Stuart Academy Fianl DR Report 2018-2019

March 4–7 2019
Results for: Stuart Academy

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 ............................................................................................................................. 22
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 24
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 24
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 27
© Advance Education, Inc. 2 www.advanc-ed.org

Introduction
The AdvancED Diagnostic Review is carried out by a team of highly qualified evaluators who examine the
institution’s adherence and commitment to the research aligned to AdvancED Standards. The Diagnostic Review
Process is designed to energize and equip the leadership and stakeholders of an institution to achieve higher levels
of performance and address those areas that may be hindering efforts to reach desired performance levels. The
Diagnostic Review is a rigorous process that includes the in-depth examination of evidence and relevant
performance data, interviews with stakeholders, and observations of instruction, learning, and operations.
Standards help delineate what matters. They provide a common language through which an education community
can engage in conversations about educational improvement, institution effectiveness, and achievement. They
serve as a foundation for planning and implementing improvement strategies and activities and for measuring
success. AdvancED Standards were developed by a committee composed of educators from the fields of practice,
research, and policy. These talented leaders applied professional wisdom, deep knowledge of effective practice,
and the best available research to craft a set of robust standards that define institutional quality and guide
continuous improvement.
The Diagnostic Review Team used the AdvancED Standards and related criteria to guide its evaluation, looking not
only for adherence to standards, but also for how the institution functioned as a whole and embodied the
practices and characteristics of quality. Using the evidence they gathered, the Diagnostic Review Team arrived at a
set of findings contained in this report.
As a part of the Diagnostic Review, stakeholders were interviewed by members of the Diagnostic Review Team
about their perspectives on topics relevant to the institution's learning environment and organizational
effectiveness. The feedback gained through the stakeholder interviews was considered with other evidence and
data to support the findings of the Diagnostic Review. The following table lists the numbers of interviewed
representatives of various stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder Groups Number

District-level Administrators 1
Building-level Administrators 3
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology 6
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 38
Non-certified Staff 9
Students 21
Parents 5
Total 83

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

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

The capacity of leadership to ensure an institution’s progress toward its stated objectives is an essential element of
organizational effectiveness. An institution’s leadership capacity includes the fidelity and commitment to its
purpose and direction, the effectiveness of governance and leadership to enable the institution to realize its stated
objectives, the ability to engage and involve stakeholders in meaningful and productive ways, and the capacity to
implement strategies that improve learner and educator performance.
Leadership Capacity Standards Rating
1.1 The institution commits to a purpose statement that defines beliefs about teaching Needs
and learning, including the expectations for learners. Improvement
1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces Needs
evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and Improvement
professional practice.
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve Needs
professional practice and organizational effectiveness. Improvement
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 Needs
purpose and direction. Improvement
1.9 The institution provides experiences that cultivate and improve leadership Needs
effectiveness. Improvement
1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder Needs
groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement. Improvement

Learning Capacity Domain

The impact of teaching and learning on student achievement and success is the primary expectation of every
institution. An effective learning culture is characterized by positive and productive teacher/learner relationships;
high expectations and standards; a challenging and engaging curriculum; quality instruction and comprehensive
support that enable all learners to be successful; and assessment practices (formative and summative) that
monitor and measure learner progress and achievement. Moreover, a quality institution evaluates the impact of its
learning culture, including all programs and support services, and adjusts accordingly.
Learning Capacity Standards Rating
2.1 Learners have equitable opportunities to develop skills and achieve the content Needs
and learning priorities established by the institution. Improvement
2.2 The learning culture promotes creativity, innovation and collaborative problem- Needs
solving. Improvement
2.5 Educators implement a curriculum that is based on high expectations and prepares Needs
learners for their next levels. Improvement
2.7 Instruction is monitored and adjusted to meet individual learners’ needs and the Needs
institution’s learning expectations. Improvement
2.9 The institution implements, evaluates, and monitors processes to identify and Needs
address the specialized social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs of Improvement
students.
2.10 Learning progress is reliably assessed and consistently and clearly communicated. Needs
Improvement
2.11 Educators gather, analyze, and use formative and summative data that lead to Needs
demonstrable improvement of student learning. Improvement
2.12 The institution implements a process to continuously assess its programs and Needs
organizational conditions to improve student learning. Improvement

Resource Capacity Domain

The use and distribution of resources support the stated mission of the institution. Institutions ensure that
resources are distributed and utilized equitably so that the needs of all learners are adequately and effectively
addressed. The utilization of resources includes support for professional learning for all staff. The institution
examines the allocation and use of resources to ensure appropriate levels of funding, sustainability, organizational
effectiveness, and increased student learning.
Resource Capacity Standards Rating
3.1 The institution plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning Needs
environment, learner achievement, and the institution’s effectiveness. Improvement
3.2 The institution’s professional learning structure and expectations promote Needs
collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational Improvement
effectiveness.
3.4 The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s 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 27 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
1.9 1.8
1.8 1.7
1.5 1.5
1.3
Environment Averages

A. Equitable Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 1.3 74% 26% 0% 0%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 2.2 15% 52% 30% 4%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
A3 2.6 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 7% 41% 41% 11%
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 1.4 74% 7% 19% 0%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
1.9
B. High Expectations Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high
B1 1.5 63% 26% 11% 0%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

B2 1.6 48% 44% 7% 0%
but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.3 74% 19% 7% 0%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

B4 1.6 tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., 52% 37% 11% 0%
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

B5 1.5 59% 30% 11% 0%
learning.
point scale:
1.5

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 1.5 63% 26% 11% 0%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 1.7 52% 30% 19% 0%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or

C3 1.9 30% 48% 22% 0%
other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 1.9 33% 41% 26% 0%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale:
1.8
D. Active Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other
D1 1.7 48% 30% 22% 0%
and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 1.7 56% 30% 7% 7%
experiences.
D3 2.0 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 30% 44% 26% 0%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 1.5 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 59% 30% 11% 0%
assignments.
point scale:
1.7

E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 1.5 59% 33% 7% 0%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

E2 1.6 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 52% 37% 11% 0%
and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

E3 1.7 41% 44% 15% 0%
lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

E4 1.2 81% 19% 0% 0%
work is assessed.
point scale:
1.5
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and
F1 2.0 33% 41% 22% 4%
each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

F2 1.8 48% 26% 22% 4%
rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

F3 1.6 56% 30% 11% 4%
to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

F4 1.7 59% 19% 19% 4%
time or disruptions.
point scale:
1.8

G. Digital Learning Environment
Not Observed
Very Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Evident
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate,
G1 1.5 70% 15% 11% 4%
and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

G2 1.1 89% 7% 4% 0%
solve problems, and/or create original works for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

G3 1.1 89% 7% 4% 0%
work collaboratively for learning.
point scale:
1.3
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team conducted 27 core content classroom observations that provided insight into
instructional practices and student learning across the seven learning environments. Rating averages on a four-
point scale ranged from a high of 1.9 in the Equitable Learning Environment to a low of 1.3 in the Digital Learning
Environment. All data points were below 2.0, which confirmed the urgent need for improvement in all seven
learning environments.
The Diagnostic Review Team noted that staff members expended great effort on managing student behavior. The
Well-Managed Learning Environment, however, emerged as an area of concern for the team, as a well-managed
classroom is the foundation needed for teaching and learning. It was evident/very evident that students “are
treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner” (A3) in 52 percent of classrooms, which suggests that observers
could not confirm this important practice in about half of the classrooms. Also related to student and teacher
relationships was that students who “speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and each other” (F1) and who
“demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others”
(F2) were evident/very evident in 26 percent of classrooms. These findings indicated that classroom management
and relationships between staff and students require immediate attention in order to focus on needed
instructional improvements. Finally, it was evident/very evident in 34 percent of classrooms that learners had
“equal access to classroom discussion, activities, resources, technology, and support” (A2), indicating that equity in
the learning environment was not consistently present.
In addition to behavioral expectations, another major concern to the team related to high academic expectations.
It was evident/very evident in seven percent of classrooms, for example, that assignments and classwork were
“challenging but attainable” (B2) and learners were able to “demonstrate and/or . . . describe high quality work”
(B3). Moreover, it was evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms that students “engage in differentiated
learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1).
Inconsistent progress monitoring and a lack of students understanding the lesson content also troubled the
Diagnostic Review Team. Students who were able to “verbalize understanding of the lesson/content” (E3) were

evident/very evident in 15 percent of classrooms. One student stated, “If we fill out the worksheet, we get five
points for participation.”
Also of note was the overall average rating of 1.3 for the Digital Learning Environment. In the principal overview
presentation, stakeholders shared that the school had a one-to-one technology initiative through the use of
Chromebooks. However, the team found little evidence that students used “digital tools/technology to gather,
evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1), as that practice was evident/very evident in 15 percent of
classrooms. In addition, it was evident/very evident in four percent of classrooms that learners used digital
tools/technology “to communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) or “conduct research, solve
problems, and/or create original works for learning” (G2).

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, implement, monitor, and clearly communicate a systematic continuous improvement process that
provides clear direction for improving conditions that support learning and organizational effectiveness. This
process should include the following documented steps: 1) procedures for analyzing and disaggregating data to
identify both the academic and non-academic needs of students, 2) assessment of high-yield instructional
strategies that lead to best practice instruction, and 3) the development and implementation of an evidence-based
walkthrough evaluation process that ensures that adjustments in instruction occur to meet individual student
needs and improve professional practice. (Standard 1.3)
Evidence
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, showed that learners who “demonstrate and/or verbalize
understanding of the lesson/content” (E3) were evident/very evident in 15 percent of classrooms. On more than
one occasion, a student indicated that the current assignment was for a participation grade and not assessed for
learning. It was evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms that students “are able to explain how their
work is assessed” (E4).
Team members who observed daily Teacher Learning Groups (TLG), otherwise known as professional learning
community (PLC) meetings, surmised that this allotted time was essentially an additional daily planning period for
teachers, since no team members observed these groups following an agenda or taking minutes. The Diagnostic
Review Team was provided copies of the “PLC Agenda and Minutes” and “Stuart Academy Protocol for Looking at
Student Work: Quality Work Lens,” but the team could not confirm that either document was used. In addition,
the team could not confirm that student work was being examined or that teachers discussed content standards
during PLC time.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

Similar themes emerged in interview data about the lack of systems and accountability. Also, stakeholders
primarily pointed to inconsistent implementation of programs and policies as the primary reason for staff
turnover. One parent, for example, reported that “They [the school administration] shoo me away” rather than
“helping me.” Several stakeholders lamented that things had not always been “this way.” Many stakeholders
reported that the downfall began and continued with the existing lack of effective leadership. A major concern for
stakeholder groups was the lack of support and the inconsistency of communication from administrators to
stakeholders. Most staff members reported that administrators each gave different answers to the same question,
leaving staff members uncertain about whom they should ask for help.
Teachers stated that no behavior program was ever fully implemented. Several teachers new to Stuart Academy
reported that they received no feedback from evaluations or classroom walkthrough observations.

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Although 74 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school leaders monitor data related to
school continuous improvement goals” (G7), 34 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my
teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9). Fifty percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed
with the statement, “Our school has established goals and a plan for improving student learning” (C3). A common
theme from the interview data was validated in that 59 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that
“Our school has a systematic process for collecting, analyzing, and using data” (G3), and 65 percent
agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school has a continuous improvement process based on data, goals, actions, and
measures for growth” (C5). Forty-seven percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school ensures that
all staff members monitor and report the achievement of school goals” (G1).
Documents and Artifacts:

The school provided several documents regarding teacher support. The New Teacher Support Model, for example,
outlined how the school supported new teachers, but the model was either not fully implemented or not
implemented with fidelity. The school provided the Diagnostic Review Team with little evidence to show that data
collection and analysis consistently occurred. Goals for the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) were
partially determined by district and state norms. The team found no evidence that the JCPS Six Systems Blueprint
was being implemented or monitored.

Develop and monitor a systematic process to implement the district-adopted curriculum in all subject areas and
grade levels to ensure rigor, high expectations, and alignment with the Kentucky Academic Standards (KAS). Ensure
all educators understand, follow, and protect the curriculum and instructional time. Establish a consistent process
to collect and analyze data to monitor the quality and effectiveness of curriculum implementation to inform
instructional decisions. (Standard 2.5)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

Student performance data based on the 2017-2018 Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-
PREP), as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed that the percentage of students who scored
Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all content areas and at all grade levels in both 2016-2017
and 2017-2018.
In the Stuart Academy School Quality Factors (SQF) document the school provided to the team, the first statement
was that “Stuart Academy has been an underachieving school for many years.” One of the team’s concerns was
that the percentage of African American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading in 2017-2018 was
16.6 compared to the All Students group at 25.7 percent. This was especially troubling as the African American
student population was approximately 41.5 percent of the total student population, according to data provided in
the presentation to the team (source, JCPS Data Management Center, Feb. 2019). Also, 6.8 percent of African
American students scored Proficient/Distinguished in math compared to the All Students group that scored 13
percent. Finally, four percent of African American students scored Proficient/Distinguished in science compared to
5.8 percent for All Students.

The classroom observation data related to the High Expectations Learning Environment, as previously discussed,
revealed that the school had not implemented a rigorous curriculum based on high expectations. Instances of
students who were “able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or their teacher” (B1)
were evident/very evident in 11 percent of classrooms. It was evident/very evident in seven percent of classrooms
that students were “able to describe high quality work” (B3). Engagement in “rigorous coursework, discussions,
and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4)
was evident/very evident in 11 percent of classrooms. Students who engage in “challenging but attainable”
learning activities (B2) were evident/very evident in seven percent of classrooms.

Across multiple stakeholder groups, the interview data showed that curriculum and standards work was in the
beginning stages. The Diagnostic Review Team observed that Teacher Learning Groups (TLGs) met; however, when
asked about the focus of these meetings, multiple stakeholders reported activities that were consistent with
individual teacher planning needs and preferences. The staff interview data did not reveal coordination of these
activities across grade levels and content areas to ensure a cohesive approach to curriculum and instructional
practices. Interview data also indicated that although learning expectations were verbalized and posted in some
classrooms at Stuart Academy, they were not reinforced and seldom reached the rigor of the intended grade-level
standards. Most stakeholders reported that teachers had low expectations for student achievement. Students
stated that many teachers did not follow through with assignments or discuss if, or how, their work met
expectations. Teachers and resource staff members described curriculum in terms of programs and instructional
materials rather than a guaranteed, viable curriculum. While classroom walkthrough observation data was

provided to the review team, staff members reported few occasions when resource staff and administrators were
in their classrooms. The team found minimal evidence of instructional coaching and feedback from observations
that could improve standards-based instruction and increase the use of high-yield instructional strategies. As
previously stated, several teachers new to Stuart Academy reported that they received no feedback from
evaluations, particularly from walkthrough observations.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The stakeholder survey data indicated that all stakeholders across all groups primarily reported the curriculum was
not based on high expectations and did not prepare learners for their next level of learning. Fifty-eight percent of
staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school use a process to inform
students of their learning expectations and standards of performance” (E5). Forty-seven percent of parents
agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child's teachers provide an equitable curriculum that meets his/her learning
needs” (E1).

The Diagnostic Review Team reviewed many documents and artifacts submitted by the school. Among those were
the Self-Professional Growth Plan, Student Learning Focus Overview, School Quality Factors diagnostic and
narrative, Fundamental Five Learning Walk, and Assessment Cycle Reflection. Development of these plans did not
significantly improve student learning, as indicated by the 2017-2018 K-PREP assessment results. The school
provided several documents regarding teacher support. The New Teacher Support Model outlined how the school
supported new teachers, but the model was either not implemented or not implemented with fidelity.
The 2018 SQF contradicted the classroom observation and interview data. In the SQF, it was noted that “many of
leadership’s actions, words and attitudes demonstrate their belief that all learners can meet standards.” Additional
SQF responses included some “instructional staff’s actions, words and attitudes demonstrate their belief that all
learners can meet high standards.” However, the classroom observation data indicated that engagement in
“rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking” (B4) was
evident/very evident in 11 percent of classrooms. In seven percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that
students engage in “challenging but attainable” learning activities (B2).
The SQF narrative outlined the use of many protocols for walkthrough instruments, review of assessment data,
and analysis of student work. However, no evidence was found to suggest consistent and impactful use of these
protocols during Teacher Learning Group (TLG) meetings or in interviews with instructional staff.

Collaborate with Jefferson County Public School District (JCPS) to restore confidence in the school community by
ensuring that Stuart Academy is a safe and secure place to learn and work. Coordinate and implement programs
with fidelity and consistency and provide services and resources that align to learners’ needs in all areas (social,
emotional, developmental, and academic) with an intense focus on safety. Establish a systematic process to
continuously collect and analyze data to monitor and adjust services. Demonstrate a consistent commitment and
align support for students’ social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs by developing and implementing
a process to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and services in meeting the varied needs of all learners.
(Primary Standard 2.9, Secondary Standard 2.12)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, suggested that the school did not
effectively implement an aligned curriculum congruent with grade-level appropriate instruction. The student
performance data from the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) results were among
those data used to identify Improvement Priority #3.

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, revealed concerns across all seven learning
environments. Learners who “engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their
needs” (A1) were evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms. Time on task is counted among the most
important factors affecting student learning and achievement; however, it was evident/very evident in 15 percent
of classrooms that students “transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity to another” (F3), indicating a
considerable loss in instructional time. Likewise, it was evident/very evident in 23 percent of classrooms that
students “use class time purposefully with minimal wasted time or disruptions” (F4). In 22 percent of classrooms, it
was evident/very evident that students get much needed support from the “teacher, their peers, and/or other
resources to understand content and accomplish tasks” (C3). Also, it was evident/very evident that feedback was
provided to “improve understanding and/or revise work” (E2) in 11 percent of classrooms. It was evident/very
evident in only 19 percent of classrooms that students “demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop
empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions” (A4).

Several stakeholders stated that the school employed sufficient support personnel, but those individuals provided
minimal or ineffective support to students and staff. The interview data indicated that the district- and school-level
resources were making little impact on student learning. One stakeholder captured the sentiment of many with
the comment, “[There are] too many hands in the honey pot.” The interview data indicated that five staff
members, besides Master Teachers, had no teaching duties. According to the interview data, all five of these staff
members were placed in positions by a former principal.
All stakeholder groups reported inconsistent implementation of programs and policies designed to support student
needs. The team frequently heard phrases such as “No systems and no accountability” during interviews, making it
a common theme expressed by many stakeholders. Students generally reported that the rules were not enforced
and that disruptions in their classrooms and the common areas made it difficult to learn and feel safe. Teachers
reported inconsistency in how behavior referrals for students were handled by administrators. Teachers and
support staff reported that no formal, systematic process existed to identify or progress-monitor behavioral

interventions and social emotional supports to ascertain their impact on students. While some staff mentioned
that they participated in trainings about Trauma Informed Care and Restorative Practices, evidence of these
practices was not observed by the Diagnostic Review Team.
Teachers and administrators reported that adjustments to the Tiers of Intervention in the school’s Response to
Intervention model were made once this school year. Ongoing evaluation of student progress in this academic
program did not happen, according to parent, teacher, and administrator interview data. Additionally, students
and parents reported that students who were academically gifted were rarely challenged or given specially
designed instruction. The Gifted/Talented student group did not perform as well as their peers school-wide. Only
23.5 percent were Proficient/Distinguished in reading compared to 25.7 percent of All Students. In math, the gap
was not quite as large, 12.8 percent as compared to 13 percent. Instances of low expectations of students were
observed many times by the team. In one classroom, a teacher stated, “Hold your book open and pretend to read
for five participation points.”
Stakeholder Perception Data:

Survey results provided the Diagnostic Review Team with important perception data from multiple stakeholder
groups. The team was most concerned with the lack of safe building conditions, for both students and staff, due to
behavior. In fact, 27 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In my school, the building
and grounds are safe, clean, and provide a healthy place for learning” (F1). Forty-seven percent of parents
agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school provides qualified staff members to support student learning” (F1).
An additional concern was the perception by students, parents, and staff that students were not supported and
meaningful instruction had not been designed to meet their individual needs, which was illustrated by the 34
percent of students who agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my
learning needs” (E9). In addition, 46 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides learning
services for me according to my needs” (E7). Thirty-nine percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the
statement, “My child's teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction” (E4). Fifty percent of
staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, all staff use student data to address the unique learning
needs of all students” (E14).

Stuart Learning Walk data showed 199 walkthroughs as of December 13, 2018, which suggested teachers were
implementing the Fundamental Five lesson framework and had received some positive and evaluative feedback
from evaluators. The interview data, however, showed that at the time of the Diagnostic Review, stakeholders
could not confirm that walkthroughs occurred this school year and most staff members reported that they had not
received any evaluation feedback. During the principal presentation, the team learned that a number of academic
and behavioral strategies were both implemented and abandoned over the last two years. The team also learned
that some programs were discontinued: SpartaCourse, a Response to Intervention program; Assessment and
Learning in Knowledge Spaces (ALEKS) for Math; HeroK12, a behavior management program; and Student Self-
Assessment Tracking. The team was not provided data regarding the success of the abandoned programs. One
staff member commented, “We didn’t think they were working,” which echoed similar sentiments from many
stakeholders. Programs implemented this school year were so recently implemented that, at this point, data may
not be available to determine effectiveness. A process was not developed to measure program effectiveness.

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 five Levels of Impact: 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:
Stuart Academy has an abundance of resources and personnel to help students succeed. Additional resources
include, but are not limited to, the use of five master teachers who model good instructional techniques for
classroom teachers. Teachers meet daily in Teacher Learning Groups in addition to their planning period, which
gives teachers and administrators ample time to systemically implement goals and collect and interpret data.
The team found pockets of good teaching and student engagement. In addition, parents reported that Stuart
Academy provides opportunities for students to participate in activities that interest them. Parents also shared
that they were pleased that their children have access to up-to-date computers and that the school communicates
school goals and activities well.
Jefferson County Public Schools has developed a plan for Stuart Academy’s improvement journey. This is
evidenced by the hiring of a new assistant superintendent to oversee improvement efforts and a concrete plan to
move forward in a positive direction. Personnel changes were recently made at the principal level to lead school
improvement efforts. The district does not hesitate to make changes in personnel when changes are needed for
the benefit of student growth.
Continuous Improvement Process:

The Diagnostic Review Team engaged in professional discussions and deliberations about the processes, programs,
and practices within the school to arrive at team findings, which provide direction for the school’s continuous
improvement efforts. The team identified an immediate need for the school to create a safe and productive
learning environment for students and teachers. The team found that students were disruptive in classrooms and
hallways and, although an abundance of personnel were in the hallway to supervise, many students either seemed
ambivalent to or just ignored staff directions. The noise level in the building between classes was deafening. In an
effort for students to hear directions, staff increased their volume level, which contributed to the chaos. The team
observed a number of staff members who simply paid no attention to the behavior. During several classroom
observations, teachers were actually shouting their lectures to maintain a volume level so students could hear.
Students reported that the rules are not enforced. In fact, they reported that the disruptions in their classrooms
and common areas made it hard for them to learn and feel safe. Teachers reported no consistency in how the

administration dealt with behavior referrals. Teachers and support staff reported that no formal, systematic
process existed for identifying or progress-monitoring students for behavioral interventions and social-emotional
supports. While some staff members mentioned participating in trainings about Trauma Informed Care and
Restorative Practices, evidence of these practices were not observed. Coordination with outside agencies for
counseling and therapeutic services to address learner needs was rarely mentioned by staff, students, and parents.
While 44 percent of parents indicated that the school provided a safe learning environment, 27 percent of
students indicated that the building and grounds were safe and clean and provided a healthy place for learning,
The team concurred that a well-managed learning environment was paramount and needed to be addressed
quickly to ensure the safety of all students and staff. Without immediate intervention in this area, a healthy
learning environment may not be possible.
The classroom observation, survey, and stakeholder interview data and a review of documents suggested that
Stuart Academy did not successfully follow through with effective, results-driven continuous improvement
processes. There was evidence that plans were created; however, the team found minimal evidence of follow-
through to implement, monitor, and adjust plan components, which was a major concern. The team observed a
lack of procedures for analyzing and disaggregating data that would allow the school to identify academic and non-
academic needs of students, assess high-yield instructional strategies that lead to best practice instruction, and
develop and implement an evidence-based walkthrough evaluation process that ensures adjustments in
instruction meet individual student needs and improve professional practice. The team also noted that teachers
new to Stuart Academy received no feedback from evaluations or classroom walkthroughs. Stakeholders from all
groups generally reported a lack of consistency in the implementation of programs and policies. “No systems and
no accountability” was a common theme expressed by all stakeholders. Several stakeholders stated that the school
employed additional staff members who did not provide direct support to students or staff members.
Finally, the Diagnostic Review Team found a need for Stuart Academy staff to monitor a systematic process to
implement the existing adopted curriculum in all subject areas and grade levels to ensure rigor, high expectations,
and alignment with the Kentucky Academic Standards. Within the process, all educators are encouraged to follow
and protect the curriculum and instructional time. The school is also encouraged to establish a consistent process
of collecting and analyzing data in order to monitor the quality and effectiveness of curriculum implementation
that inform instructional decisions.
Administration and staff are encouraged to execute the above changes in order to increase building safety and
security, create a systemic plan inclusive of all stakeholder input, and increase curriculum and lesson rigor. Stuart
Academy leadership is urged to consistently put systematic processes in place to ensure the efficacy of
implementing initiatives; monitoring instruction; evaluating programs; coaching, mentoring, and supporting all
staff members; and providing and participating in opportunities that share and build on staff strengths.
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. Daniel Sybrant Dr. Daniel Sybrant has served as an educator for 38 years. During this time, he
served as a public school teacher, elementary principal, high school principal, and
a public school superintendent for 19 years. He also served as adjunct professor in
the Educational Leadership Department at Montana State University for eight
years. He obtained a bachelor’s degree in music from the University of Nebraska
Omaha in 1980, a master’s degree from Montana State University in 1986, and a
doctorate degree from Montana State University in 2012. Dr. Sybrant currently
serves as the AdvancED/Measured Progress Regional Director for the Mountain
Region.
Mike Murphy Mike Murphy has over 20 years of experience as a teacher and administrator. He
is currently serving as a State Manager for the Kentucky Department of Education
(KDE) Office of Continuous Improvement and Support. He has been an Education
Recovery Leader with KDE since 2015. Previously he served as an elementary and
high school principal in Pulaski County, where he also taught special education. He
holds a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, a Rank 1, and superintendent
certification from Eastern Kentucky University.
Laurie Docter Laurie Docter is an Education Recovery Specialist with the Kentucky Department of
Education. In this position, she works with teachers and administrators on the
curriculum implementation process, standard alignment, assessments, and data
analysis. She earned her National Board Teaching Certificate (middle childhood
generalist) and a leadership K-12 certification from Xavier University. In addition,
she holds a master’s degree in instructional technology K-12 from Georgetown
College and a bachelor’s degree in elementary education from Northern Kentucky
University. Ms. Docter has experience as a building administrator, curriculum
coach, adjunct professor, district math coordinator, and classroom teacher. She
has served on several AdvancED/Measured Progress Diagnostic Review teams for
the Kentucky Department of Education.
Dr. Sally Sugg Dr. Sally Sugg is an independent educational consultant with over 30 years of
experience in teaching and administration. Her focus is on instructional practices
and building leadership capacity. Dr. Sugg earned her bachelor’s degree from
Murray State University, her master’s degree from Western Kentucky University,
and her doctorate from Eastern Kentucky University. She has served as an
elementary and high school principal and assistant superintendent. Dr. Sugg also
served as associate commissioner of education at the Kentucky Department of
Education. While in this role, she led the state’s school improvement efforts. Most
recently, Dr. Sugg has taught educational leadership courses for Murray State
University and the University of the Cumberlands, while serving as a local school
board member in her home district of Henderson County, KY.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Gracie Strawn Gracie Strawn is an educator with more than 40 years of varied public education
experience. She has served as a middle school principal, director of before- and
afterschool programs, supervisor of instruction and curriculum for K-12, a regular
classroom and special education teacher, and a special education consulting
teacher. She has also trained teachers and administrators at local, state, and
national levels in implementing educational technology and proven instructional
and curriculum practices. While serving as a Tennessee Exemplary Educator (EE),
she specialized in identifying strengths and weaknesses in school and system
governance and classroom instruction, analyzing and problem-solving with
stakeholders, and guided a low performing high school through a successful
turnaround. She holds a bachelor’s degree in secondary education and special
education, a master’s degree in educational administration and supervision, and
Reading Recovery training and certification, as well as Career Level III certification.

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: School and Student Proficiency and Separate Academic Indicator Results
Content Area %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
Reading 7th 21.0 54.6 24.5 57.4
Reading 8th 21.2 57.1 26.8 62.9
Math 7th 6.8 43.3 16.2 47.4
Math 8th 13.1 48.7 10.0 46.1
Science 7th N/A N/A 5.8 25.9
Social Studies 8th 15.1 60.5 17.9 60.2
Writing 8th 6.6 37.2 12.4 44.3
Plus
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished increased in all content areas from 2016-
2017 to 2017-2018, except in eighth-grade math.
• The largest growth in the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was in seventh-grade
math.
• The highest percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished occurred in eighth-grade reading in
both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
Delta
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all content
areas and grade levels in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in eighth-grade math declined from 2016-
2017 to 2017-2018.
• The lowest overall performance relative to the state was in eighth-grade social studies, where the difference
in percentages of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was 42.3 percentage points.

Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)

Content Area Index State Index
Reading 7.0 16.1
Math 2.0 8.0
EL 0.0 8.0
Growth Indicator 4.5 12.1
Plus
Delta
• The index for English Learners was zero.

• The index for reading was 9.1 points below the state index.
• The index for math was six points below the state index.
Section III: Student Gap Groups 2017-2018 %P/D

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 25.7 13.0 5.8 17.9 12.4
Female 27.3 14.3 5.1 16.6 18.1
Male 24.1 11.8 6.4 19.3 6.4
White 32.3 17.2 8.6 23.4 15.0
African American 16.6 6.8 4.2 10.0 7.5
Hispanic 36.9 16.9 0.0 21.2 21.2
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races 30.8 30.8 9.1 40.0 20.0
Title I 25.7 13.0 5.8 17.9 12.4
Migrant
Homeless
Foster 40.0 20.0
Military
English Learner (EL) 9.1 0.0
English Learner plus 11.8 5.9 0.0
Monitored
Economically 23.5 12.8 6.2 15.0 11.7
Disadvantaged

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 9.3 4.7 2.0 6.9 1.7
(Total)
Disability-With IEP 5.4 4.3 6.1 0.0
(No Alt)
Disability (no ALT) 6.1 0.0
with Accommodation
Consolidated Student 19.6 9.5 3.5 13.2 9.8
Group
Plus
• The Foster gap group had the highest percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading,
at 40 percent.
• The Hispanic gap group had the second-highest percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in
reading at 36.9 percent.
• The Female, Foster, White, Hispanic, and Two or More Races gap groups each outscored the All Students
group in reading.
• The highest-scoring gap group in social studies was Two or More Races at 40 percent Proficient/Distinguished.
Delta
• The African American group scored below the White, Hispanic, and Two or More Races groups in all content
areas.
• Zero percent of English Learners and 5.9 percent of English Learners plus Monitored scored
Proficient/Distinguished in math.
• The Gifted/Talented group scored below the All Students group in reading, math, and social studies.

Schedule
Monday, March 4, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:30 p.m. – Principal and Admin Team Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
5:15 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
5:15 p.m. – Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Tuesday, March 5, 2019

7:15 a.m. Team arrives at Stuart Academy School office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
7:40 a.m. – Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / School Diagnostic
4:00 p.m. Artifact Review Review Team
Members
4:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
5:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Wednesday, March 6, 2019

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Stuart Academy School Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
7:45 a.m. – Interviews / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact Review School Diagnostic
11:45 a.m. Review Team
Members
12:00 p.m. Team Returns to hotel due to closure of school
1 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 Hotel Diagnostic
6 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
Thursday, March 7, 2019

8:00 a.m. – Final Team Work Session Hotel Diagnostic
10:30 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.

Stuart Academy Fianl DR Report 2018-2019

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Stuart Academy Fianl DR Report 2018-2019

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

March 4–7 2019

Results for: Stuart Academy

© 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

A. Equitable Learning Environment

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

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

C. Supportive Learning Environment

Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

D. Active Learning Environment

Learners make connections from content to real-life

Learners collaborate with their peers to

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

E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment

Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

F. Well-Managed Learning Environment

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

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

G. Digital Learning Environment

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

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

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

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data: