Semple Final DR Report 2018-2019

February 11–14, 2019
Results for: Semple Elementary 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 .................................................................................................................................... 12
Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 12
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 15
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 16
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 18
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 20
Student Performance Data for Semple Elementary Schools ............................................................. 20
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 23
© 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 2
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology 13
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 31
Non-certified Staff 9
Students 43
Parents 9
Total 108

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 Needs
effectiveness. Improvement
1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder Needs
groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement. Improvement

Learning Capacity Domain

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Results
The eProve™ Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot) is a learner-centric classroom observation
tool that comprises 28 items organized in seven environments aligned with the AdvancED Standards. The tool
provides useful, relevant, structured, and quantifiable data on the extent to which students are engaged in
activities and demonstrate knowledge, attitudes, and dispositions that are conducive to effective learning.
Classroom observations are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes.
Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team was eleot certified and passed a certification exam that established
inter-rater reliability. Team members conducted 21 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
2.4
2.2 2.3
2.0 2.0
1.9
1.1
Environment Averages

B. High Expectations Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high
B1 2.0 22% 56% 22% 0%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

B2 2.3 17% 39% 44% 0%
but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.6 50% 39% 11% 0%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

B4 1.8 tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., 33% 50% 17% 0%
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

B5 1.8 28% 67% 6% 0%
learning.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
1.9

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 2.2 11% 61% 22% 6%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.5 6% 44% 44% 6%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or

C3 2.6 6% 33% 56% 6%
other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.4 17% 28% 50% 6%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale:
2.4
D. Active Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other
D1 2.4 11% 39% 44% 6%
and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 1.7 44% 44% 6% 6%
experiences.
D3 2.6 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 6% 39% 50% 6%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 2.1 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 22% 44% 33% 0%
assignments.
point scale:
2.2

E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 2.0 33% 33% 33% 0%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

E2 2.4 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 11% 39% 50% 0%
and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

E3 2.2 17% 50% 33% 0%
lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

E4 1.6 44% 56% 0% 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 6% 28% 61% 6%
each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

F2 2.2 17% 50% 28% 6%
rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

F3 2.1 22% 50% 22% 6%
to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

F4 2.2 22% 39% 33% 6%
time or disruptions.
point scale:
2.3

G. Digital Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate,
G1 1.1 89% 11% 0% 0%
and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

G2 1.1 94% 0% 6% 0%
solve problems, and/or create original works for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

G3 1.1 94% 0% 6% 0%
work collaboratively for learning.
point scale:
1.1
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team conducted 21 classroom observations, including core content classes. These
observations provided the team with information about teaching and learning at Semple Elementary School.
Overall, the team found teacher-directed instruction was typically delivered to the whole class, with few instances
of differentiated student learning tasks. Instances of students who “engage in differentiated learning opportunities
and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1) were evident/very evident in six percent of classrooms. It was
evident/very evident in 33 percent of classrooms that students “collaborate with their peers to
accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments” (D4). It was evident/very evident in 50 percent
of classrooms that student “discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other and teacher predominate” (D1).
Also concerning to the Diagnostic Review Team was the High Expectations Learning Environment that earned a
rating of 1.9 on a four-point scale. In this learning environment, it was evident/very evident in six percent of
classrooms that students “take responsibility for and are self-directed in their learning” (B5). Instances of students
who “demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3) were evident/very evident in 11 percent of
classrooms, and in 17 percent of classrooms, students “engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks
that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4).
The Digital Learning Environment earned an overall rating of 1.1 on the four-point scale, making it the lowest-rated
learning environment. The Diagnostic Review Team rarely observed technology used by students to complete tasks
beyond working on educational programs. In six percent of classrooms, for example, it was evident/very evident
that students used digital tools/technology to “communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) or
“conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for learning” (G2). In addition, in zero percent of
classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students “use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use
information for learning” (G1).
The Diagnostic Review Team encourages school leaders and staff members to carefully review each item in all
seven learning environments to identify those that can be immediately leveraged to improve teaching and
learning.

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
Evaluate and revise the quality and effectiveness of the current curriculum to ensure it meets the level of rigor in
the Kentucky Academic Standards (KAS) and prepares students for the next level. Develop, document, and
implement a formal process to monitor instruction to ensure it matches the level of rigor in the standards and is
implemented with fidelity. (Standard 2.5)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data from the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP)
assessment for Semple Elementary School, as detailed in an addendum to this report, revealed the percentage of
students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was significantly below the state average. Additionally, the
percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished dropped at all grade levels and in all subject areas from
2016-2017 to 2017-2018, with the exception of third-grade and fifth-grade math.
In 2016-2017, for example, 40.7 percent of fifth-grade students scored Proficient/Distinguished in social studies,
but that dropped to 20 percent in 2017-2018, whereas the state average was 60 percent in 2016-2017 and 53
percent in 2017-2018. Likewise, in fifth-grade writing, student scores dropped from 22.2 percent
Proficient/Distinguished to 14.4 percent, compared to the state averages of 45.9 percent in 2016-2017 and 40.5
percent in 2017-2018. According to the 2017-2018 K-PREP science assessment results, fourth-grade students at
Semple Elementary School scored significantly lower than their peers across the state. In addition, student
performance data indicated that the student growth indexes for reading, mathematics, and growth indicator were
all lower than the state indexes in 2017-2018.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, revealed that instances of students who “understood
and/or were able to explain how their work was assessed” (E4) were evident/very evident in zero percent of
classrooms. It was evident/very evident in 33 percent of classrooms that students “monitor their own progress or
have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1). The classroom observation data further
revealed that students who took “responsibility for and are self-directed in their learning” (B5) were evident/very
evident in six percent of classrooms. Instances in which students “demonstrate and/or are able to describe high
quality work” (B3) were evident/very evident in 11 percent of classrooms. Finally, students who engaged in
“rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks” that required the use of “higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing,
applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4) were evident/very evident in 17 percent of classrooms.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The interview data indicated that teachers were analyzing student performance data during professional learning
community (PLC) meetings and using the findings to group students by ability. The observation and interview data,
however, showed that students worked on the same assignment regardless of a student’s ability or of the group to
which a student had been assigned. The classroom observation data supported these findings and showed that

differentiated instruction rarely occurred, as it was evident/very evident in six percent of classrooms that students
“engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). One stakeholder, for
example, stated, “We need to get to the point where we are truly differentiating for all students.” Additionally, the
interview data showed that stakeholders respected the principal. In interviews, the Diagnostic Review Team
repeatedly heard that the school culture had vastly improved under the direction of the school principal. The
teacher turnover rate, according to the interview data, was lower than similar schools in the district. Interview
data also revealed that staff members had delved into standards alignment; however, they were unable to explain
the process for consistently using data to develop an aligned curriculum or revise the existing curriculum.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The survey data revealed that 86 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My child knows
the expectations for learning in all classes” (E10). In addition, the parent survey data revealed that 85 percent of
parents agreed/strongly agreed that “My child is given multiple assessments to measure his/her understanding”
(E12). A review of the survey data showed that 89 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). In addition, survey data revealed that 81 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school provide students with specific and timely feedback about
their learning” (E6). Further, survey data revealed 77 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).
Finally, elementary student survey data showed that 89 percent agreed that “My teachers help me learn things I
will need in the future” (E1). However, these data indicated a disconnect between perceived actions and
observation data that revealed students who “understand and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed”
(E4) were evident/very evident in 18 percent of classrooms.
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP), School Quality Factors Diagnostic (SQF), surveys,
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) student data, and a walkthrough schedule revealed the lack of a systematic
process to review, revise, and monitor the quality and effectiveness of the curriculum to ensure that it meets the
level of rigor in the Kentucky Academic Standards. Further review of the available artifacts (e.g., School
Improvement Committee meeting agendas, PLC meeting agendas) showed no evidence to substantiate a formal
process was implemented to monitor the use of the curriculum and its fidelity to ensure it improves instruction
and thereby student achievement.

Improvement Priority #2
Create a formal process to evaluate all academic and organizational programs, practices, and services that have a
direct impact on student learning. Use findings from analysis of data (e.g., student performance, instructional
practices, surveys) to make informed decisions (e.g., adjust, add, eliminate) to improve these programs, services,
and practices implemented with quality and fidelity. (Standard 2.12)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed that the percentage of students
scoring Proficient/Distinguished, in all content areas and at all grade levels was below their peers across the state
for the past two years. Moreover, the K-PREP data suggested that instructional practices implemented since 2016-
2017 had not improved student achievement as measured by the K-PREP assessment. Student performance data
from the K-PREP assessment were among the data considered to identify Improvement Priority #2.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data showed that student performance data were consistently analyzed to identify the
group to which each student would be assigned. However, data were not evaluated to identify teachers who had
successfully used effective instructional practices to teach a concept, skill, or standard in order to determine the
teacher who should teach a given group or section of the content. Rather, an experienced teacher might always
teach high-performing students, leaving the less-experienced teacher with students who struggle the most. The
interview data confirmed that teacher strengths were not consistently maximized to benefit student learning by
giving consideration to and capitalizing on them. One stakeholder communicated to the team, “There is an
unevenness in instruction across the campus. There are inequities in the level of instruction students receive.”
Finally, one stakeholder captured the sentiment of many with the statement, “Next steps are to work on rigor and
grade-level Tier I instruction.”
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The survey data revealed that staff members reported the school used assessment results for continuous
improvement. For example, 97 percent of staff members indicated that “Our school leaders monitor data related
to student achievement” (G6). Furthermore, 91 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school
employs consistent assessment measures across classrooms and courses” (G2). In addition, 88 percent
agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school uses multiple assessment measures to determine student
learning and school performance” (G1). Additionally, 86 percent indicated that “Our school ensures all staff
members are trained in the evaluation, interpretation, and use of data” (G4).
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of the principal’s presentation documentation showed that the school identified strengths in core teacher
instruction as an area of focus. Furthermore, the presentation indicated the need for the school to develop and
implement a systematic process to analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching practices and student
learning. The classroom observation data confirmed that most students were not engaged in rigorous coursework,
discussions, and or tasks that required the use of higher order thinking. The team found little evidence that the
school consistently used data to evaluate program effectiveness or monitored the impact of specific high-yield
instructional practices to determine whether these practices improved student learning.

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:
Parents, teachers, support staff, and district leaders shared a common belief that the principal at Semple
Elementary School has created a positive school culture. As one stakeholder noted, “The school culture is a
compassionate family environment.” A consistent belief among staff and community members is that everyone is
willing to do whatever it takes to positively affect the lives of their students. This starts with school leadership, as
one teacher commented, “Principal Randle wants to make you better. She is special—something about her that
drives you internally.”
A plethora of resources to support student learning and instructional practices were accessible to school staff
members. These supports have allowed the school to implement different programs and provide teachers with
professional learning opportunities to develop and enhance their professional practice. Survey data showed 88
percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school provides instructional time and
resources to support our school’s goals and priorities” (F2). Additionally, 88 percent of parents agreed/strongly
agreed that “Our school provides students with access to a variety of information resources to support their
learning.” (F4). The Diagnostic Review Team generally observed a supportive learning environment and a well-
maintained facility.
The principal has focused on creating a positive school culture while also creating a supportive and collaborative
working environment. The staff survey data revealed that 98 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed
with the statement, “Our school’s leaders support an innovative and collaborative culture.” (D3). One staff
member captured the sentiment of many with the positive statement, “Principal Randle is the heart of the school.”
Another teacher stated, “I would beg, plead, and barter to work at this school under her leadership.”
Continuous Improvement Process:

Survey, student performance, classroom observation, and interview data; the principal’s presentation, and a
review of documents and artifacts indicated the need for a systematic process to evaluate all academic and
organizational programs, practices, and services to improve instructional effectiveness and student learning at
Semple Elementary School. While the Diagnostic Review Team observed some research-based teaching practices
in classrooms, instruction generally lacked rigor and had yet to increase student achievement. In a two-year period

starting in 2016-2017, fourth-grade mathematics scores, as measured by the K-PREP, showed student performance
decreased. Students performed significantly lower than state averages in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. Survey data
revealed that 87 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed “Our school has a systematic process for
collecting, analyzing, and using data” (G3).
The school had structures (e.g., PLCs, multi-tiered system of supports, academies, faculty meetings) to provide
time for teachers to collaborate, review, and analyze student data. Also, the master schedule and personalized
learning initiative provided teachers with time to create differentiated student learning groups based on the
identified needs of students. Survey data showed that 94 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with
the statement, “In our school, all staff members participate in continuous professional learning based on identified
needs of the school” (E17). The Diagnostic Review Team found few instances of instruction designed specifically to
meet individual student needs. While teachers were trained in a variety of instructional strategies, inconsistent
implementation of effective teaching strategies was observed across classrooms.
The school could benefit from the development of processes to improve the systematic evaluation of instructional
practices and programs that determine the impact on student learning. The Diagnostic Review Team found that
the school used Powerwalks, the Fundamental Five, and the Danielson Framework evaluation system to evaluate
the quality and effectiveness of teacher instructional practices. However, these strategies had not resulted in
sustained and systematic improvements in instruction practices, as evidenced by few changes in student
achievement. The Diagnostic Review Team suggests that school leaders and staff members increase instructional
rigor, align instructional practices, and vet assessment questions to ensure they match the level of rigor required
for students to be Proficient/Distinguished on the K-PREP assessment.
Finally, to provide the level of instruction necessary to meet the individual needs of students and the learning
expectations of the school, school leaders are encouraged to establish and implement systematic processes for
monitoring and adjusting instruction based on the rigor of the Kentucky Academic Standards and current research
about the effectiveness of instructional practices and student learning needs. This could include frequent
classroom observations, meaningful and targeted feedback, follow-up observations, ongoing support, and data-
driven decisions to identify and address individual student academic needs. Lastly, the Diagnostic Review Team
encourages the school to use these findings as leverage points for establishing processes to monitor instruction in
order to ensure that students are engaged in differentiated learning opportunities that meet their diverse needs.
Next Steps
The results of the Diagnostic Review provide the next step for guiding the improvement journey of the institution
with their efforts to improve the quality of educational opportunities for all learners. The findings are aligned to
research-based criteria designed to improve student learning and organizational effectiveness. The feedback
provided in the Diagnostic Review Report will assist the institution in reflecting on current improvement efforts
and adapting and adjusting their plans to continuously strive for improvement.
Upon receiving the Diagnostic Review Report, the institution is encouraged to implement the following steps:
• Review and share the findings with stakeholders.
• Develop plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the Diagnostic Review Team.
• Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution’s continuous improvement
efforts.
• Celebrate the successes noted in the report.


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

Dr. James Driscoll Dr. James Driscoll currently serves as the assistant superintendent for East Area K-
8 in the Mesa Unified School District in Mesa, Arizona. He has teaching experience
at a variety of levels from kindergarten through grade eight in both suburban and
urban settings and as a faculty associate professor for Arizona State University. Dr.
Driscoll’s administrative experience includes dean of students, assistant principal,
principal, director of special education, and district hearing officer. He has
extensive experience in evaluation processes, developing equitable/challenging
learning experiences for all students, and identifying strengths and weaknesses in
collaborative learning communities. Dr. Driscoll holds a bachelor’s degree in
elementary education, a master’s degree in educational leadership, a master’s
degree in human relations, a master’s degree in special education, and a doctoral
degree in educational leadership.
Sam Watkins Sam Watkins is currently in year 33 of serving students in Kentucky. He has served
in the capacity of teacher, assistant principal, athletic director, principal, director
of districtwide programs and Education Recovery Leader. Mr. Watkins earned his
bachelor’s degree in teaching at Eastern Kentucky University and a master’s
degree in business administration. He currently is working with focus districts
across the Commonwealth of Kentucky to improve student academic
performance.
Peebles Lancaster Ms. Pebbles Lancaster currently serves as an Education Recovery Specialist for the
Kentucky Department of Education and is assigned to Dawson Springs Elementary
School and Carr Elementary School. She is in her 28th year of education. Her
experiences consist of classroom elementary educator and school improvement
specialist. For the past 11 years, she has been actively involved with school
improvement work and has extensive experience with analysis of curriculum,
instruction, assessments, and systems. She holds a bachelor’s degree in early
childhood education, a master’s degree in gifted and talented education, and a
Rank I in reading. She has also earned additional certifications, including National
Board, principal, instructional supervisor, superintendent, and School
Improvement Specialist.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Lisa Peters Lisa Peters, Ed.S, has been an educator for 29 years and currently serves as a
school-based administrator in Oldham County. She has teaching experience at all
levels from kindergarten through fifth grade in rural, suburban, and urban
settings. She is a former classroom teacher, reading resource teacher,
instructional coordinator, literacy coach, and assistant principal. Her expertise
includes building professional learning communities, evaluating instructional
practices, strengthening grade-level literacy, and defining school leadership. Lisa
holds a bachelor’s degree in elementary education, a master’s degree in
curriculum and instruction, administrative certifications, and a specialist in
education degree.
John Slone Mr. Slone is currently the director of technology and federal programs for the Bath
County School System. He has 23 years of educational experience as both a
teacher and administrator. Mr. Slone received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees
in vocational education at Morehead State University. He received his Rank I in
educational administration from Xavier University. Mr. Slone served most recently
as principal for four years at Bath County Middle School and eight years as
assistant principal at Scott High School where he developed his skills in curriculum,
continuous school improvement, finance, and personnel. As an agriculture
teacher, he worked in Ohio and Kentucky with students on leadership
development and served as a state officer for the Kentucky Vocational Agriculture
Teachers Association. Mr. Slone has served on several Diagnostic Reviews and he
has also received training through the Center for Creative Leadership.

Addenda
Student Performance Data for Semple Elementary Schools
Section I:
School and Student Proficiency and Separate Academic Indicator Results
Content Area %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
“All Student “All Student Group”
Group”
Reading 3rd 21.0 55.8 19.4 52.3
Reading 4th 28.0 49.9 22.6 53.7
Reading 5th 33.3 57.3 26.7 57.8
Math 3rd 18.5 50.9 19.4 47.3
Math 4th 31.7 47.9 22.6 47.2
Math 5th 25.9 48.9 28.9 52.0
Science 4th N/A 9.5 30.8
Social Studies 5th 40.7 60.0 20.0 53.0
Writing 5th 22.2 45.9 14.4 40.5
Plus
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade math increased from 25.9
percent in 2016-2017 to 28.9 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in third-grade math increased from 18.5
percent in 2016-2017 to 19.4 percent in 2017-2018.
Delta
• In all grade levels and all content areas, the percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished was
below the state average in both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• Science had the lowest percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018 with 9.5
percent of students reaching that level.
• The percentage of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in writing was 14.4 in 2017-2018.

Section II:
Student Growth Index (2017-2018)
Content Area Index State Index
Reading 16.6 19.7
Math 12.2 14.5
EL 30.9 31.9
Growth Indicator 14.4 17.1
Plus
• The student Growth Index for English learners (EL) was within one point of the state index.
Delta
• The student Growth Index in 2017-2018 in reading, math, English learners (EL) and Growth Indicator all
lagged behind the state.
Section III: Gap Groups Scoring Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 22.8 23.6 9.5 20.0 14.4

Female 23.7 25.4 7.7 19.4 30.6
Male 22.2 22.2 11.1 20.4 3.7
White 31.8 23.9 11.8 26.9 19.2
African American 12.6 20.2 3.3 11.1 11.1
Hispanic 24.1 31.0 10.0 25.0 16.7
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races 30.4 21.7
Title I 22.8 23.6 9.5 20.0 14.4
Migrant
Homeless
Foster
Military

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
English Learner (EL) 10.8 13.5 10.0 7.7 0

English Learner plus 14.3 16.7 10.0 11.8 5.9
Monitored
Economically 22.1 23.7 10.0 17.1 14.6
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 7.7 10.3 5.9
(Total)
Disability-With IEP (No 9.4 12.5
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with 8.0 4.0
Accommodation
Consolidated Student 16.1 21.2 5.6 14.9 11.9
Group
Plus
• The percentage of Hispanic students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in math was 31 percent in 2017-
2018.
• The percentage of students of two or more races scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading was 30.4
percent in 2017-2018.
Delta
• The percentage of students in the consolidated student group scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading
was 16.1 in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students in the consolidated student group scoring Proficient/Distinguished in science
was 5.6 in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students with disability (no ALT) with accommodation scoring Proficient/Distinguished
in math was four percent in 2017-2018.

Schedule
Monday, February 11, 2019
Time Event Where Who

5:30 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
Room Team Members
6:00 p.m. – Principal Presentation Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
6:45 p.m. Room Team Members
7:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #1 Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
Tuesday, February 12, 2019

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Semple Elementary School School office Diagnostic Review
Team Members
8:00 a.m. – Classroom Observations School Diagnostic Review
9:00 a.m. Team Members
9:00 a.m. – Classroom observations, principal interview, and stakeholder School Diagnostic Review
12:30 p.m. interviews Team Members
12:30 p.m. – Lunch – Team Members eat when it can fit into their individual School/District
1:00 p.m. schedule
1:00 p.m. – Continued classroom observations and stakeholder interviews School/District Diagnostic Review
2:30 p.m. Team Members
2:30 p.m. – Interviews Diagnostic Review
5:30 p.m. – Team returns to hotel (after dismissal) and has dinner on their own Diagnostic Review
6:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review
Wednesday, February 13, 2019

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Semple Elementary School School/District Diagnostic Review
Team Members
8:00 a.m. – Continue interviews and artifact review, conduct informal classroom School/District Diagnostic Review
4:00 p.m. observations Team Members
11:30 a.m. – Lunch – Team Members eat when it can fit into their individual School/District Diagnostic Review
12:30 p.m. schedule Team Members
5:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel (after dismissal) and has dinner on own
6:00 p.m.
6:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 (Agenda provided by Lead Evaluator) Hotel Conference Diagnostic Review

Thursday, February 14, 2019
8:00 a.m. – Final Team Work Session School/District Diagnostic Review

11:00 a.m. Team Members
Team Members review all components of the Diagnostic Review
Team’s findings including:
• Standards Diagnostic
• Coherency and accuracy of the Improvement Priorities and
Powerful Practices
• Detailed evidence for all of the findings
• Leadership Assessment if applicable
Written The written report will be provided to the institution or DOE within 30 AdvancED
Report days following the on-site Diagnostic Review.

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.

Semple Final DR Report 2018-2019

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Semple Final DR Report 2018-2019

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

February 11–14, 2019

Results for: Semple Elementary 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

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

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 make connections from content to real-life

Learners collaborate with their peers to

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

E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment

Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

F. Well-Managed Learning Environment

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Insights from the Review

Continuous Improvement Process:

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

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

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

Team Member Name Brief Biography

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