February 25?28, 2019 @AdvancED? AdvancED? Engagement Review Report 7 AdvancED? Diagnostic Review Results for: Valley High School Diagnostic Review Report Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4 Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4 Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 5 Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6 Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7 eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11 Findings .................................................................................................................................... 13 Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 13 Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 19 Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 20 Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 21 Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 24 Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 27 © Advance Education, Inc. 2 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report 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 District-level Administrators Building-level Administrators Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology Coordinator) Certified Staff Non-certified Staff Students Parents Total © Advance Education, Inc. 3 Number 1 4 10 46 14 57 5 137 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results The AdvancED Performance Standards Diagnostic was used by the Diagnostic Review Team to evaluate the institution’s effectiveness based on the AdvancED’s Performance Standards identified as essential for realizing growth and sustainable improvement in underperforming schools. The diagnostic consists of three components built around each of the three Domains: Leadership Capacity, Learning Capacity, and Resource Capacity. Point values are established within the diagnostic, and a percentage of the points earned by the institution for each Standard is calculated from the point values for each Standard. Results are reported within four categories: Needs Improvement, Emerging, Meets Expectations, and Exceeds Expectations. The results for the three Domains are presented in the tables that follow. Leadership Capacity Domain The capacity of leadership to ensure an institution’s progress toward its stated objectives is an essential element of organizational effectiveness. An institution’s leadership capacity includes the fidelity and commitment to its purpose and direction, the effectiveness of governance and leadership to enable the institution to realize its stated objectives, the ability to engage and involve stakeholders in meaningful and productive ways, and the capacity to implement strategies that improve learner and educator performance. Leadership Capacity Standards Rating 1.1 The institution commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching and learning, including the expectations for learners. Needs Improvement 1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and professional practice. Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve professional practice and organizational effectiveness. Needs Improvement 1.7 Leaders implement operational process and procedures to ensure organizational effectiveness in support of teaching and learning. Needs Improvement 1.8 Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the institution’s purpose and direction. Needs Improvement 1.9 The institution provides experiences that cultivate and improve leadership effectiveness. Needs Improvement 1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement. Needs Improvement 1.6 © Advance Education, Inc. 4 Needs Improvement www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report 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 and learning priorities established by the institution. Needs Improvement 2.2 The learning culture promotes creativity, innovation and collaborative problemsolving. Needs Improvement 2.5 Educators implement a curriculum that is based on high expectations and prepares learners for their next levels. Needs Improvement 2.7 Instruction is monitored and adjusted to meet individual learners’ needs and the institution’s learning expectations. Needs Improvement 2.9 The institution implements, evaluates, and monitors processes to identify and address the specialized social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs of students. 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 demonstrable improvement of student learning. Needs Improvement 2.12 The institution implements a process to continuously assess its programs and organizational conditions to improve student learning. Needs Improvement 2.10 © Advance Education, Inc. 5 Needs Improvement www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report 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 environment, learner achievement, and the institution’s effectiveness. Needs Improvement 3.2 The institution’s professional learning structure and expectations promote collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational effectiveness. The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s purpose and direction. Needs Improvement The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes longrange planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and direction. The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and organizational effectiveness. Needs Improvement 3.4 3.7 3.8 © Advance Education, Inc. 6 Needs Improvement Needs Improvement www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report 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 36 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. © Advance Education, Inc. 7 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Description Not Observed Somewhat Evident Evident Very Evident A. Equitable Learning Environment 1.4 Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs. 72% 14% 14% 0% A2 2.6 Learners have equal access to classroom discussions, activities, resources, technology, and support. 6% 42% 44% 8% A3 2.7 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 6% 31% 53% 11% 1.5 Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human characteristics, conditions and dispositions. 58% 31% 11% 0% Indicators Average A1 A4 Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 2.0 Description Not Observed Somewhat Evident Evident Very Evident B. High Expectations Learning Environment 1.8 Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher. 36% 47% 14% 3% B2 2.1 Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable. 19% 58% 19% 3% B3 1.6 Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work. 50% 42% 8% 0% B4 1.8 Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing). 31% 56% 14% 0% B5 2.0 Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their learning. 22% 56% 22% 0% Indicators Average B1 Overall rating on a 4 point scale: © Advance Education, Inc. 1.9 8 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Description Not Observed Somewhat Evident Evident Very Evident C. Supportive Learning Environment 1.9 Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive, cohesive, engaged, and purposeful. 33% 44% 17% 6% C2 2.1 Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative feedback). 14% 61% 25% 0% C3 2.4 Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks. 8% 47% 42% 3% C4 2.5 Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher. 8% 44% 36% 11% Description Indicators Average C1 Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 2.2 Indicators Average Not Observed Somewhat Evident Evident Very Evident D. Active Learning Environment D1 2.0 Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other and teacher predominate. 28% 50% 17% 6% D2 2.0 Learners make connections from content to real-life experiences. 36% 36% 22% 6% D3 2.0 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 25% 58% 11% 6% D4 1.8 Learners collaborate with their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments. 44% 39% 11% 6% Overall rating on a 4 point scale: © Advance Education, Inc. 1.9 9 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Description Not Observed Somewhat Evident Evident Very Evident E. Progress Monitoring & Feedback Learning Environment 1.6 Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored. 50% 42% 8% 0% E2 2.1 Learners receive/respond to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or revise work. 14% 69% 14% 3% E3 2.0 Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content. 19% 58% 22% 0% E4 1.6 Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed. 50% 36% 14% 0% Indicators Average E1 Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 1.8 Description Not Observed Somewhat Evident Evident Very Evident F. Well-Managed Learning Environment 2.6 Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and each other. 3% 44% 42% 11% F2 2.6 Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others. 3% 50% 36% 11% F3 2.0 Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity to another. 33% 44% 14% 8% F4 2.3 Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted time or disruptions. 11% 53% 33% 3% Indicators Average F1 Overall rating on a 4 point scale: © Advance Education, Inc. 2.4 10 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Description Not Observed Somewhat Evident Evident Very Evident G. Digital Learning Environment 1.7 Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning. 56% 22% 22% 0% G2 1.6 Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for learning. 69% 11% 14% 6% G3 1.3 Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning. 83% 8% 8% 0% Indicators Average G1 Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 1.5 eleot Narrative The classroom observation data revealed that students were rarely exposed to differentiated learning opportunities, high expectations, or rigorous coursework. In a few classrooms, the Diagnostic Review Team observed varied instructional practices; however, students had few differentiated learning tasks and ongoing activities that connected classwork with their own and others’ backgrounds and real-life experiences. Additionally, the classroom observation data revealed a lack of student understanding about how their work was assessed. Frequent formative assessments and high-quality exemplars to guide student work were uncommon practices in classrooms. This summary provides findings from classroom observation data and identifies leverage points for consideration when establishing school improvement goals. The Equitable Learning Environment earned an overall rating of 2.0 on a four-point scale. The observation data revealed that it was evident/very evident in 14 percent of classrooms that students engaged “in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that [met] their needs” (A1). Additionally, it was evident/very evident that students had “equal access to discussions, activities, resources, technology, and support” (A2) in 52 percent of classrooms. These findings supported the need for teachers to consistently and deliberately plan instructional strategies that address the learning needs of each student (e.g., differentiation, student collaboration, selfreflection, development of critical thinking skills). The High Expectations Learning Environment, which focused on students engaged in challenging, rigorous work, earned an overall rating of 1.9. The observation data revealed that instances of students who demonstrated and/or were “able to describe high quality work” (B3) were evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms. In addition, it was evident/very evident in 17 percent of classrooms that learners strove “to meet or [were] able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1). It was evident/very evident in 14 percent of classrooms that students engaged “in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g. analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4). These findings pointed to the need for consistent and deliberate planning of instructional strategies and for a professional development plan that would improve instructional practices. © Advance Education, Inc. 11 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report The Active Learning Environment earned an overall rating of 1.9. Items in this learning environment focused on students discussing and connecting content to real life and actively engaging in the learning process. The lowestrated item related to students collaborating “with peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or assignments” (D4), which was evident/very evident in 17 percent of classrooms. Instances in which students made “connections from content to real-life experiences” (D2) were evident/very evident in 28 percent of classrooms. Additionally, instances of students “actively engaged in the learning activities” (D3) were evident/very evident in 17 percent of classrooms. These findings demonstrated a significant need for teachers to consistently and deliberately plan instructional strategies. The findings from this Learning Environment also supported the need for a staff development plan that meets teachers’ needs and illuminated possible areas to leverage for enhancing student engagement. The Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment earned an overall average rating of 1.8. It was evident/very evident in 14 percent of classrooms that students understood and/or were “able to explain how their own work is assessed” (E4). Additionally, in eight percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students monitored “their own progress or [had] mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1). Providing opportunities for teachers to share strategies and best practices related to formative assessments, rubrics, exemplars, and self-monitoring could improve student performance. Collectively, these findings supported implementing a systematic, continuous improvement process that would ensure student performance data are used in order to adjust instruction and meet individual learner needs. The overall rating for the Digital Learning Environment was 1.5, which was the lowest score of the seven learning environments. Items in this learning environment focused on students using technology to gather, evaluate, research, solve problems, create, communicate, and collaborate for learning. It was evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms that students used “digital tools/technology to communicate and/or work collaboratively for learning” (G3). The classroom observation data also revealed that in 20 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students used “digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for learning” (G2). These data suggested the absence of digital tools/technology being effectively integrated in the instructional process and clearly pointed to areas that could be leveraged for increased student performance. © Advance Education, Inc. 12 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Findings Improvement Priorities Improvement priorities are developed to enhance the capacity of the institution to reach a higher level of performance and reflect the areas identified by the Diagnostic Review Team to have the greatest impact on improving student performance and organizational effectiveness. Improvement Priority #1 Develop, implement, monitor, and evaluate a clearly communicated systemic and systematic continuous improvement process that increases student learning. Ensure the process includes expectations for disaggregation and analysis of multiple sources of data for both individual students and the school as a whole to identify academic and non-academic needs of all stakeholders. Establish and implement with fidelity an evidence-based walkthrough evaluation process that ensures adjustments in instruction using high-yield strategies to meet the needs of individual students. Ensure the walkthrough process includes regular, timely, and specific feedback. (Standard 1.3) Evidence: Student Performance Data: The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed that the percentage of students at Valley High School who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all content areas on the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 ACT assessments. Furthermore, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished declined in all content areas from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. Of concern to the Diagnostic Review Team was the decrease in the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018 in reading (from 22.9 to 13.9), mathematics (from 25.3 to 11.9), and science (from 20.8 to 6.4). The percentage of grade 11 students at Valley High School who did not meet the state benchmarks on the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 ACT assessments was below the state average in all content areas. Additionally, the graduation rate of students at Valley High was lower than the state averages in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 and the Transition Readiness Indicator for 2018 was significantly below the state Indicator (36.4 compared to 60.9). Stakeholder Interview Data: The stakeholder interview data revealed that teachers and administrators could not define or explain the continuous improvement process used at Valley High School. While most teachers acknowledged “power walks” occurred, no evidence was found that showed power-walk data were used to evaluate instructional effectiveness. One staff member stated, “We are supposed to have walkthroughs daily, but I only see administration when I ask them to come.” Another teacher said, “They come in, look around, walk out. I don’t get any feedback from it unless I receive the email that says I was in the zone. If they meet with me after several walkthroughs, they just go over trends they have seen in my class and then I pick something myself to work on without any further support.” Additionally, the interview data revealed that teachers and administrators were unable to consistently communicate the school’s purpose or define collective beliefs about teaching and learning expectations. In interviews, most teachers were concerned that school administrators were inconsistent in holding staff members accountable for the behavior and academic performance of students at Valley High School. While staff members revealed that professional development on instructional strategies to personalize learning were provided to teachers, the classroom observation data showed that instances where students engaged “in differentiated learning opportunities” (A1) were evident/very evident in only 14 percent of classrooms. Stakeholders shared that although Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments were administered three times during the school year, teachers seldom used results to modify instructional practices and individualize learning. During the © Advance Education, Inc. 13 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report interviews, students revealed that most teachers gave daily worksheets and that direct instruction rarely occurred. One student reflected the feelings of several students by saying, “They need to do a root cause analysis to find out what is going on here with behaviors and they would see it’s because they don’t teach us. They give us assignments not worth our time.” Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data: The stakeholder survey data showed that 68 percent of Valley High School staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school has a continuous improvement process based on data, goals, actions and measures of growth” (C5). The parent survey data revealed that 57 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school ensures that all staff members monitor and report the achievement of school goals” (G1). The parent survey data further indicated that 61 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school communicates effectively about the school’s goals and activities” (D5), and 63 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school has established goals and a plan for improving student learning” (C3). The student survey data showed that 41 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my leaning needs” (E9), and 57 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In my school, the purpose and expectations are clearly explained to me and my family” (C2). The stakeholder surveys revealed limited agreement about whether school purposes, goals, and activities were clearly and consistently communicated. Documents and Artifacts: A review of documents and artifacts revealed that while the school had a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP), evidence of effective implementation was limited. The Diagnostic Review Team found no evidence that student performance data were used to make instructional decisions or to plan the curriculum. Completed professional learning communities (PLCs) meeting agendas were not provided. A review of a list of courses offered during Viking Time revealed that enrichment opportunities were the norm while interventions to improve student performance were rarely offered. © Advance Education, Inc. 14 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Improvement Priority #2 Engage in consistent and deliberate planning to identify, embed, and monitor the use of high-yield instructional strategies (e.g., exemplars, student-friendly learning targets, differentiated instruction, higher-order critical thinking skills, and student self-assessment) in the teaching and learning process. Develop and implement a professional development plan and coaching model that focuses on the implementation of these high-yield strategies. (Standard 2.1) Evidence: Student Performance Data: The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, indicated the absence of consistent and deliberate planning to embed high-yield instructional strategies into the teaching and learning process. The performance data were considered by the Diagnostic Review Team in identifying Improvement Priority #2. Classroom Observation Data: The classroom observation data from Valley High School, as detailed previously in this report, suggested the absence of deliberate planning to embed high-yield instructional strategies into the teaching and learning process. Instances where students engaged “in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that [met] their needs” (A1) were evident/very evident in 14 percent of classrooms. It was evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms that students were “able to demonstrate and/or describe high quality work” (B3). The classroom observation data further revealed that instances where students engaged “in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2) were evident/very evident in 22 percent of classrooms. Additionally, it was evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms that students monitored “their own progress or [had] mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1). Finally, instances where students were “actively engaged in the learning activities” (D3) were evident/very evident in 17 percent of classrooms. Stakeholder Interview Data: The stakeholder interview data revealed that while the master schedule provided time within the school day for PLC meetings, planning lessons to adjust instruction seldom occurred. During interviews, teachers indicated that they used Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment data results for sorting students, but few knew about or used the learning continuum to develop individualized learning plans in order to address student needs. A teacher stated, “If students are not asleep or on their phone, I know they are learning.” The teacher interview data further revealed that district pacing guides existed but were not being used. Several teachers indicated that power walks were conducted to monitor compliance with the components of the Fundamental Five and that data were used during coaching meetings. They further indicated, however, that data were not used to drive instruction or ensure that teachers were deliberately planning to embed high-yield instructional strategies in the teaching and learning process. When asked about differentiation, the principal stated, “We are not getting to every kid.” During interviews, one student said “All they do is give us worksheets. If our core classes were more like our CTE [career and technical education] classes, we would be more interested.” Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data: The stakeholder perception data revealed that while 51 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my child’s teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction” (E4), 61 percent of staff members at Valley High School agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school personalize instructional strategies and interventions to address individual learning needs of students” (E2). The © Advance Education, Inc. 15 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report survey data indicated that 65 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) and “In our school, challenging curriculum and learning experiences provide equity for all students in the development of learning, thinking, and life skills” (E11). The parent survey data showed that 67 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child’s teachers give work that challenges my child” (E2), and 69 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child’s teachers provide an equitable curriculum that meets his/her learning needs” (E1). Student surveys revealed that 41 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9). Additionally, 54 percent of students surveyed agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my teachers use a variety of teaching methods and learning activities to help me develop the skills I will need to succeed” (E8). Finally, the student survey data revealed that 58 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2). These collective findings from stakeholder surveys pointed to limited use of personalized instructional strategies, challenging student work, and the use of data to adjust instruction to meet student needs. Documents and Artifacts: A review of documents and artifacts revealed that copies of lesson plans had not been shared with the Diagnostic Review Team. While district curriculum resources were available through the district’s website, the interview data revealed that many Valley High School teachers did not use them. The Diagnostic Review Team was unable to verify the use of common assessments. © Advance Education, Inc. 16 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Improvement Priority #3 Establish, communicate, implement, and monitor a formal process to ensure that student performance data are used to adjust instruction to meet individual learner needs. As part of the process, develop a district-wide monitoring schedule, data analysis tools, and a communication plan that focuses on informing parents and students about individual student needs and progress. Collect, analyze, and use student performance data to monitor and adjust programs and services and evaluate their effectiveness in meeting the specialized needs of diverse learners, including English language learners and students with disabilities. (Primary Standard 2.7, Secondary Standard 2.9). Evidence: Student Performance Data: The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, indicated the absence of a formal process that ensures student performance data are used to adjust instruction in order to meet individual learner needs. The performance data were considered by the Diagnostic Review Team to identify Improvement Priority #3. Classroom Observation Data: The classroom observation data from Valley High School, as detailed previously in this report, suggested the absence of a formal process that ensures student performance data are used to adjust instruction and meet the individualized/specialized needs of students. It was evident/very evident in 14 percent of classrooms that students were “engaged in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that [met] their needs” (A1). Instances of students who engaged “in activities and learning that [were] challenging but attainable” (B2) were evident/very evident in 22 percent of classrooms. Additionally, the observation data showed that in 45 percent of classrooms, 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). Finally, instances of students who understood and were “able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4) were evident/very evident in 14 percent of classrooms, indicating that most students could not articulate the criteria by which their work was evaluated. Stakeholder Interview Data: The stakeholder interview data indicated that while some students had opportunities to experience higher-level courses, instruction in most classes was low in rigor and not engaging. During interviews, one student said, “They give us assignments not worth our time.” The stakeholder interview data further revealed that backward planning and professional learning community (PLC) work was implemented to ensure alignment to standards, but many teachers were resistant to challenge students to meet the rigor of the new standards. Several staff members indicated during the interviews that although data were collected on summative and benchmark assessments, the data were not consistently used to monitor and adjust instruction or to meet individual student needs. The observation data supported this finding by revealing that instances of students who were “engaged in differentiated learning opportunities” (A1) were evident/very evident in 14 percent of classrooms. Additionally, while a review of artifacts indicated a great number of power walks were conducted, the stakeholder interviews revealed an absence of consistent feedback and coaching for teachers on rigor and differentiation. Stakeholder interview data further indicated that teachers were encouraged to design instruction and accept student work that was below grade-level standards from students with special needs. Specifically, staff members indicated that students identified in gap groups were not held to the same academic standards as white students. Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data: The survey data from staff, parents, and students provided additional evidence that the use of data to adjust instruction to meet individual student needs was limited at Valley High School. The data showed that 65 percent of © Advance Education, Inc. 17 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school monitor and adjust curriculum, instruction, and assessment based on data from student assessments and examination of professional practice” (E1), and 61 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school personalize instructional strategies and interventions to address individual learning needs of students” (E2). Sixty-seven percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school use multiple types of assessments to modify instruction and to revise the curriculum” (E7). The survey data further revealed that 68 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, related learning support services are provided for all students based on their needs” (E12), and 73 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, all staff members use student data to address the unique learning needs of all students” (E14). Sixty-six percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school regularly use instructional strategies that require student collaboration, self-reflection, and development of critical thinking skills” (E3). On the parent survey, 51 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child's teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction” (E4). The parent survey data further showed that 65 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My child has access to support services based on his/her identified needs” (E14). The survey data indicated that 63 percent of students at Valley High School agreed/strongly agreed that “In my school, programs and services are available to help me succeed” (C1). Additionally, 58 percent of Valley High School students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2), while 41 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9). Documents and Artifacts: A review of documents and artifacts indicated that a district Response to Intervention (RTI) plan existed, but the stakeholder interview and classroom observation data showed that the plan was not consistently and effectively implemented to provide the academic support that many students needed. © Advance Education, Inc. 18 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report 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 leadership team and teachers of Valley High School demonstrated they cared about their students. The Diagnostic Review Team observed a well-managed and well-maintained facility. The facility and grounds provided a positive, safe, clean, and healthy environment for student learning. The interview data showed that the leadership team and staff members supported a safe, orderly, and equitable learning environment for all students. The principal had fostered a positive culture that extended to staff and students. Teachers expressed a shared belief that they wanted every student to succeed and were eager to collaborate with each other to improve student learning. Additionally, the principal had worked to develop community business partnerships for the improvement of school programs. He was keenly aware of the need for high-yield instructional strategies and personalized learning opportunities in order to meet the needs of the students at Valley High School. The school offered programs to assist students with career planning, including different career pathways. Continuous Improvement Process: Stakeholder interview data, survey data, and a review of documents and artifacts validated the need for a comprehensive continuous process whereby teachers could reflect, revise, and evaluate their classroom practices in order to increase student achievement. Addressing instruction and assessment practices are critical areas. Classroom observation data revealed a lack of consistency in implementing research-based, rigorous instruction. Furthermore, students engaging in high-quality work and teachers providing meaningful feedback were seldom observed. The Diagnostic Review Team encourages the school to actively engage teachers in ongoing, structured collaboration and professional development related to curriculum alignment, assessment development, data use, differentiated instruction, and student learning tasks. Classroom observation and stakeholder interview data and a review of documents suggested that the school had not successfully established effective, results-driven continuous improvement planning processes. The Diagnostic Review Team found little evidence that the school engaged stakeholders in a systematic continuous improvement process. In addition, systems were not established to monitor improvement efforts and communicate the results to stakeholders. Further, the Diagnostic Review Team found that the school had not routinely used data to evaluate program effectiveness, monitor the impact of specific strategies in goal areas or determine the © Advance Education, Inc. 19 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report attainment of improvement goals. These findings indicated the school should establish and commit to a clear set of performance benchmarks and measures to monitor and determine its ability to meet future improvement goals. Data analysis should be meaningful and not merely used as a compliance check. For school improvement, staff members need coaching and mentoring to maximize the implementation of highyield instructional practices. Classroom teachers need additional support to effectively differentiate instruction and create a culture and climate of high expectations. The Diagnostic Review Team suggests that the school leadership team embrace and consistently use a research-based instructional walkthrough tool and provide teachers with authentic feedback that is focused on high-yield instructional strategies for improving instructional practices. Additionally, the school leadership team is encouraged to develop a professional development plan that ensures documented, improved learner achievement and professional practice. 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. © Advance Education, Inc. 20 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review 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 Milagros Fornell Shannon Gullett © Advance Education, Inc. Brief Biography Milagros Fornell is an educator who has had a powerful impact on her community, students, parents, and peers since her first day as a mathematics teacher in 1978. Throughout her 36-year career with Miami-Dade County Public Schools, she has served as school-site administrator, regional curriculum director, regional superintendent, associate superintendent/chief academic officer, and chief of staff. During her six years as chief academic officer, the district eliminated all Frated high schools, student performance increased on both state and national measures, participation in and performance on AP exams increased, graduation rates improved, and the district was awarded the Broad prize. Ms. Fornell earned a bachelor’s degree in mathematics education and a master’s degree in mathematics education from Florida International University. Shannon Gullett is currently in her fourth year as an Education Recovery Leader for the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE). In her role with KDE, she has served as a team member on leadership audits for both schools and districts, team leader for internal KDE reviews, and co-lead for Diagnostic Reviews in partnership with AdvancED. She has served schools at all levels and has extensive experience in mentoring principals and district leaders in low-performing schools and statemanaged districts with all functions relating to instructional leadership and continuous improvement. Prior to joining KDE, Mrs. Gullett’s 21 years in education began in Scott County in Georgetown, Kentucky. During her years there, she was an elementary teacher, a technology coordinator, summer program coordinator, curriculum coordinator, and oversaw the new construction and development of Royal Spring Middle School as principal for 11 years. The school was named a national “School to Watch” and was among the top 20 middle schools for academic achievement in Kentucky. She completed her undergraduate and graduate work at Georgetown College and holds Rank I certificates for instructional supervision and superintendent from Eastern Kentucky University. 21 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Team Member Name Nancy Burns Paulette Gandel Phyllis Gilworth © Advance Education, Inc. Brief Biography Nancy Burns currently serves as an Education Recovery Specialist for the Kentucky Department of Education. She is in her 22nd year of education. Her experience consists of elementary educator, district gifted and talented resource teacher K12, staff developer, and curriculum coach for five elementary schools. She has a bachelor's degree in education from Northern Kentucky University, a bachelor's degree in art from the University of Kentucky, a master's degree from Georgetown College, gifted and talented certification, and National Board Certification as a middle childhood generalist. She has been actively involved in several professional cadres and is a Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) certified coach. Prior to education, Ms. Burns worked for several years as a corporate employee benefits administrator at the third largest banking corporation in the Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky area. Paulette Gandel has been with AdvancED/Measured Progress for over two years. She is currently transitioning to a role in professional services after serving as manager of eMPower Services. In that role, Paulette was responsible for managing the relationship with K-12 district clients who used any of Measured Progress’s district assessment products and services and was responsible for the overall coordination of post-sale customer satisfaction. Prior to coming to AdvancED/Measured Progress, Paulette worked in education for more than 30 years with experience in public and charter schools, the State University at Buffalo, and other educational service organizations. Most recently her focus has been on improving learning for students through the implementation of effective and innovative practices for educators. Dr. Phyllis Gilworth has a bachelor’s degree in music education, a master’s degree in guidance and counseling, and a doctorate in education with a specialization in leadership in educational administration. She has teaching experience at all levels pre-K-16 in rural, suburban, and urban settings. Dr. Gilworth’s counseling experience includes elementary school students and at-risk students in the alternative school setting, as well as adults in the community setting. Dr. Gilworth’s administrative experience includes assistant principal in charge of all discipline and curricular issues at a high risk, urban middle school; assistant principal in charge of guidance; director of instructional programs and assessment; and assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction at a suburban district in northwest Indiana. Dr. Gilworth has extensive experience serving on school improvement teams and particularly enjoys issues relative to curriculum, teaching, and learning. She has participated on numerous AdvancED accreditation visits, serving in multiple roles, both in her home state of Indiana and nationally. 22 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Team Member Name Tammy Stephens © Advance Education, Inc. Brief Biography Tammy Stephens is currently in her fourth year as an Education Recovery Specialist for the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE). In her role with KDE, she has served as a literacy lead and support for both schools and districts, team member for internal KDE reviews, and team member for Diagnostic Reviews in partnership with AdvancED/Measured Progress. She has served schools at all levels and has extensive experience in mentoring principals, central office leaders, and teachers in literacy and instructional practices, as well as mechanisms relating to continuous improvement. Prior to joining KDE, Mrs. Stephens’ 25 years of education began in south-central Kentucky where she has served as middle school teacher, reading and writing interventionist, literacy coach, Reading Recovery teacher, and instructional supervisor at the district level. Prior to becoming a turnaround specialist in the educational recovery role, she was a regional writing consultant and regional literacy consultant responsible for the statewide rollout for the Kentucky Common Core Standards. She completed her undergraduate and graduate work at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky and holds Rank 1 certificates for principal, instructional supervision, and superintendent from Eastern Kentucky University. 23 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Student Performance Data Section I: School and Student Performance Results Content %P/D School %P/D State Area (16-17) (16-17) %P/D School %P/D State (17-18) (17-18) Reading 22.9 55.8 13.9 45.4 Math 25.3 38.1 11.9 37.5 Science 20.8 41.2 6.4 29.6 Writing 26.9 58.5 32.1 51.8 Plus • The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in writing increased from 26.9 percent in 2016-2017 to 32.1 percent in 2017-2018. Delta • The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading decreased from 22.9 percent in 2016-2017 to 13.9 percent in 2017-2018. The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math decreased from 25.3 percent in 20162017 to 11.9 percent in 2017-2018. The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science decreased from 20.8 percent in 2016-2017 to 6.4 percent in 2017-2018. • Section II: Percentages of Grade 11 Students Meeting Benchmarks on ACT at the School and in the State (20162017 and 2017-2018) Content Area Percentage School (16-17) Percentage State (16-17) Percentage School (17-18) Percentage State (17--18) English 22.1 56.2 16.9 51.2 Math 17.6 43.9 13.3 38.9 Reading 24.4 53.6 15.3 47.1 Plus Delta • • The percentage of students who met benchmarks on the ACT was below the state average in all content areas in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The percentage of students who met benchmarks on the ACT decreased in all content areas from 20162017 to 2017-2018. © Advance Education, Inc. 24 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Section III: Achievement of Transition Readiness and Graduation Rate (2017-2018) Graduation Rate Year 4 Year 5 Indicator (Average of Year 4 and 5) 2017 School 80.8 86.7 2017 State 89.7 90.3 2018 School 80.5 82.6 81.6 2018 State 90.8 91.3 90.8 Transition Readiness Indicator (Academic, Career, EL) 2018 School 36.4 2018 State 60.9 (The accountability measure changed from College and/or Career Readiness to Transition Readiness which has added components making these two areas incompatible to compare across the two years). Plus Delta • • • The graduation rate was lower than the state average in 2017 and 2018. The graduation rate dropped from 80.8 in 2017 to 80.5 in 2018. The transition readiness indicator of 36.4 was significantly below the state average of 60.9. Section IV: Gap Data Gap Group Reading %P/D Math %P/D Science %P/D Social Studies %P/D Writing %P/D All Students 13.9 11.9 6.4 32.1 Female 15.3 8.6 5.8 43.4 Male 12.4 15.1 6.9 21.3 White 18.5 18.7 8.6 38.2 African American 5.6 0.9 0.9 19.0 Hispanic 33.3 25.0 33.3 58.3 Asian American Indian or Alaska Native Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Two or more races © Advance Education, Inc. 25 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Gap Group Reading %P/D Math %P/D Science %P/D 13.9 11.9 6.4 32.1 English Learner plus Monitored Economically Disadvantaged Gifted/Talented 12.8 10.0 5.6 33.6 Disability-With IEP (Total) 2.4 0 0 6.3 Disability-With IEP (No Alt) Disability (no ALT) with Accommodation Consolidated Student Group 2.4 0 0 7.3 7.0 2.7 3.3 22.4 Title I Social Studies %P/D Writing %P/D Migrant Homeless Foster Military English Learner (EL) Plus • • The percentage of female students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in writing was 43.4 in 2017-2018. The percentage of Hispanic students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in writing was 58.3 in 20172018. Delta • • The percentages of Disability-with IEP students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018 was 2.4 percent in reading, zero percent in math and science, and 6.3 percent in writing. The percentages of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018 was 0.9 percent in math and science, 5.6 percent in reading, and 19 percent in writing. © Advance Education, Inc. 26 www.advanc-ed.org Diagnostic Review Report Schedule Monday, February 25, 2019 Time Event Where Who 4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Team Meeting and Introduction Hotel Conference Room 4:30 p.m. – 5:15 p.m. Principal Overview Hotel Conference Room 5:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Team Work Session #1 Hotel Conference Room Diagnostic Review Team Members Diagnostic Review Team Members Diagnostic Review Team Members Tuesday, February 26, 2019 Time Event Where Who 7:00 a.m. Team arrives at Valley High School School office 7:40 a.m. – 4:15 p.m. Principal Interview/Classroom Observations/ Interviews School Diagnostic Review Team Members Diagnostic Review Team Members 4:15 p.m. – 5:15p.m. 5:45 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. Team Members return to hotel and have dinner on their own Team Work Session #2 Hotel Conference Room Wednesday, February 27, 2019 Time Event 7:15 a.m. Team arrives at Valley High School 7:40 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Continue interviews and artifact review, conduct classroom observations not done on Day #1 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. Team Members return to hotel and have dinner on their own Team Work Session #3 Diagnostic Review Team Members Where Who School Diagnostic Review Team Members Diagnostic Review Team Members Hotel Conference Room Diagnostic Review Team Members Thursday, February 28, 2019 Time Event Where Who 7:15 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Final Team Work Session School Diagnostic Review Team Members • © Advance Education, Inc. 27 www.advanc-ed.org 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.