2018-19 Sarah J Price Elementary Diagnostic Review

March 4–7, 2019
Results for: Sarah J. Price Elementary School

Diagnostic Review Report
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4
Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4
Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 5
Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7
eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 13
Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 13
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 16
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 17
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 18
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 20
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 20
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 23
© Advance Education, Inc. 2 www.advanc-ed.org

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

District-level Administrators 1
Building-level Administrators 2
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology Coordinator) 6
Certified Staff 16
Non-certified Staff 6
Students 37
Parents 5
Total 73

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 Meets
and learning, including the expectations for learners. Expectations
1.3 The institution engages in a continuous improvement process that produces Emerging
evidence, including measurable results of improving student learning and
professional practice.
1.6 Leaders implement staff supervision and evaluation processes to improve Emerging
professional practice and organizational effectiveness.
1.7 Leaders implement operational process and procedures to ensure organizational Meets
effectiveness in support of teaching and learning. Expectations
1.8 Leaders engage stakeholders to support the achievement of the institution’s Emerging
purpose and direction.
1.9 The institution provides experiences that cultivate and improve leadership Emerging
effectiveness.
1.10 Leaders collect and analyze a range of feedback data from multiple stakeholder Emerging
groups to inform decision-making that results in improvement.

Learning Capacity Domain

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

Resource Capacity Domain

The use and distribution of resources support the stated mission of the institution. Institutions ensure that
resources are distributed and utilized equitably so that the needs of all learners are adequately and effectively
addressed. The utilization of resources includes support for professional learning for all staff. The institution
examines the allocation and use of resources to ensure appropriate levels of funding, sustainability, organizational
effectiveness, and increased student learning.
Resource Capacity Standards Rating
3.1 The institution plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning Needs
environment, learner achievement, and the institution’s effectiveness. Improvement
3.2 The institution’s professional learning structure and expectations promote Emerging
collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational
effectiveness.
3.4 The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s Emerging
purpose and direction.
3.7 The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long- Emerging
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and
direction.
3.8 The institution allocates human, material, and fiscal resources in alignment with the Emerging
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and
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 16 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
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
1.2
Environment Averages




eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team collected data in 16 core content classrooms. Data from classroom observations
revealed several strengths. First, students generally were well-behaved and followed classroom rules. For example,
in 57 percent of classrooms, students who “demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom rules and
behavioral expectations and work well with others” (F2) were evident/very evident. In addition, instances of
students who “speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and each other” (F1) were evident/very evident in
69 percent of classrooms. In 82 percent of classroom, it was evident/very evident that students “demonstrate a
congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher” (C4).
Conversely, the classroom observation data also showed most instruction was whole group or center based. It was
evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms, for instance, that students “engage in differentiated learning
opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). Another concern was related to the lack of high
academic expectations in all classrooms, as it was evident/very evident in 31 percent of classrooms that students
“demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3). Observation data further revealed it was
evident/very evident in 31 percent of classrooms that students “engage in rigorous coursework, discussions,
and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4).
In 51 percent of classrooms, students who “strive to meet or are able to articulate the high expectations
established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1) were evident/very evident. In addition, it was evident/very
evident in 56 percent of classrooms that students “engage in activities and learning that are challenging but
attainable” (B2). Collectively, these findings illustrated the need to establish high academic expectations and
implement instruction that embeds the appropriate level of rigor.
Likewise, in 13 percent of classrooms, students who “understand and/or are able to explain how their work is
assessed” (E4) were evident/very evident. Students rarely used rubrics or examples of high-quality work to guide
their learning and help them understand the attributes of proficiency. Instances of students who “demonstrate
and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content” (E3) were evident/very evident in 51 percent of classrooms.
The overall rating for the Digital Learning Environment was 1.2 on a four-point scale, which was the lowest rating
of the seven learning environments. Students who “use digital tools/technology to communicate and work

collaboratively for learning” (G3) were evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms. Also, instances of
students who “use digital tools/technology to conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for
learning” (G2) were evident/very evident in six percent of classrooms. In 13 percent of classrooms, it was
evident/very evident that students “use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for
learning” (G1). The Diagnostic Review Team observed students using technology individually and in groups with
little depth, differentiation, and rigor. The low scores in this learning environment provide an opportunity to
systemically increase the depth and breadth of student use of technology to conduct research, solve problems,
and create original work with a level of rigor that is enhanced by these tools.
A careful examination of all items is warranted to identify additional areas that can be leveraged to increase
instructional capacity and improve student learning. In addition, the Improvement Priorities outlined within this
report can help prioritize areas of focus.

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 and monitor a systematic process to effectively implement a research-based curriculum aligned with the
Kentucky Academic Standards. Ensure high expectations are established for all students to prepare them for their
next level of learning. Use research-based instructional practices that are responsive to individual student needs
and clearly inform students of learning expectations and standards of performance. Integrate frequent checks for
understanding into instruction and assessment practices and provide students with specific and timely feedback.
(Primary Standard 2.5, Secondary Standard 2.7)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data indicated the school did not implement effective instructional practices that met
the needs of all students. The Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) results for Price
Elementary School students, as detailed in an addendum to this report, revealed the percentage of students who
scored Proficient/Distinguished was significantly below the state average in all assessed areas in 2017-2018.
Additionally, fifth-grade social studies and writing scores were significantly below the state average and lower than
the 2016-2017 scores. The 2017-2018 student reading index was 16.1 compared to the state index of 19.7, math
was 12.8 compared to the state index of 14.5, English Learners was 26.8 compared to the state index of 31.9, and
the growth indicator was 14.5 compared to the state growth indicator of 17.1.
Additionally, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading was well below the state
average in grades three (21.5 percent compared to 52.3), four (25.4 percent compared to 53.7), and five (25
percent compared to 57.8). Reading scores in grade three declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. However,
reading scores in grade four increased from 10.1 in 2016-2017 to 25.4 in 2017-2018.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as detailed previously in this report, suggested the school had neither
intentionally monitored nor implemented instructional practices to meet the learning needs of all students.
Classroom observation data revealed that students were completing the same learning tasks or activities with little
personalization or differentiation. It was evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms, for example, that
students “engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). Instances
of students who “strive to meet or are able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or
the teacher” (B1) were evident/very evident in 51 percent of classrooms. Additionally, it was evident/very evident
that students “demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3) in 31 percent of classrooms. Also, it
was evident/very evident in 31 percent of classrooms that students “engage in rigorous coursework, discussions,
and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4).
Students who could understand and/or “explain how their work is assessed” (E4) were evident/very evident in 13
percent of classrooms.

Students who “use digital tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) were
evident/very evident in zero percent of classrooms. Also instances of students who “use digital tools/technology to
conduct research, solve problems, and/or create original works for learning” (G2) were evident/very evident in six
percent of classrooms. Observation data revealed it was evident/very evident in 13 percent of classrooms that
students “use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning” (G1).
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data revealed that although systems existed for all teachers to create and calibrate their
instruction, the quality of instruction and classroom practices varied across the school. Interview data showed that
teachers used data to monitor student readiness and success at the next level. However, it could not be
ascertained whether these data were analyzed with any depth and to what degree the results were monitored for
individualized instructional value and trends. In addition, the team found no evidence to show that data were
examined at a level sufficient to alter instructional strategies. Additionally, interview data showed the curriculum
was developed by Jefferson County Public Schools but was inconsistently implemented.
The interview data suggested that team planning occurred, but staff members were rarely engaged in clearly
aligning content or articulating rigorous learner expectations. The teacher interview data showed that teachers
received individual feedback following informal observations; however, the team found no planning process or
system check to monitor whether teachers used the feedback to adjust their instructional practices. The data
revealed that professional learning community (PLC) meetings focused on data and next steps for improved
academic achievement. However, stakeholders reported a need for additional data training and consistent PLC
experiences that could help teachers increase instructional rigor and personalize and scaffold instruction.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The Diagnostic Review Team observed a disconnect among the survey, interview, and classroom observation data
related to using data-driven instructional strategies that engage students in rigorous activities and higher-order
thinking skills.
The survey data revealed that 76 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). The survey data revealed 65 percent of staff members agreed/strongly
agreed that “All teachers in our school personalize instructional strategies and interventions to address individual
learning needs of students” (E2). Seventy-eight percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers
in our school use a process to inform students of their learning expectations and standards of performance” (E5),
and 69 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school provide students with
specific and timely feedback about their learning” (E6).
Also, the survey data showed that 74 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). Seventy-seven
percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school have been trained to implement
a formal process that promotes discussion about student learning (e.g., action research, examination of student
work, reflection, study teams, and peer coaching)” (E10). Additionally, the data revealed that 94 percent of staff
members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school uses data to monitor student readiness and success at the next
level” (G5).
The parent survey data indicated 82 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child’s teachers use
a variety of teaching strategies and learning activities” (E3), and 76 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my
child's teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction” (E4). Additionally, 87 percent of parents

agreed/strongly agreed that “My child knows the expectations for learning in all classes” (E10), and 86 percent
agreed/strongly agreed that “My child is given multiple assessments to measure his/her understanding of what
was taught” (E12).
The student survey data showed that 86 percent of students agreed with the statement, “In my school I am
learning new things that will help me” (C2), and 89 percent agreed that “My teachers help me learn things I will
need in the future” (E1). Additionally, 90 percent of students agreed that “My teachers tell me how I should
behave and do my work.” (E4).
Documents and Artifacts:

The Diagnostic Review Team was greatly concerned that the data that were clearly discussed during professional
learning community (PLC) meetings did not inform instructional decisions, promote innovation, increase
professional learning, or promote higher student achievement. A review of documents and artifacts indicated the
school lacked a process to systematically implement and monitor a curriculum based on high expectations that
prepares students for the next level. Although the Jefferson County Public Schools curriculum was implemented to
some degree, there was a lack of documented evidence that it was done in all grades and content areas with
fidelity.

Insights from the Review

The Diagnostic Review Team engaged in professional discussions and deliberations about the processes, programs,
and practices within the institution to arrive at the findings of the team. These findings are organized around
themes guided by the evidence, examples of programs, and practices and provide direction for the institution’s
continuous improvement efforts. The insights from the Review narrative should provide contextualized
information from the team deliberations and provide information about the team’s analysis of the practices,
processes, and programs of the institution within the Levels of Impact of Engagement, Implementation, Results,
Sustainability, and Embeddedness.
Engagement is the level of involvement and frequency with which stakeholders are engaged in the desired
practices, processes, or programs within the institution. Implementation is the degree to which the desired
practices, processes, or programs are monitored and adjusted for quality and fidelity of implementation. Results
represent the collection, analysis, and use of data and evidence to demonstrate attaining the desired result(s).
Sustainability is results achieved consistently to demonstrate growth and improvement over time (minimum of
three years). Embeddedness is the degree to which the desired practices, processes, or programs are deeply
ingrained in the culture and operation of the institution.
Strengths:
Parents, teachers, support staff, and the administrative team at Price Elementary School were prideful of their
school and community. Staff members were committed to and deeply cared about their students. Administrators,
faculty, and staff members demonstrated advocacy for their students and families, including efforts to collaborate
with outside agencies to meet the social and emotional needs of students. A positive school culture was noted,
including a collegial, professional atmosphere among staff. The principal was focused on creating a positive school
culture and setting the stage for rich academic experiences and improved student achievement. District
administrators, staff members, parents, and students all expressed confidence and support for the school
leadership team and were optimistic that the school was working to establish high expectations for all students.
The Diagnostic Review Team observed a supportive, well-managed learning environment and a well-maintained,
clean, and inviting facility. Many resources were available at the school, which allowed the leadership team to
implement different programs and provided teachers with additional support to meet the unique needs of their
individual students. The team observed and found evidence of exemplary teaching practices within some core
content classrooms and observed teachers and school leaders who were committed to making the improvements
necessary to achieve academic success for all students. Students were treated in a fair, clear, and consistent
manner. It was evident, for example, that staff members implemented a school-wide student behavior
management system. It was evident that teachers are comfortable discussing ideas and reflections with
administration. The team noted that the administration takes risks in learning with staff without fear of feedback
or differences of opinion. Students spoke and interacted respectfully with teachers and one another.
Continuous Improvement Process:

The interview and survey data, a review of documents and artifacts, and classroom observation data indicated that
school leaders and teachers did not institutionalize documented systems for planning, quality implementation,
monitoring, and continuous evaluation of programs and practices. The Diagnostic Review Team identified some
needs related to instruction, program implementation, and professional learning activities at Price Elementary
School. While staff members and school leaders espoused the core belief that academic and social excellence is
attainable for all students when they are met where they are, the Diagnostic Review Team saw little evidence of
consistent implementation of curriculum and instruction-focused processes that would provide for systemic
improvement in student achievement.

School leaders are encouraged to establish and implement systematic documented processes that monitor and
adjust the level of instruction necessary to meet individual student needs and the learning expectations of the
school. The processes should be based on the rigor of the Kentucky Academic Standards and current research
regarding the effectiveness of instructional practices and student learning needs. Some possible processes include
frequent classroom observations; meaningful, targeted feedback; follow-up observations and ongoing support;
and data-driven decisions to identify and address individual student academic needs. A systemic approach would
allow for constant connections, consistent implementation of research-based and rigorous instructional practices,
reliable and actionable data analysis, effective student programing, and high-yield strategies for instructional
success. Additionally, the school administration is encouraged to diversify the leadership team in its efforts to
implement, monitor, and evaluate the curriculum and instructional improvements.
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

Dan A. Long Dan currently serves as an educational consultant, providing contracted services
to states, local educational agencies, and schools. Dan currently provides services
related to assessment and accountability systems, teacher and leader evaluation,
curriculum standards and assessment alignment, principal mentoring, growth
modeling, and eLearning. He has been an educator for over 30 years, serving as a
high school teacher, high school assistant principal, and k-12 principal. At the
district level, Dan served as secondary supervisor of instruction, assessment
supervisor, career technical supervisor, Information Technology (IT) supervisor,
and assistant superintendent. He also served as the TN deputy and executive
director for assessment. Dan was a writer and implementer for TN’s Race to the
Top successful proposal. Additionally, he served as an advisor to the Southern
Region Education Board technology committee on eLearing. He also has served as
the chairperson for the South Central Supervisor’s Study Council, Executive
Committee for the Tennessee Supervisor’s Association, and Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO) Assessment Committee. Dan has served as a CCSSO state
department of education coach for Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Utah,
Vermont, Virgin Islands, and Washington. He has provided direct assessment and
accountability assistance to Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Mississippi, and Nevada. Dan
holds a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in administration and
supervision, curriculum, and instruction.
Leesa Moman Leesa is an Education Recovery Leader with the Kentucky Department of
Education. In that position, she provides support to identified school districts that
have a significant number of schools classified as Targeted Support and
Improvement (TSI). She has extensive experience in assisting districts and schools
build systems of continuous improvement that result in increased student
academic performance. Ms. Moman has over 37 years of educational experience
and holds a bachelor’s degree in elementary and special education, a master’s
degree in special education, a Rank 1 in educational administration, and
certificates for superintendent, principal, supervisor, and director of special
education. Ms. Moman has experience as a teacher, special education teacher
consultant, principal, director of special education, assistant superintendent, and
college professor.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Melissa Evans Melissa is currently serving as an Education Recovery Leader with the Kentucky
Department of Education, assisting schools with turnaround efforts. Mrs. Evans
holds a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree from Union College in middle
school science and language arts, Rank I in supervision of instruction, and
superintendent certification from the University of the Cumberlands. Prior
experience includes 18 years in the Corbin Independent School District. While
there, she taught at the middle and high school levels, authored numerous grants,
and served as director of the summer science program. Administrative experience
includes five years serving the Knox County School District as the director of
district-wide programs. Major duties included district assessment coordinator;
curriculum, assessment, and instruction director; external grant director; and
career and technology education director.
Dr. Wendy Oliver Dr. Oliver has over 20 years of experience as a teacher and administrator. More
than 15 years of her experience was in leadership of blended and online learning
programs across the country. In her current role, she partners with states and
school districts to develop and implement digital learning programs. Dr. Oliver
holds a doctorate degree in learning and leadership with an emphasis in
educational technology from The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. She
also earned a master’s degree and a bachelor’s degree from Lincoln Memorial
University. Dr. Oliver also has experience in software development; she developed
two software tools whereby teachers assess their pedagogical strengths in
blended and online instruction. Most recently, she co-led the rewrite of the
national online teaching standards for Quality Matters and Virtual Learning
Leadership Alliance.
Adrienne Usher Adrienne currently serves as assistant superintendent for student learning in
Bullitt County Public Schools. Adrienne currently oversees all instruction,
curriculum, and assessment programming for grades PreK-12, professional
learning, extended school services, federal funding, and overall comprehensive
district and school improvement. Adrienne has been an educator for almost 20
years, serving as a classroom teacher, school counselor, instructional coach,
principal, and director of elementary education. Adrienne holds a bachelor’s
degree from Western Kentucky University, a master’s degree from Freed-
Hardeman University, and a Rank 1 in instructional leadership from Western
Kentucky University.

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)
“All Student Group” “All Student Group”
Reading 3rd 22.7 55.8 21.5 52.3
Reading 4th 10.1 49.9 25.4 53.7
Reading 5th 23.2 57.3 25.0 57.8
Math 3rd 25.3 50.9 13.9 47.3
Math 4th 8.7 47.9 18.3 47.2
Math 5th 11.0 48.9 22.4 52.0
Science 4th N/A N/A 4.2 30.8
Social Studies 5th 17.1 60.0 7.9 53.0
Writing 5th 13.4 45.9 2.6 40.5
Plus
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in fourth-grade reading increased from 10.1
percent in 2016-2017 to 25.4 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in fourth-grade math increased from 8.7
percent in 2016-2017 to 18.3 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in fifth-grade math increased from 11 percent
in 2016-2017 to 22.4 percent in 2017-2018.
Delta
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all content
areas and at all grade levels in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The lowest percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was 2.6 percent in fifth-grade writing
in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science was 4.2 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in social studies decreased from 17.1 percent
in 2016-2017 to 7.9 percent in 2017-2018.

Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)

Content Area Index State Index
Reading 16.1 19.7

Math 12.8 14.5
EL 26.8 31.9
Growth Indicator 14.5 17.1
Plus
Delta
• The student growth indices for all areas (i.e., reading, math, English learners, growth indicator) in 2017-2018
were below the state indices.
Section III: Gap Group 2017-2018 %P/D

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 23.9 18.1 4.2 7.9 2.6

Female 28.1 16.7 0.0 15.2 3.0
Male 20.8 19.2 8.8 2.3 2.3
White 23.8 19.0
African American 23.1 14.0 2.0 8.2 2.0
Hispanic 24.4 24.4 0.0 0.0 6.3
Asian
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races 18.2 36.4
Title I 23.9 18.1 4.2 7.9 2.6
Migrant
Homeless
Foster
Military
English Learner (EL) 12.5 3.1
English Learner plus 23.1 15.4
Monitored
Economically 21.6 17.6 4.7 4.8 3.2
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 14.0 4.7 8.3 0.0

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
(Total)
Disability-With IEP 14.0 4.7 8.3 0.0
(No Alt)
Disability (no ALT) 5.7
with Accommodation
Consolidated Student 22.6 17.8 2.9 6.9
Group
Plus
Delta
• The highest percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018 was the Two or More
Races group with a score of 36.4 percent in math.
• The lowest overall percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was in writing.
• The percentage of African-American students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was two percent in both
science and writing.
• The percentage of students in the All-Students group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science was 4.2
percent.
• The percentage of students in the Consolidated Group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science was 2.9
percent.
• The percentage of female students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in social studies was 15.2 compared
to male students who scored 2.3.
• The percentage of students in the Consolidated Student Group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in social
studies was 6.9 percent.

Schedule
Monday, March 4, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:30 p.m.– Principal 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

8:15 a.m. Team arrives at Price Elementary School School office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
8:40 a.m.- Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact School Diagnostic
5:00 p.m. Review Review Team
Members
5:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
5:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 Hotel Diagnostic
9:00 p.m. conference Review Team
room Members
Wednesday, March 6, 2019

8:15 a.m. Team arrives at Price Elementary School School Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
8:45 a.m. – Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact Review School Diagnostic
4:00 p.m. Review Team
Members
4:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
5:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Thursday, March 7, 2019

8:00 a.m. – Final Team Work Session Hotel Diagnostic
10:30 a.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members

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

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

2018-19 Sarah J Price Elementary Diagnostic Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018-19 Sarah J Price Elementary Diagnostic Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

March 4–7, 2019

Results for: Sarah J. Price Elementary School

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

Stakeholder Groups Number

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

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

Leadership Capacity Domain

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

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

Learning Capacity Domain

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

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

Resource Capacity Domain

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Diagnostic Review eleot Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

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

Stakeholder Interview Data:

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

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

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Insights from the Review

Continuous Improvement Process:

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

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

Team Member Name Brief Biography

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

Team Member Name Brief Biography

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

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

Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)

Reading 16.1 19.7

Section III: Gap Group 2017-2018 %P/D

All Students 23.9 18.1 4.2 7.9 2.6

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

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

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

Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Thursday, March 7, 2019

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

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

AdvancED is a non-profit, non-partisan organization serving the largest community of education

You might also like