Iroquois HS Final DR Report 2018-2019

February 11–14, 2019
Results for: Iroquois High School

Diagnostic Review Report
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4
Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4
Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 5
Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7
eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 13
Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 13
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 22
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 26
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 27
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 30
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 30
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 33
© Advance Education, Inc. 2 www.advanc-ed.org

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

District-level Administrators 1
Building-level Administrators 6
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology 18
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 38
Non-certified Staff 11
Students 66
Parents 4
Total 144

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

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

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

Learning Capacity Domain

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

Resource Capacity Domain

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Results
The eProve™ Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot) is a learner-centric classroom observation
tool that comprises 28 items organized in seven environments aligned with the AdvancED Standards. The tool
provides useful, relevant, structured, and quantifiable data on the extent to which students are engaged in
activities and demonstrate knowledge, attitudes, and dispositions that are conducive to effective learning.
Classroom observations are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes.
Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team was eleot certified and passed a certification exam that established
inter-rater reliability. Team members conducted 51 observations during the Diagnostic Review process, including
all core content learning environments. The following charts provide aggregate data across multiple observations
for each of the seven learning environments.

A. Equitable Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 1.2 88% 8% 2% 2%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 2.5 14% 39% 33% 14%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
A3 2.6 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 10% 29% 51% 10%
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 1.3 80% 12% 6% 2%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale: 1.9
B. High Expectations Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

B1 1.8 39% 43% 18% 0%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

B2 2.1 22% 49% 27% 2%
but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.4 63% 31% 6% 0%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

B4 1.8 tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., 33% 51% 16% 0%
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

B5 1.7 39% 47% 14% 0%
learning.
point scale:
1.8

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 1.8 37% 45% 14% 4%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.0 31% 39% 25% 4%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or

C3 2.3 16% 47% 27% 10%
other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.3 18% 45% 27% 10%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale: 2.1
D. Active Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other

D1 1.6 53% 35% 10% 2%
and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 1.6 51% 35% 12% 2%
experiences.
D3 1.9 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 25% 63% 12% 0%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 1.3 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 76% 16% 8% 0%
assignments.
point scale: 1.6

E. Progress Monitoring & Feedback Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 1.4 65% 27% 8% 0%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

E2 1.9 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 35% 41% 24% 0%
and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

E3 1.7 39% 51% 10% 0%
lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

E4 1.4 65% 31% 4% 0%
work is assessed.
point scale: 1.6
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Indicators Average Description Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and

F1 2.4 14% 49% 25% 12%
each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

F2 2.2 20% 51% 18% 12%
rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

F3 1.8 43% 37% 12% 8%
to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

F4 1.9 45% 29% 20% 6%
time or disruptions.
point scale: 2.1

G. Digital Learning Environment
Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate,
G1 1.3 76% 18% 2% 4%
and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

G2 1.2 82% 14% 4% 0%
solve problems, and/or create original works for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

G3 1.1 90% 8% 2% 0%
work collaboratively for learning.
point scale: 1.2
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team conducted 51 classroom observations, which provided ample opportunities for
instructional practices and learning environments to be observed across the school. Of the seven learning
environments, the Supportive Learning Environment and Well-Managed Learning Environment earned the highest
overall average ratings of a 2.1 on a four-point scale. The Digital Learning Environment had the lowest overall
average rating with a 1.2.
The classroom observation data revealed the highest-rated item was found in the Equitable Learning Environment.
Instances in which learners were “treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner” (A3) were evident/very evident in
61 percent of classrooms. The second highest-rated item was also found in the Equitable Learning Environment. In
47 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that “Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,
activities, resources, technology, and support” (A2).
The Diagnostic Review Team found several important practices absent or inconsistently implemented across all
seven learning environments. In the Equitable Learning Environment, for instance, learners who “engage in
differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities” (A1) were evident/very evident in four percent of
classrooms. Also, the Diagnostic Review Team primarily observed teacher-directed instruction with few
opportunities for student collaboration. This observation was confirmed by findings that revealed in 12 percent of
classrooms, it was evident/very evident that “Learners’ discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other and
teacher predominate” (D1).
The classroom observation data revealed low academic expectations in many classrooms and instruction that
frequently failed to engage students in rigorous and challenging learning experiences. To illustrate, it was
evident/very evident in 18 percent of classrooms that “Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1). In addition, instances of learners who “engage in
rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., analyzing,
applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4) were evident/very evident in 16 percent of classrooms. These findings
provide the school with an opportunity to increase the complexity and rigor in instructional practices, integrate

those expectations into teaching and learning, and clearly communicate those high expectations to students as a
way to improve their achievement.
Another area that emerged as a concern related to the lack of learning opportunities that students have to
demonstrate and/or practice cultural competency, especially given the high number of English as a Second
Language students and the overall diversity of the student population at Iroquois High School. It was evident/very
evident in eight percent of classrooms that “Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop
empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions, and dispositions” (A4), with data indicating that observers could not confirm this
practice occurred in 92 percent of classrooms.
Most students were unable to articulate the attributes of high-quality work. The Diagnostic Review Team observed
few students using exemplars or rubrics to guide them in reaching proficiency, which was confirmed by it being
evident/very evident in six percent of classrooms that “Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high
quality work” (B3). Moreover, students seldom received or used teacher feedback to guide their learning, as it was
evident/very evident in 24 percent of classrooms that “Learners receive/respond to feedback (from
teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or revise work” (E2). Learners who “understand
and/or are able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4) were evident/very evident in four percent of
classrooms.
Finally, student use of digital tools was identified by the Diagnostic Review Team as an area that the school could
leverage to improve motivation and student achievement. All items in the Digital Learning Environment were rated
low. For example, learners who used digital tools/technology to “conduct research, solve problems, and/or create
original works for learning” (G2) were evident/very evident in four percent of classroom, and learners who used
digital tools/technology to “communicate and work collaboratively for learning” (G3) were evident/very evident in
two percent of classrooms. Although the team observed technology in the hands of students, classroom
observation data showed few students used technology effectively.
By carefully examining data from classroom observations for all items within the seven learning environments, the
school staff and leaders can identify additional areas that can be leveraged to improve instructional capacity and
increase student learning. In addition, the Improvement Priorities outlined within this report will guide the school
in prioritizing areas of focus.

Findings
Improvement Priorities
Improvement priorities are developed to enhance the capacity of the institution to reach a higher level of
performance and reflect the areas identified by the Diagnostic Review Team to have the greatest impact on
improving student performance and organizational effectiveness.
Improvement Priority #1
Review, revise, and consistently implement and monitor the school’s behavior management system to ensure all
school personnel hold all students accountable to high behavior expectations. (Standard 1.7)
Evidence:
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, suggested the school was not effective in establishing a
student behavior management system that reflects a culture and climate of high expectations for all students. It
was evident/very evident in 30 percent of classrooms, for example, that “Learners demonstrate knowledge of
and/or follow classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others” (F2). Instances in which
“Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and each other” (F1) were evident/very evident in 37
percent of classrooms, and it was evident/very evident in 26 percent of classrooms that “Learners use class time
purposefully with minimal wasted time or disruptions” (F4). While the Diagnostic Review Team observed isolated
well-managed classrooms where students were actively engaged and teachers held all students accountable to
high behavioral expectations, these types of learning environments were not pervasive throughout the school.
During the review, the team observed inconsistencies in behavioral expectations across classrooms and in student
management practices within classrooms. In some classrooms, the team observed rules enforced inequitably and
consequences not imposed equally. Students were observed using FaceTime, talking on their cellphones, playing
video games, texting, and listening to music during instructional time. Consequently, this lack of engagement by
students clearly demonstrated a need to review, revise, and consistently implement and monitor the school’s
behavior management system.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data revealed that teachers reported discipline as an issue that prevented students from
learning. Some staff members indicated a concern with their own lack of experience or training in establishing
effective behavior management structures in their classrooms. Furthermore, the interview data revealed
inconsistencies among administrators in dealing with inappropriate and disrespectful student behavior. In fact,
some interviewees indicated there were no consequences for students who failed to follow the school’s rules.
There was a pervasive belief among most stakeholders that students were not held accountable for their actions.
While the school had a Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) system, the stakeholder interviews
revealed this structure was inconsistently implemented or monitored for quality and fidelity.
During the principal’s overview presentation, the Diagnostic Review Team learned one of the major behavioral
management challenges that the school faced was student cell phone use. The principal indicated that student
resistance made it difficult to enforce the school’s policy. Furthermore, the principal stated that the assistant
principals were often addressing student misbehavior or safety concerns, which pulled them away from spending
time in classrooms.

The principal also shared that staff members did receive professional development about restorative practices,
and they were implementing practices to become a trauma-sensitive school. The interview data showed that many
staff members attributed some student behavior directly to students’ socioeconomic status, impoverished home
conditions, and/or social-emotional learning difficulties. In addition, interview data revealed many staff members
lacked an understanding of their role in building and improving relationships with students in order to create a
positive culture and climate to support teaching and learning.
The interview data showed stakeholders in all groups concurred that discipline was an issue at Iroquois High
School. Some stakeholders said that a perception existed among some students that they could do whatever they
want without fear of consequences. The interview data also revealed that profanity and cell phone use in the
classroom were the most significant challenges.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The stakeholder survey data related to high academic and behavioral standards substantiated the need for leaders
of Iroquois High School to revise and consistently implement behavior management processes and procedures to
ensure organizational effectiveness. The survey data revealed 69 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed
with the statement, “Our school’s leaders expect staff members to hold all students to high academic standards”
(D4). Furthermore, 55 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school’s leaders hold
themselves accountable for student learning” (D5), and 63 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school’s
leaders hold all staff members accountable for student learning” (D6).
Parent and student survey results related to high expectations were comparable, with 55 percent of parents
indicating they agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school has high expectations for students in all
classes” (D3), while 57 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “In my school, the principal and teachers
have high expectations of me” (D3). Collectively, these survey results demonstrated the school was not effective in
creating a culture and climate of high behavior expectations for all staff and students.
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of the suspension data shared during the principal’s overview presentation indicated student suspension
rates decreased from 983 in 2015-2016 to 565 so far in 2018-2019. The stakeholder interview data revealed that
some staff members reported the decrease in suspension rates was due to a lack of enforcing school policy. While
the Certified Staff Handbook lists student behavior management policies specific to cell phone use in the
classroom, staff member interviews and classroom observations indicated this policy was inconsistently enforced
by teachers and administration. Although the school had a Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
system, the team found no evidence that indicated this structure was implemented or monitored with consistency,
quality, or fidelity.

Develop, implement, and monitor a leadership framework that cultivates the internal capacity of school leaders
and staff members to improve student learning and professional practice. Ensure that the components of this
framework include the implementation of formalized (scheduled and monitored) opportunities for instructional
modeling, coaching, and leadership activities; the delegation of leadership responsibilities to the school’s
administrative team; and the collection, analysis, and use of data to monitor school wide expectations and
outcomes related to teaching and learning. (Standard 1.9)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum of this report, suggested the school was not effective
in providing feedback to ensure instructional practices were implemented to meet the needs of all students.
Although the percentage of students meeting the state benchmark in English on the ACT increased from 8.6
percent in 2016-2017 to 10.2 percent in 2017-2018, and the percentage of students meeting the state benchmark
in math increased from 6.1 percent to 8.5 percent, Iroquois High School performed significantly below the state
average in all content areas for two consecutive years on the ACT. In addition, the percentage of students meeting
state benchmarks in reading on the ACT decreased from 12.6 percent in 2016-2017 to 8.9 percent in 2017-2018. A
review of the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) assessment data indicated that
Iroquois High School performed significantly below the state average in all content areas for the past two years,
and less than 10 percent of the students scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading, math, science, and writing.
While the four-year graduation rate increased from 60.8 percent in 2017 to 62.7 percent in 2018, the percentage
of students considered Transition Ready, 14.7 percent, fell significantly below the state average of 60.9 percent in
2018. Moreover, the school’s four- and five-year graduation rates remained considerably below the state averages
in 2017 and 2018.
In reviewing gap group performance data, the team found 2.4 percent of disabled students with IEPs scored
Proficient/Distinguished in reading in 2017-2018. The percentage of economically disadvantaged students who
scored Proficient/Distinguished was 7.3 percent in reading and 6.9 percent in math in 2017-2018. Furthermore, the
percentage of Asian and English Learner students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading was zero percent
in 2017-2018. Male groups achieved lower than their female counterparts in all content areas.

The stakeholder interview data indicated the school did not have a collaborative culture that had opportunities for
shared leadership or that emphasized the principal and assistant principals as instructional leaders. While there
was a defined organizational chart for Iroquois High School, the interview data revealed that the current
delegation of leadership responsibilities among the administrative team did not maximize the leaders’ expertise,
talents, and time to improve student learning and professional practices. As an example, during the overview
presentation, the principal reported that both he and the assistant principals were often pulled away from
instructional tasks, such as leading and monitoring professional learning community (PLC) meetings, to address
student misbehavior and/or safety concerns. Furthermore, stakeholder interviews indicated that assistant
principals were not perceived as instructional leaders by staff members, and the administrative team could not
speak to the current delegation of responsibilities in the organizational chart.

The stakeholder interviews revealed a lack of systems to effectively monitor student performance, learner
behavior, and instructional practices throughout the school. Although interviews with the leadership team
indicated that they created a walkthrough schedule related to the implementation of the Fundamental Five, the
interview data revealed these observations were extremely brief and provided minimal actionable feedback
related to curriculum and instruction. In addition, interviews revealed that management issues in the school often
interfered with the scheduled classroom observations.
The data also suggested few opportunities existed for instructional modeling and coaching under the current
leadership structure. School leaders did not ensure that organizational conditions positively affected student
learning or that their focus was clearly on curriculum and instructional practices.

The stakeholder survey data revealed the school did not establish frameworks and experiences that cultivate and
improve leadership effectiveness. Parent survey data indicated that 50 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the
statement, “Our school shares responsibility for student learning with its stakeholders” (D4). In addition, 47
percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school provides opportunities for stakeholders to be involved
in the school” (D6). Although 74 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In our
school, a formal process is in place to support new staff members in their professional practice” (E16) and 72
percent agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, all staff members participate in continuous professional
learning based on identified needs of the school” (E17), the teacher interviews revealed that many did not believe
they received the professional development, coaching, or feedback needed to improve the learning environment,
learner achievement, and instructional practice in the classroom.

A review of evidence and artifacts revealed no evidence of a documented, systematic data collection and analysis
process to monitor student performance, learner behavior, curriculum implementation, or instructional practices.
Although data sources were provided to the Diagnostic Review Team as evidence, the team found no analysis or
triangulation of longitudinal data to demonstrate how the school quality assurance processes were used to
monitor or provide feedback to teachers regarding implementation of schoolwide initiatives and improvement
efforts. Furthermore, the Diagnostic Review Team examined the school’s organizational chart and walkthrough
schedule but was unable to identify opportunities for instructional modeling and coaching.

Develop and monitor a clearly defined system that engages all staff members in the review and adjustment of
curriculum and instructional practices. (Standard 2.5)
Evidence:

Student performance results from 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, as detailed in an addendum to this report, revealed
that Iroquois High School students performed below the state average in every content area for the past two
years. The student performance data were among those data examined to develop Improvement Priority #3.

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, suggested the school did not develop an effective process
to monitor the quality and fidelity of the implementation and revision of curriculum and instructional practices.
The High Expectations Learning Environment received an overall rating of 1.8 on a four-point scale. During
classroom observations, it was evident/very evident in 18 percent of classrooms that “Learners strive to meet or
are able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1). It was
evident/very evident that learners “engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2) in 29
percent of classrooms and “engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher
order thinking (e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4) in 16 percent of classrooms. Classroom
observations revealed that learners were infrequently “supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or other
resources to understand content and accomplish tasks” (C3), as it was evident/very evident in 37 percent of
classrooms. Students who “demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3) were evident/very
evident in six percent of classrooms.
The review team also found little evidence that students were informed about how their work would be assessed,
as the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment received an overall rating of 1.6 on a four-point
scale. Learners who “demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content” (E3) were evident/very
evident in 10 percent of classrooms, and learners who “monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby
their learning progress is monitored” (E1) were evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms. A concern of
the Diagnostic Review Team was that learners who understood and were “able to explain how their work is
assessed” (E4) were evident/very evident in four percent of classrooms.

The interview data revealed that stakeholders were unable to articulate a system-wide process for the review and
adjustment of curriculum and instruction. The principal indicated the examination of the curriculum was important
to the school’s continuous improvement efforts; however, no formal process to monitor the quality and fidelity of
implementation of the adopted curriculum was developed. Furthermore, the principal indicated that addressing
curriculum and instruction was a leverage point to improve student learning.
The stakeholder interview data revealed that some teachers engaged in conversations about high-yield
instructional strategies; however, a systematic instructional process that ensured K-12 alignment with the school’s
approved curriculum, standards, and vision did not exist. Furthermore, stakeholder interviews revealed that
rigorous instruction and student engagement were identified as challenges for the school. These data were
substantiated by classroom observation data and overall student performance results on the K-PREP and ACT.
Stakeholder interviews at Iroquois High School revealed some student performance data were reviewed and

shared during professional learning community (PLC) meetings; however, there was no discussion about how data
resulted in the adjustment of curriculum and instruction to meet individual learner needs. Although the team
observed some student goal-setting, teacher interviews revealed limited use of student assessment data to
monitor and track student progress. Moreover, the use and analysis of common formative and summative
assessments were not present to measure student progress, evaluate the effectiveness of instructional practices,
or provide data for potential revisions to the curriculum.
Although interviews with the leadership team indicated that they created a walkthrough schedule related to the
implementation of the Fundamental Five, the interview data revealed these observations were brief and provided
teachers with little feedback related to curriculum and instructional practices. According to the interview data,
teachers followed the district-approved curriculum with little freedom to adjust it based on the individual needs of
their students. Furthermore, teachers could not articulate processes used to monitor curriculum and instruction
across the school or speak to whether data were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum.

The stakeholder survey data related to the review and adjustment of curriculum and instruction revealed that
systems and processes were inconsistently monitored or implemented. Although the survey data indicated that 76
percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school uses data to monitor student
readiness and success at the next level” (G5), the interview data revealed that many stakeholders were unable to
articulate a school wide process for the review and adjustment of curriculum and instruction.
Parent survey data indicated that 60 percent of respondents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My child
knows the expectations for learning in all classes” (E10), and 67 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed
that “All teachers in our school use a process to inform students of their learning expectations and standards of
performance” (E5). However, interviews with students revealed they were frequently unsure of their progress in
class and were unable to articulate how they knew whether their work was quality.
Staff survey data revealed that 70 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school
use multiple types of assessments to modify instruction and to revise the curriculum” (E7). Conversely, 44 percent
of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “My child is given multiple assessments to measure his/her understanding
of what was taught” (E12), suggesting a significant portion of parents could not confirm this practice was
consistently implemented in the school. While staff survey results indicated that 62 percent agreed/strongly
agreed with the statement, “In our school, challenging curriculum and learning experiences provide equity for all
students in the development of learning, thinking, and life skills” (E11), student survey results revealed that 55
percent agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning
experiences” (E2). Results of surveys showed that 51 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my
child’s teachers provide an equitable curriculum that meets his/her learning needs” (E1), and 52 percent of
students agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers use a variety of teaching methods and learning activities
to help me develop the skills I will need to succeed” (E8), highlighting a need to consider how stakeholder feedback
can be effectively used to review and adjust curriculum and instructional practices to ensure student needs are
being met.

A review of documents and artifacts revealed limited use of walkthrough data to monitor the quality and fidelity of
curriculum implementation. While the school adopted curricula, the team found no evidence to indicate lesson
planning documents were intentionally aligned with learning standards, measures of student success, or checks for
understanding. In addition, the team found no evidence indicating that data were collected and analyzed to

evaluate the effectiveness of the curricula. Although PLC meeting agendas indicated teachers were collaboratively
planning lessons to implement the curriculum, the results of student achievement across grade levels and content
areas related to the school’s learning expectations were not present. Furthermore, the school provided no
evidence to indicate student performance data were analyzed and used to assess student preparedness for the
next level or to inform potential revisions to the curriculum. These data substantiate a need for the school to
develop, implement, and monitor a system-wide process to engage stakeholders in the review and adjustment of
curriculum and instruction.

Monitor and provide feedback on the implementation of the Classroom Instructional Framework to ensure quality
and fidelity of instructional practices to meet all learners’ needs. (Standard 2.7)
Evidence:

The student performance results, as detailed in an addendum to this report, revealed that Iroquois High School
students performed below the state average in every content area for the past two years. The student
performance data, as previously discussed, were among those data reviewed to determine Improvement Priority
#4.

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, suggested the school was not effective in monitoring and
adjusting instructional practices to meet individual learners’ needs. During classroom observations, it was
evident/very evident in four percent of classrooms that “Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1). Learners who “engage in activities and learning that are challenging
but attainable” (B2) were evident/very evident in 29 percent of classrooms, and learners who were “supported by
the teacher, their peers, and/or other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks” (C3) were
evident/very evident in 37 percent of classrooms. The data revealed that learners rarely “receive and/or respond
to feedback (from teachers/ peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or revise work” (E2), which was
evident/very evident in 24 percent of classrooms.
The team also found little evidence that indicated students were informed about how their work would be
assessed, with the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment receiving an overall rating of 1.6.
Learners who “demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the lesson/content” (E3) were evident/very evident
in 10 percent of classrooms, and learners who “monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their
learning progress is monitored” (E1) were evident/very evident in eight percent of classrooms. A concern of the
Diagnostic Review Team was that learners who understood and were “able to explain how their work is assessed”
(E4), were evident/very evident in four percent of classrooms.

The interview data revealed that stakeholders were unable to articulate a system-wide process for monitoring and
adjusting instructional practices to meet learners’ needs and achieve the school’s learning expectations. While the
principal and assistant principals indicated that monitoring instruction was a priority, the interview data indicated
that administrator walkthroughs resulted in little feedback specific to the Classroom Instructional Framework.
Stakeholder interviews revealed that some teachers engaged in conversations about high-yield instructional
strategies during professional learning community (PLC) meetings; however, many teachers lacked experience and
professional development in working with behaviorally at-risk and English as a Second Language students.
The interview data and informal observations of PLC meetings revealed that staff members reviewed and shared
some student performance data within departments; however, little evidence showed how these data resulted in
the adjustment of instruction. Interview data showed that administrators did not attend all PLC meetings. In
addition, the data indicated that no process existed to monitor the effectiveness of these collaborative discussions.
Furthermore, the stakeholder interview and classroom observation data revealed a lack of understanding about
how best practices engage students in challenging, collaborative, and differentiated learning opportunities.

The student interview data revealed that students were concerned about their quality of education. They
expressed concern over the disparity of learning opportunities between Advanced Placement (AP) courses and
traditional core content classes, indicating they did not believe the school’s experiences were preparing all
students for college and/or post-secondary opportunities. English as a Second Language students were concerned
about their transition from ESL classes to traditional course offerings, and many students were concerned about
the lack of high expectations and academic rigor in the school. Moreover, students indicated that few teachers
change their teaching to meet their individual learning needs.

The stakeholder survey data related to monitoring and adjusting instructional practices revealed that systems and
processes were inconsistently implemented. Survey data indicated that 71 percent of staff members
agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school have been trained to implement a formal
process that promotes discussion about student learning (e.g., action research, examination of student work,
reflection, study teams, and peer coaching)” (E10). However, 55 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed
that “All teachers in our school monitor and adjust curriculum, instruction, and assessment based on data from
student assessments and examination of professional practice” (E1) and that “All teachers in our school
personalize instructional strategies and interventions to address individual learning needs of students” (E2).
Staff survey data indicated that 70 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school
use multiple types of assessment to modify instruction and to revise the curriculum” (E7); however, there was
limited agreement from parents and students, with 44 percent of parents who agreed/strongly agreed that “My
child is given multiple assessments to measure his/her understanding of what was taught” (E12) and 38 percent of
students who agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my needs” (E9).
Additional survey data revealed that 55 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school provides me
with challenging curriculum and learning experiences” (E2), and 38 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that
“All of my child’s teachers meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction” (E4). Collectively, these data
suggested the school was not effective in monitoring and adjusting classroom instruction in an effort to address
the individual learning needs of all students.

A review of documents and artifacts showed a Classroom Instructional Framework that outlined instructional
guidelines and expectations for teaching and meeting the needs of individual learners; however, classroom
observations by the Diagnostic Review Team did not substantiate the consistent use of this framework across the
school. Artifacts revealed limited use of walkthrough data to monitor the quality and fidelity of instructional
practices. Moreover, there was no longitudinal data from instructional monitoring processes to demonstrate
improvements in student learning and changes to instructional practices over time. Although the Certified Staff
Handbook contained expectations for lesson planning, no evidence was specific to the monitoring of these
expectations. Several documents relating to the school’s PLC process were shared as artifacts; however, the
collection and analysis of data to identify improvements in student learning based on the use of data to monitor
and adjust instruction were not found. Overall, these data substantiated a need for the school to develop a system
for monitoring and providing feedback about the implementation of high-yield instructional practices in order to
ensure the needs of all students are met.

Insights from the Review

The Diagnostic Review Team engaged in professional discussions and deliberations about the processes, programs,
and practices within the institution to arrive at the findings of the team. These findings are organized around
themes guided by the evidence, examples of programs, and practices and provide direction for the institution’s
continuous improvement efforts. The insights from the Review narrative should provide contextualized
information from the team deliberations and provide information about the team’s analysis of the practices,
processes, and programs of the institution within the Levels of Impact of Engagement, Implementation, Results,
Sustainability, and Embeddedness.
Engagement is the level of involvement and frequency with which stakeholders are engaged in the desired
practices, processes, or programs within the institution. Implementation is the degree to which the desired
practices, processes, or programs are monitored and adjusted for quality and fidelity of implementation. Results
represent the collection, analysis, and use of data and evidence to demonstrate attaining the desired result(s).
Sustainability is results achieved consistently to demonstrate growth and improvement over time (minimum of
three years). Embeddedness is the degree to which the desired practices, processes, or programs are deeply
ingrained in the culture and operation of the institution.
Strengths:
Throughout the Diagnostic Review, some themes related to student success and organizational effectiveness
emerged at Iroquois High School. The school has a common vision, mission, and shared beliefs that define the
organization’s philosophy about teaching and learning and expectations for students. These “Collective
Commitments” focus on providing a high-quality education through enriched activities and opportunities that
expand students’ social, cultural, and educational experiences. The survey data clearly indicated that stakeholders
believe the school’s purpose statement is focused on student success. While stakeholders communicated the
school’s vision and its emphasis on high expectations for learning, behavior, and citizenship, evidence was limited
of how these shared beliefs were communicated and practiced throughout the school. The principal’s overview
presentation showed opportunities for representative stakeholder groups to be involved in the collaborative
review and revision of the school’s mission and vision during a work retreat.
The principal’s overview and stakeholder interview and classroom observation data revealed that some
improvement systems and/or instructional frameworks were established to support the teaching and learning
process and have the potential to improve student achievement. Iroquois High School created weekly professional
learning community (PLC) time for teachers to collaborate. The school developed and is implementing academies
and pathways (Freshman Academy; Builder’s Apprentice Academy; Business, Education and Culinary Arts
Academy; Engineering Academy; Media Art Academy) to provide students with opportunities to be successful in
post-secondary education or careers after graduation. The school created an “Accelerate to Graduate” program to
support students in their efforts to earn credits toward achieving a diploma. The principal’s overview presentation
and teacher interview data indicated that student input and feedback were sought in the development of the
academies and pathways. In addition, the school is currently implementing a mentoring component in the
Freshman Academy as part of the Summit Learning Program. By formalizing and monitoring the school’s PLC
structure that ensures all staff members are using a broad range of data to group learners, differentiate
instruction, and refine curriculum and assessments, the school has an opportunity to use its Multi-Tiered System
of Support (MTSS) framework and mentoring structure to incorporate interventions and enrichments to meet the
unique needs of all students.

The principal’s overview presentation and stakeholder interview and classroom observation data indicated the
school has a Classroom Instructional Framework that ensures the quality and fidelity of instructional practices to
meet student needs. Administrators created a walkthrough schedule aimed at monitoring the school’s
implementation of the Fundamental Five; however, walkthrough observations have resulted in minimal feedback
specific to curriculum and instruction. The MAP assessments are used as a universal screener to determine the
current level of student performance in reading, language arts, and math. Classroom observations revealed that
students exhibited a high level of engagement in their elective classes and reported that teachers openly
appreciated their talents. Interviews suggested the school is currently implementing a co-teaching model to
collaboratively support students with special learning needs; however, the team was unable to substantiate the
use of this instructional model during classroom observations. While these research-based practices and programs
have the potential to improve student achievement and meet the unique needs of all students, the level of
engagement and implementation are inconsistent across the school. Therefore, it will be necessary for the school
to formalize, monitor, and adjust the implementation of these programs and practices to ensure quality and
fidelity.
The stakeholder interviews revealed that the school implemented a Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(PBIS) system for behavioral management and the HERO program to reward positive student behaviors.
Administrators and teachers shared that they participated in professional development about restorative
practices, and the school is working to become a trauma-sensitive school. Staff members expressed that they
cared about their students and want to change and improve. While some stakeholders cited the diversity of the
school as a strength, this perception was not pervasive across the school. The Diagnostic Review Team noted
students were respectful and pleasant during interviews and conversations with team members. In addition, the
stakeholder interview data revealed a perception among many staff members that student behavior concerns can
be directly linked to students’ socioeconomic status, impoverished home conditions, and/or social-emotional
learning difficulties. Interviews revealed that many staff members lack an understanding of their role in building
and improving relationships with students to create a positive school climate and culture for teaching and learning.
Continuous Improvement Process:

The interview and survey data and a review of documents and artifacts indicated that school administration and
teachers inconsistently engaged in a continuous improvement and decision-making process to build instructional
and organizational capacity. Ongoing and effective use of data to drive decision-making by leaders and teachers
was not evident in practices or processes. An established, ongoing process to nurture instructional improvements
was inconsistently implemented.
The school did not establish a collaborative culture that provides opportunities for shared leadership and
emphasizes the principal and assistant principals as instructional leaders in the school. While there is a defined
organizational chart for Iroquois High School, interviews revealed that the current delegation of leadership
responsibilities among the administrative team did not maximize their expertise, talents, and time to focus on
curriculum, instruction, and assessment to improve student learning and professional practice. Yet, addressing
curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices is an of needed improvement for Iroquois High School.
Classroom observations showed that rigorous instruction was inconsistently implemented in most classrooms.
Furthermore, the team observed few instances of students engaging in high-quality work and receiving meaningful
feedback from their teachers. Teachers sometimes use data in purposeful ways to inform instruction, but the
practice is not systemic. The team found no process to ensure all teachers use formative assessment data to
determine student mastery of standards.

Also, no evidence showed how the examination of professional practice directly linked to curriculum, instruction,
and assessment decisions. School leadership is encouraged to find ways to actively engage teachers in
collaboration related to curriculum alignment, assessment development, and use of data to assess student
progress and differentiate instruction to meet the individual needs of students. Furthermore, no evidence was
found that all staff members engaged in a collaborative process to implement and monitor instructional practices
(e.g., research-based, differentiated, individualized, rigorous, high expectations, feedback to students, exemplars,
rubrics) to ensure that all students’ needs were met. The use of instructional strategies that require student
collaboration, self-reflection, and critical thinking skills will be important, as will frequent checks for
understanding, opportunities for re-teaching, and effective integration of technology to support academic
achievement, as the school establishes a comprehensive continuous improvement process.
The interview data also revealed that stakeholders were unable to articulate a schoolwide process for the review
and adjustment of curriculum and instruction. The principal indicated that the examination of the curriculum is
important to the school’s continuous improvement efforts; however, no formal process was developed to monitor
the implementation quality and fidelity of the adopted curriculum. The stakeholder interviews and a review of
evidence and artifacts indicated the absence of common pacing guides that show when teachers will guarantee
delivery of specific content or instructional units. Furthermore, staff survey data suggested that some teachers
monitor and adjust curriculum and assessment based on student performance data; however, interviews revealed
stakeholders were not consistently able to define or explain how curriculum, instruction, and assessment are
monitored and adjusted systematically in response to multiple data points. Classroom observation data revealed
students have limited differentiated learning opportunities and activities to meet their unique learning needs and
are rarely provided additional and/or alternative instruction and feedback at the appropriate level of challenge.
Therefore, it will be important for the school to develop a process to systematically review and adjust curriculum,
instruction, and assessment based on multiple student performance data and an examination of professional
practices.
Overall, effective, results-driven continuous improvement planning processes with systems, programs, and
practices were not established or used to monitor and communicate improvement results to stakeholders.
Stakeholder interviews and a review of artifacts indicated the absence of a systematic data collection and analysis
process to inform curriculum, instruction, and assessment decisions. Although data sources were included as
evidence, no analysis or triangulation of data was provided to show programmatic effectiveness. Therefore, it will
be important for the school to development a quality assurance and program evaluation process to monitor
program effectiveness, schoolwide initiatives, and verifiable growth in student learning. By having the ability to
evaluate the impact and success of new or existing programs, the school will be able to make informed decisions to
identify programs that work, need revision, or should be discontinued.
While the school identified a vision, mission, and shared beliefs that speak to high expectations and that foster the
academic and individual growth of all students, the interview and observation data did not reveal that these
priorities or values are embedded and serve as the lens by which decisions are made to improve student
achievement and professional practice. The stakeholder interviews revealed the need for a comprehensive sense
of urgency among all staff regarding effective teaching practices and student learning. Furthermore, interviews
indicated a desire for building-level administrators to be visible and to focus on providing resources, support, and
expertise to ensure instruction is implemented with quality and fidelity. For desired practices, processes, or
programs to be deeply ingrained in the culture and operation of the institution, the school is encouraged to find
ways to create a culture of shared responsibility and move from a compliance-driven mindset to one that
prioritizes the ongoing analysis and use of data to measure outcomes and continuous improvement.

Although the principal’s overview and the stakeholder interviews referred to the implementation of a Multi-Tiered
System of Support (MTSS) to meet all students’ learning needs, the data from classroom observations, interviews,
and surveys suggested that the school had not effectively identified a support system to address those needs.
While minimal sources of student performance data are collected and analyzed, the team found a lack of research-
based interventions that support the specialized needs of learners. Also, no formally documented process was
found that determined the extent to which interventions are implemented with fidelity or monitored to determine
successful outcomes. In addition, the classroom observation data revealed minimal differentiated learning
opportunities or support and assistance to help students understand content and accomplish tasks. While some
social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs of students are addressed through outreach and support
organized by the Family Resource Youth Services Center (FRYSC) coordinator, special education programming, and
English as a Second Language classes, the interview data suggested that the school did not provide high-quality
support services to meet the specialized needs of all students; therefore, the team strongly recommends that
school personnel provide and coordinate learning support services to meet the specific needs of learners attending
Iroquois High School.
The principal’s overview presentation and the stakeholder interview data indicated that teachers did participate in
some professional development; however, a documented formalized professional learning plan based on the
identified needs of staff members and the school was not evident. The team found no evidence of discussions
about planned professional learning activities based on a data-driven needs assessment and data aggregated from
supervision and evaluation processes. Moreover, stakeholder interview and staff survey data revealed that not all
staff members participated in training specific to the evaluation, interpretation, and use of data to support student
achievement. Although teachers spoke of common planning time, the consistent, deliberate use of data to guide
these collaborative conversations was inconsistent. The staff survey data suggested that some teachers gathered
and used formative and summative data to modify their instruction; however, stakeholder interview and
classroom observation data showed the lack of ongoing and effective use of data to drive decision-making by
leaders and teachers. A professional development plan that incorporates data analysis and use, aligns with the
school’s continuous improvement plan, and is regularly evaluated will offer all educators professional learning to
help them improve student achievement.
The greatest priority that Iroquois High School must address to improve student learning, however, is
implementing and monitoring the schoolwide behavior management system. The stakeholder interviews, survey
data, and classroom observations revealed that the school was not effective in implementing and monitoring a
student behavior management system that reflects a culture and climate of high expectations for all students.
Stakeholder interviews revealed discipline as an issue that prevents students from learning. Furthermore, many
stakeholders perceived inconsistencies among administrators in dealing with inappropriate and/or disrespectful
student behavior. In fact, some stakeholders reported no consequences for students who fail to follow school
rules. While the school has a Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support (PBIS) system, the stakeholder
interviews revealed that this structure is not being implemented or monitored with consistency, quality, or fidelity.
The Diagnostic Review Team observed isolated classrooms that were well-managed with actively engaged learners
and teachers who held all students accountable to high behavioral and academic expectations; however, these
types of learning environments were not pervasive throughout the school. During the onsite visit, the review team
observed inconsistencies in behavioral expectations among teachers and in their management of students within
the classroom. In some classrooms, rules were not enforced equitably among all students and consequences for
behavior were not imposed equally. Students were observed sleeping, using FaceTime, talking on their cell phones,
playing video games, texting, and listening to music during instructional time. Consequently, this lack of

engagement by students and the loss of instructional time clearly demonstrated a need to review, revise, and
consistently implement and monitor the school’s behavior management system to ensure teaching and learning
are the focus and instructional time is maximized in every classroom.
The interviews suggested there is a willingness and desire among most stakeholders to improve the overall
educational experience and learning opportunities for Iroquois High School students. Therefore, the Diagnostic
Review Team encourages the school to use the Improvement Priorities and the results of this report to build a
foundation of growth and improvement. This emphasis will ensure all students receive a challenging and equitable
education, and the school’s mission and vision can be realized.
Next Steps
The results of the Diagnostic Review provide the next step for guiding the improvement journey of the institution
with their efforts to improve the quality of educational opportunities for all learners. The findings are aligned to
research-based criteria designed to improve student learning and organizational effectiveness. The feedback
provided in the Diagnostic Review Report will assist the institution in reflecting on current improvement efforts
and adapting and adjusting their plans to continuously strive for improvement.
Upon receiving the Diagnostic Review Report, the institution is encouraged to implement the following steps:
• Review and share the findings with stakeholders.
• Develop plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the Diagnostic Review Team.
• Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution’s continuous improvement
efforts.
• Celebrate the successes noted in the report.

Team Roster
Diagnostic Review Teams comprise professionals with varied backgrounds and professional experiences. All Lead
Evaluators and Diagnostic Review Team members complete AdvancED training and eleot® certification to provide
knowledge and understanding of the AdvancED tools and processes. The following professionals served on the
Diagnostic Review Team:
Team Member Name Brief Biography

Dr. Lynn Simmers Dr. Lynn Simmers serves as the assistant superintendent of Southwest Allen
County Schools in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Her interests include literacy and math;
analyzing statistical trends to promote improved student achievement; and
professional development related to curriculum development, instructional
strategies, and teacher induction programs for beginning teachers. Simmers’
professional career spans 25 years, including experience as a teacher, assistant
principal, curriculum coordinator, principal, and assistant superintendent. She has
had varied experience as a Lead Evaluator of school and system accreditation visits
and Diagnostic Reviews for AdvancED/Measured Progress. She participated as a
member of the AdvancED Standards Committee and currently serves on the
Indiana AdvancED State Council. Dr. Simmers earned degrees from Manchester
College, Indiana University-Purdue University in Fort Wayne, and Indiana State
University.
Julia Rawlings Julia Rawlings is currently the Education Recovery Director for the Kentucky
Department of Education. In this role, her primary responsibility is to work
collaboratively to support priority schools in the East Region by developing
partnerships with universities, educational agencies, and external stakeholders.
Prior to work with the Kentucky Department of Education, Mrs. Rawlings was a
district administrator for Fleming County Schools, a rural school district in
northeastern Kentucky. Her duties included Title I; Limited English Proficiency;
preschool; and curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Mrs. Rawlings has also
served as a state science consultant and a high school classroom science teacher.
Tony Watts Tony Watts entered the education field in 2000 after working for seven years in
the restaurant business. Tony earned his teaching certificate and master’s degree
at Northern Kentucky University. Tony continued his education and earned a
master’s degree in leadership and supervisor of instruction and a superintendent
certification. Tony has worked in diverse districts during his tenure. He was an
English teacher and dean of discipline at Holmes Middle School. He was an
assistant principal at Conner High School and became the principal at Newport
High School in 2011. Tony led Newport High School out of PLA (Persistently Low
Achieving) status and showed consistent growth four consecutive years. Tony left
Newport and worked for the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) as an
Education Recovery Leader from July 2015 to June 2017. Tony is finishing his
second year in Fayette County working as middle school chief of schools. He
serves Bryan Station Middle, Crawford, EJ Hayes, Jessie Clark, and Winburn.


Wanetta Morrow Wanetta Morrow joined the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) in 2015 and
currently serves as an Educational Recovery Specialist. She previously served three
years as a Novice Reduction Coach for KDE and has presented at numerous
workshops, conferences, and summits throughout Kentucky. She has 24 years of
experience in education and began her career teaching English/language arts at
the middle school level. Mrs. Morrow has a bachelor’s degree in elementary
education and an endorsement for middle grades education with an emphasis in
English and communications from Campbellsville University. She also holds a
master’s degree in elementary guidance counseling and a Rank I certification in
secondary guidance counseling from Western Kentucky University. Mrs. Morrow is
currently completing a doctoral program in educational leadership at the
University of the Cumberlands. In addition, she has completed the National
Institute for School Leadership (NISL) program and is certified by the Institute for
Performance Improvement (IPI).
Serena Anderson Serena Anderson currently serves as an Education Recovery Leader for the
Kentucky Department of Education. She has teaching experience in most levels of
K-12 in rural settings. Mrs. Anderson’s administrative experience includes serving
as assistant principal and district instructional supervisor to a K-12 school district.
She has extensive experience with curriculum and instruction and in providing
supports to teachers and administrators. Serena Anderson holds a bachelor’s
degree in middle school education, a master’s degree in school administration for
principal K-12, and a Rank I in school supervision.
Victoria Saldala Victoria B. Saldala is a veteran educator with 31 years of experience. In her current
position as the director of the Bilingual/ESOL Department for Broward County
Public Schools, Mrs. Saldala is directly responsible for coordinating all curriculum
and compliance support for the English for Speakers of Other Languages Program,
the Dual Language Program, and the World Languages Programs. In addition, her
team is responsible for district interpretations/translations. She works
collaboratively with the community to ensure non-English speaking families
receive support and information through the International Welcome Center. Mrs.
Saldala holds a master’s degree in reading education, a bachelor’s degree in
elementary education, certification in principal leadership, and an endorsement in
English for Speakers of Other Languages. Mrs. Saldala was recognized as the 2016
Latino Administrator of the Year by the Association of Latino Administrators and
Superintendents (ALAS) for her commitment to Latino students, the community
and to various local recognitions.


Dr. Gabriel Berrio Dr. Gabriel Berrio serves as executive area director for Orange County Public
Schools. His career in education spans 25 years, which includes teaching for
Chicago Public Schools and for Orange County Public Schools in Orlando, FL. As a
current executive area director, Dr. Berrio supervises high schools across the
district, which includes monitoring student proficiency and the narrowing of the
achievement gap for all subgroups. He supervises and assesses principals and
provides professional development for assistant principals across all 20 high
schools. Prior to his current role, Dr. Berrio served as a middle school and high
school teacher. He has served as a high school assistant principal, middle school
principal, and high school principal. During this time, he has also served on
multiple committees and presented at conferences that focused on increasing
career and college opportunities for all students. His school experience includes
Title I schools, as well as Non-Title I schools. Gabriel Berrio received his degrees
from Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, IL and the University of Central Florida
in Orlando, FL.

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: School and Student Performance Results
Content Area %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
Reading 13.2 55.8 7.6 45.4

Math 11.9 38.1 7.7 37.5
Science 11.3 41.2 3.7 29.6
Writing 19.8 58.5 9.7 51.8
Plus
Delta
• Iroquois High School performed significantly below the state averages in all content areas for two
consecutive years (2016-2017 and 2017-2018) on the state assessments.
• The percentage of all students scoring Proficient/Distinguished was less than 10 percent in all content
areas in 2017-2018.
Section II: Percentages of Students Meeting Benchmarks on ACT, Grade 11, at the School and in the State (2016-
2017, 2017-2018)
Content Area Percentage School Percentage State Percentage School Percentage State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17--18)
English 8.6 56.2 10.2 51.2

Math 6.1 43.9 8.5 38.9
Reading 12.6 53.6 8.9 47.1
Plus
• The percentage of students meeting state benchmarks in English on the ACT increased from 8.6 percent in
2016-2017 to 10.2 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students meeting state benchmarks in math on the ACT increased from 6.1 percent in
2016-2017 to 8.5 percent in 2017-2018.
Delta
• Iroquois High School performed significantly below the state averages in all content areas for two
consecutive years (2016-2017 and 2017-2018) on the ACT.
• The percentage of students meeting state benchmarks in reading on the ACT decreased from 12.6 percent
in 2016-2017 to 8.9 percent in 2017-2018.

Section III: School Achievement of Transition Readiness and Graduation Rate (2017-2018)
Graduation Rate 4 year 5 year Indicator
(Average 4 and 5
year)
2017 60.8 77.4
State 89.7 90.3
2018 62.7 66.7
State 90.8 91.3 90.8
Transition Readiness Indicator (Academic, Career, EL)

2018 14.7
State 60.9
(The accountability measure changed from College and/or Career Readiness to Transition Readiness, which has
added components making the two not compatible to compare.)
Plus
• The four-year graduation rate increased from 60.8 percent in 2017 to 62.7 percent in 2018.
Delta
• The five-year graduation rate decreased from 77.4 percent in 2017 to 66.7 percent in 2018.
• The four-year graduation and five-year graduation rates were significantly below the state percentages in
both 2017 and 2018.
• The percentage of students considered Transition Ready, 14.7, was significantly below the state
percentage, 60.9, in 2018.
Section IV: Student Gap Group Data

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
Female 12.7 7.9 6.6 13.2

Male 3.3 7.4 1.3 6.8
White 11.6 13.6 9.0 10.9
African American 6.4 4.5 2.6 8.7
Hispanic 8.0 11.5 0 12.0
Asian 0 4.3 0 7.7
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or more races
Title I 7.6 7.7 3.7 9.7

Gap Group Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing

%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
Migrant
Homeless
Foster
Military
English Learner (EL) 0 1.9 0 2.0
English Learner plus 2.7 3.5 0 5.3
Monitored
Economically 7.3 6.9 3.0 8.4
Disadvantaged
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 2.4 5.1 0 8.6
(Total)
Disability-With IEP (No 3.0 3.0
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with
Accommodation
Consolidated Student 5.7 5.8 1.8 8.1
Group
Plus
Delta
• The percentage of female students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in math was 7.9 in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students in Disability with IEP (Total) scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading was
2.4 in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of Asian and English Learners scoring Proficient/Distinguished in Reading was zero in
2017-2018.
• The percentage of males scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading was 3.3 and in math was 7.4 in 2017-
2018.
• The percentage of students in Economically Disadvantaged scoring Proficient/Distinguished in reading was

7.3 and in math was 6.9 in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of Hispanic, Asian, English Learners, English Learner plus Monitored, and Disability-With
IEP (Total) students scoring Proficient/Distinguished in science was zero in 2017-2018.

Schedule
Monday, February 11, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:30 p.m.– Principal/Superintendent Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
5:15 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
5:15 p.m.– Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Tuesday, February 12, 2019

7:15 a.m. Team arrives at Iroquois High School School office Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
7:40 a.m.- Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact School Diagnostic
4:00 p.m. Review Review Team
Members
4:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
5:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Wednesday, February 13, 2019

7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Iroquois High School School Diagnostic
Review Team
Members
7:45 a.m. – Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact School Diagnostic
4:00 p.m. Review Review Team
Members
4:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
5:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Thursday, February 14, 2019

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

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

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

Iroquois HS Final DR Report 2018-2019

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Iroquois HS Final DR Report 2018-2019

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

February 11–14, 2019

Results for: Iroquois High School

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

Stakeholder Groups Number

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

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

Leadership Capacity Domain

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

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

Learning Capacity Domain

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

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

Resource Capacity Domain

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

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

A. Equitable Learning Environment

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

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

C. Supportive Learning Environment

Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

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

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

D. Active Learning Environment

Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other

Learners make connections from content to real-life

Learners collaborate with their peers to

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

E. Progress Monitoring & Feedback Learning Environment

Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

F. Well-Managed Learning Environment

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

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

G. Digital Learning Environment

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

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

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

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data: