2018-19 Western High Diagnostic Review

March 4–7, 2019
Results for: Western 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 .................................................................................................................. 18
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 19
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 20
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 22
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 22
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 25
© 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 2
Building-level Administrators 6
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology 4
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 12
Non-certified Staff 2
Students 24
Parents/Community Partners 13
Total 63

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 Emerging
and learning, including the expectations for learners.
1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces Emerging
evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and
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 Emerging
groups to inform decision-making that results in 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 Emerging
environment, learner achievement, and the institution’s effectiveness.
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 25 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
2.1
1.8
1.6 1.6
1.3
Environment Averages




eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team conducted 25 classroom observations. A strength that emerged from the classroom
observation data related to the manner in which teachers treated students. Students, for instance, who were
“treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner” (A3) were evident/very evident in 74 percent of classrooms.
Conversely, the team identified areas of concern across all seven learning environments. Some practices were
absent or inconsistently implemented. The inconsistent classroom management practices across the school
troubled the team, as students who demonstrated “a congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher”
(C4) were evident/very evident in 40 percent of classrooms. Students who spoke and interacted “respectfully with
teacher(s) and each other” (F1) and demonstrated knowledge of and/or followed “classroom rules and behavioral
expectations and [worked] well with others” (F2) were evident/very evident in 52 and 48 percent of classrooms
respectively.
The Team found a pervasive culture of low academic expectations throughout the school. For example, students
who could “demonstrate and/or [be] able to describe high quality work” (B3) and “monitor their own progress or
have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1) were evident/very evident in zero percent of
classrooms. Additionally, students who strove to meet or were able to “articulate the high expectations
established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1); engaged in “activities and learning that are challenging but
attainable” (B2); and took “responsibility for and [were] self-directed in their learning” (B5) were evident/very
evident in eight and twelve percent of classrooms respectively.
In addition, students who received/responded “to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve
understanding and/or revise work” (E2); demonstrated and/or verbalized “understanding of the lesson/content”
(E3); and understood and/or were “able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4) were evident/very evident in
eight, twelve, and eight percent of classrooms. Team members observed limited use of strategies that engaged
students in discussions with their peers and teachers. Students who engaged in “discussions/dialogues/exchanges
with each other and teacher predominate” (D1), for example, were evident/very evident in 16 percent of
classrooms.

Another area that emerged as a concern was the Digital Learning Environment. Students who used “digital
tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1) were evident/very evident in 16
percent of classrooms. Students who used digital tools/technology to “conduct research, solve problems, and/or
create original works for learning” (G2) and “communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) were
evident/very evident in eight and four percent of classrooms respectively.

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
Establish a data-driven system for the development of a collaborative and shared leadership structure that
includes multiple stakeholders, ongoing monitoring, leadership coaching, and regular reflective practices.
(Standard 1.9)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, revealed that the percentages of
students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 were below the state average in all
content areas. All content-area scores in 2017-2018 were 22.4 percentage points or more below the state average.
The scores in all content areas, except math, declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018, and science was the lowest-
performing content area with 5.7 percent of students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018.
ACT data results showed that all content-area scores (English, math, and reading) were below the state average in
the percentage of students who met benchmarks on ACT in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The percentage of students
who met benchmark on the English portion of the ACT was 26.9 percent in 2016-2017 and 15.9 percent in 2017-
2018, a decrease of 11 percentage points. The percentage of students meeting benchmark on the math portion of
the ACT was 12.3 percent in 2016-2017 and 12.7 percent in 2017-2018, an increase of 0.4 percentage points. The
percentage of students who met benchmark in reading on the ACT was 25.7 percent in 2016-2017 and 24.6
percent in 2017-2018, a decrease of 1.1 percent.
The transition readiness indicator showed that the four- and five-year graduation rates were below the state
averages in 2017 and 2018. The graduation rate for Western High School in 2017 was 71.3 compared to the state
rate of 89.7. The graduation rate for Western High School for 2018 was 79.2 compared to the state at 90.3. The
transition readiness indicator for Western High School was 14.8 while the state transition readiness indicator was
60.9.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data revealed that school leadership could not adequately explain the processes for
analyzing data from various sources. School leadership discussed the creation of the eSys instrument, but they
were unable to explain how it was monitored or used to improve instructional practices. The teacher interview
data revealed that teachers had limited knowledge of or exposure to the eSys instrument. Additionally, multiple
stakeholder groups indicated that there were limited systems to ensure the continuous improvement plan (eSys)
was clearly communicated.
The interview data from multiple stakeholder groups indicated that the Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) program was implemented inconsistently across the school. Although administrators indicated that

the PBIS program was being revised, the team found little evidence that other stakeholders were involved or
informed of the revision process.
The administrator interviews revealed that discipline intervention was a primary activity of leadership and required
much of their time during the day. The team found little evidence that the PBIS program was embedded into daily
operations.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

A review of the stakeholder perception and experience data revealed that 74 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In our school, a professional learning program is designed to build
capacity among all professional support staff members” (E18). In addition, 79 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, all staff members participate in continuous professional learning based
on the identified needs of the school” (E17). While the data indicated that teachers participated in professional
learning, the team found little evidence that professional learning was implemented in all classrooms.
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of the “Leader Responsibility List” and “Organization and Action Plan Chart” revealed that leadership
tasks were identified and assigned; however, the task list was not comprehensive and shared responsibility and
collaboration related to leadership tasks was limited. The school provided no evidence that showed regular
reflective processes were part of leadership practices. The provided eSys documentation showed numerous
sources of data collection; however, processes for the regular review of data to make informed decisions were not
included.
Develop and deploy a system for the implementation and monitoring of a rigorous instructional framework that
includes high expectations, alignment to academic standards, and clear connections to the college and career
readiness pipeline. (Standard 2.5)
Evidence:

Student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed that the percentage of students
who scored Proficient/Distinguished on the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) was
below the state average in reading, math, science, and writing, and all scores fell 22.4 percentage points or more
below the state average. Student scores declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018 in reading, science, and writing.
Significantly, student scores in science decreased by nine points, with 5.7 percent of students scoring
Proficient/Distinguished.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, showed a culture of low expectations in most classrooms.
It was evident/very evident that students engaged in “rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require
the use of higher order thinking” (B4) in four percent of classrooms. The team observed a variety of activities with
low levels of rigor, such as independent worksheets, lectures, and guided note-taking. The team also observed
minimal student movement, student dialogue, and peer collaboration. Additionally, it was evident/very evident in
23 percent of classrooms that students were “actively engaged in the learning activities” (D3). Finally, students

who used technology to “gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1) were evident/very evident in
16 percent of classrooms.

The stakeholder interview data showed that multiple stakeholders at all levels expressed concern about the lack of
instructional rigor. Many students reported being bored in class. Stakeholder interviews revealed that students
primarily completed learning tasks with low levels of rigor. Students expressed dissatisfaction with disruptive
behaviors that regularly impeded instruction. Students typically reported that behavior issues were tied to
boredom. The interview data indicated that parents espoused similar concerns.
The interview data also revealed that school administrators inconsistently monitored instructional practices. While
administrators monitored instruction through the PowerWalk system, multiple stakeholders revealed that most
instructional conversations focused on surface-level, compliance-oriented instructional tasks. The school was well
resourced with highly skilled instructional support staff (e.g., resource teachers); however, multiple stakeholders
indicated that resource teachers had limited authority and flexibility to provide meaningful and consistent
coaching to teachers.
While staff members and administrators used appropriate language (e.g., high-yield instructional strategies) to
discuss rigor, they generally were unable to elaborate on the specific instructional strategies that were
implemented, how they were monitored, or which professional development opportunities were offered.

The stakeholder survey data indicated that stakeholders did not perceive students to be engaged in meaningful,
rigorous coursework. Fifty-five percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my child's
teachers give work that challenges my child” (E2). Similarly, 44 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that
“My school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2), and 42 percent of students
agreed/strongly agreed that “In my school, a high-quality education is offered” (C3).

The school provided the Diagnostic Review Team with limited documentation to demonstrate that instructional
rigor was intentional, monitored, and enforced by administrators. The “Leader Responsibility List” did not assign
leaders to specific instructional responsibilities. The “Analysis of Fundamental Five Growth Over Time” document
provided limited insight into the regular monitoring of instruction by administrators. The school provided evidence
of an instructional framework in the “Classroom Expectations” document; however, the expectations identified
were not observed, and the team could not substantiate through other data sources that these occurred. The “PLC
Mid-Year Reflection” document included the need for increased focus on interventions but did not identify any
concerns related to the rigor of core instruction.

Refine and expand existing systems to regularly monitor and adjust instruction in order to meet individual learner
needs. Ensure all learners have equal access to rigorous and appropriate instruction that accelerates progress
toward proficiency. (Standard 2.7)
Evidence:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed the school did not successfully
establish a process that ensures instruction meets the needs of all students. The student performance data were
among the data considered to develop Improvement Priority #3.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, revealed limited evidence that students engaged in
differentiated learning opportunities and activities to meet their needs during core instructional time. Students
who engaged in “differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1) were
evident/very evident in four percent of classrooms. In most classrooms, the team primarily observed whole group
instruction and students completing the same learning tasks. It was evident/very evident that students were
“supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks” (C3)
in 40 percent of classrooms.

Stakeholder interview data suggested that teachers rarely adjusted instruction or provided differentiated support
to students. The school had implemented Study Island to provide intervention support; however, Study Island was
not implemented with fidelity as a tiered intervention. Further, the interview data showed that few stakeholders
consistently used Study Island in core instruction. Teachers were unable to explain how core instruction was
differentiated to improve learner outcomes.
In interviews, staff members were unable to explain how data were routinely and systematically reviewed and
monitored to adjust instructional practices that meet identified student needs. While the school administered a
universal screener and common formative and summative assessments, teacher and administrator stakeholders
were unable to articulate how those data were used. In some cases, the interview data revealed that staff
members could not articulate the implications of using data to guide instructional decisions. While some students
discussed the merits of the assessments, most did not understand the connection between the assessments and
instruction as a predictor of long-term success.
Teacher interviews also revealed that the professional learning community (PLC) protocols were implemented but
lacked a focus on instructional rigor. PLC time primarily was used for lesson planning and discussing essential
standards. There was limited interview evidence to suggest that teachers used student data in a meaningful way
during the meetings to adjust instruction or create differentiated student groups or learning tasks.
Student and parent stakeholder groups both reported limited opportunities for students to receive remediation or
intensive support. While the parent stakeholder group indicated that tutoring opportunities were available after
school, they expressed that students had minimal opportunities for remediation and support during school.


The stakeholder perception data suggested that few teachers differentiated instruction. Fifty-five percent of
parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my child’s teachers meet his/her learning needs by
individualizing instruction” (E4), and 57 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “My child is given multiple
assessments to measure his/her understanding of what was taught” (E12). These data were reflected in student
survey responses. Forty percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My school provides
learning services for me according to my needs” (E7), and 32 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my
teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9).
In contrast, staff member responses differed slightly from parent and student perceptions. Sixty percent of staff
members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school personalize instruction strategies
and interventions to address individual learning needs of students” (E2), and 62 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).

A review of the “PLC Mid-Year Reflection” document showed a focus on intervention as a future need; however,
there was minimal evidence of the implementation of interventions beyond the casual use of Study Island. The
“PDSA Unit Plan” example submitted to the team mentioned Response to Intervention efforts (RTI), but offered
little documentation of any specific plans or actions to address concerns. Similarly, walkthrough protocols did not
include differentiation as an observable measure. The current master schedule also did not reflect intervention as
a priority. For example, there was not a dedicated time in the schedule to address targeted reading and math
interventions. Finally, the school submitted documentation for the “Summer Learning for Novice Reduction
Grant.” The grant included a focus on instructional planning but did not include a clear focus on intervention
strategies despite the fact that the school had identified that interventions were needed.

Insights from the Review

The Diagnostic Review Team engaged in professional discussions and deliberations about the processes, programs,
and practices within the institution to arrive at the findings of the team. These findings are organized around
themes guided by the evidence, examples of programs, and practices and provide direction for the institution’s
continuous improvement efforts. The insights from the Review narrative should provide contextualized
information from the team deliberations and provide information about the team’s analysis of the practices,
processes, and programs of the institution within the Levels of Impact of Engagement, Implementation, Results,
Sustainability, and Embeddedness.
Engagement is the level of involvement and frequency with which stakeholders are engaged in the desired
practices, processes, or programs within the institution. Implementation is the degree to which the desired
practices, processes, or programs are monitored and adjusted for quality and fidelity of implementation. Results
represent the collection, analysis, and use of data and evidence to demonstrate attaining the desired result(s).
Sustainability is results achieved consistently to demonstrate growth and improvement over time (minimum of
three years). Embeddedness is the degree to which the desired practices, processes, or programs are deeply
ingrained in the culture and operation of the institution.
Strengths:
The administrators, teachers, support staff, parents, and students at Western High School modeled a welcoming
and supportive spirit during the Diagnostic Review Team’s visit. Overall, the school had a welcoming and friendly
atmosphere. Teachers genuinely cared about students. During the principal’s overview presentation, the principal
shared that Western High School was focused on the Western Core Values: Perseverance, Responsibility, Integrity,
Diversity, and Excellence. The principal shared that in an effort to support the Western Core Values, relationships
had to be built within the community, teacher to teacher, teacher to student, and student to student. As a result,
the school had learning expectations visible in classrooms via the daily learning framework and behavioral
expectations clearly posted throughout the building.
The school developed and refined a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) to address the school’s
improvement efforts. The principal stated during his principal’s presentation that “Every initiative within the
building is tied back to the school’s CSIP, and if it did not support the plan, then the initiative was not added.” Also,
during the principal’s overview presentation, it was noted that the school had opportunities for stakeholder
engagement. For example, the school increased the number of community partners and student access to them,
especially those supporting the career pathways in The Academies of Louisville initiative. School administrators
developed a supportive relationship with business partners, such as Super Chef, Heine Brothers, Louisville Builders
Association, Western High School Alumni, Louisville Rotary, Jefferson Community and Technical College, and the
City of Shively Police.
Continuous Improvement Process:

The principal has served at Western High School for seven years. During the principal’s overview presentation, the
principal noted the school was experiencing its fourth Diagnostic Review since 2015. As a result, the principal
stated that the following improvements occurred since 2015-2016: 1) teachers participated in learning
communities, 2) the school implemented instructional processes to support learning, and 3) teachers were
provided with mentoring, coaching, and induction programs to support instruction. Similarly, the principal noted
that the following improvements occurred since 2017-2018: increased rigor, increased instructional monitoring,
and regular feedback to students and staff. While the Diagnostic Review Team observed some implementation of

instructional processes and teachers participating in learning communities, instruction in many classrooms was not
research-based or high yield, rigorous, or supportive of best practices that foster improved student outcomes.
The team observed structures that afforded teachers an opportunity to collaborate (e.g., professional learning
communities), a common time for planning, and the process of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA); but these structures
were being implemented with minimal fidelity and were not monitored to evaluate their effectiveness in
improving teacher efficacy and learner outcomes. The school also did not have a master schedule that provided
time for interventions for all students.
The Diagnostic Review Team suggests that school administrators, teachers, and support staff evaluate the existing
structures within the school’s CSIP to increase the rigor in classrooms, improve teacher and staff capacity, and
develop and implement a Response to Intervention (RTI) program to ensure differentiation. Although the school
had PLCs focused on planning instruction, staff members spent little time reflecting on data and making changes to
instruction.
Finally, the school is encouraged to focus on expanding its use of high-yield instructional strategies to provide
lessons that are rigorous and relevant. Further, the school needs to expand the Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) program to include a focus on restorative practices, ensuring that students can continue to receive
core instruction and have their diverse needs met through teaching and learning that is grounded in high academic
expectations for instructional practices and learning opportunities. Lastly, the Diagnostic Review Team suggests
that the principal lead a process to develop, implement, and foster an effective professional learning community
where administrators, teachers, staff, and support staff are held accountable for learning together and following
through with practices, processes, and procedures.
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. Rechel Anderson Dr. Rechel M. Anderson currently serves as superintendent of Jasper County
School District. She has served as the director of curriculum and instruction for
Marion County School District. She has teaching experience at all levels (K-12) in
both rural and urban settings. Dr. Anderson's administrative experience includes
being an assistant to the principal, assistant principal, and principal. She is a
professional educator with 19 years of experience in the field of education. Dr.
Anderson also serves as chair of the Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention,
and Advancement (CERRA) Board of Directors, as well as the Executive Board and
the Coker College Alumni Board. Dr. Anderson holds a bachelor’s degree in
elementary education from Coker College in Hartsville, South Carolina, a master’s
degree in elementary education from Winthrop University in Rockhill, South
Carolina, a master’s degree in educational leadership and a doctorate in
educational leadership from Gardner-Webb University in Boiling Springs, North
Carolina.
Kevin Gay Kevin Gay moved into the role of Education Recovery Leader for the Kentucky
Department of Education (KDE) in July of 2014. He began this role at Lee County
High School and is currently serving in that capacity at Breathitt High School.
Previously, Mr. Gay served as principal at Leslie County High School for five years
from 2009-2014, where he led the school from priority to distinguished status.
Mr. Gay began his educational career as a social studies teacher and head football
coach at Leslie County Middle School. His experience also includes serving as the
principal at Hayes Lewis Elementary and Big Creek Elementary. Mr. Gay earned his
Rank I in supervision with certification for superintendent, supervisor of
instruction, and director of pupil personnel from Eastern Kentucky University. He
received his master’s degree in educational leadership and his bachelor‘s degree
in history. He is affiliated with KDE School Turnaround Training, Kentucky
Leadership Academy, National Institute of School Leaders and Kentucky
Association of School Administrators. Mr. Gay has been a life-long resident of
southeastern Kentucky and strives to create positive change in educational policy
and processes.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Dr. Matthew Courtney Dr. Matthew Courtney currently serves as an Educational Program Consultant at
the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE). In addition to his experience at KDE,
Dr. Courtney has teaching experience at the elementary and collegiate levels. As a
teacher, he served on multiple district level committees, including district
instructional rounds teams. He has taught both undergraduate and graduate
classes in education, leadership, and professional growth and has been a guest
lecturer on topics related to teacher professional learning and classroom-level
leadership. Dr. Courtney has served in leadership and research roles in the
nonprofit sector, specializing in teacher quality and improvement. He holds a
bachelor’s degree in music education from Eastern Kentucky University, a master’s
degree in teacher leadership and a doctorate degree in educational leadership
from the University of the Cumberlands.
Dr. Andre’ Harrison Dr. Andre` L. Harrison currently serves as a Regional Director for
AdvancED/Measured Progress Southeast Region. Prior to that, he served as the
AdvancED Alabama State Director and Lead Evaluator. Before joining
AdvancED/Measured Progress, he served as superintendent, chief of staff, deputy
superintendent, assistant superintendent, director of curriculum and instruction,
principal, teacher, and library media specialist for the Elmore County Board of
Education in Wetumpka, Alabama. He also has over 24 years of experience as an
adjunct university instructor. Dr. Harrison has a passion for supporting institutions
during their continuous improvement journey. His areas of expertise include
educational leadership, board governance, finance, human resources, and school
improvement.
Casey Jaynes Casey Jaynes is the Director for Middle and High School Learning Support Services
for Boone County Schools in Florence, Kentucky. In this role Mr. Jaynes works with
all aspects of middle school and high school curriculum development, instructional
coaching, CTC programming and administrative leadership. Mr. Jaynes started his
career in education in information technology and PLTW teacher with Henderson
County Schools in Henderson, Kentucky. He then transitioned to Logan County
High School (LCHS) in Russellville, Kentucky, for three years as assistant principal
and for seven years as the principal. During his tenure LCHS went from one of the
lowest performing high schools in the region to being ranked in the 95 percentile
of all high schools in Kentucky, earning School of Distinction recognition in 2015.

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: School and Student Performance Results
Content %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State

Area (16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
Reading 29.8 55.8 23.0 45.4
Math 9.0 38.1 12.3 37.5
Science 15.1 41.2 5.7 29.6
Writing 36.9 58.5 23.7 51.8
Plus
Delta
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018

was below the state average in all content areas.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished declined from 2016-2017 to
2017-2018 in all content areas, except math.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was the lowest in science with
5.7 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in all content areas in 2017-
2018 was 22.4 percentage points or more below the state average.
Section II: Percentages of Students Meeting Benchmarks on ACT, Grade 11, at the School and in the
State (2016-2017, 2017-2018)
Content Area Percentage School Percentage State Percentage School Percentage State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
English 26.9 56.2 15.9 51.2
Math 12.3 43.9 12.7 38.9
Reading 25.7 53.6 24.6 47.1
Plus
Delta

• Scores in all content areas (English, math and reading) were below the state average for
students meeting benchmarks on ACT in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• Scores in all content areas, except math, declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
Section III. School Achievement of Transition Readiness and Graduation Rate (2017-2018)
Graduation Rate Indicator

(Average 4 and 5 year)
2017 71.3 79.2
State 89.7 90.3
2018 74.6 78.9 76.8
State 90.8 91.3 90.8
Transition Readiness Indicator

(Academic, Career, EL)
2018 14.8
State 60.9
(The accountability measure changed from College and/or Career Readiness to Transition Readiness, which has
added components making the two not compatible to compare).
Plus
• The four year graduation rate increased 3.3 percentage points from 2017 to 2018.
Delta
• The four- and five-year graduation rates were below the state averages for 2017 and 2018.
• The combined graduation rate for 2018 was below the state average.
• The transition readiness indicator was 46.1 percentage points below the state average.
Section IV. The 2017-18 %PD by Level
Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
Female 31.6 10.5 6.7 45.6

Male 16.7 13.6 5.0 7.7
White 35.0 24.4 14.6 37.8

African American 17.6 5.4 2.1 18.1

Hispanic
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races
Title I 23.0 12.3 5.7 23.7
Migrant
Homeless
Foster
Military
English Learner (EL)
English Learner plus
Monitored
Economically 19.8 10.5 5.3 20.7
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 6.7 5.6 5.0 0.0
(Total)
Disability-With IEP (No 0.0 0.0 0.0
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with
Accommodation
Consolidated Student 17.2 6.9 1.9 17.5
Group
Plus
Delta
• The percentage of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math was

5.4 percent compared to 24.4 percent for white students.
• The percentage of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below
the white group by at least 12.5 percentage points in math, science, and writing.
• The percentage of students with disabilities with IEP who scored Proficient/Distinguished in
writing was zero percent, in science five percent, in math 5.6 percent and in reading 6.7 percent.

Schedule
Monday, March 4, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:45 p.m. – Principal Presentation (45 minutes) Hotel Diagnostic
5:30 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
5:30 p.m. – Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Tuesday, March 5, 2019

7:00 a.m. Team arrives at Western High School School office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
8:35 a.m. – Principal’s Interview School Diagnostic
9:05 a.m. Review Team
Members
7:40 a.m. – Classroom Observations & Interviews School Diagnostic
3:30 p.m. Review Team
Members
3:30 p.m. – Team returns to hotel (after dismissal) and prepares for Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Members
4:30 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Wednesday, March 6, 2019

7:00 a.m. Team arrives at Western High School School Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
7:40 a.m. – Conduct Stakeholder interviews and artifact review, conduct classroom School Diagnostic
3:30 p.m. observations Review Team
Members
3:30 p.m. – Team returns to hotel and prepares for team meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Members
4:30 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 (Agenda provided by Lead Evaluator) Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Thursday, March 7, 2019

8:00 a.m. – Final Team Work Session Hotel Diagnostic

11:00 a.m. 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 Western High Diagnostic Review

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

2018-19 Western High Diagnostic Review

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

March 4–7, 2019

Results for: Western 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:

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

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

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Insights from the Review

Continuous Improvement Process:

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

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

Team Member Name Brief Biography

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

Team Member Name Brief Biography

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

Content %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State

Reading 29.8 55.8 23.0 45.4

Math 9.0 38.1 12.3 37.5

Science 15.1 41.2 5.7 29.6

Writing 36.9 58.5 23.7 51.8

• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018

English 26.9 56.2 15.9 51.2

Math 12.3 43.9 12.7 38.9

Reading 25.7 53.6 24.6 47.1

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

Graduation Rate Indicator

2017 71.3 79.2

State 89.7 90.3

2018 74.6 78.9 76.8