2018-19 Waggener High Diagnostic Review

mon
March 4–7, 2019
Results for: Waggener High School

Diagnostic Review Report
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4
Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4
Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 5
Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7
eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 13
Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 13
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 19
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 20
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 21
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 23
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 27
© 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 11
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 39
Non-certified Staff 18
Students 57
Parents 7
Total 137

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

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

The capacity of leadership to ensure an institution’s progress toward its stated objectives is an essential element of
organizational effectiveness. An institution’s leadership capacity includes the fidelity and commitment to its
purpose and direction, the effectiveness of governance and leadership to enable the institution to realize its stated
objectives, the ability to engage and involve stakeholders in meaningful and productive ways, and the capacity to
implement strategies that improve learner and educator performance.
Leadership Capacity Standards Rating
1.1 The institution commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching Needs
and learning, including the expectations for learners. Improvement
1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces Needs
evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and Improvement
professional practice.
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve Emerging
professional practice and organizational effectiveness.
1.7 Leaders implement operational process and procedures to ensure organizational Needs
effectiveness in support of teaching and learning. Improvement
1.8 Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the institution’s 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 Emerging
demonstrable improvement of student learning.
2.12 The institution implements a process to continuously assess its programs and Emerging
organizational conditions to improve student learning.

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 Needs
environment, learner achievement, and the institution’s effectiveness. Improvement
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 Meets
purpose and direction. Expectations
3.7 The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long- Needs
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and Improvement
direction.
3.8 The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the Meets
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and Expectations
organizational effectiveness.

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Results
The eProve™ Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot) is a learner-centric classroom observation
tool that comprises 28 items organized in seven environments aligned with the AdvancED Standards. The tool
provides useful, relevant, structured, and quantifiable data on the extent to which students are engaged in
activities and demonstrate knowledge, attitudes, and dispositions that are conducive to effective learning.
Classroom observations are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes.
Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team was eleot certified and passed a certification exam that established
inter-rater reliability. Team members conducted 28 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
2.3 2.3
2.1
1.9 2.0 1.9
1.5
Environment Averages




eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team collected data in 28 core content classrooms. Across the seven learning
environments, the Supportive Learning Environment and the Well-Managed Learning Environment each earned
the highest average rating of 2.3 on a four-point scale. The Digital Learning Environment had the lowest average
rating of 1.5.
The classroom observation data showed many areas that could be improved; however, several items related to
equitable treatment and supportive relationships clearly emerged as points for continuous improvement. It was
evident/very evident in 72 percent of classrooms that learners “are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner”
(A3). It was also evident/very evident in 61 percent of classrooms that learners “demonstrate a congenial and
supportive relationship with their teacher” (C4). In 53 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that
students “are "supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or other resources to understand content and
accomplish tasks” (C3). Students who “demonstrate a sense of community that is positive, cohesive, engaged, and
purposeful” (C1) were evident/very evident in 29 percent of classrooms. Similarly, it was evident/very evident in 22
percent of classrooms that students “demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop
empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions” (A4). Finally, it was evident/very evident in 50 percent of classrooms
that students “have equal access to classroom discussions, activities, resources, technology, and support” (A2) and
it was evident/very evident in 54 percent of classrooms that students “demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow
classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others” (F2).
The Diagnostic Review Team identified additional areas that could be leveraged to improve student achievement.
For example, students who “are engaged in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their
needs” (A1) were evident/very evident in only seven percent of classrooms. It was also evident/very evident in 11
percent of classrooms that students “understand and/or able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4). In
addition, it was evident/very evident in 14 percent of classrooms that students “monitor their own progress or
have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1) and “demonstrate and/or able to describe
high quality work” (B3). The team also found that it was evident/very evident in 11 percent of classrooms that
students “collaborate with their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments” (D4).

The team observed students using technology in many classrooms; however, the observation data related to the
use of digital tools indicated that technology could be used more effectively to improve student achievement. It
was evident/very evident in 22 percent of classrooms that students “use digital tools/technology to gather,
evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1). In 32 percent of classrooms, learners who “use digital
tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for learning” (G2) were
evident/very evident. In addition, it was evident/very evident in only four percent of classrooms that students “use
digital tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3).
Other items of concern to the Diagnostic Review Team related to the use of class time and academic
conversations. It was evident/very evident in 29 percent of classrooms that students “use class time purposefully
with minimal wasted time or disruptions” (F4) and in 29 percent of classrooms that students’
“discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other and teacher predominate” (D1).

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
Implement operational processes and procedures to ensure organizational effectiveness in support of teaching and
learning (e.g., Career Access Time (CAT), curriculum alignment, instructional practices monitoring, and professional
learning communities). Ensure data are used to implement, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of the
processes for enhancing teaching and learning. (Standard 1.7)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, indicated that processes and procedures
were not developed or effectively implemented to support improved teaching and learning. The percentage of
students who scored Proficient/Distinguished on Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP)
assessments was significantly below the state average in three of four content areas in 2016-2017 and in all
content areas in 2017-2018. In both school years, the school’s reading scores were more than 25 percentage
points below the state average (28.0 percent compared to 55.8 percent in 2016-2017 and 13.1 percent compared
to 45.4 percent in 2017-2018). Additionally, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished
declined in all content areas from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. The percentage of grade 11 students who met
benchmark on the ACT was significantly below the state percentage in English, math, and reading in both 2016-
2017 and 2017-2018. Furthermore, the percentages of students meeting ACT benchmark declined in all areas over
the two-year period (from 23.8 percent to 17.2 percent in English; from 26.8 percent to 16.2 percent in math; and
from 29.8 percent to 13.2 percent in reading). In addition, the 2017-2018 average graduation-rate indicator was
lower than the state average (83.2 percent compared to 90.8 percent), and the 2017-2018 transition-rate indicator
was significantly below the state average (30.9 percent compared to 60.9 percent).
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The interview data revealed that the school did not implement operational processes and procedures with fidelity
to ensure organizational effectiveness in support of teaching and learning. The interviews revealed that while
many programs and initiatives were implemented, the implementation was often inconsistent among staff
members and across departments. For example, stakeholders shared that there was limited monitoring of the
Restorative Practices initiative (other than discussion of behavior data during “Vitals” meetings), and this lack of
monitoring resulted in inconsistent implementation by teachers.
Additionally, stakeholder interviews suggested that while professional learning community (PLC) meetings
occurred weekly, the level of implementation and consistency within them varied across departments and teacher
groups. Teachers and administrators could not explain the school’s process for monitoring the level of rigor in the
curriculum or for evaluating whether the curriculum was aligned to the Kentucky Academic Standards (KAS). The
interview data showed that minimal feedback was provided to teachers on improving their core (Tier 1)
instruction. Stakeholder interviews affirmed that a remediation period, Career Access Time (CAT), was designed to
address academic and social-emotional needs of the students, but that this time was inconsistently implemented

by teachers and inconsistently monitored by administration. Some stakeholders indicated that CAT was used as a
study hall for students to complete homework or classroom activities.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Stakeholder survey data indicated limited agreement on whether all stakeholders were responsible for student
learning, had high expectations for all students, and provided challenging experiences to students. Sixty-five
percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement “Our school shares responsibility for student
learning with its stakeholders” (D4). Additionally, 78 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement
“Our school has high expectations for students in all classes” (D3). On the staff survey, 69 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school’s leaders hold all staff members accountable for student learning” (D6).
Moreover, 61 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “In my school, the principal and teachers have high
expectations of me” (D3), and 56 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides me with
challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2).
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of documents and artifacts revealed a lack of processes and procedures for consistently monitoring
programs and initiatives. Summary notes of the School Quality Factor Diagnostic (SQF) indicated that leadership
was present in PLCs, “Vitals” meetings, academy meetings, and PowerWalks. It was noted that this presence
“demonstrates a strong desire to check the pulse of the instructional work being done in the building, but the team
recognizes a need to connect the monitoring piece to ensure teacher implementation.” The SQF summary also
noted that numerous initiatives were in place to improve the outcomes of student learning and engagement and
that the monitoring of these initiatives “will be improved and adjusted as the year continues to maximize the
efficiency of implementation.” However, the instructional leadership team could not provide specific details about
how these monitoring processes were being improved.

Develop a process to regularly and consistently monitor the effectiveness of the curriculum in meeting the rigor of
the Kentucky Academic Standards (KAS) with fidelity, ensuring all students will be prepared for success at the next
level. Use findings from data analysis to revise the curriculum when necessary. (Standard 2.5)
Evidence:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, suggested that the school had not been
successful in providing a rigorous, challenging curriculum that ensured the learning needs of all students were
being met. Further, based on student performance data reports, the Diagnostic Review Team was concerned that
data were not being effectively analyzed to adjust instruction as needed to address individual learning needs. The
student performance data were among those data considered when developing Improvement Priority #2.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data provided evidence regarding the lack of consistent high expectations anchored in
a challenging curriculum. Observations revealed that instances of students who “strive to meet or are able to
articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1) were evident/very evident in
29 percent of classrooms. Students who “engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2)
were evident/very evident in 39 percent of classrooms, and students who “demonstrate and/or are able to
describe high quality work” (B3) were evident/very evident in 14 percent of classrooms. The Diagnostic Review
Team also observed that it was evident/very evident in 29 percent of classrooms that students “engage in rigorous
coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying,
evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4) and that it was evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms that students “take
responsibility for and are self-directed in their learning” (B5).
The observation data also indicated that most students were not monitoring their learning progress and did not
understand how their work was being assessed. Observations revealed that students who “monitor their own
progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1) were evident/very evident in 14
percent of classrooms, and students who “receive/respond to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to
improve understanding and/or revise work” (E2) were evident/very evident in 39 percent of classrooms. In 25
percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of
the lesson/content” (E3), and it was evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms that students “understand
and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4). Classroom observation also revealed that students
who “are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or other resources to understand content and accomplish
tasks” (C3) were evident/very evident in 61 percent of classrooms.

The stakeholder interview data revealed that teachers and administrators could not define or explain their process
for monitoring the effectiveness of the curriculum in meeting the rigor of the Kentucky Academic Standards (KAS).
Stakeholders were able to navigate and use the district website for finding the curriculum developed by the district
but were not able to describe the curriculum review process used at Waggener High School. While most
stakeholders acknowledged professional learning community (PLC) meetings occurred, no interview evidence
indicated that the data reviewed during PLC meetings were used to evaluate instructional effectiveness to improve
core (Tier 1) instruction for all students. Additionally, the stakeholder interview data showed that minimal
feedback was provided to teachers on improving their Tier 1 instruction. While PowerWalks were conducted and

feedback was given to teachers after 15 observations, there was limited evidence to suggest teachers were being
coached on how to use the feedback in order to adjust their instructional practices to meet student needs.
Interview data also revealed that Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments were administered several
times throughout the year. However, the teacher interviews indicated that results were seldom used to modify
daily instruction in order to meet the needs of students, other than the instruction provided to students during
Career Access Time (CAT).
Survey data revealed that 90 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My child knows the
expectations for learning in all classes” (E10), and 76 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “My child is
given multiple assessments to measure his/her understanding of what was taught” (E12). Fifty-six percent of
students agreed/strongly agreed the statements, “In my school, a high quality education is offered” (C3) and “My
school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2), while 61 percent of students
agreed/strongly agreed that “In my school, the principal and teachers have high expectations of me” (D3). The
survey of students further revealed that 53 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers
use a variety of teaching methods and learning activities to help me develop the skills I will need to succeed” (E8).
Staff survey data revealed limited agreement among teachers regarding the effective use of data and feedback.
Sixty-four percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school use a
process to inform students of their learning expectations and standards of performance” (E5), while 50 percent
agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school provide students with specific and timely feedback about
their learning” (E6). Moreover, 79 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school uses data to
monitor student readiness and success at the next level” (G5).

A review of documents (e.g., School Quality Factor Diagnostic, PowerWalk observation notes, lesson plan
feedback, professional learning community meeting agendas) revealed that school leadership implemented
processes to monitor teacher instructional practices; however, the processes did not result in improved student
learning, as indicated by 2017-2018 assessment results. Additionally, a review of the School Quality Factor
Diagnostic (SQF) revealed that while there were numerous initiatives to improve instruction, monitoring structures
to determine the effectiveness of the initiatives was still needed. The use of data to monitor the attainment of
daily learning outcomes was limited and, when data analysis was used for this purpose, was typically led by
teachers without involving students. While classroom instruction was monitored through PowerWalks with
coaching feedback, the Diagnostic Review Team was concerned that many teachers were not using the feedback to
adjust Tier 1 instruction. In the SQF summary, notes indicated that the leadership team checked instructional
activities and practices across the building but needed to monitor fidelity of implementation more closely. The SQF
summary also noted that the monitoring of numerous initiatives “will be improved and adjusted as the year
continues to maximize the efficiency of implementation;” however, the instructional leadership team could not
speak to specific monitoring processes or how the processes were being improved.

Develop, implement, and monitor processes that ensure instructional practices are adjusted for rigor and quality
to meet all students’ academic needs. Execute and monitor processes that ensure quality and fidelity of
instructional practices as they pertain to differentiated learning. Collect, analyze, and use data to identify needed
improvements in instructional practices and to adjust practices to meet student needs. (Standard 2.7)
Evidence:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, suggested that the school did not
establish an effective process for ensuring that research-based instructional practices, differentiated instruction,
and data-driven instruction were consistently implemented in all classrooms. The student performance data were
among those data considered when developing Improvement Priority #3.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, indicated that instruction was rarely designed to meet
the learning needs of individual students or groups of students. Instances of learners who “engage in differentiated
learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1) were evident/very evident in seven percent of
classrooms. In addition, the team observed a lack of challenging activities in most classrooms, such as learners who
“engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2) were evident/very evident in 39 percent
of classrooms. Also, the Diagnostic Review Team noted an overall lack of rigor in lesson content, as it was
evident/very evident in 29 percent of classrooms that students “engage in rigorous coursework, discussions,
and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4).
In 25 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners “demonstrate and/or verbalize
understanding of the lesson/content” (E3), and in 39 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that
students “receive/respond to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve and/or revise work”
(E2). Students answered questions, took notes, and completed handout sheets on an inconsistent basis, but a
deeper understanding of their learning was seldom observed. In 14 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very
evident that students “monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is
monitored” (E1). In addition, it was evident/very evident in only 11 percent of classrooms that learners
“understand and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4).

The stakeholder interview data revealed that teachers were inconsistent in adjusting classroom instruction to
meet the needs of individual learners. While many teachers referenced assessments and indicated they used data
to inform instruction, few teachers were able to articulate the process or provide examples of how instruction or
learning tasks were adjusted based on these data. Stakeholder interviews revealed that low rigor in the classrooms
was an area of concern for school personnel. The school established departmental professional learning
community (PLC) meetings, which were at varying levels of development. Although most teachers participated in
the departmental PLC meetings, few could articulate how instruction was modified as a result of the data analysis
that occurred in these meetings.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The parent survey data showed that 77 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my child’s
teachers use a variety of teaching strategies and learning activities” (E3). In addition, 71 percent of parents

agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child’s teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction”
(E4). The survey data indicated that 64 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our
school monitor and adjust curriculum, instruction, and assessment based on data from student assessments and
examination of professional practice” (E1).
Indicating that the individual needs of students must be addressed, 55 percent of staff members agreed/strongly
agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school personalize instructional strategies and interventions to
address individual learning needs of students” (E2). In addition, 63 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). Fifty-six percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My school provides me
with a challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2) and 47 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “My
school provides learning services for me according to my needs” (E7). In addition, 39 percent of students
agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9).

A review of documents and artifacts (e.g., the School Quality Factor Diagnostic, Instructional Conference
PowerPoint, Parent ACT meeting documents, Academies of Louisville explanatory information, Kentucky
Department of Education School Report Card) indicated the emergence of a transformation at Waggener High
School. The school began to infuse two school initiatives, Academies of Louisville and Restorative Practices, into
their academic and cultural framework. Documents indicated that school leadership was implementing
PowerWalks and eleot® observations to monitor instruction, ensure active learning was embedded in classrooms,
and improve collaboration among students. However, evidence from student performance data, Diagnostic Review
Team observations, and the interview and survey data did not suggest these initiatives and strategies were
currently resulting in improved student performance.

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:
Waggener High School administration provided professional learning opportunities for various staff to assist in the
implementation of initiatives, with an intentional focus on building organizational effectiveness. Teachers were in
agreement that professional learning community (PLC) time should provide opportunities for staff members to
collaborate across grade levels and content areas. Moreover, the administration’s commitment to providing
professional learning time was evident in the proposed schedule change for 2019-2020 that will provide teachers
40 to 45 minutes of daily collaboration time in addition to 50 minutes of individual planning time. This additional
time was planned in order to improve the effectiveness of PLCs, academies, and other embedded professional
development. To strengthen the literacy and numeracy skills of Waggener students, the administration built
instructional capacity by securing additional staff with extended employment days. Furthermore, Waggener High
School planned to provide a half-time administrator to focus on Tier I behavioral supports. The administration also
hoped to improve learner performance with the addition of a math resource teacher and a half-time science
instructional coach. Staff training continued on various initiatives, such as restorative practices and use of circle
time, improving the school culture and climate and addressing student adversity.
Another strength of Waggener High School was the development of the Academies of Louisville model. The school
implemented a Freshman Academy several years ago and built upon that strength by incorporating the health
science, information technology, and law academies to help all students become college- and/or career-ready. All
upperclassmen were placed in an academy based on their career field choice. The goal of the academy system is to
help students obtain industry certificates in order to increase their chance of gaining employment. Students were
involved in career fairs, job shadowing, and internships during their high school years.
The administration and instructional leadership team developed the motto, mission, and vision for Waggener High
School. Stakeholders were allowed to give input in the adoption of the direction of the school to foster
involvement and commitment from faculty and staff. The interview data suggested that the administration was
becoming more transparent and sought to work collaboratively with all stakeholders.
Continuous Improvement Process:

The administration, faculty, and staff implemented a large number of programs and initiatives, many directed from
the district office, in an attempt to better prepare students to become productive members of society. The

Diagnostic Review Team recommends that all stakeholders at Waggener High School become intentional and
consistent in implementing high-yield practices aligned with the school’s academic and cultural goals.
Furthermore, the team believed that ensuring the fidelity of the implementation of programs, initiatives, and
practices would leverage improvement in student performance. The team also noted that consistent monitoring
and evaluation of programs and processes were needed to ensure whole-school implementation and determine
the impact on student learning. Finally, the team noted that consistent, ongoing, and embedded professional
learning communities with specific agendas for data analysis and collaborative instructional design could be
leveraged to build collective efficacy and improve teaching and learning.
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

Shawn Johnson Dr. Shawn Johnson is the superintendent for Barnwell School District 19 in
Blackville, South Carolina. During his 17 years in education, he has worked as a
high school and elementary principal, middle school and elementary assistant
principal, middle school math teacher, athletic director, and a head coach for
boys’ and girls’ varsity basketball. Dr. Johnson has a doctorate and an educational
specialist degree in administration from South Carolina State University, a
master’s degree in educational leadership and supervision from Winthrop
University, a master’s degree in divergent learning from Columbia College, and
bachelor’s degree in elementary education from Coastal Carolina University.
Ben Fritz Ben Fritz has served in the education profession for 13 years. He has a bachelor’s
degree in marketing, a master’s degree in education, and a Rank I in school
administration. He taught business and marketing at East Carter High School in
Grayson, Kentucky, from 2006-2012 and was assistant principal during the school’s
turn-around process from 2012-2016. Mr. Fritz has completed the National
Institute of School Leadership (NISL) development program. He currently serves as
an Education Recovery Leader for the Kentucky Department of Education.
Donna Wear Donna Wear has a bachelor’s degree and a Rank I certification from Murray State
University. She began her career as a secondary English and social studies teacher
followed by middle and high school assistant principal and principal. She actively
led curriculum, instruction, and assessment initiatives at the school level. Ms.
Wear served as the principal/director of the Commonwealth Middle College in
Paducah, Kentucky, the first middle college in Kentucky. In this position, she was
the supervisor and college counselor for dual-credit students from several school
systems. Currently, Ms. Wear supervises and coordinates services for alternative
certification, student teachers, and professional development for Murray State
University.
Felicia Bond Felicia Bond has served in the education profession for over 26 years. She has a
bachelor’s degree in secondary math education, as well as a master’s degree and a
Rank 1 in counseling. She taught mathematics at West Carter High School in Olive
Hill, Kentucky and at Montgomery County High School in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky.
She also served as a curriculum specialist and building assessment coordinator for
Montgomery County Schools. Mrs. Bond has been an Education Recovery
Specialist for the Kentucky Department of Education the past five years.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Barry Goley Dr. Barry W. Goley earned a bachelor’s degree in landscape horticulture, a
master’s degree in special education, a master’s degree in mental health
counseling, and a Rank I in secondary guidance counseling. In 2013, he earned his
doctorate in educational leadership and organizational research from the
University of Louisville. Dr. Goley began teaching at Logan County High School in
Russellville, Kentucky, in 2002 as a special education teacher and later became a
reading interventionist and a guidance counselor. In 2008, Dr. Goley was named
the director of special education for Logan County Schools and became the
director of pupil personnel in 2009. He currently serves in both of these positions.

Student Performance Data

Section I: School and Student Performance Results
Content Percent P/D School Percent P/D State Percent P/D School Percent P/D State
Area (16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
Reading 28.0 55.8 13.1 45.4
Math 44.6 38.1 14.8 37.5
Science 24.7 41.2 11.2 29.6
Writing 41.2 58.5 25.0 51.8
Plus
• In 2016-2017, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math was 44.6 percent,
which was 6.5 percentage points above the state average of 38.1 percent.
• The content area that had the highest percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in
2016-2017 was math (44.6 percent).
• The content area that had the highest percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in
2017-2018 was writing (25.0 percent).
Delta
• In 2016-2017, the percentages of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading (28 percent),
science (24.7 percent), and writing (41.2 percent) were all below the state average.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all
content areas in 2017-2018.
• From 2016-2017 to 2017-2018, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished
decreased in all content areas.
• In both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, the content area with the lowest percentage of students who scored
Proficient/ Distinguished was science (24.7 percent in 2016-2017 and 11.2 percent in 2017-2018).
Section II: Percentages of Grade 11 Students Meeting Benchmarks on ACT at the School and in the State (2016-
2017 and 2017-2018)
Content Area Percentage School Percentage State Percentage School Percentage State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17--18)
English 23.8 56.2 17.2 51.2
Math 26.8 43.9 16.2 38.9
Reading 29.8 53.6 13.2 47.1

Plus
• The highest percentage of students who met benchmark on the ACT in 2016-2017 was in reading (29.8
percent).
• The highest percentage of students who met benchmark on the ACT in 2017-2018 was in English (17.2
percent).
Delta
• The percentage of students who met benchmark on the ACT in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 was below the
state average in all content areas.
• From 2016-2017 to 2017-2018, the percentage of students who met benchmark on the ACT decreased in
all content areas.
• The lowest percentage of students who met benchmark on the ACT in 2016-2017 was in English (23.8
percent).
• The lowest percentage of students who met benchmark on the ACT in 2017-2018 was in reading (13.2
percent).
Section III: Achievement of Transition Readiness and Graduation Rate (2017-2018)

Graduation Rate Year 4 Year 5 Indicator
(Average of Year 4 and 5)
2017 School 79.2 86.6
2017 State 89.7 90.3
2018 School 84.1 82.2 83.2
2018 State 90.8 91.3 90.8
Transition Readiness Indicator (Academic, Career, EL)

2018 School 30.9
2018 State 60.9
(The accountability measure changed from College and/or Career Readiness to Transition Readiness, which has
added components making the two areas incompatible to compare across the two years).
Plus
Delta
• The 2018 graduation rate indicator (average of Years 4 and 5) and transition readiness indicator were
below the state average.
• The Year 5 graduation rate decreased from 86.6 percent in 2017 to 82.2 percent in 2018.
• The lowest graduation rate was 79.2 percent in 2017, Year 4.
• The transition readiness indicator of 30.9 was 30 percentage points below the state average of 60.9.

Section IV: Gap Data %P/D
Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 13.1 14.8 11.2 25.0

Female 14.6 16.0 8.9 32.3
Male 11.8 13.7 13.0 19.0
White 25.0 23.7 25.9 42.1
African American 7.2 6.4 1.8 15.1
Hispanic 9.5 16.7 11.9 16.3
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races
Title I 13.1 14.8 11.2 25.0
Migrant
Homeless
Foster
Military
English Learner (EL) 0.0 2.4 4.8 4.7
English Learner plus 0.0 6.3 6.1 10.0
Monitored
Economically 10.2 11.4 11.3 23.3
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 17.2 3.3 16.1 19.4
(Total)
Disability-With IEP 12.5 4.2 0.0 4.2
(No Alt)
Disability (no ALT) 18.8
with Accommodation
Consolidated Student 9.5 10.0 7.6 19.6
Group
Plus
• In 2017-2018, the following gap groups had a higher percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in
reading than the All-Students group (13.1 percent): Female (14.6 percent), White (25.0 percent), Disability-
With IEP (total) (17.2 percent), and Disability (no Alt) with Accommodation (18.8 percent).

• In 2017-2018, the following gap groups had a higher percentage of students who scored
Proficient/Distinguished in math than the All-Students group (14.8 percent): Female (16 percent), White (23.7
percent), and Hispanic (16.7 percent).
Proficient/Distinguished in science than the All-Students group (11.2 percent): Male (13.0), White (25.9
percent), Hispanic (11.9 percent), Economically Disadvantaged (11.3), and Disability-With IEP (total) (16.1
percent).
Proficient/Distinguished in writing than the All-Students group (25 percent): Female (32.3 percent) and White
(42.1 percent).
• The percentage of White students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018 was higher than all other
groups of students in reading (25 percent), math (23.7 percent), science (25.9 percent), and writing (42.1
percent).
Delta
• In 2017-2018, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading in the All-Students
group was higher than the following groups: Male (11.8 percent), African American (7.2 percent), Hispanic (9.5
percent), English Learner (EL) (zero percent), English Learner plus Monitored (zero percent), Economically
Disadvantaged (10.2 percent), Disability-With IEP (No Alt) (12.5 percent), and Consolidated Student Group (9.5
percent).
• In 2017-2018, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math in the All Students
group (14.8 percent) was higher than the following groups: Male (13.7 percent), African American (6.4
percent), English Learner (EL) (2.4 percent), English Learner plus Monitored (6.3 percent), Economically
Disadvantaged (11.4 percent), Disability-With IEP (total) (3.3 percent), Disability-With IEP (No Alt) (4.2
percent), and Consolidated Student Group (10 percent).
• In 2017-2018, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science in the All Students
group (11.2 percent) was higher than the following groups: Female (8.9 percent), African American (1.8
percent), English Learner (EL) (4.8 percent), English Learner plus Monitored (6.1 percent), Disability-With IEP
(No Alt) (zero percent), and Consolidated Student Group (7.6 percent).
• In 2017-2018, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in writing in the All Students
group (25 percent) was lower than the following groups: Male (19.0 percent), African American (15.1 percent),
Hispanic (16.3 percent), English Learner (EL) (4.7 percent), English Learner plus Monitored (10 percent),
Economically Disadvantaged (23.3 percent), Disability-With IEP (total) (19.4 percent), Disability-With IEP (No
Alt) (4.2 percent), and Consolidated Student Group (4.2 percent).
• In 2017-2018, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading was the lowest for
English Learner (EL) and English Learner plus Monitored, with zero percent.
• In 2017-2018, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math was lowest for the
English Learner (EL) subgroup, with 2.4 percent.
• In 2017-2018, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science was lowest for
students with Disability-With IEP (No Alt) at zero percent.
• In 2017-2018, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in writing was the lowest for
students with Disability-With IEP (No Alt) and the consolidated Student Group at 4.2 percent.

Schedule
Monday, March 4, 2019

Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. – Orientation and Planning Session Hotel Diagnostic
4:30 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:30 p.m. – Principal’s Overview Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
5:30 p.m. – Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Tuesday, March 5, 2019

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Waggener High School School office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
8:00 a.m. – Principal’s Interview, Classroom Observations, Interviews Team Diagnostic
9:00 a.m. Workroom Review Team
Members
9:30 a.m. – Classroom Observations, Stakeholder Interviews, Review of Artifacts and Team Diagnostic
3:30 p.m. Documentation Workroom, Review Team
Classrooms, Members
Conference
Room
4:00 p.m. Team returns to hotel
4:30 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Wednesday, March 6, 2019

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Waggener High School School/Team Diagnostic
Workroom Review Team
Members
8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Continue interviews and artifact review, conduct classroom Classroom, Diagnostic
observations and common area observations Team Review Team
Workroom Members
4:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Team Work Session #3 Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
Thursday, March 7, 2019

8: 00 a.m. – 11:00 Final Team Work Session School/Team Diagnostic

a.m. Workroom Review Team
Members

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

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

2018-19 Waggener High 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 Waggener High Diagnostic Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

mon

March 4–7, 2019

Results for: Waggener High School

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

Stakeholder Groups Number

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

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

Leadership Capacity Domain

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

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

Learning Capacity Domain

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

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

Resource Capacity Domain

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Diagnostic Review eleot Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student Performance Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Documents and Artifacts:

© Advance Education, Inc. 16 www.advanc-ed.org

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

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

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Insights from the Review

Continuous Improvement Process:

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

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

Team Member Name Brief Biography

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

Team Member Name Brief Biography

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

Student Performance Data

Reading 28.0 55.8 13.1 45.4

Math 44.6 38.1 14.8 37.5

Science 24.7 41.2 11.2 29.6

Writing 41.2 58.5 25.0 51.8

English 23.8 56.2 17.2 51.2

Math 26.8 43.9 16.2 38.9

Reading 29.8 53.6 13.2 47.1

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

Section III: Achievement of Transition Readiness and Graduation Rate (2017-2018)

2017 State 89.7 90.3

2018 School 84.1 82.2 83.2

2018 State 90.8 91.3 90.8