Report of the Diagnostic Review Team for Doss High High...Report of the Diagnostic Review Team for...

Report of theDiagnostic Review Team

forDoss High

7601 St. Andrews Church RoadLouisville

KY 40214US

Dr. Marty PollioPrincipal

Date: November 29, 2016 - December 2, 2016

Document Generated On January 13, 2017

Copyright (c) 2017 by Advance Education, Inc. AdvancED™ grants to the Institution, which is the subject of the Diagnostic Review Team 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™.


Kentucky Department of Education Doss High

© 2017 Advance Education, Inc. All rights reserved unless otherwise granted by written agreement. Page 2

Table of Contents Introduction 4

Results 7

Teaching and Learning Impact 7

Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for Learning 8

Standard 5 - Using Results for Continuous Improvement 9

Student Performance Diagnostic 9

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot™) 10

eleot™ Data Summary 14

Findings 17

Leadership Capacity 21

Standard 1 - Purpose and Direction 22

Standard 2 - Governance and Leadership 22

Stakeholder Feedback Diagnostic 22

Resource Utilization 24

Standard 4 - Resources and Support Systems 24

Conclusion 26

Addenda 29

Team Roster 29

About AdvancED 31

References 32

Attachments 33






-

-

IntroductionThe Diagnostic Review is carried out by a team of highly qualified evaluators who examine the institution's

adherence and commitment to the research-aligned 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 examination of evidence and relevant performance data,

interviews with stakeholders, and observations of instruction, learning and operations.

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 at their disposal, the Diagnostic

Review Team arrived at a set of findings contained in this report.

Standards help to 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 comprised of talented

educators and leaders from the fields of practice, research and policy who 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. Prior to implementation, an internationally recognized

panel of experts in testing and measurement, teacher quality and education research reviewed the standards

and provided feedback, guidance and endorsement.

The AdvancED Diagnostic Review Team uses AdvancED Standards, associated Indicators and criteria related

to student performance and stakeholder engagement to guide its evaluation. The Standards, Indicators and

related criteria are evaluated using Indicator-specific performance levels. The Team rates each Indicator and

criterion on a scale of 1 to 4. The final scores assigned to the Indicators and criteria represent the average of

the Diagnostic Review Team members' individual ratings.

Use of Diagnostic ToolsA key to examining the institution is the design and use of diagnostic tools that reveal the effectiveness with

which an institution creates conditions and implements processes and practices that impact student

performance and success. In preparation for the Diagnostic Review, the institution conducted a Self

Assessment using the AdvancED Standards and provided evidence to support its conclusions vis a vis

organizational effectiveness in ensuring acceptable and improving levels of student performance.

An indicator-based tool that connects the specific elements of the criteria to evidence gathered by the

team;

a student performance analytic that examines the quality of assessment instruments used by the

institution, the integrity of the administration of the assessment to students, the quality of the learning








-

-

results including the impact of instruction on student learning at all levels of performance, and the

equity of learning that examines the results of student learning across all demographics;

a stakeholder engagement instrument that examines the fidelity of administration and results of

perception surveys seeking the perspective of students, parents, and teachers;

a state-of-the-art, learner-centric observation instrument, the Effective Learning Environments

Observation Tool (eleot™) that quantifies students' engagement, attitudes and dispositions organized

in 7 environments: Equitable Learning, High Expectations, Supportive Learning, Active Learning,

Progress Monitoring and Feedback, Well-Managed Learning, and Digital Learning. All evaluators must

be trained, reach acceptable levels of inter-rater reliability, and certified to use this research-based and

validated instrument.

The Diagnostic Review Team's findings and critical observations are shared in this report through the Indicator

ratings, identification of Powerful Practices and Improvement Priorities.

Powerful PracticesA key to continuous improvement is the institution's knowledge of its most effective and impactful practices.

Such practices, yielding a performance level of 4, serve as critical leverage points necessary to guide, support

and ensure continuous improvement. The Diagnostic Review process is committed to identifying conditions,

processes and practices that are having the most significant impact on student performance and institutional

effectiveness. The Diagnostic Review Team has captured and defined Powerful Practices that it identified as

essential to the institution's effort to continue its journey of improvement.

Improvement PrioritiesThe Diagnostic Review Team reviewed, analyzed and deliberated over significant bodies of evidence provided

by the institution and gathered by the team during the process. For those instances in which this analysis

yielded a Level 1 Indicator rating, an Improvement Priority has been identified by the team to guide

improvement efforts. Improvement Priorities are supported by extensive explanation and rationale to give

school leaders and stakeholders a clear understanding of the conditions, practices, policies, etc., revealed

through the Diagnostic Review process. Improvement Priorities are intended to be incorporated into the

institution's improvement plan.

The ReviewDoss High School hosted a Diagnostic Review on November 29 - December 2, 2016. The on-site review

involved a six-member team who provided their knowledge, skills and expertise for carrying out the Diagnostic

Review process and developing this written report of their findings.

The Diagnostic Review Team expresses its appreciation to the staff and stakeholders of Doss High School for

their hospitality and timely response to requests throughout the visit.








Prior to the start of the Diagnostic Review, the Team engaged in various communications through conference

calls and emails to complete the initial intensive study, review and analysis of various documents provided by

Doss High School. The Lead Evaluator and the Associate Lead Evaluator conducted conference calls with key

leaders of the institution. Doss High School leaders planned and conducted the Internal Review with detail and

candor. The comprehensive Internal Review engaged a range of stakeholder groups and was completed and

submitted in ASSIST for review by the Diagnostic Review Team in a timely manner. Evidence and

documentation to support the Doss High School Self Assessment and other diagnostics were submitted well in

advance of the Review. The principal's overview, conducted on Tuesday evening, was detailed, thorough and

inclusive of the school's Academy principals.

A total of 139 stakeholders were interviewed, as detailed in the chart below, and 33 core classrooms were

observed during the Diagnostic Review. Throughout the process, Doss High School leaders, faculty, staff,

district leadership, students and parents were open and honest in their discussions regarding continuous

improvement efforts in Doss High School.

Stakeholders were interviewed by members of the Diagnostic Review Team to gain their perspectives on

topics relevant to the institution's effectiveness and student performance. The feedback gained through the

stakeholder interviews was considered with other evidences and data to support the findings of the Diagnostic

Review. The following chart depicts the numbers of persons interviewed representative of various stakeholder

groups.

Using the evidence at their disposal, the AdvancED Diagnostic Review Team arrived at a set of findings

contained in this report. The report is presented in three sections: Results, Conclusion and Addenda.

Stakeholder Interviewed Number

Administrators 8

Instructional Staff 27

Support Staff 21

Students 78

Parents/Community/Business Leaders 5

Total 139








ResultsTeaching and Learning ImpactThe impact of teaching and learning on student achievement is the primary expectation of every institution.

The relationship between teacher and learner must be productive and effective for student success. The

impact of teaching and learning includes an analysis of student performance results, instructional quality,

learner and family engagement, support services for student learning, curriculum quality and efficacy, and

college and career readiness data. These are all key indicators of an institution's impact on teaching and

learning.

A high-quality and effective educational system has services, practices, and curriculum that ensure teacher

effectiveness. Research has shown that an effective teacher is a key factor for learners to achieve their highest

potential and be prepared for a successful future. The positive influence an effective educator has on learning

is a combination of "student motivation, parental involvement" and the "quality of leadership" (Ding & Sherman,

2006). Research also suggests that quality educators must have a variety of quantifiable and intangible

characteristics that include strong communication skills, knowledge of content, and knowledge of how to teach

the content. The institution's curriculum and instructional program should develop learners' skills that lead them

to think about the world in complex ways (Conley, 2007) and prepare them to have knowledge that extends

beyond the academic areas. In order to achieve these goals, teachers must have pedagogical skills as well as

content knowledge (Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voxx, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U.,

Krauss, S., Nuebrand, M., & Tsai, Y., 2010). The acquisition and refinement of teachers' pedagogical skills

occur most effectively through collaboration and professional development. These are a "necessary approach

to improving teacher quality" (Colbert, J., Brown, R., Choi, S., & Thomas, S., 2008). According to Marks, Louis,

and Printy (2002), staff members who engage in "active organizational learning also have higher achieving

students in contrast to those that do not." Likewise, a study conducted by Horng, Klasik, and Loeb (2010),

concluded that leadership in effective institutions "supports teachers by creating collaborative work

environments." Institutional leaders have a responsibility to provide experiences, resources, and time for

educators to engage in meaningful professional learning that promotes student learning and educator quality.

AdvancED has found that a successful institution implements a curriculum based on clear and measurable

expectations for student learning. The curriculum provides opportunities for all students to acquire requisite

knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Teachers use proven instructional practices that actively engage students in

the learning process. Teachers provide opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills to real

world situations. Teachers give students feedback to improve their performance.

Institutions with strong improvement processes move beyond anxiety about the current reality and focus on

priorities and initiatives for the future. Using results, i.e., data and other information, to guide continuous

improvement is key to an institution's success. A study conducted by Datnow, Park, and Wohlstetter (2007)

from the Center on Educational Governance at the University of Southern California indicated that data can

shed light on existing areas of strength and weakness and also guide improvement strategies in a systematic

and strategic manner (Dembosky, J., Pane, J., Barney, H., & Christina, R., 2005). The study also identified six










key strategies that performance-driven systems use: (1) building a foundation for data-driven decision making,

(2) establishing a culture of data use and continuous improvement, (3) investing in an information management

system, (4) selecting the right data, (5) building institutional capacity for data-driven decision making, and (6)

analyzing and acting on data to improve performance. Other research studies, though largely without

comparison groups, suggested that data-driven decision-making has the potential to increase student

performance (Alwin, 2002; Doyle, 2003; Lafee, 2002; McIntire, 2002).

Through ongoing evaluation of educational institutions, AdvancED has found that a successful institution uses

a comprehensive assessment system based on clearly defined performance measures. The system is used to

assess student performance on expectations for student learning, evaluate the effectiveness of curriculum and

instruction, and determine strategies to improve student performance. The institution implements a

collaborative and ongoing process for improvement that aligns the functions of the school with the expectations

for student learning. Improvement efforts are sustained, and the institution demonstrates progress in improving

student performance and institution effectiveness.

Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for Learning The school's curriculum, instructional design, and assessment practices guide and ensure teacher

effectiveness and student learning.

Indicator Description Review TeamScore

3.1 The school's curriculum provides equitable and challenging learning experiencesthat ensure all students have sufficient opportunities to develop learning,thinking, and life skills that lead to success at the next level.

2.00

3.2 Curriculum, instruction, and assessment are monitored and adjustedsystematically in response to data from multiple assessments of student learningand an examination of professional practice.

2.17

3.3 Teachers engage students in their learning through instructional strategies thatensure achievement of learning expectations.

2.17

3.4 School leaders monitor and support the improvement of instructional practices ofteachers to ensure student success.

2.83

3.5 Teachers participate in collaborative learning communities to improve instructionand student learning.

3.00

3.6 Teachers implement the school's instructional process in support of studentlearning.

2.00

3.7 Mentoring, coaching, and induction programs support instructional improvementconsistent with the school's values and beliefs about teaching and learning.

1.50

3.8 The school engages families in meaningful ways in their children's education andkeeps them informed of their children's learning progress.

1.17

3.9 The school has a formal structure whereby each student is well known by at leastone adult advocate in the school who supports that student's educationalexperience.

2.00










Standard 5 - Using Results for Continuous ImprovementThe school implements a comprehensive assessment system that generates a range of data about student

learning and school effectiveness and uses the results to guide continuous improvement.

Student Performance DiagnosticThe quality of assessments used to measure student learning, assurance that assessments are administered

with procedural fidelity and appropriate accommodations, assessment results that reflect the quality of

learning, and closing gaps in achievement among subpopulations of students are all important indicators for

evaluating overall student performance.


3.10 Grading and reporting are based on clearly defined criteria that represent theattainment of content knowledge and skills and are consistent across gradelevels and courses.

2.33

3.11 All staff members participate in a continuous program of professional learning. 2.67

3.12 The school provides and coordinates learning support services to meet theunique learning needs of students.

2.00


5.1 The school establishes and maintains a clearly defined and comprehensivestudent assessment system.

2.00

5.2 Professional and support staff continuously collect, analyze, and apply learningfrom a range of data sources, including comparison and trend data about studentlearning, instruction, program evaluation, and organizational conditions.

2.00

5.3 Professional and support staff are trained in the evaluation, interpretation, anduse of data.

2.00

5.4 The school engages in a continuous process to determine verifiableimprovement in student learning, including readiness for and success at the nextlevel.

2.17

5.5 Leadership monitors and communicates comprehensive information aboutstudent learning, conditions that support student learning, and the achievementof school improvement goals to stakeholders.

2.00

Evaluative Criteria Review TeamScore

Assessment Quality 2.00

Test Administration 2.00

Equity of Learning 2.00

Quality of Learning 3.00










Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot™)Every learner should have access to an effective learning environment in which she/he has multiple

opportunities to be successful. The Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot™) measures the

extent to which learners are in an environment that is equitable, supportive, and well-managed. An

environment where high expectations are the norm and active learning takes place. It measures whether

learners' progress is monitored and feedback is provided and the extent to which technology is leveraged for

learning.

Observations of classrooms or other learning venues are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes per

observation. Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team is required to be trained and pass a certification

exam that establishes inter-rater reliability. Team members conduct multiple observations during the review

process and provide ratings on 30 items based on a four-point scale (4=very evident; 3=evident; 2=somewhat

evident; and 1=not observed). The following provides the aggregate average score across multiple

observations for each of the seven learning environments included in eleot™.

The Diagnostic Review Team conducted 33 classroom observations, which included all core content classes.

Doss High School recently implemented a school-wide, project-based learning (PBL) model. The school was

organized into three area-focused academies and a freshman academy. After the freshman year, students

self-select into one of three academies (i.e., Business, Finance, Tech and Design). The school's PBL schedule

included "Application Days" on Wednesdays and Thursdays, which provided time for students to "apply" their

learning from the traditional Monday, Tuesday and Friday classes. The Diagnostic Review Team conducted

eleot™ Results

Review

A. E

quita

ble

Lear

ning

B. H

igh

Expe

ctat

ions

C. S

uppo

rtive

Lea

rnin

g

D. A

ctiv

e Le

arni

ng

E. P

rogr

ess

Mon

itorin

g an

d

Feed

back

F. W

ell-M

anag

ed L

earn

ing

G. D

igita

l Lea

rnin

g

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Per

form

ance

Lev

els

2.412.58 2.70 2.81

2.552.78

1.63










classroom observations during the school's "Applications Days" (i.e., Wednesday and Thursday).

The overall rating for the Learning Environments ranged from 1.63 to 2.81 on a four-point scale. The highest

rated was the Active Learning Environment and the lowest rated was the Digital Learning Environment.

Classroom observation data reflected students were mostly engaged in their learning. The Team observed

students working in groups in most classes. However, most of the group work was not personalized for

individual learning needs. The Team also observed many students striving to meet the high expectations of

their teachers. The Team noted students having equal access to resources, engaged in rigorous coursework

and demonstrated a positive attitude about class and school overall. Students at Doss High School were very

respectful to one another and to the adults. Most students understood classroom behavioral expectations and

were equally redirected when discipline issues occurred. However, there were limited opportunities for

students to connect the daily lessons to their personal life experiences, differentiation, and a lack of exemplars

in classrooms.

The Equitable Learning Environment received an overall rating of a 2.4 on a four-point scale. In the majority of

classrooms observed, students were provided with the same coursework regardless of skill level. While several

classrooms had student groups, most of the groups worked on the same activities at the same pace. Instances

in which students had "differentiated learning opportunities and activities that meet her/his needs" (A1) were

evident/very evident in 33 percent of classrooms. With the exception of some Advanced Placement (AP)

classes, students typically completed worksheets independently, which limited opportunities to engage with

other students. In only 30 percent of classrooms, for example, it was evident/very evident students had

"ongoing opportunities to learn about their own and other's backgrounds/cultures/differences" (A4). Students

were provided with the resources to complete their coursework and seemed to know classroom behavioral

expectations. It was evident/very evident that students had "equal access to classroom discussions, activities,

resources, technology, and support" (A2) in 88 percent of classrooms. Also, it was evident/very evident in 73

percent of classrooms that students knew "that rules and consequences are fair, clear, and consistently

applied" (A3).

The High Expectations Learning Environment received an overall rating of a 2.58 on a four-point scale. The

principal expressed that the culture of Doss High School was based on high expectations. He suggested that

the Diagnostic Review Team would be able to see high expectations of both adults and students. It was

evident/very evident in 73 percent of classrooms that students knew or were striving "to meet the high

expectations established by the teacher" (B1), suggesting that in 27 percent of the classrooms, observers

could not confirm high expectations had been established. Additionally, instances in which students were

"tasked with activities and learning that are challenging but attainable" (B2) were evident/very evident in 85

percent of classrooms. This parallels staff survey data that revealed 96 percent of staff members

agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, "In our school, challenging curriculum and learning experiences

provide equity for all students in the development of learning." In approximately two-thirds of classrooms (63

percent), it was evident/very evident that students were "engaged in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

tasks" (B4). In addition to the inconsistencies across the school regarding high expectations, instances of

students being "provided exemplars of high quality work" (B3), for example, were evident/very evident in 27

percent of classrooms. Of concern to the Team was that occasions in which students were asked and










responded "to questions that require high order thinking (e.g., applying, evaluating, synthesizing) were

evident/very evident in 45 percent of classrooms (B5). Team Members noted that higher ordering thinking was

found more frequently in AP courses.

The Supportive Learning Environment received an overall rating of a 2.70 on a four-point scale. The Diagnostic

Review Team frequently observed instructional staff members providing support to students during class. This

seems to align with the overall belief that the school is full of adults who care about students and go above and

beyond to ensure students are learning. Instances in which students were "provided support and assistance to

understand content and accomplish tasks" (C4) were evident/very evident in 85 percent of the classrooms.

Students often expressed a positive attitude about the learning environment. In 73 percent of classrooms, it

was evident/very evident that students "demonstrated or expressed that learning experiences are positive"

(C1). In 67 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students "demonstrated positive attitude

about the classroom and learning" (C2). Students in more than half of the classes demonstrated they were

comfortable taking risks; for example, it was evident/very evident in 60 percent of classrooms that students

"take risks in learning (without fear of negative feedback)" (C3). Of concern to the Team were the limited

occurrences where students received varying instructional practices to meet their needs. In 36 percent of

classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students were "provided additional/alternative instruction and

feedback at the appropriate level of challenge for her/his needs" (C5).

The Active Learning Environment received an overall rating of a 2.81 on a four-point scale. The Diagnostic

Review Team members frequently observed students working in groups, which created multiple opportunities

for students to be actively engaged in the classroom lesson. It was evident/very evident in 75 percent of

classrooms that students had "several opportunities to engage in discussions with teacher and other students"

(D1). Instances in which students were "actively engaged in the learning activities" (D3) were evident/very

evident in 69 percent of classrooms. Students had limited occasions to connect classroom lessons to their

personal lives. It was evident/very evident in 54 percent of classroom that students could "make connections

from content to real-life experiences" (D2).

The Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment received an overall rating of a 2.55 on a four-

point scale. The Diagnostic Review Team observed numerous instances where students' progress was

monitored and feedback was given. It was evident/very evident in 79 percent of classrooms where students

"demonstrates or verbalizes understanding of the lesson/content" (E3). Instances where a student had

"opportunities to revise/improve work based on feedback" (E5) were evident/very evident in 69 percent of

classrooms. It was evident/very evident in 61 percent of classrooms that students "responded to teacher

feedback to improve understanding" (E2). Instances where students were asked about their individual progress

were limited. For example, it was evident/very evident in 54 percent of classrooms where a student was "asked

and/or quizzed about individual progress/learning" (E1). It was evident/very evident in 42 percent of

classrooms that students "understood how her/his work is assessed" (E4).

The Well-Managed Learning Environment received an overall rating of 2.78 on a four-point scale. The

Diagnostic Review Team observed many classrooms that were well managed. It was evident/very evident in

79 percent of classrooms that students followed "classroom rules and works well with others" (F2). It was also










evident/very evident in 79 percent of classrooms that students "knew classroom routines, behavioral

expectations and consequences" (F5). Respectful interaction between teacher and student was observed in

most classrooms. It was evident/very evident in 76 percent of classrooms that students "spoke and interacted

respectfully with teacher(s) and peers" (F1). It was evident/very evident in 60 percent of classrooms that

students "collaborated with other students during student-centered activities" (F4). Students who transitioned

"smoothly and efficiently to activities" (F3) were evident/very evident in 51 percent of classrooms, indicating an

area that may need attention by the administration. Transitions within class and between classes were more

disorderly than the Team had anticipated given the behavior of students during instruction.

The Digital Learning Environment received an overall rating of a 1.63 on a four-point scale. Team Members

rarely saw instances in which students interacted with technology to enhance their learning. The administration

recognized that technology was limited and had not been a priority for the school. It was evident/very evident in

24 percent of classrooms that students used "digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, conduct research,

solve problems, and/or create original works for learning" (G1/G2). In nine percent of classrooms, it was

evident/very evident that students used "digital tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for

learning" (G3).










eleot™ Data Summary

A. Equitable Learning %

Item Average Description

Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.03 Has differentiated learning opportunitiesand activities that meet her/his needs

18.18% 15.15% 18.18% 48.48%

2. 3.12 Has equal access to classroomdiscussions, activities, resources,technology, and support

30.30% 54.55% 12.12% 3.03%

3. 2.76 Knows that rules and consequences arefair, clear, and consistently applied

15.15% 54.55% 21.21% 9.09%

4. 1.73 Has ongoing opportunities to learnabout their own and other'sbackgrounds/cultures/differences

3.03% 27.27% 9.09% 60.61%

Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 2.41

B. High Expectations %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.88 Knows and strives to meet the highexpectations established by the teacher

15.15% 57.58% 27.27% 0.00%

2. 3.00 Is tasked with activities and learning thatare challenging but attainable

21.21% 60.61% 15.15% 3.03%

3. 1.79 Is provided exemplars of high qualitywork

12.12% 15.15% 12.12% 60.61%

4. 2.79 Is engaged in rigorous coursework,discussions, and/or tasks

18.18% 45.45% 33.33% 3.03%

5. 2.42 Is asked and responds to questions thatrequire higher order thinking (e.g.,applying, evaluating, synthesizing)

12.12% 33.33% 39.39% 15.15%











C. Supportive Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.88 Demonstrates or expresses thatlearning experiences are positive

15.15% 57.58% 27.27% 0.00%

2. 2.85 Demonstrates positive attitude about theclassroom and learning

21.21% 45.45% 30.30% 3.03%

3. 2.73 Takes risks in learning (without fear ofnegative feedback)

21.21% 39.39% 30.30% 9.09%

4. 3.00 Is provided support and assistance tounderstand content and accomplishtasks

15.15% 72.73% 9.09% 3.03%

5. 2.03 Is provided additional/alternativeinstruction and feedback at theappropriate level of challenge for her/hisneeds

9.09% 24.24% 27.27% 39.39%


D. Active Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.94 Has several opportunities to engage indiscussions with teacher and otherstudents

27.27% 48.48% 15.15% 9.09%

2. 2.61 Makes connections from content to real-life experiences

21.21% 36.36% 24.24% 18.18%

3. 2.88 Is actively engaged in the learningactivities

21.21% 45.45% 33.33% 0.00%











E. Progress Monitoring and Feedback %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.45 Is asked and/or quizzed about individualprogress/learning

9.09% 45.45% 27.27% 18.18%

2. 2.48 Responds to teacher feedback toimprove understanding

3.03% 57.58% 24.24% 15.15%

3. 2.88 Demonstrates or verbalizesunderstanding of the lesson/content

9.09% 69.70% 21.21% 0.00%

4. 2.24 Understands how her/his work isassessed

18.18% 24.24% 21.21% 36.36%

5. 2.70 Has opportunities to revise/improvework based on feedback

21.21% 48.48% 9.09% 21.21%


F. Well-Managed Learning %

Item Average DescriptionV

ery

Evi

den

t

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.94 Speaks and interacts respectfully withteacher(s) and peers

18.18% 57.58% 24.24% 0.00%

2. 2.97 Follows classroom rules and works wellwith others

21.21% 57.58% 18.18% 3.03%

3. 2.45 Transitions smoothly and efficiently toactivities

18.18% 33.33% 24.24% 24.24%

4. 2.55 Collaborates with other students duringstudent-centered activities

21.21% 39.39% 12.12% 27.27%

5. 3.00 Knows classroom routines, behavioralexpectations and consequences

24.24% 54.55% 18.18% 3.03%











FindingsImprovement PriorityEstablish systematic mentoring, coaching and induction programs consistent with the school's vision, mission

and core beliefs about teaching, learning and the conditions that support learning.

(Indicator 3.7)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.7

Evidence and Rationale

Stakeholder Survey Data:

Stakeholder survey data indicated 78 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed, “In our school, a

formal process is in place to support new staff members in their professional practice.” Seventy-two percent of

parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my child’s teachers work as a team to help my child

learn.” Sixty-nine percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In my school, teachers work

together to improve student learning.”

Stakeholder Interviews:

Interview data revealed that although there had been a tremendous reduction of teacher turnover, turnover

continued to be a concern for the administration (decreased from 25 to seven teachers who left at the end of

the year over the last 18 months). The administration revealed that plans existed to develop a more formal

program to assist and grow new teachers. However, interview data revealed the lack of a formal coaching and

retention plan for second year teachers and beyond. The Dragon Fire program was intended to “acclimate new

G. Digital Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 1.73 Uses digital tools/technology to gather,evaluate, and/or use information forlearning

3.03% 21.21% 21.21% 54.55%

2. 1.76 Uses digital tools/technology to conductresearch, solve problems, and/or createoriginal works for learning

9.09% 15.15% 18.18% 57.58%

3. 1.39 Uses digital tools/technology tocommunicate and work collaborativelyfor learning

6.06% 3.03% 15.15% 75.76%











teachers to the Doss way.”

Interview data revealed teachers rarely get meaningful feedback. Teachers also noted that “The only feedback

the teachers currently get is from the administration,” and informal conversations with their department heads

periodically are not on a set schedule. Another teacher stated “There was a district office representative who

would come to new teachers in the past, but Dragon Fire has taken the place of that program.” When asked

about how teachers not in their first year were coached or mentored, one teacher shared that “Senior teachers

were just asked to keep an eye on the less experienced educators.” Coaching and mentoring for experienced

teachers could serve as an area to leverage to improve instructional capacity and retain effective teachers.

Documents and Artifacts:

Stakeholder survey data revealed 97 percent of staff members could articulate the process to formally support

new staff members in their professional practice. However, while there is evidence that this program exists, the

Team discovered the program was only recently implemented at the beginning of the current school year. A

review of documents and artifacts included a schedule for Dragon Fire, a welcome letter, PowerPoint slides

and a pacing guide; however, the Team found no evidence of a systematic mentoring program for all teachers

consistent with the school’s vision, mission, and core beliefs.

Improvement PriorityImplement an instructional process that informs students of their progress toward mastering standards.

Teachers should expose students to exemplars and provide specific and timely feedback. This implementation

will allow teachers to use student work to modify instruction and gather data for possible curriculum revision.

(Indicator 3.6)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.6


Student Performance Data:

Student performance data, as detailed in the attachments of this report, showed that Doss High School did not

meet any of the proficiency delivery targets for the 2015-2016 school year, nor did the school meet any of the

gap delivery targets. The percentage of students meeting benchmarks on the ACT in the areas of English and

reading declined. Although student scores increased in math, scores were well below the state average.

Classroom Observation Data:

Classroom observation data revealed it was evident/very evident in 27 percent of classrooms that “students

are provided exemplars of high quality work.” Further, it was evident/very evident in 54 percent that students

were “asked or quizzed about individual progress or learning.”











Stakeholder survey data indicated that 67 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school

provides students with specific and timely feedback about their learning.” Sixty-seven percent of all students

agreed/strongly agreed that “Teachers provide me information about my learning and grades.” Finally, 78

percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “My child is given multiple assessments to understand his/her

understanding of what was taught.”


Interview data revealed teachers did not use multiple measures systematically to inform the ongoing

modification of instruction and provide students with specific and immediate feedback about their learning.

Student interview data indicated that while some teachers provided students with feedback, much of the

feedback is neither specific nor timely.

Improvement PriorityRevise and implement a curriculum that ensures rigorous and academically challenging learning experiences

in all courses and classes, provides opportunities for individualized instruction based on the need of each

student and revolves around standards aligned with thinking and life skills that are the core of project based

learning activities.

(Indicator 3.1)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.1


Student Performance Data:

Student performance data, as detailed in the attachments of this report, suggested that instructional strategies

have not resulted in consistent instructional improvements and student success. Although the school met

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) in 2015-2016, it did not meet its AMO in 2014 -2015. In 2014-2015 and

2015-2016, the school met the graduation rate goal. The percentage of students scoring at the

proficient/distinguished levels was below the state average for the last two years in all End of Course

(EOC)/Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (KPREP) assessed content areas. The number

of students scoring proficient/distinguished in biology and language mechanics declined from 2014-2015 to

2015-2016. Biology had the lowest number of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished levels (10.9

percent) during 2015-2016. The percentage of students meeting benchmark declined in English and Reading

from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016. The percentage of students meeting benchmark on the ACT was below the

state average in all areas. Math had the lowest number of students meeting benchmark on the ACT with only

11.7 percent in 2015-2016. The school failed to meet any of its delivery targets in each of the assessed content

areas.










Classroom Observation Data:

Classroom observation data, as detailed in the Teaching and Learning Impact section of this report, suggested

limited use of high-yield strategies for differentiating instruction across content areas and grade levels. It was

evident/very evident in 63 percent of classrooms that students were “engaged in rigorous coursework,

discussions, and/or tasks.” Instances in which students were “asked and responded to questions that require

higher order thinking” were evident/very evident in 45 percent of classrooms.


Stakeholder survey data revealed that challenging and rigorous curriculum and differentiation were areas that

could be leveraged for academic improvement. Stakeholder feedback indicated 69 percent of students

agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences.”

Fifty-five percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My school prepares me to deal with

issues I may face in the future.” Forty-seven percent of students agreed/strongly agreed, “All of my teachers

change their teaching to meet my learning needs.”


Stakeholder interview data revealed plans to review and revise the curriculum have been established. While

observing professional learning communities (PLCs), it was noted that teachers discussed what was being

taught and how best to deliver the instruction. Interviews revealed the necessity for more differentiation in the

classrooms to better meet the needs of each individual student.

Documents and Artifacts:

A review of the master schedule, meeting agendas, curriculum maps and unit plans revealed an emphasis on

opportunities for students to develop thinking skills and life skills that lead to the next level. The Professional

Career Academies provide a vehicle for students to achieve experiences toward a career area through

“specialized training or certificate, relevant learning for College or Career and/or dual/college credits…”

However, these documents do not show that teachers use diagnostic data about student learning to adjust

curriculum and provide individualized learning opportunities for each student. Interview data and the principal’s

presentation communicated that individualization was in early stages of development and implementation.










Leadership CapacityThe capacity of leadership to ensure an institution's progress towards its stated objectives is an essential

element of organizational effectiveness. An institution's leadership capacity includes the fidelity and

commitment to its institutional 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 enact strategies to improve results of student learning.

Purpose and direction are critical to successful institutions. A study conducted in 2010 by the London-based

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) reported that "in addition to improving performance,

the research indicates that having a sense of shared purpose also improves employee engagement" and that

"lack of understanding around purpose can lead to demotivation and emotional detachment, which in turn lead

to a disengaged and dissatisfied workforce."

AdvancED has found through its evaluation of best practices in more than 32,000 institutions around the world

that a successful institution commits to a shared purpose and direction and establishes expectations for

student learning that are aligned with the institutions' vision and supported by internal and external

stakeholders. These expectations serve as the focus for assessing student performance and overall institution

effectiveness.

Governance and leadership are key factors in raising institutional quality. Leaders, both local administrators

and governing boards/authorities, are responsible for ensuring all learners achieve while also managing many

other facets of an institution. Institutions that function effectively do so without tension between the governing

board/authority, administrators, and educators and have established relationships of mutual respect and a

shared vision (Feuerstein & Opfer, 1998). In a meta-analysis of educational institution leadership research,

Leithwood and Sun (2012) found that leaders (school and governing boards/authority) can significantly

"influence school conditions through their achievement of a shared vision and agreed-on goals for the

organization, their high expectations and support of organizational members, and their practices that

strengthen school culture and foster collaboration within the organization." With the increasing demands of

accountability placed on institutional leaders, leaders who empower others need considerable autonomy and

involve their communities to attain continuous improvement goals. Leaders who engage in such practices

experience a greater level of success (Fink & Brayman, 2006). Similarly, governing boards/authorities that

focus on policy-making are more likely to allow institutional leaders the autonomy to make decisions that

impact teachers and students and are less responsive to politicization than boards/authorities that respond to

vocal citizens (Greene, 1992).

AdvancED's experience, gained through evaluation of best practices, has indicated that a successful institution

has leaders who are advocates for the institution's vision and improvement efforts. The leaders provide

direction and allocate resources to implement curricular and co-curricular programs that enable students to

achieve expectations for their learning. Leaders encourage collaboration and shared responsibility for school

improvement among stakeholders. The institution's policies, procedures, and organizational conditions ensure

equity of learning opportunities and support for innovation.










Standard 1 - Purpose and DirectionThe school maintains and communicates a purpose and direction that commit to high expectations for learning

as well as shared values and beliefs about teaching and learning.

Standard 2 - Governance and LeadershipThe school operates under governance and leadership that promote and support student performance and

school effectiveness.

Stakeholder Feedback DiagnosticStakeholder Feedback is the third of three primary areas of evaluation in AdvancED's Performance

Accreditation model. The AdvancED surveys (student, parent, and teacher) are directly correlated to the

AdvancED Standards and indicators. They provide not only direct information about stakeholder satisfaction

but also become a source of data for triangulation by the External Review Team as it evaluates indicators.


1.1 The school engages in a systematic, inclusive, and comprehensive process toreview, revise, and communicate a school purpose for student success.

2.00

1.2 The school's leadership and staff commit to a culture that is based on sharedvalues and beliefs about teaching and learning and supports challenging,equitable educational programs and learning experiences for all students thatinclude achievement of learning, thinking, and life skills.

3.00

1.3 The school's leadership implements a continuous improvement process thatprovides clear direction for improving conditions that support student learning.

2.33


2.1 The governing body establishes policies and supports practices that ensureeffective administration of the school.

2.17

2.2 The governing body operates responsibly and functions effectively. 2.17

2.3 The governing body ensures that the school leadership has the autonomy tomeet goals for achievement and instruction and to manage day-to-dayoperations effectively.

3.00

2.4 Leadership and staff foster a culture consistent with the school's purpose anddirection.

2.83

2.5 Leadership engages stakeholders effectively in support of the school's purposeand direction.

1.67

2.6 Leadership and staff supervision and evaluation processes result in improvedprofessional practice and student success.

2.67










Institutions are asked to collect and analyze stakeholder feedback data, then submit the data and the analyses

to the External Review Team for review. The External Review Team evaluates the quality of the administration

of the surveys by institution, survey results, and the degree to which the institution analyzed and acted on the

results.

Evaluative Criteria Review TeamScore

Questionnaire Administration 4.00

Stakeholder Feedback Results and Analysis 3.00










Resource UtilizationThe use and distribution of resources must be aligned and supportive of the needs of an institution and the

students served. Institutions must ensure that resources are aligned with the stated mission and are distributed

equitably so that the needs of students are adequately and effectively addressed. The utilization of resources

includes an examination of the allocation and use of resources, the equity of resource distribution to need, the

ability of the institution to ensure appropriate levels of funding and sustainability of resources, as well as

evidence of long-range capital and resource planning effectiveness.

Institutions, regardless of their size, need access to sufficient resources and systems of support to be able to

engage in sustained and meaningful efforts that result in a continuous improvement cycle. Indeed, a study

conducted by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (Pan, D., Rudo, Z., Schneider, C., & Smith-

Hansen, L., 2003) "demonstrated a strong relationship between resources and student success... both the

level of resources and their explicit allocation seem to affect educational outcomes."

AdvancED has found through its own evaluation of best practices in the more than 32,000 institutions in the

AdvancED Network that a successful institution has sufficient human, material, and fiscal resources to

implement a curriculum that enables students to achieve expectations for student learning, meets special

needs, and complies with applicable regulations. The institution employs and allocates staff members who are

well qualified for their assignments. The institution provides a safe learning environment for students and staff.

The institution provides ongoing learning opportunities for all staff members to improve their effectiveness and

ensures compliance with applicable governmental regulations.

Standard 4 - Resources and Support SystemsThe school has resources and provides services that support its purpose and direction to ensure success for

all students.


4.1 Qualified professional and support staff are sufficient in number to fulfill theirroles and responsibilities necessary to support the school's purpose, direction,and the educational program.

2.33

4.2 Instructional time, material resources, and fiscal resources are sufficient tosupport the purpose and direction of the school.

3.00

4.3 The school maintains facilities, services, and equipment to provide a safe, clean,and healthy environment for all students and staff.

2.50

4.4 Students and school personnel use a range of media and information resourcesto support the school's educational programs.

2.17

4.5 The technology infrastructure supports the school's teaching, learning, andoperational needs.

1.50

4.6 The school provides support services to meet the physical, social, and emotionalneeds of the student population being served.

1.50











4.7 The school provides services that support the counseling, assessment, referral,educational, and career planning needs of all students.

2.17










ConclusionThe leadership of Doss High School has made a significant shift in transforming the school. In less than two

years, the principal and his leadership team have made major strides to cultivate a positive school culture,

improve student behavior, enhance student engagement and improve instructional practices. The shift to the

Project-Based Learning instructional model has been a major change for the school, but one that most

stakeholders support. The school's new vision, mission and core beliefs are fully embodied by all staff

members, students and families. Staff members are motivated and invigorated by the principal's direction and

visibility.

A culture of high expectations permeated across the school. Overall, students were well-behaved and

respectful to one another, as well as to adults. Likewise, staff members demonstrated respect when interacting

and communicating with students. Staff members genuinely care for students of Doss High School and want to

prepare them for the future success. The principal has surrounded himself with a high capacity leadership

team who have each taken ownership of and are viewed as the principal of their respective academy. The

Doss High School principal provides autonomy to the academy leaders to make key decisions. This leadership

model has trickled down to the teachers who also have taken ownership of the PLCs.

Staff turnover has decreased dramatically (over 75 percent), providing more consistency for students.

Additionally, academic gains, including decreases in the number of students scoring novice in accountable

areas, have continued to be a positive shift for the school.

The school was clean and well-maintained. The facility and grounds provided a positive, safe, clean and

healthy environment for students to learn.

To enhance the continuous improvement process, Doss High School implemented professional career

academies in 2015 and anchored these in six new core beliefs. The professional career academies are Tech

and Design, Finance, Business and a Freshman Academy. These academies provide students specialized

training and/or certification, relevant learning for college or career and dual/college credits. The Diagnostic

Review Team observed school leadership encourage the creation of authentic learning opportunities to

maximize student engagement. Academy principals led and monitored many initiatives and provided consistent

and extensive support that promoted a culture of high expectations for behavior, academic achievement and

staff professionalism.

While the new mission, vision and core beliefs provide a focus and clear direction for staff members and

students and support an effective instructional model, these statements were not established with the input

from all stakeholder groups. The principal operates with a sense of urgency, cultivates a culture of high

expectations, establishes accountability and provides a purpose and direction focused on student

achievement, which creates an environment with the capacity to catapult the turnaround process at Doss High

School. Involving all stakeholder groups in the review of the school's purpose and direction will improve family

and community involvement. While significant staff buy-in exists for the school's new direction, leadership has

not secured input nor united all stakeholder groups in support of the new direction of the school.












The continuous improvement process at Doss High School is driven by three guiding principles: 1) creating an

academic environment focused on student engagement and continuous improvement; 2) implementing,

training, supporting and monitoring of a system of standards-based teaching and learning that guarantees a

rigorous curriculum for every student in every class and 3) restructuring of the school and instructional program

based on professional career academies and project-based learning. Observation and interview data revealed

student engagement had increased since the inception of the new administration. The new academic structure

provides rigorous and challenging coursework. While school leadership and staff have fully embraced the new

school wide instructional model, interview and observation data revealed a disconnect between Project-Based

Learning and standards-based learning. A clear and concise system was not implemented to measure the

mastery of standards during project-based learning. Leadership acknowledged the need to address these

issues, which demonstrated their commitment to ensuring the fidelity of these initiatives.

Doss High School's leadership team has implemented many initiatives during the past 17 months that promote

continuous improvement. A review of documents by the Diagnostic Review Team showed some significant

challenges exist. In every subject area, for example, many students were not scoring proficient on End-Of-

Course assessments; in fact, many continued to score novice. In addition, the majority of 2015-2016 seniors

did not graduate college or career ready. The Team noted the structure for professional career academies and

project-based learning had been established, but interview data showed that measuring student proficiency

and growth were challenges.

While several barriers exist at Doss High School, by maintaining a steadfast, continual focus on existing and

newly implemented programs, the school can achieve academic success. With perseverance, the leadership

team at Doss High School can establish a process to effectively implement interventions during the school day

and seamlessly integrate standards-based learning and project-based learning to achieve academic success.

The Diagnostic Review Team is confident the current leadership team is providing the direction to move the

school from priority to successful.

Revise and implement a curriculum that ensures rigorous and academically challenging learning experiences

in all courses and classes, provides opportunities for individualized instruction based on the need of each

student and revolves around standards aligned with thinking and life skills that are the core of project based

learning activities. (Indicator 3.1)

Implement an instructional process that informs students of their progress toward mastering standards.

Teachers should expose students to exemplars and provide specific and timely feedback. This implementation

will allow teachers to use student work to modify instruction and gather data for possible curriculum revision.

(Indicator 3.6)

Establish systematic mentoring, coaching and induction programs consistent with the school's vision, mission

and core beliefs about teaching, learning and the conditions that support learning. (Indicator 3.7)












-

-

-

Improvement PrioritiesThe institution should use the findings from this review to guide the continuous improvement process. The

institution must address the Improvement Priorities listed below:

Establish systematic mentoring, coaching and induction programs consistent with the school's vision,

mission and core beliefs about teaching, learning and the conditions that support learning.

Implement an instructional process that informs students of their progress toward mastering standards.

Teachers should expose students to exemplars and provide specific and timely feedback. This

implementation will allow teachers to use student work to modify instruction and gather data for possible

curriculum revision.

Revise and implement a curriculum that ensures rigorous and academically challenging learning

experiences in all courses and classes, provides opportunities for individualized instruction based on the

need of each student and revolves around standards aligned with thinking and life skills that are the core

of project based learning activities.












AddendaTeam Roster

Member Brief Biography

Dr. Shawn Johnson Dr. Shawn Johnson currently serves as Superintendent of Barnwell SchoolDistrict 19. His educational career spans seventeen years including K-12experience as an Elementary and Secondary Principal, Elementary and MiddleSchool Assistant Principal, School Board Chairman, Athletic Director, HeadVarsity Basketball Coach, and classroom teacher. Dr. Johnson’s certificationsinclude Superintendent, Secondary Principal, Secondary Supervisor, ElementaryPrincipal, Elementary Supervisor, Middle Level Mathematics and ElementaryEducation. He has earned a Doctor of Education and Educational SpecialistDegree in Administration from South Carolina State University, Master ofEducation degree in Educational Leadership and Supervision from WinthropUniversity, Master of Education degree in Divergent Learning from ColumbiaCollege and Bachelor of Arts degree in Elementary Education from CoastalCarolina University.

Mrs. Susan Ann Greer Susan Ann Greer has served public schools through a variety of roles for the last27 years. Mrs. Greer served as a language arts teacher/gifted education teacherat the middle school and high school levels for 9 years. Following theseexperiences she was a high school vice principal over curriculum and instructionfor 10 years. Mrs. Greer left this position to become a Highly Skilled Educatorwith the Kentucky Department of Education to serve low performing schools.After one year, she was named an Educational Recovery Leader and hascoordinated school and district turnaround work since. Currently, she iscontinuting this work as the Educational Recovery Director for the West Regionand is in her third year as a certified National Institute for School Leadershipfacilitator. Mrs. Greer has served on review teams with AdvancEd and theKentucky Department of Education for the last eight years.

Mrs. Rhonda Back Rhonda Back is an Elementary Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Directorfor Bath County Schools. Experience in education has ranged from classroomteacher to School and District Administrator working with adults and studentsfrom Pre-school to College level in the past 30+ years. She loves working withand coaching teachers to become their best for their students. She is currentlyinvolved with school improvement and moving schools to proficient anddistinguished ratings.

Mrs. Patricia Bertke Patricia Bertke has taught eleven years in Western Kentucky University's teacherpreparation program. She maintains partnerships with area public schools forfield based programs. Her experience includes teaching student diversityconcepts and strategies/materials/methods for teaching elementary. She hasmanaged the student teacher seminar for all disciplines k-12. Mrs. Bertke vestedfive full time years teaching in public schools (all subjects including music, art,physical education, Spanish), and two part time years in private school (music,fourth grade all subjects, seventh and eighth grade social studies). Shecontinues to prepare and deliver presentations for differentiated instruction,English language learners, and co-teaching strategies. Patricia Bertke servedthree years with Kentucky Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment (KYASCD) as secretary and presenter. She also serves as anEnglish Language Learner observer/consultation. Mrs. Bertke has earned aBachelor's and Master's in Elementary education, English Language Learnerendorsement, and Rank I supervisor in curriculum (level 1 and 2).














Member Brief Biography

Mr. Zachary Dean Hibbs Mr. Zachary Hibbs currently serves as an Education Recovery Specialist for theKentucky Department of Education. He has teaching experience at theelementary and high school levels. Mr. Hibbs' experience includes working inelementary as a general and special educator as well as at the high school levelspecializing in Mathematics and special education. He has extensive experiencein classroom and building level analysis and problem solving, identifying strengthand weakness in curriculum, recommending solutions, and providingindividualized professional learning experiences for teachers and administrators.Zach holds a Bachelor of Elementary Education, a Masters degree in SpecialEducation.

Tony Watts Tony Watts entered the education field in 2000 after working for 7 years in theRestaurant business. Tony earned his teaching certificate and masters degreethrough the MAT program at Northern Kentucky University. Tony continued hiseducation and earned a masters in leadership, supervisor of instructioncertification, and superintendent certification. Tony has worked in diversedistricts during his tenure. He was an English teacher and Dean of Discipline atHolmes Middle School. He was an assistant principal at Conner High Schooland became the principal at Newport High School. Tony led Newport HighSchool out of PLA status. Tony is currently an Educational Recovery Leader atDayton High School.














About AdvancEDAdvancED is the world leader in providing improvement and accreditation services to education providers of all

types in their pursuit of excellence in serving students. AdvancED serves as a trusted partner to more than

32,000 public and private schools and school systems – enrolling more than 20 million students - across the

United States and 70 countries.

In 2006, the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA CASI),

the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (SACS

CASI), both founded in 1895, and the National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE) came together to form

AdvancED: one strong, unified organization dedicated to education quality. In 2011, the Northwest

Accreditation Commission (NWAC) that was founded in 1917 became part of AdvancED.

Today, NCA CASI, NWAC and SACS CASI serve as accreditation divisions of AdvancED. The Accreditation

Divisions of AdvancED share research-based quality standards that cross school system, state, regional,

national, and international boundaries. Accompanying these standards is a unified and consistent process

designed to engage educational institutions in continuous improvement.














-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

ReferencesAlwin, L. (2002). The will and the way of data use. School Administrator, 59(11), 11.

Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voxx, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S.,

Nuebrand, M., & Tsai, Y. (2010). Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the

classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (2012). Shared purpose: the golden thread?

London: CIPD.

Colbert, J., Brown, R., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the impacts of teacher-driven

professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 134-154.

Conley, D.T. (2007). Redefining college readiness (Vol. 3). Eugene, OR: Educational Policy

Improvement Center.

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school

systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on

Educational Governance, USC.

Dembosky, J., Pane, J., Barney, H., & Christina, R. (2005). Data driven decision making in

Southwestern Pennsylvania school districts. Working paper. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Ding, C. & Sherman, H. (2006). Teaching effectiveness and student achievement: Examining the

relationship. Educational Research Quarterly, 29 (4), 40-51.

Doyle, D. P. (2003). Data-driven decision making: Is it the mantra of the month or does it have staying

power? T.H.E. Journal, 30(10), 19-21.

Feuerstein, A., & Opfer, V. D. (1998). School board chairmen and school superintendents: An analysis

of perceptions concerning special interest groups and educational governance. Journal of School

Leadership, 8, 373-398.

Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 42 (62), 61-89.

Greene, K. (1992). Models of school-board policy-making. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28

(2), 220-236.

Horng, E., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal time-use and school effectiveness. American

Journal of Education 116, (4) 492-523.

Lafee, S. (2002). Data-driven districts. School Administrator, 59(11), 6-7, 9-10, 12, 14-15.

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The Nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-

analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48 (387). 388-423.

Marks, H., Louis, K.S., & Printy, S. (2002). The capacity for organizational learning: Implications for

pedagogy and student achievement. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Organizational learning and school

improvement (p. 239-266). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

McIntire, T. (2002). The administrator's guide to data-driven decision making. Technology and

Learning, 22(11), 18-33.

Pan, D., Rudo, Z., Schneider, C., & Smith-Hansen, L. (2003). Examination of resource allocation in

education: connecting spending to student performance. Austin, TX: SEDL.














1.

2.

3.

4.

AttachmentsThe following attachments have been included in this report.

Diagnostic Review Team Schedule- Final

Student Performance Team Worksheet- Final

Stakeholder Survey Plus/Delta- Final

Leadership Assessment Addendum- Final
















Diagnostic Review Schedule (Doss High School)

Tuesday – November 29, 2016

Time Event Where Who 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Combined Interview with the Jefferson County Public Schools Director

of Priority Schools Office and Chief Academic Officer Hotel Conference Room

Lead Evaluator and Co-Lead Evaluator

4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Orientation and Planning Sessions

Hotel Conference Room

Diagnostic Review Team Members

4:30 p.m. – 5:15 p.m. Principal’s Overview Presentation Hotel Conference Room


5:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. Evening Work Session #1

Review Initial Indicator Ratings

Review Team Schedule and Individual Team Member Responsibilities

Review Classroom Observation Procedures, Overview of eleot® and Interview Schedule

Review and discuss Performance data, Stakeholder Survey data, Self-Assessment, Executive Summary, other Diagnostics in ASSIST, documents and artifacts provided by the institution

Prepare Questions for Principal & Stakeholder Interviews

Review Wednesday’s schedule, and discuss review logistics



Wednesday – November 30, 2016

Time Event Where Who Breakfast Hotel Team

Members

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Doss High School School office Diagnostic Review Team Members

7:35 a.m. – 8:15 a.m. Team Sets Up In Workroom Team Workroom


8:15 a.m. – 11:40 a.m.

Classroom Observations, Stakeholder Interviews, Review of Artifacts and Documentation

Team Workroom, Classrooms, Conference Room


11:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.

Lunch and Team Meeting

Team Workroom


12:20 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.

Classroom Observations, Stakeholder Interviews, Review of Artifacts and Documentation

Team Workroom, Classrooms, Conference Room


4:00 p.m. Team Returns to Hotel Diagnostic Review Team Members


Review eleot® observations and results

Reflect on data, observations, and interviews

Review individual second ratings for all indicators

Discuss potential Powerful Practices and Improvement Priorities,

Hotel conference room


and data points to support each one

Team Members draft Improvement Priorities that are then shared with the Team. Team Members and Lead Evaluator provide feedback.

Prepare for Day 2

Thursday – December 1, 2016

Time Event Where Who Breakfast Hotel Diagnostic

Review Team Members

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Doss High School School/Team Workroom


8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Continue interviews and artifact review, conduct classroom observations and common area observations

Classroom, Team Workroom


11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

Lunch – Team Debrief Team Workroom


12:30 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Continue interviews and artifact review, conduct classroom observations and common area observations including an interview with the Area Superintendent

Classroom, Team Workroom


4:00 p.m. – 515 p.m. Team returns to hotel and has dinner on own


Reflections & Review findings from the day Review final eleot® Learning Environment Results

Team Members determine individual final ratings for all standards and indicators

Review Documents and Artifacts

Finalize Improvement Priorities (indicators rated at 1 or 2)

Write evidence for Learning Environment narrative

Write evidence for Improvement Priorities



Friday – December 2, 2016 Time Event Where Who

Breakfast Hotel Team Members

7:45 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Final Team Work Session Team Members review all components of the Diagnostic Review Team’s findings including:

Final ratings for standards and indicators

Coherency and accuracy of the Improvement Priorities

Detailed evidence for all of the findings

Write, review, and edit eleot summary statements and narrative by learning environment

Complete written report

Hotel Diagnostic Review Team Members

12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Kentucky Department of Education Leadership Determination Session Hotel Diagnostic Review Team Members & Kentucky Department of Education

1:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Finalize Diagnostic Review Report and complete expense report Hotel Diagnostic Review Team

Student Performance Team Worksheet School Name: Doss High School Annual Measurable Objective (AMO)

Year Baseline (Prior Year Learners Total Score)

AMO Goal Learners Total Score

Met AMO Goal

Met Participation

Rate Goal

Met Graduation Rate Goal

2015-2016 46.3 47.3 56.0 Yes Yes No

Year Prior Year

Overall Total Score

AMO Goal Overall Total Score

Met AMO Goal

Met Participation

Rate Goal

Met Graduation Rate Goal

2014-2015 61.8 62.8 57.9 No Yes No

Plus

- Doss High School met AMO for the 2015-16 school year. - Doss High School met the Participation Rate Goal for the 2015-16 school year.

Delta

- Doss High School did not meet the Graduation Rate Goal for the 2015-16 school year.

Percentages of Students Scoring at Proficient/Distinguished (P/D) Levels on the K-PREP End-of-Course Assessments at the School and in the State (2014-2015, 2015-2016)

Content Area

%P/D School (14-15)

%P/D State (14-15) %P/D School (15-16)

%P/D State (15-16)

English II 21.2 56.8 34.0 56.5

Algebra II 11.9 38.2 32.7 42.3

Biology 15.4 39.7 10.9 37.6

U.S. History

27.8 56.9 37.3 59.2

Writing 23.2 50.0 26.2 43.5

Language Mech.

16.0 51.6 14.2 54.4

Plus – Doss High School had gains in the areas of English II, US History, and Writing at the

Proficient/Distinguished levels on the K-PREP End-of-Course Assessments for the 2015-16 school year.

– Doss High School had a significant gain in the area of Algebra II at the Proficient/Distinguished levels on the K-PREP End-of-Course Assessments for the 2015-16 school year (20.8 points).

Delta

– Doss High School had a decrease in the area of Language Mechanics at the Proficient/Distinguished levels on the K-PREP End-of-Course Assessments for the 2015-16 school year.

– Doss High School had a significant decrease in the area of Biology at the Proficient/Distinguished levels on the K-PREP End-of-Course Assessments for the 2015-16 school year. With a drop of 4.5 percentage points, only 10.9 percent of tested students were at the Proficient/Distinguished level.

– Doss High School did not meet the state’s score at the Proficient/Distinguished levels on the K-PREP End-of-Course Assessments in any area for the 2015-16 school year.

Percentages of Students Meeting Benchmarks on ACT, Grade 11, at the School and in the State (2014-2015, 2015-2016) Content Area Percentage School

(14-15) Percentage State

(14-15) Percentage School

(15-16) Percentage State

(15-16)

English 21.2 55.3 14.6 54.3

Math 11.0 38.1 11.7 39.7

Reading 20.3 47.4 15.9 49.2

Plus

- Doss High School made a gain in the percentage of students meeting benchmark on the ACT in the area of Math for the 2015-16 school year (+0.7).

Delta

- Doss High School had a decrease in the percentage of students meeting benchmarks on the ACT in the areas of English (-6.6) and Reading (-4.4).

School Achievement of Proficiency and Gap Delivery Targets (2015-2016) Tested Area Proficiency

Delivery Target for % P/D

Actual Score Met Target (Yes or No)

Gap Delivery

Target for % P/D

Actual Score

Met Target (Yes or

No)

Combined Reading & Math

40.8 33.6 No 38.7 32.4 No

Reading 42.6 33.5 No 39.9 32.3 No

Math 39.0 33.6 No 37.5 32.4 No

Science 33.9 11.1 No 31.8 9.7 No

Social Studies 41.8 37.4 No 39.4 35.7 No

Writing 38.6 26.6 No 37.0 26.5 No

Plus

– Doss High School was closest to reaching their proficiency delivery target in the area of Social Studies. They were only 4.4 percentage points from their goal of 41.8.

– Doss High School was closest to reaching their gap delivery target in the area of Social Studies. They were only 3.7 percentage points from their goal of 39.4.

Delta

– Doss High School did not meet any of the proficiency delivery targets for the 2015-16 school year.

– Doss High School did not meet any of the gap delivery targets for the 2015-16 school year.

School Achievement of College and Career Readiness (CCR) and Graduation Rate Delivery Targets (2015-2016) Delivery Target Type Delivery Target

(School) Actual Score

(School) Actual Score

(State) Met Target (Yes or No)

College and Career Readiness

40.2 40.4 68.5 Yes

Graduation Rate (for 4-year adjusted cohort)

88.9 85.4 88.6 No

Plus – Doss High School met their College and Career Readiness Delivery Target for the 2015-

16 school year. Delta

– Doss High School did not meet the Graduation Rate Delivery Target for the 2015-16 school year.

Program Reviews 2015-2016 Program Area Curriculum

and Instruction

(3 pts possible)

Formative & Summative Assessment

(3 pts possible)

Professional Development and Support

Services (3 pts

possible)

Administrative/ Leadership

Support and Monitoring

(3 pts possible)

Total Points

(12 points possible)

Classification

Arts and Humanities

2.12 2.14 2.13 2.40 8.8 Proficient

Practical Living

1.70 2.00 1.88 2.08 7.7 Needs Improvement

Writing 2.00 1.88 2.38 2.14 8.4 Proficient

World Language and Global Competency*

1.85 2.00 2.25 2.23 8.3 Proficient

The 2014-15 World Language Program Reviews scores for High Schools will be included with other program reviews to generate the comparable 2014-15 program review baseline score needed for 2015-16 accountability reporting. World Language Program Reviews for Elementary and Middle Schools are scheduled to be reported in 2015-16 and included in accountability in 2016-17. Plus

– Doss High School was classified as Proficient on Program Reviews in Arts & Humanities. – Doss High School was classified as Proficient on Program Review in Writing. – Doss High School was classified as Proficient on Program Review in World Language &

Global Competency. Delta

– Doss High School was classified as Needs Improvement on Program Review in Practical Living.

Stakeholder Feedback Plus/Delta

The Survey Plus/Delta is the Team’s brief analysis all stakeholder survey data which is intended to

highlight areas of strength (+) that were identified through the survey process as well as leverage points

for improvement (∆). Only the most pertinent items supporting the findings of the Diagnostic Review are

listed. This is not an exhaustive listing of items from all stakeholder feedback surveys.

Teaching and Learning Impact (Standards 3 and 5)

+ Plus: (minimum of 90 percent agreed/strongly agreed)

1. 91 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Their child knows the

expectations for learning in all classes.”

2. 99 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “The school’s purpose statement is

based on shared values and beliefs that guide decision-making.”

3. 99 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “The school’s leaders regularly

evaluate staff members on criteria designed to improve teaching and learning.”

4. 99 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “The school’s leaders expect staff

members to hold all students to high academic standards.”

∆ Delta: (less than 70 percent agreed/strongly agreed)

1. 68 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of their child’s teachers keep

them informed regularly of how their child is being graded.”

2. 69 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “A formal structure exists so that

each student is well known by at least one adult advocate in the school who supports that student’s

educational experience.”

3. 67 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “The teachers provide students with

specific and timely feedback about their learning.”

4. 65 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Teachers use a variety of

technologies as instructional resources.”

5. 63 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “School personnel regularly engage

families in their children’s learning progress.”

6. 51 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Teachers keep their family

informed of their academic progress.”

7. 50 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “School offers opportunities for

their family to become involved in school activities and their learning.”

8. 47 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “The school shares information

about school success with my family and community members.”

9. 47 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Teachers change their teaching

to meet my learning needs.”

Leadership Capacity

(Standards 1 and 2)



clearly focused on student success.”

2. 100 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “The school has a continuous

improvement process based on data, goals, actions, and measures of growth.”


based on shared values and belief that guide decision-making.”

4. 99 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “School leaders expect staff

members to hold all students to high academic standards.”


1. 68 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Teachers keep me informed

regularly of how my child is being graded.”

2. 63 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All school personnel regularly

engage families in their children’s learning progress.”

3. 47 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Teachers change their teaching

to meet my learning needs.”

4. 47 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “School shares information

about school success with my family and community members.”

5. 45 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Feel school considers students’

opinions when planning ways to improve the school.”

Resource Utilization

(Standard 4)


1. 99 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school provides protected

instructional time.”

2. 96 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school maintains facilities that

contribute to a safe environment.”

3. 95 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school provides qualified staff

members to support student learning.”


1. 63 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “A variety of resources are

available to help me succeed (e.g. teaching staff, technology, media center).”

2. 59 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Computers are up-to-date and

used by teachers to help me learn.”

3. 37 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “The building and grounds are

safe, clean, and provide a healthy place for learning.”

Kentucky Department of Education Doss High School Diagnostic Review Report

2016-17 LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT/DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW ADDENDUM

The purpose of this addendum is to provide feedback on progress made in addressing

identified Improvement Priorities from the 2014-2015 Diagnostic Review or Progress

Monitoring Visit for Doss High School.

Improvement Priority 1

Indicator 3.4

2014-15 Team Rating

2016-17 School/District

Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

School leaders monitor and support the improvement of instructional practices of teachers to ensure student success.

1.43 3 2.83

3.4 Improvement Priority (2014-15) Implement a systematic process to supervise, monitor, and provide timely feedback to teachers focused on the improvement of classroom instructional practices. The process should assist teachers in modifying their instructional practices to ensure student success by providing prompt and targeted feedback using data from the Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (TPGES), regular classroom walkthroughs, and the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP) process.

School Self- Rating

Team Rating

This Improvement Priority has been addressed in an exemplary manner. This Improvement Priority has been addressed satisfactorily. x x This Improvement Priority has been partially addressed. There is little or no evidence that this Improvement Priority has been addressed.

School Evidence:

Learning Walks/feedback sessions

Embedded PD

TPGES: PD, observations, professional growth plans, and student growth goals.


Academy Structure

Project-based learning training

School Retreat- Vision, Mission planning

Faculty meetings

Principal weekly instructional emails

Academy meetings

School Supporting Rationale: Vision: Be Passionate. Be Engaged. Be the Best Version of Yourself. Mission: To inspire, create, and foster authentic learning opportunities that maximize student engagement. Core Beliefs:

1. Professional Career Academies, with cross-curricular teams, are the foundation for every student’s multi-year course of study and post-secondary success.

2. Project-based Learning, as our core instructional belief, will inspire a passion for learning and connect the school to the greater community.

3. Instruction will occur every minute, every period, every day. 4. Instruction, assessment, and grading in every classroom is based on student

mastery of standards. 5. The central focus of instructional support and professional development will

be increased student engagement. 6. Consistent and extensive support will ensure a culture of high expectations

for behavior, academic achievement, professionalism, and work-ethic. After a year of both positive changes and multiple analyses of the school policies, behavior initiatives and instructional programs, Doss High School was redesigned in the 2016-2017 school year. The school implemented a wall-to-wall career academy model to provide students with choice and relevance in their education. Each academy (Freshman, Finance, Business or Tech/Design) is run by an academy principal and is located in a specific wing of the building. Core content and career and technical education teachers are assigned and housed within a particular academy. The focus within each academy, and school wide, is student engagement through standards based teaching and learning, as well as project based learning strategies. The academy principals are housed within the academies and work directly with students and teachers on a daily basis. Academy meetings are held every other week to discuss academy relevant information, as well as instructional strategies and best practices. In order to support the instructional program, the leadership team conducts weekly learning walks using the E-Walk system to monitor student engagement in classrooms. During a learning walk, the team is looking for the following academic components: essential standard, learning target, formative assessments, and a driving question where applicable. They are also looking for the following behaviors from students: electronics put away, hoods-off, awake/alert, and general on-task behaviors. Feedback sessions are provided formally at the end of a four-week cycle, but also occur at any


time as needed. In the feedback sessions, the leadership team member discusses student engagement in the classroom by both highlighting strengths of the lesson and areas for growth. As needed, a behavioral coach or resource teacher may be recommended to provide additional supports. Administrators also conduct formal observations and evaluations using the PGES evaluation model for all teachers and the KTIP process for non-tenured teacher interns. Depending on the teacher’s tenure, teachers will receive either one mini-observation, or up to three observations including a full and two minis from their administrator. Resource teachers provide instructional support, primarily in the areas of reading, writing, and math. Resource teachers attend PLCs and provide strategic professional development throughout the year based on teacher needs. Professional development for Project Based Learning, writing, content literacy, math strategies, independent reading, and ECE have all been offered and well attended. Professional development, faculty meetings, and academy meetings all focus on the improvement of student engagement and the success of PBL. In the summer of 2016, a group of teachers and administrators were introduced to PBL through the Buck Institute. Then in the school retreat, the same group presented to the faculty, training all staff on Gold Standard PBL. This work has been carried out and is followed up with continual support through academy principals and resource teachers.

Team Evidence: *Curriculum maps *Meeting agendas/minutes *Teacher recognitions *PLC documentation *30-60-90 Day Plans *School level Core Beliefs

Team Supporting Rationale:

At the principal’s initiative, in collaboration with the Instructional Leadership Team and teachers, the school has engaged in numerous embedded professional learning sessions focused on student engagement practices and project based learning opportunities. Evidence of this was prominent throughout the Principal’s presentation and the 30-60-90 Day Plan (e.g., book study—“Setting the Standard for PBL,” Academy meetings that support project based learning initiatives and rubric development) and in artifacts on the school’s Share Point (e.g., Principal weekly emails, Academy Meeting agendas and minutes, learning walk feedback).

Stakeholder interviews, artifacts, survey data and meeting observations suggest that a true PLC process does exist with teachers sharing and analyzing student data and planning for standards recovery and next lessons.

The Principal-led core beliefs deal directly with academic culture and climate



Indicator 3.2

2014-15 Team Rating


Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

Curriculum, instruction, and assessment are monitored and adjusted systematically in response to data from multiple assessments of student learning and an examination of professional practice.

1.14 2 2.17

3.2 Improvement Priority (2014-15)

Implement, monitor, and evaluate a systematic process that requires teachers to use data from multiple assessments of student learning to adjust their instructional practices to meet the learning needs of all students.

School Self- Rating

Team Rating

This Improvement Priority has been addressed in an exemplary manner. This Improvement Priority has been addressed satisfactorily. This Improvement Priority has been partially addressed. x x There is little or no evidence that this Improvement Priority has been addressed.

around student success and instructional beliefs. These are displayed in every classroom and repeated on artifacts, agendas, and in 30-60-90 Day Plans.

Interviews and evidence reveal that teachers do receive regular feedback on their instruction during sessions which are part of a walkthrough protocol that includes a four event cycle followed by feedback sessions with student engagement as a focus. Artifacts also include protocols for peer observation sessions.

Classroom observations reveal that the High Expectations Learning Environment received an overall rating of 2.58 on a 4 point scale. The degree to which students were, “engaged in rigorous coursework, discussion, and/or tasks,” was either evident or very evident in 63 percent of classrooms suggesting that professional learning around student engagement has transferred to many classrooms.

School Evidence:

Mastery Connect

Formative/summative assessments

PLC minutes

Quarterly proficiency data sheets


Quarterly Report

Project-based learning

Embedded PD for application periods

Writing committee for on-demand writing







for behavior, academic achievement, professionalism, and work-ethic. Standards-based teaching and learning is the pillar of instruction for Doss High School. We are committed to standards based grading where grades in each class are based on mastery of essential standards. All extended school opportunities will focus on standards and learning targets not met by students in the classroom setting based on common formative assessments. Standards will be dissected into learning targets for the students within each class. Teachers collaborate in PLCs to establish essential standards, which are broken down into daily learning targets and assessed using common formative assessments. These are all communicated and posted using instructional posters and/or through a teacher’s preferred medium (i.e. Power Point, Prezi, etc.). Student grades in each class will reflect success within each essential standard and the learning targets that support those standards. Teachers will have evidence to support a student's grade based on mastery of essential standards. Students will be given opportunities to enrich or remediate standards as they work towards mastery. To support the school goal of maximizing student engagement through authentic learning opportunities, all teachers implemented Gold Standard Project Based Learning (PBL) practices for the 2016-2017 school year. Through the vehicle of PBL, Doss has been able to provide a more meaningful context to the Standards Based Teaching and Learning (SBTL) systems and structures which were implemented in 2015-2016. These systems and structures include: implementing A+ Time as an after school standards recovery opportunity twice a week, creating a more focused plan for professional learning community (PLC) work, providing embedded professional development


opportunities for staff to develop PBL lessons and driving questions, and increasing the resources and support systems available to assist with the implementation of PBL. Using the data from state accountability achievement exams, college and career ready rates, attendance and graduation rates, Doss High School identified next steps, implemented processes, and monitored progress to improve student achievement. PLC captains regularly evaluate student data from formative and summative assessments through Mastery Connect, and district assessments. PLCs use the data to develop action plans to modify instructional practices and develop extended learning opportunities for students performing below proficiency benchmarks. The principal, academy principals, and instructional support staff consistently monitor curriculum alignment for like content PLCs through PLC minutes, classroom visits, quarterly proficiency meetings and PBL feedback sessions. End Of Course (EOC) teachers identify students performing below proficiency and develop interventions to help students attain course key standards. Administration tracks academic and nonacademic data through weekly staff meetings, monthly ILT meetings, weekly learning walks and the SLC Dashboard.

Team Evidence: *Curriculum maps *Unit/lesson plans *Common Assessments *Standards based report cards *Survey results

Student performance data, as detailed in the attachments to this report, do suggest that school leadership has begun to develop and implement practices and policies that ensure curriculum implementation leading to higher levels of student success. District curriculum documents are utilized at the school level with school-based employees collaborating to identify power/key standards and to chunk the learnings to align with project based learning practices. Submitted school documents include walkthrough schedules and feedback, and PLC agendas, meeting minutes and lesson plans illustrate the monitoring of curriculum and instruction for alignment to the school’s vision and core beliefs. However, there is limited evidence of a systematic, continuous improvement process that ensures vertical and horizontal alignment of curriculum and its adjustment with the schools purpose in curriculum, instruction and assessment building-wide. Interim data (e.g., common formative assessments, district Diagnostic for some) and summative student performance data (e.g., Proficiency) is examined through the professional learning community and the Academy meetings. However, the extent to which data from other multiple assessments is examined for the purpose of monitoring curriculum and instruction is not clear based on interviews and review of documents. Thus, a clearly defined and comprehensive assessment system that allows for



Indicator 3.6

2014-15 Team Rating


Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

Teachers implement the school's instructional process in support of student learning.

1.29 2 2.00

3.6 Improvement Priority (2014-15) Implement, monitor, and evaluate the school’s instructional process (i.e., The Doss Way) so that it: 1) clearly informs students of learning expectations and standards of performance 2) provides exemplars that inform students of expectations for performance 3) uses multiple measures, including formative assessments, to inform the ongoing modification of instruction and provide data for curriculum revisions 4) provides students with specific and immediate feedback about their learning.

School Self- Rating

Team Rating


diagnosis of individual student need and differentiation is not clearly evident.

School Evidence:

Vision

Mission

Core Beliefs

Learning walks/feedback sessions

Project-based learning training

Modified Schedule

Embedded PD

Student Academy meetings

School Supporting Rationale: The former administration used “The Doss Way” as the school-wide instructional program; however, the current administration no longer uses “The Doss Way” due to feedback from stakeholders. Instruction at Doss is now focused on increasing student engagement through the use of project based learning and standards based teaching.


This is highlighted in our vision: Be Passionate. Be Engaged. Be the Best Version of Yourself. This is highlighted in our mission: To inspire, create, and foster authentic learning opportunities that maximize student engagement. This is also highlighted in our core beliefs:






for behavior, academic achievement, professionalism, and work-ethic. Standards-based teaching and learning is the pillar of instruction for Doss High School. We are committed to standards based grading where grades in each class are based on mastery of essential standards. All extended school opportunities will focus on standards and learning targets not met by students in the classroom setting based on common formative assessments. Standards will be dissected into learning targets for the students within each class. Teachers will collaborate in PLCs for common courses to establish standards and daily learning targets which will be made available to students and parents. Student grades in each class will reflect success within each essential standard and the learning targets that support those standards. Teachers will have evidence to support a student's grade based on mastery of essential standards. Students will be given opportunities to enrich or remediate standards as they work towards mastery. To support the instructional program at Doss, the entire school shifted to a singular focus of student engagement. This work was supported through the Project Based Learning Training from the Buck Institute, but also through the academy design. Each teacher and student is aligned to an academy in the building where the Academy Principal and counselor work closely with the teachers and students to ensure they are successful. Through the use of bi-weekly academy meetings, student academy meetings, teacher learning walks, student pathway conferences, and feedback sessions, the teachers and students are all on the same page about expectations and levels of support. The modified schedule further supports the instructional program by providing application days for students to truly engage in learning and make connections to relevant material. We recognize this shift requires thoughtful and strategic planning, which is one of the reasons our embedded professional development has focused on application days and effective lesson planning. The administration meets with the instructional leadership team and a group of students for the principal’s advisory council to further stay informed on school needs for training and PD. The two-way communication with stakeholders is a vital component in the success of the


instructional program. Project Based Learning strategies have been used to increase engagement, but the use of standards based teaching and learning still drives the educational process of Doss students. Teachers use multiple formative assessments to gauge student learning and to provide feedback in a timely manner, if not immediate. For example: Student on-demand live scoring is a way for students to practice writing and argument skills while receiving immediate feedback from trained faculty members. This process is also utilized in other content areas as PBL focuses on the process and product of learning. Bell to bell instruction is also ingrained in the climate and culture of Doss High School. The bell schedule has been rethought and redesigned to allow for increased student engagement and authentic learning opportunities. Monday and Tuesday are foundational days and 48 minutes long, where teachers deliver information to the students to prepare them for the application days. The application days are on Wednesday and Thursday and are a modified block schedule. Students will only attend four classes each day for 100 minutes. This allows more time for teachers to develop hands on activities that engages students in key knowledge and 21st century skills. The application days are a great time to incorporate PBL components into the lesson/activity. On Friday, we return to 48 minutes and students are assessed on their mastery of the essential standard(s) from the week. A+ time (Application Plus Time) is also used to support the instructional program at Doss. On Wednesdays and Thursdays, students have the opportunity to recover standards with teachers and to continue applying skills they need to master. Bus transportation and an additional meal is provided to students on these days.

Team Evidence: **This improvement priority has been included in the current diagnostic report. See Improvement Priority 3.6.



Indicator 3.3

2014-15 Team Rating


Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

Teachers engage students in their learning through instructional strategies that ensure achievement of learning expectations.

1.00 2 2.17

3.3 Improvement Priority (2014-15) Increase active student engagement in learning by reviewing, revising, and implementing with fidelity an instructional process (i.e., The Doss Way Instructional Cycle) that includes: 1) clearly stated expectations for student performance such as daily learning targets posted and referenced during class, 2) more consistent use of student-centered instructional strategies, i.e., opportunities for student collaboration, self-reflection, and development of critical thinking skills, 3) integration of literacy, writing and numeracy, 4) immediate and focused teacher feedback; 5) use of differentiated and individualized student learning opportunities, and 6) teacher use of formative assessment data to plan future class lessons. Monitor student engagement through systematic observation and focused teacher feedback, and evaluate effectiveness through routine student progress monitoring to ensure student achievement of learning expectations.

School Self- Rating

Team Rating

This Improvement Priority has been addressed in an exemplary manner. This Improvement Priority has been addressed satisfactorily. x x This Improvement Priority has been partially addressed. There is little or no evidence that this Improvement Priority has been addressed.

Team Supporting Rationale: **This improvement priority has been included in the current diagnostic report. See Improvement Priority 3.6.

School Evidence:

Modified Schedule

Project-Based Learning



Embedded PD

PLC minutes

Mastery Connect

A+ time







for behavior, academic achievement, professionalism, and work-ethic. In the 2015-2016 school year, the instructional team and administration created instructional posters to emphasize our standards based teaching and learning instructional focus: Learning targets aligned to essential standards and assessed using formative assessments. Project Based Learning training has highlighted the need for student centered learning. The instructional team and administration introduced a modified schedule to increase the use of project based learning strategies on application days. We believe that students need time on these days to practice deeper learning. We have provided teachers will additional professional development support and plan to continue supporting planning for application days and PBL. Literacy, writing and numeracy are key foci for the instructional program. We have added a literacy resource teacher and math resource teacher in the past year. These teachers provided strategic embedded instruction, attend PLC meetings, and even work with students for interventions. We have added a writing committee this year and presented a writing plan to the staff during the first Gold Day professional development sessions. On demand writing instruction is now happening in every content area and teachers are provided with individualized support depending on their content needs. The writing committee even consists of math, English, science, social studies, art and ESL teachers in an effort to truly make this a whole-school program.


PBL and standards based teaching have allowed teachers the opportunities to provide direct feedback to students and then to differentiate as needed. The focus on professional development continues to focus on ways to help teachers plan more effectively and increase student engagement. Application Plus (A+) time is another opportunity for teachers to provide additional feedback and cater learning to the needs of the students as this occurs after school and transportation is provided. The PLC data collection form along with Mastery Connect emphasizes the use of formative assessment to inform teaching and learning. Each teacher utilizes data on a weekly basis and discusses this data within their PLCs. Engagement is a key focus on the instructional program, as previously stated. Administrator learning walks are all focused on student engagement and teachers receive feedback on the engagement of their lessons.

Team Evidence: *Master schedule *Lesson plans *Learning targets *Common formative assessments *Academy meeting agendas/minutes *Project based learning documents

Team Supporting Rationale: A focus on student engagement, led by the principal and instructional leadership team, is apparent based on data from walkthroughs and progress with student data. Observation data, as detailed in the Teaching and Learning Impact section of this report, indicated that instances of students being “actively engaged in the learning activities” were evident/very evident in 69 percent of the classrooms observed. This suggests that creation and adherence to the school’s vision/mission/core beliefs (e.g., #5), professional development sessions and focused walkthrough criteria around student engagement has positively impacted student growth and achievement. Learning targets that focus student engagement are posted and discussed with students and are correlated with standards for mastery. At the principal’s direction, the school has been restructured to concentrate on career academies to promote thinking skills and life skills through authentic learning activities and to increase numbers of students who are college and career ready. Currently, observation data, as detailed in the report, indicated that instances of students “making connections from content to real life experiences” were evident/very evident in 54 percent of classrooms observed suggesting that the school’s data does not reflect a complete transference of this work to student achievement or to all classrooms.



Indicator 3.1

2014-15 Team Rating


Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

The school's curriculum provides equitable and challenging learning experiences that ensure all students have sufficient opportunities to develop learning, thinking, and life skills that lead to success at the next level.

1.29

2 2.00

3.1 Improvement Priority (2014-15) Review, revise and implement a curriculum that: 1) ensures rigorous and academically challenging learning expectations and experiences in all courses and classes, 2) prepares all students for success at the next level, and 3) provides opportunities for individualized instruction based on student need. The Doss Way Instruction Cycle refers to this as “effective, planned, intentional and rigorous standards based instruction.”

School Self- Rating

Team Rating


School Evidence:

Standards sheet for each content area


Student Engagement 30-60-90 day plan

Standards-based Teaching and Learning 30-60-90 day plan

Modified schedule

Project-based Learning

School Supporting Rationale: The former administration used “The Doss Way” as the school-wide instructional program; however, the current administration no longer uses “The Doss Way” due to feedback from stakeholders The administration adopted a new vision, mission, and core beliefs that is the instructional core of Doss High School. Vision: Be Passionate, Be Engaged, Be the Best Version of Yourself Mission: To inspire, create, and foster authentic learning opportunities that maximize


student engagement. Core Beliefs: 1. Professional Career Academies, with cross-curricular teams, are the foundation for every student's multi-year course of study and postsecondary success. 2. Project-based Learning, as our core instructional belief, will inspire a passion for learning and connect the school to the greater community. 3. Instruction will occur every minute, every period, every day. 4. Instruction, assessment, and grading in every classroom is based on student mastery of standards. 5. The central focus of instructional support and professional development will be increased student engagement. 6. Consistent and extensive support will ensure a culture of high expectations for behavior, academic achievement, professionalism, and work-ethic. All course curriculum is designed to prepare students for success through high levels of student engagement. The specific instructional focus is standards- based teaching and learning (SBTL), while using project based learning (PBL) strategies. Standards-based teaching and learning is the pillar of instruction for Doss High School. We are committed to standards based grading where grades in each class are based on mastery of essential standards. All extended school opportunities will focus on standards and learning targets not met by students in the classroom setting based on common formative assessments. Standards will be dissected into learning targets for the students within each class. Teachers will collaborate in PLCs for common courses to establish standards and daily learning targets which will be made available to students and parents. Student grades in each class will reflect success within each essential standard and the learning targets that support those standards. Teachers will have evidence to support a student's grade based on mastery of essential standards. Students will be given opportunities to enrich or remediate standards as they work towards mastery. All teachers implemented The Buck Institute’s Gold Standard Project Based Learning practices for the 2016-2017 school year. Through the vehicle of PBL, Doss has been able to provide a more meaningful context to the Standards Based Teaching and Learning systems and structures which were implemented in 2015-2016. These systems and structures include implementing A+ Time standards recovery opportunities twice a week, creating a more focused plan for professional learning community work, providing embedded professional development opportunities for staff to develop PBL lessons and driving questions, and increasing the resources and support systems available to assist with the implementation of PBL. A+ Time is offered every Wednesday and Thursday from 2:30-4:35. Students have the opportunity to recover standards with teachers and continue working on specific skills necessary for student mastery. Teachers are able to use this additional instruction time to focus on specific interventions based on student needs. Bus transportation and an additional meal are provided to students on these days.



Indicator 3.7

2014-15 Team Rating


Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

Mentoring, coaching, and induction programs support instructional improvement consistent with the school's values and beliefs about teaching and learning.

1.29

1 1.5

3.7 Improvement Priority (2014-15) Revise, implement, and evaluate the mentoring and coaching program to support instructional improvement. The program should: 1) emphasize the school’s values and beliefs about teaching, learning, and the conditions that support learning, 2) set high performance expectations for all school personnel, and 3) include valid and reliable measures of performance.

School Self- Rating

Team Rating

This Improvement Priority has been addressed in an exemplary manner. This Improvement Priority has been addressed satisfactorily. x This Improvement Priority has been partially addressed. x There is little or no evidence that this Improvement Priority has been addressed.

Team Evidence: ** This improvement priority has been included in the current diagnostic report. See Improvement Priority 3.1.

Team Supporting Rationale: ** This improvement priority has been included in the current diagnostic report. See Improvement Priority 3.1.

School Evidence:

A+ time

Goal Clarity Coach

Math and reading Interventionist

ECE Resource Teacher

Interventionist

College Access Resource Teacher

Project-based Learning Resource teacher


Learning Walks/Feedback sessions

Staff meetings

Principal weekly emails

Instructional Leadership Team meetings

Academy Meetings

School Supporting Rationale: In the 2015-2016 school year, Doss High School started with a new administration and the charge of making Doss High School a premier educational institution. After a year of both positive changes and multiple analyses of the school policies, behavior initiatives and instructional programs, Doss High School was redesigned in the 2016-2017 school year. Through the collaboration of administration, teachers and multiple staff members, the school adopted a new vision, mission, and core beliefs that drive the culture and climate of the school as well as the entire academic program. Vision: Be Passionate, Be Engaged, Be the Best Version of Yourself Mission: To inspire, create, and foster authentic learning opportunities that maximize student engagement. Core Beliefs: 1. Professional Career Academies, with cross-curricular teams, are the foundation for every student's multi-year course of study and postsecondary success. 2. Project-based Learning, as our core instructional belief, will inspire a passion for learning and connect the school to the greater community. 3. Instruction will occur every minute, every period, every day. 4. Instruction, assessment, and grading in every classroom is based on student mastery of standards. 5. The central focus of instructional support and professional development will be increased student engagement. 6. Consistent and extensive support will ensure a culture of high expectations for behavior, academic achievement, professionalism, and work-ethic. In order to support the instructional program, the leadership team conducts weekly learning walks using the E-Walk system to monitor student engagement in classrooms. During a learning walk, the team is looking for the following academic components: essential standard, learning target, formative assessments, and a driving question where applicable. They are also looking for the following behaviors from students: electronics put away, hoods-off, awake/alert, and general on-task behaviors. Feedback sessions are provided formally at the end of a four-week cycle, but also occur at any time as needed. In the feedback sessions, the leadership team member discusses student engagement in the classroom by both highlighting strengths of the lesson and areas for growth. As needed, a behavioral coach or resource teacher may be recommended to provide additional supports. Administrators also conduct formal observations and evaluations using the PGES evaluation model for all teachers and the KTIP process for non-tenured teacher interns. Depending on the teacher’s tenure, teachers will receive either one mini-observation, or


up to three observations including a full and two minis from their administrator. Resource teachers also provide instructional support, primarily in the areas of reading, writing, and math. Resource teachers attend PLCs and provide professional development through the year depending on teacher needs. Professional development, faculty meetings, and academy meetings all focus on the improvement of student engagement and the success of Project Based Learning. In the summer of 2016, a group of teachers and administrators were introduced to PBL through the Buck Institute. Then in the school retreat, the same group presented to the faculty, training all staff on Gold Standard PBL. This work has been carried out and is followed-up with continual support through academy principals, and resource teachers. Academically, the school provides interventionists in multiple subject areas, but especially in literacy and math. Intervention systems are also in place, including A+ time, Mastery Connect, and CERT. A+ time (Application Plus Time) is also used to support the instructional program at Doss. On Wednesdays and Thursdays, students have the opportunity to recover standards with teachers and to continue applying skills they need to master. Bus transportation and an additional meal is provided to students on these days. Mastery Connect is an online standards tracking system that is used by teachers to monitor student proficiency. We are also implementing CERT to identify student needs early on as they work on ACT skills. These two programs will provide vital information in determining student progress academically and to inform teaching needs. In terms of school climate, the school has implemented clear and consistent policies in regards to behavior, and is continuing to find ways to work with struggling students. Doss core beliefs emphasize high expectations for learning to further extend the values of standards based teaching and learning. Part of having a culture of high expectations means having support for academics, as well as for social and emotional aspects. The school has developed leaders in key areas including attendance, behavior management, de-escalation strategies, achievement and Exceptional Student Education (ECE). Teachers and students have someone to turn to when they are struggling, but also have someone to praise them when they are successful. Stakeholders include administrative staff, resource teachers, community organizations, district specialists, teachers, parents, and students. We have started to see success with many of these programs, as evidence by Doss having one of the highest attendance records in the past year for any priority school for both teachers and students, consistency in behavior expectations, decreases in referrals, and an increase in positive surveys from stakeholder. Doss High School is always willing to work with community organizations, as well as the district to implement programs and strategies that are best for students. Each of the stakeholders has the student's best interest at heart and the administrative team works hard to incorporate teacher, parent and student feedback into the decisions that are made. Specifically, our PLCs, ILT, staff, faculty, and SBDM meetings continue to review, revise, and communicate our school's mission, vision, and core beliefs. We all work together to make sure our students receive the best education possible.


Team Evidence: *** This improvement priority has been included in the current diagnostic report. See Improvement Priority 3.7.

Team Supporting Rationale: *** This improvement priority has been included in the current diagnostic report. See Improvement Priority 3.7.

Date post:	11-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngocong
View:	217 times
Download:	1 times