improvement.
He holds a bachelor’s degree in music education from Eastern Kentucky
University, a master’s degree in teacher leadership, and a doctorate degree in
educational leadership from the University of the Cumberlands.
Craig Wallace Craig Wallace is serving in his fifth year as principal of North Oldham High
School in Goshen, Kentucky. His previous educational experience includes eight
years as an assistant high school principal, one year as the athletics director,
and nine years as a biology and chemistry teacher at high schools in Oldham
County and Fayette County, Kentucky. He is a National Board Certified Teacher
in the area of adolescence young adulthood science and holds professional
certificates as a K-12 school administrator and school superintendent from the
University of Louisville.
Dr. David Wilson Dr. David Wilson retired from full-time practice in 2011 from a suburban high
school district in the Chicago area. During his tenure at the district, Dr. Wilson
held the positions of associate and assistant principal at various high schools
before becoming principal for eight years immediately preceding his
retirement. Prior to 1995, he worked as a principal and held other various
administrative positions for a special education cooperative in the Chicago
south suburban area. During the 2000s, Dr. Wilson was an adjunct professor at
Governors State University and Concordia University. While teaching for both
universities, Dr. Wilson worked with graduate level students pursuing
advanced degrees in education. Since his retirement, Dr. Wilson has served as
an interim principal at four different Catholic elementary schools in Chicago
and northwest Indiana. Dr. Wilson holds a doctorate degree from Loyola
University in Chicago, a master’s degree in social work from the University of
Illinois at Chicago, and a bachelor’s degree from Illinois State University.


Barry Schrock Barry Schrock currently is the co-owner and lead coach of Summit Coaching
and Consulting Group (SCCG) that specializes in leadership training and
coaching for individuals, teams, school districts, nonprofits, and private sector
companies. In addition to his current experience, Mr. Schrock has over 25 years
of experience in K-12 and higher education, including roles as a classroom
teacher, adjunct, associate principal, and a college executive director. He has
extensive experience in leadership and talent development, professional
development for teachers and faculty, school improvement planning,
classroom management, college and career readiness, and school turnaround
initiatives. Barry received his undergraduate and teaching degree from Ohio
Northern University and his master’s degree in educational leadership from
Indiana University, and is a Nationally Certified Gallup Clifton Strengths Coach.

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)
Reading 6th* 32.1 58.9 42.1 59.7
Reading 7th 36.9 54.6 36.3 57.4
Reading 8th 38.5 57.1 44.6 62.9
Math 6th* 19.8 49.1 20.0 47.5
Math 7th 21.8 43.3 20.6 47.4
Math 8th 29.7 48.7 26.8 46.1
Science 7th n/a n/a 12.8 25.9
Social Studies 8th 39.9 60.5 42.6 60.2
Writing 8th 18.6 37.2 23.8 44.3
Plus
• The percentages of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in sixth-grade and eighth-grade reading
increased from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in sixth-grade math increased from 2016-
2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in eighth-grade social studies increased
from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in eighth-grade writing increased from
2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
Delta
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in seventh-grade reading decreased from
2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentages of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in seventh-grade and eighth-grade math
decreased from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all
content areas and at all grade levels in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.

Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)
Content Area Index State Index
Reading 12.1 16.1
Math 3.9 8.0
EL 7.9 8.0
Growth Indicator 8.0 12.1
Plus
• The index for English Learners was within one-tenth of a point of the state index.
Delta
• The overall growth indicator was below the state growth indicator.
• The indices in reading and math were both below the state indices.
Section III: Student Gap Groups 2017-2018 %P/D
Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 41.0 22.5 12.8 42.6 23.8

Female 48.4 26.9 11.5 52.0 39.3
Male 34.6 18.7 13.8 34.9 11.3
White 51.5 30.6 18.8 53.1 29.2
African American 26.2 11.3 3.5 30.4 11.3
Hispanic 43.0 23.2 9.5 45.5 33.0
Asian 55.2 44.8 40.0
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races 43.3 20.0 12.8
Title I 41.0 22.5 42.6 23.8
Migrant
Homeless
Foster
Military
English Learner (EL) 6.5 5.6 0.0 16.7 2.4

English Learner plus 23.5 16.1 4.5 22.4 8.2

Monitored
Economically 39.1 20.8 10.3 40.4 23.7
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 19.1 4.6 2.6 9.5 0.0
(Total)
Disability-With IEP (No 19.8 4.3 10.5
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with 20.0 4.7 6.3
Accommodation
Consolidated Student 33.5 16.1 5.9 34.9 18.7
Group
Plus
• More than fifty percent of White students and Asian students scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading.
• More than fifty percent of Female students and White students scored Proficient/Distinguished in social
studies.
Delta
• Zero percent of English Learners (EL) scored Proficient/Distinguished in science.

• Fewer than 10 percent of African-American students and Hispanic students scored
Proficient/Distinguished in science.
• Economically Disadvantaged students scored below the All-Student group in all content areas.

Schedule
Monday, February 25, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:30 p.m. – Principal Presentation Marriott East Diagnostic
5:15 p.m. 1903 Embassy Review Team
Square Blvd Members
Louisville, KY
5:10 p.m. – Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
9:00 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
Tuesday, February 26, 2019

7:00 a.m. Team arrives at Marion C. Moore School School Office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
7:30 a.m. – Principal’s Interview School Diagnostic
8:25 a.m. Team Meeting Review Team
Room Members
8:30 a.m. – Classroom observations and stakeholder interviews School Diagnostic
2:20 p.m. Review Team
Members
2:30 p.m. – Team Work Session School Diagnostic
3:30 p.m. Team Meeting Review Team
Room Members
3:30 p.m. – Parent Interviews School Diagnostic
Members
4:15 p.m. Team Returns to Hotel
Room Members
Wednesday, February 27, 2019

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Marion C. Moore School School Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
7:40 a.m. – Continue interviews and artifact review, conduct classroom observations School Diagnostic
Members
3:30 p.m. Team Returns to Hotel
Room Members
Thursday, February 28, 2019

8:30 a.m. – Final Team Work Session* Hotel Diagnostic
10:30 a.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
*Final Team Work Session was moved to the Hotel Conference Room due to the school being closed on February 28, 2019.

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 Marion C Moore 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 Marion C Moore Diagnostic Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

February 25–28, 2019

Results for: Marion C. Moore Middle School

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7

Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 22

© 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

1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces

© 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 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 Interview Data:

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