March 4–7, 2019

Results for: Olmsted Academy South

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4
Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4
Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 5
Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7
eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 13
Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 13
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 19
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 20
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 22
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 24
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 24
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 27

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

Introduction
The AdvancED Diagnostic Review is carried out by a team of highly qualified evaluators who examine the
institution’s adherence and commitment to the research aligned to AdvancED Standards. The Diagnostic Review
Process is designed to energize and equip the leadership and stakeholders of an institution to achieve higher levels
of performance and address those areas that may be hindering efforts to reach desired performance levels. The
Diagnostic Review is a rigorous process that includes the in-depth examination of evidence and relevant
performance data, interviews with stakeholders, and observations of instruction, learning, and operations.

Standards help delineate what matters. They provide a common language through which an education community
can engage in conversations about educational improvement, institution effectiveness, and achievement. They
serve as a foundation for planning and implementing improvement strategies and activities and for measuring
success. AdvancED Standards were developed by a committee composed of educators from the fields of practice,
research, and policy. These talented leaders applied professional wisdom, deep knowledge of effective practice,
and the best available research to craft a set of robust standards that define institutional quality and guide
continuous improvement.

The Diagnostic Review Team used the AdvancED Standards and related criteria to guide its evaluation, looking not
only for adherence to standards, but also for how the institution functioned as a whole and embodied the
practices and characteristics of quality. Using the evidence they gathered, the Diagnostic Review Team arrived at
the findings contained in this report.

As a part of the Diagnostic Review, stakeholders were interviewed by members of the Diagnostic Review Team
about their perspectives on topics relevant to the institution's learning environment and organizational
effectiveness. The feedback gained through the stakeholder interviews was considered with other evidence and
data to support the findings of the Diagnostic Review. The following table lists the numbers of interviewed
representatives of various stakeholder groups.

Stakeholder Groups Number

District-level Administrators 1
Building-level Administrators 3
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology
Coordinator, CSI) 12
Certified Staff 20
Non-certified Staff 7
Students 13
Parents/community 9
Total 65

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

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

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

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

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

Resource Capacity Domain
The use and distribution of resources support the stated mission of the institution. Institutions ensure that
resources are distributed and utilized equitably so that the needs of all learners are adequately and effectively
addressed. The utilization of resources includes support for professional learning for all staff. The institution
examines the allocation and use of resources to ensure appropriate levels of funding, sustainability, organizational
effectiveness, and increased student learning.

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

3.1 The institution plans and delivers professional learning to improve the learning Needs
environment, learner achievement and the institution’s effectiveness. Improvement
3.2 The institution’s professional learning structure and expectations promote Needs
collaboration and collegiality to improve learner performance and organizational Improvement
effectiveness.
3.4 The institution attracts and retains qualified personnel who support the institution’s Needs
purpose and direction. Improvement
3.7 The institution demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long- Needs
range planning and use of resources in support of the institution’s purpose and Improvement
direction.
3.8 The institution allocates human, material and fiscal resources in alignment with the Needs
institution’s identified needs and priorities to improve student performance and Improvement
organizational effectiveness.

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

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 20 observations during the Diagnostic Review process, including
core content learning environments. Nine of the core content area teachers were not observed due to the school-
district-wide absence of classroom teachers and students on the second day of the Diagnostic Review Team Visit.
The following charts provide aggregate data across multiple observations for each of the seven learning
environments.

Diagnostic Review eleot Ratings

A. Equitable Learning B. High Expectations C. Supportive Learning
D. Active Learning E. Progress Monitoring F. Well-Managed Learning
G. Digital Learning

2.8
2.6
2.4 2.3
2.2 2.1

1.5

Environment Averages

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

 A. Equitable Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 1.6 55% 30% 15% 0%
and/or activities that meet their needs.

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 3.0 0% 20% 60% 20%
activities, resources, technology, and support.

A3 3.0 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 5% 15% 55% 25%

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to

develop empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in
A4 1.8 45% 35% 15% 5%
abilities, aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other
human characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.4

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 2.4 5% 60% 25% 10%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.

Learners engage in activities and learning that are

B2 2.4 15% 40% 35% 10%
challenging but attainable.

Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.9 35% 45% 15% 5%
quality work.

Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions,

B4 2.2 and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking 35% 30% 20% 15%
(e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

B5 2.0 30% 45% 20% 5%
learning.

Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.2

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

 C. Supportive Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 2.6 0% 40% 60% 0%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.

Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.3 20% 40% 30% 10%
feedback).

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

C3 2.6 other resources to understand content and accomplish 15% 20% 60% 5%
tasks.

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 3.0 0% 30% 40% 30%
relationship with their teacher.

Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.6

D. Active Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not

Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other

D1 2.5 15% 35% 40% 10%
and teacher predominate.

Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 2.1 30% 45% 15% 10%
experiences.

D3 2.6 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 0% 55% 30% 15%

Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 2.2 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 25% 40% 25% 10%
assignments.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.3

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

 E. Progress Monitoring Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 2.0 30% 45% 25% 0%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.

Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

E2 2.3 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 25% 35% 25% 15%
and/or revise work.

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of

E3 2.2 20% 45% 30% 5%
the lesson/content.

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

E4 1.9 30% 50% 20% 0%
work is assessed.

Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.1

F. Well-Managed Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and

F1 3.1 0% 10% 70% 20%
each other.

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow

F2 2.9 classroom rules and behavioral expectations and work well 0% 25% 65% 10%
with others.

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one

F3 2.5 15% 35% 40% 10%
activity to another.

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

F4 2.7 5% 35% 50% 10%
time or disruptions.

Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.8

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

 G. Digital Learning Environment

Very Evident
Somewhat
Observed
Indicators Average Description

Evident

Evident
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate,
G1 1.7 60% 15% 20% 5%
and/or use information for learning.

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

G2 1.5 75% 10% 10% 5%
solve problems, and/or create original works for learning.

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

G3 1.3 85% 5% 5% 5%
work collaboratively for learning.

Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
1.5

eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team observed 20 core content classes, resulting in the seven learning environment data
tables presented in the previous section. The learning environment ratings ranged from the lowest of 1.5 on a
four-point scale for the Digital Learning Environment to the highest rating of 2.8 for the Well-Managed Learning
Environment. The highest mean scores for the Well-Managed, Supportive, and Equitable Learning Environments
reflected that Olmsted South Academy emphasized a climate of support to develop the self-efficacy of the
students and a decrease in disruptive behaviors.

Although one of the highest overall average ratings was for the Equitable Learning Environment, one of the
greatest concerns raised was for the lack of differentiated learning, as learners who “engage in differentiated
learning opportunities and/or activities that meet their needs” (A1) were evident/very evident in 15 percent of
classrooms. Even with a complex weekly schedule that included designated Personalized Learning Time (PLT)
blocks, missed opportunities for personalized learning and instructional differentiation were identified.

The team observed inconsistent high academic expectations for all students, suggesting a possible negative impact
on student achievement. Students who “demonstrate and/or are able to describe high quality work” (B3), that is,
what high quality looks like or sounds like, were evident/very evident in 20 percent of classrooms. Instances of
“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 35 percent of classrooms, supporting the
concern of the Diagnostic Review team related to this learning environment.

Most instruction was teacher-led with the intent of students listening to learn. While students were compliant and
well-managed, they were not actively engaged or interacting with the teacher. The majority of students were not
invited to “make connections from content to real-life experiences” (D2), such as connecting to their lives, to other
learning, or to the world outside of school, as that practice was evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms.
Furthermore, learners who “collaborate with their peers to accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks, and/or
assignments” (D4) were evident/very evident in 35 percent of classrooms. The Diagnostic Review Team was
concerned that active learning to deepen understanding, to think at higher levels, and to engage with content in
ways that move learning to long-term memory for later retrieval during assessment was rarely observed in the
classrooms.

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

The classroom observation data revealed that the practices of progress monitoring and providing timely and
helpful feedback to students were infrequently followed. In classroom observations, it was evident/very evident in
25 percent of classrooms that “Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning is
monitored” (E1). Neither the process nor criteria were articulated, resulting in students who “understand and/or
are able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4) being evident/very evident in 20 percent of classrooms.
Students were not observed self-monitoring, so they could not gauge their own progress toward the daily learning
expectations and make corrections to their work. This finding was particularly important since there were
designated PLT blocks within the school day for students to seek assistance and to work on learning tasks that
need more time or support.

At the time of the Diagnostic Review, Olmsted Academy South was in the process of implementing a 1-to-1 digital
learning environment. As a result of the ongoing implementation, some engagement with the devices was
observed. Learners, for example, who “use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for
learning” (G1) were evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms. In contrast, in 10 percent of classrooms, it
was evident/very evident that learners “use digital tools/technology to communicate and/or work collaboratively
for learning” (G3). However, with full implementation and aligned teacher and administrator professional
development, the potential exists for improving teacher effectiveness and raising the means of the other low
learning environments.

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

Findings
Improvement Priorities
Improvement priorities are developed to enhance the capacity of the institution to reach a higher level of
performance and reflect the areas identified by the Diagnostic Review Team to have the greatest impact on
improving student performance and organizational effectiveness.

Improvement Priority #1
Develop, document, and communicate a formal continuous improvement process that includes an authentic and
useful school improvement plan. The plan should detail specific goals, strategies, activities, and measures based on
identified needs from intentional data triangulation. Clarify who has responsibility for designing, implementing,
monitoring, providing feedback on, and improving the plan across time. Monitor the various kinds of achievement
data (e.g., common formative assessment, summative assessment, Measures of Academic Progress [MAP],
Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress [K-PREP]) to inform adjustments in both core classroom
instruction and support instruction (e.g., intervention, English learners, and exceptional child education) as needed
to ensure improved student learning. (Standard 1.3)

Evidence:

Student Performance Data:

The student performance data from the Kentucky Performance Rating for Education Progress, as detailed in an
addendum to this report, were consistent in that Olmsted Academy South students performed below the state
mean in every content area for two consecutive years, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.

The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished decreased from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018 in sixth-
grade reading by one percentage point and in seventh-grade reading by 5.3 percentage points. Conversely, the
percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in eighth-grade reading increased by 7.3 percentage
points from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. In math, the percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in
sixth grade decreased by 9.9 percentage points and in eighth grade by 8.1 percentage points from 2016-2017 to
2017-2018. The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in seventh-grade math increased by
2.1 percentage points from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.

Student performance data also indicated inconsistent trends for student cohort performance in reading and math
from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. The percentage of sixth-grade students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in
reading was 41.3 percent in 2016-2017 and, in 2017-2018, those same students scored 40.8 percent as seventh
graders, showing a net loss of 0.5 percent. Also, in 2016-2017, the percentage of seventh-grade students who
scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading was 35.5 and the following year the same cohort had a mean percent
Proficient/Distinguished of 40.1, yielding a 4.6 percentage-point improvement.

When examining math proficiency by student cohort from sixth to seventh grade, a similar trend emerged. The
percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2016-2017 in sixth-grade math was 36.4 percent,
while the same cohort in seventh grade in 2017-2018 scored 36.3 percent, resulting in a net loss of 0.1 percent.
Seventh-grade students in 2016-2017 scored 34.2 percent Proficient/Distinguished in math, and the same cohort
in the eighth grade in 2017-2018 scored 26.4 percent, indicating a net loss of 7.8 percent. The student cohorts did
not remain 100 percent constant from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018, illuminating a need for explicit expectations for
on-grade-level curriculum and evidence-based instruction.

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

As noted in the other improvement priorities, student performance data showed that the school performed below
the state average in every content area tested for two consecutive years, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. Additionally,
the overall growth index for reading and math lagged behind the state index.

Observation Data:
The classroom observation data revealed that the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment,
essential for continuous improvement, was rated 2.1 on a four-point scale, which was the second-lowest scoring
learning environment. Further, in 25 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners “monitor
their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1). Instances of learners
who “receive/respond to feedback (from teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding and/or revise
work” (E2) were evident/very evident in 40 percent of classrooms.

Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data indicated that the three assistant principals were not fully involved in the
instructional leadership of the school. The interview data revealed that the assistant principals primarily had
management roles and were not consistent in their decision-making and responses to others across the grade
levels and content areas. The team found no systematic approach across the administrative team and grade levels
for focusing on the continuous improvement of student learning and teacher effectiveness. Interview data
suggested a lack of systematic instructional leadership for the administrative team and the extended leadership
team. Stakeholder interviews also indicated that although a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan existed, it
was not given any credence, supporting the perception that systematic and continuous improvement was not an
ongoing practice at Olmsted Academy South.

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The survey data provided insight into stakeholder perceptions of continuous improvement. Sixty-nine percent of
staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school has systematic processes for collecting, analyzing, and
using data” (G3). Similarly, 74 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school has a continuous
improvement process based on data, goals, actions, and measures of growth” (C5).

The survey data showed that 43 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers change their
teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9), indicating minimal use of data to adjust instruction to meet student
learning needs. Seventy-one percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “In my school, purpose and
expectations are clearly explained to me and my family” (C2). These findings indicated lack of clarity about
expectations for both students and staff in ongoing data and evidence collection and analysis to inform continuous
improvement.

The 2017 TELL (Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning) Kentucky survey provided additional evidence that
the school did not systematically use its existing Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP). According to the
TELL survey results, 75 percent of staff members agreed with the statement, “The school improvement team
provides effective leadership at this school.” Also, the TELL results showed 64 percent of staff members agreed
that “The faculty and leadership have a shared vision.” The Diagnostic Review Team found a lack of clarity about
and focus on a consistent and sustainable improvement plan, suggesting the school could leverage the process to
embed continuous improvement in all facets of the school.

Documents and Artifacts:

A Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) existed, but the team found no evidence that the school
established a continuous improvement process that included developing, implementing, and monitoring school

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

improvement plans (e.g., CSIP, 30-60-90 day plan). Interview data suggested that while a CSIP was developed, few
stakeholders were deliberately and systematically implementing, monitoring, and adjusting plan activities.

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

Improvement Priority #2
Develop, implement, and monitor a systematic instructional process aligned to the Jefferson County Public Schools
(JCPS) on-grade-level curriculum and congruent in rigor with the Kentucky Academic Standards. Establish and
consistently implement high expectations to prepare students for success at the next level. (Standard 2.5)

Evidence:

Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed inconsistent trends in reading
and math proficiency from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018 on the K-PREP assessment, suggesting a lack of systematic
instructional processes and on-grade-level curriculum implementation. The student performance data were among
those data considered to identify Improvement Priority #2.

Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, showed that the High Expectations Learning Environment
was rated a 2.2 overall. In 20 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that learners “demonstrate and/or
are able to describe high quality work” (B3). Instances of learners who “strive to meet or are able to articulate the
high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1) and “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 35 percent of classrooms. In 45 percent of classrooms, it was
evident/very evident that learners “engage in activities and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2).
Collectively, these data illustrated a need to increase the level of instructional rigor and ensure instruction is
aligned with the Kentucky Academic Standards.

Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data suggested students were placed into classes based on Rasch UnIT (RIT) bands,
resulting in students traveling with the same peer group throughout the school day. Due to this criterion for
making student schedules, students had few opportunities to move to another group.

The interview data revealed the perception that the curriculum was being followed. However, one staff member
summed up the sentiment of many with a comment about following the curriculum: “If we use the curriculum, we
are teaching a grade level or two below.” This quote reveals a lack of understanding about the relationship among
on-grade-level standards-based curriculum, evidence-based instruction, and rigorous instruction. These findings
provide an opportunity for stakeholders to improve student learning by increasing instructional rigor and aligning
instruction to the JCPS on-grade-level curriculum and Kentucky Academic Standards.

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The survey results showed some inconsistency in the perception about the degree to which instruction was
rigorous and varied. Survey data indicated that 65 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “My school
provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences,” (E2). Forty-five percent of students
agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my teachers use a variety of teaching methods and learning
activities to help me develop the skills I will need to succeed” (E8), which was congruent with the observation data
that showed one-directional, teacher-led instruction in most classrooms. Lack of feedback to students for
improvement of learning was noted, as 65 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my teachers
provide me with information about my learning and grades” (E12). By not implementing challenging but attainable
curriculum with evidence-based instruction that is supported by timely and helpful feedback, students cannot
perform their best academically.

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

Staff survey responses aligned with observational data and other perceptual data in this report. Sixty-nine percent
of staff members, for example, agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school has a systematic process
for collecting, analyzing and using data” (G3). In addition to the lack of data-informed decision-making, the team
was also concerned that leadership inconsistently provided meaningful feedback to teachers or monitored to
ensure feedback changed instructional practices, as 56 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our
school’s leaders ensure all staff members use supervisor feedback to improve student learning” (D8). The
Diagnostic Review Team encourages leadership to provide meaningful and prompt feedback to teachers following
classroom observations as a way to improve instructional capacity. The topic of improvement was also addressed
in survey item E18, “In our school, a professional learning program is designed to build capacity among all
professional and support staff members,” to which 67 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed.

Documents and Artifacts:

A review of documents and artifacts suggested that there was not a systematic and continuous process for
learning walks and observations that were followed by feedback. Weekly learning walk data from August 2018 to
March 1, 2019, that was provided to the team indicated inconsistent practices that ranged from a high of 43
observations by the administrative team and 16 by the principal during the first week of school to a low of seven
by the team and zero by the principal. Related Kentucky TELL survey results for 2017 indicated that 78.4 percent of
Olmstead teachers agreed that “They receive feedback that can help them improve teaching” (Q7h). Fifty-nine
percent of teachers reported that “they were assigned classes that maximize their likelihood of success with
students” (Q9g).

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

Improvement Priority #3
Develop, implement, and monitor a systematic approach to differentiated instruction and personalized learning.
Respond in a timely manner to individual and small group learning needs that are identified through daily learning
checks, formative assessments, and summative assessments. (Standard 2.7)

Evidence:

Student Performance Data

The student performance data for Olmsted, as detailed in an addendum to this report, indicated that performance
in all content areas on the Kentucky Performance for Educational Progress (KPREP) in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018
were below the state average. The student performance data were among those data considered to develop
Improvement Priority #3.

Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, showed that differentiated instruction occurred in few
classrooms. For example, instances of learners who “engage in differentiated learning opportunities and/or
activities that meet their needs” (A1) were evident/very evident in 15 percent of classrooms. In addition,
observations during designated Personalized Learning Time (PLT) did not provide evidence of teachers working
individually with students or with groups of students on their data-informed learning needs. Also, learners who
“monitor their own progress or have mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored” (E1) were
evident/very evident in 25 percent of classrooms.

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The survey data showed that teachers and students generally agreed that student learning needs were not
consistently addressed, as evidenced by 46 percent of staff members who agreed/strongly agreed that “All
teachers in our school personalize instructional strategies and interventions to address individual learning needs of
students” (E2). Likewise, 43 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my teachers
change their teaching to meet my learning needs” (E9), providing further evidence that personalization of student
learning and individualization of instruction could be a leverage point to improve achievement.

Documents and Artifacts:

A review of lesson plans revealed that Study Island was included; however, there was no specific designated
personalized instruction for groups or individual students. Observational notes of assistant principals showed no
individual or small group instruction by the teachers; rather, all instruction was whole group. According to the
Kentucky TELL 2017, 57 percent of teachers agreed that “State assessment data are available in time to impact
instructional practices” (Q9a) compared to 72 percent of middle school teachers statewide. The team was
concerned that without timely assessment data, teachers could not differentiate instruction to meet individual
student and group learning needs.

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

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:
Olmsted Academy South is a single-gender Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM)
magnet school. Implementation of the single-gender magnet school for girls has been a priority for the principal,
resulting in 214 magnet students attending the school out of an enrollment of 740 in 2018-2019. Consistently,
interviews and artifacts support that the emphasis was to create an environment that develops student self-
efficacy and empowers them to set goals in areas that have not been traditional for females or their peer group.
Attending to student social and emotional well-being was evidenced by many interviewees who mentioned
students’ “home life issues,” “poverty,” “lack of English,” and “personal responsibilities.” To reduce the impact of
factors outside of school that may be faced by the 81 percent of students in poverty, the school provided extensive
extracurricular opportunities for students and had expectations that faculty and staff maintain the students’ self-
esteem in communications with them.

At the time of the Diagnostic Review Team visit, student attendance improved to over 90 percent and chronic
absenteeism (six days or more) was reduced. Also, incidences of suspensions declined from 91 to 86, although the
number of referrals increased. Improved attendance and discipline indicated that the climate was successfully
affected with increased student attendance and reduction in serious offenses. The positive intent of providing an
environment conducive to developing students’ sense of self-efficacy and positive self-esteem laid a foundation to
be leveraged for improving academic performance.

Continuous Improvement Process:

The Diagnostic Review Team found no systematic and focused improvement process at Olmsted Academy South.
Human, financial, and physical resources are not efficiently or effectively allocated based on data- and evidence-
informed student learning needs. Establishing improvement processes and effective allocation of all resources will
support continuous improvement in teacher and administrator effectiveness, and therefore improvement in
student academic performance. As an example, the three assistant principals were not acting as instructional
leaders for grade-level teachers or content areas to which they were assigned. The lack of organizational
effectiveness resulted in the administrative team being viewed as inconsistent. An effective administrative team
works together for their own improvement and that of others. It is suggested that administrators participate with
teachers in professional learning to assure consistency across the administrative team and teachers.

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

The team suggests the school develop systematic, cohesive, and focused priorities, processes, and expectations for
the administrative team, the extended leadership team, and teachers in order to support continuous
improvement. Many interviewees indicated that the multiple initiatives and nine different weekly schedules were
confusing and caused lost learning time. A related example that emerged from interviews was that multiple
teacher observation instruments were being used, rather than one that could be leveraged for systematic data
gathering and analysis, data-informed professional learning, and feedback for consistency and continuous
improvement. It is suggested that a reduction of the many initiatives to a few priorities and the creation of a
simplified schedule focused on core content learning improvement take place. Clarity in communication,
implementation, monitoring, and data-informed feedback will assure fidelity of implementation and continuous
improvement.

Although Olmsted Academy South is a STEAM magnet school, there was little such evidence in the core classroom
observations, indicating minimal implementation. If the school continues to be a STEAM magnet, evidence of
integration of related STEAM concepts across the curriculum would not only bring the magnet program to a higher
level of implementation but would also support the students’ learning through cross-curricular connections and
developing concepts to a deeper level through repeated exposure to vocabulary and concepts.

As evidenced by the frequency of the same words (e g., poverty, English, home issues) mentioned by stakeholders
to express concern for the social, emotional, and out-of-school factors related to the students, the team concluded
that those concerns may have been used as excuses or enablers for the lack of improved student performance. The
Diagnostic Review Team suggests school leaders and staff members provide high expectations for rigorous on-
grade-level curriculum and evidence-based instruction to mediate the out-of-school factors for all students’
learning. In fact, conceptualizing factors of language and diversity as assets, rather than deficits, can support the
continuous improvement of Olmsted Academy South.

In conclusion, the Diagnostic Review Team recommends that systematic and deliberate processes be generated
and implemented for the school organization and for continuous improvement. The school is encouraged to use
deliberate processes to identify and address student learning needs. Implementation of a system of data and
evidence-informed feedback to teachers following walkthroughs and observations will improve teacher
effectiveness and student learning. Analysis of the data over time will help to determine common professional
learning that can be job embedded and that transfers to professional practice in a systematic, results-driven, and
sustainable manner. Given the concerns noted and recommendations made by the Diagnostic Review team,
support outside of the school may be needed for development, implementation, and sustainability of
improvement plans. Initiation of predictable and consistent processes with clear expectations and feedback to
students, teachers, and administrators will help focus the work of all at Olmsted Academy South.

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:

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

• Review and share the findings with stakeholders.
• Develop plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the Diagnostic Review Team.
• Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution’s continuous improvement
efforts.
• Celebrate the successes noted in the report.

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

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. Rosemarye Taylor
Rachelle Bramlage
Dr. Rosemarye Taylor is professor of Educational Leadership at the University of
Central Florida in Orlando. She has teaching and administrative experience at all
levels K-12 in rural, suburban, and urban settings. Dr. Taylor’s administrative
experience ranges from school-based administration to executive leadership at
the school-district level. Her experience in classroom, school, and school district
level analyses of organizational strengths and areas to strengthen is nation-wide.
She has a proven track record of evidence-based collaboration to develop
potential solutions for continuous improvement in teacher and leader
effectiveness and hence, student learning outcomes. She earned a bachelor’s
degree in Spanish and English from the University of South Florida, a master’s
degree and Education Specialist degree in counseling from Georgia State
University, and a Ph. D. in educational administration from Georgia State
University.
Rachelle Bramlage-Schomburg earned her master’s degree in teaching from
Spaulding University and administrative certificate and Rank 1 from Indiana
University Southeast. She has served as the director of secondary education for
Bullitt County Public Schools since 2016. She began her career in education as a
middle school science and mathematics teacher, team leader, and assistant
athletic director for eight years. Rachelle spent two years as the assistant principal
for North Bullitt High School where she developed and began implementation of
Thinking Focus Cohorts around best instructional processes through professional
learning and support. She has also taught at the university level.

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

Team Member Name Brief Biography
Karl Gustafson Karl Gustafson serves as the Mountain Region Vice President for
AdvancED/Measured Progress. His career has guided his experience towards
pursuits in education with a variety of organizations that provide products and/or
services to assist in the teaching and learning success of educators and students.
Karl spent nearly 11 years with Apple Computer where he held various managerial
roles including National Director of Sales. Karl also served as the vice president of
sales for Computer Curriculum Corporation where he worked to expand the use of
a research-based adaptive learning application known as SuccessMaker. In the
early 2000 timeframe, he followed his dream to create a new business from the
ground up where he served as the corporate vice president of sales for
KnowledgeNet, an adult learning platform for certifying IT professionals in Cisco,
Microsoft, and Oracle systems. After the sale of KnowledgeNet to a large
publishing organization, Karl returned to his passion of advancing student learning
through technology, joining Pearson Education as senior vice president of sales for
the digital learning division. Over the course of 10 years, Karl worked with his
team and educators across the country to implement EdTech solutions and
services. Most recently Karl joined Measured Progress, a non-profit assessment
organization dedicated to developing high-quality assessment instruments for use
in both summative and formative measures. Measured Progress recently merged
with Advance Education, at which time Karl was named to the Mountain Region
Vice President role. Karl received his bachelor’s degree from the University of
Illinois and his master’s degree in business administration from Arizona State
University.
Crystal Higgins Crystal Higgins has been in education for 25 years in Kentucky. For the last seven
years, she has served as an Education Recovery Specialist for the Kentucky
Department of Education. In this role, she works with teachers, administrators,
and students across grade levels. Her primary responsibility is to support school
personnel in establishing sustainable systems to foster and maintain continuous
improvement in student performance. In tandem with school administrators,
Crystal works to embed sustainable systems for the educational and cultural
aspects of the school. She also works with teachers to foster a high level of
classroom instruction and to establish classroom systems that sustain
improvement over time. Crystal earned certification for School Improvement
Specialist and has completed the one-year leadership course through the National
Institute of School Leadership.
Sam Watkins Sam Watkins has had a positive impact on students, schools, and the districts that
he has led in the state of Kentucky. During his 33 years as an educator, he served
students as a teacher, coach, athletic director, assistant principal, principal,
director of districtwide programs, and Education Recovery Leader. Mr. Watkins
obtained a master’s degree in business administration from Eastern Kentucky
University and superintendent certification from the University of Kentucky.
Recognized as a leader across the state of Kentucky, he successfully led two high
schools and has helped numerous districts in Kentucky increase student
achievement.

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

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I. School and Student Proficiency and Separate Academic Indicator Results

Content Area %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)

Reading 6th* 41.3 58.9 40.3 59.7

Reading 7th 35.5 54.6 40.8 57.4

Reading 8th 32.8 57.1 40.1 62.9

Math 6th* 36.4 49.1 26.5 47.5

Math 7th 34.2 43.3 36.3 47.4

Math 8th 34.5 48.7 26.4 46.1

Science 7th NA n/a 9.4 25.9

Social Studies 8th 31.5 60.5 35.2 60.2

Writing 8th 25.9 37.2 31.7 44.3

Plus
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished increased from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018
in seventh-grade reading (35.5 to 40.8 percent), eighth-grade reading (from 32.8 to 40.1 percent),
seventh-grade math (from 34.2 to 36.3 percent), eighth-grade social studies (from 31.5 to 35.2 percent),
and eighth-grade writing (from 25.9 to 31.7 percent).
• The overall highest percentages of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018 were in
reading in sixth grade (40.3) seventh grade (40.8), and eighth grade (40.1).
Delta
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in every
content area for two consecutive years, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished declined from 2016-2017 to 2017-
2018.in sixth-grade reading (from 41.3 to 40.3 percent), sixth-grade math (36.4 to 26.5 percent), and
eighth-grade math (34.5 to 26.4 percent)
• The lowest overall percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in 2017-2018 was in
seventh-grade science (9.4).

© Advance Education, Inc. 24 www.advanc-ed.org

Section II. Student Growth Index (2017-2018)
Content Area Index State Index

Reading 13.8 16.1

Math 4.2 8.0

EL 20.6 8.0

Growth Indicator 9.0 12.1

Plus
• The student growth index for English Learners was 20.6 as compared to the state index of 8.0.

Delta
• The student growth index in 2017-2018 in reading and math and the growth indicator all lagged behind
the state.

Section III: Gap Data for the 2017-2018 %P/D

Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
Gap Group
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 40.4 29.7 9.4 35.2 31.7
Female 40.4 29.7 9.4 35.2 31.7
Male
White 48.4 32.9 13.7 36.7 30.4
African American 31.6 23.9 8.6 22.3 25.5
Hispanic 39.8 32.4 5.9 51.3 38.5
Asian 54.5 54.5 9.1 63.6 72.7
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Two or More Races 50.0 27.3 0
Title I 40.4 29.7 9.4 35.2 31.7
Migrant
Homeless
English Learner (EL) 6.1 9.2 0 0 14.8
English Learner plus 19.1 17.6 4.3 19.4 27.8
Monitored
Free/Reduced-Price 39.2 28.5 7.9 36.3 32.6

© Advance Education, Inc. 25 www.advanc-ed.org

 Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
Gap Group
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
Meals
Gifted/Talented
Disability-With IEP 6.8 6.8 5.0 8.3 0
(Total)
Disability-With IEP 6.8 6.8 5.0 8.3 0
(No Alt)
Disability (no ALT) 7.9 7.9
with Accommodation
Disability-With IEP Alt
Only
Consolidated Student 32.8 24.6 7.1 29.6 28.3
Group

Plus
• The percentage of students in the Asian group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in writing was 72.7
percent in 2017-2018.
Delta
• The percentage of students in the English Learner group who scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading
was 6.1 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students in the Female group who scored Proficient/Distinguished was lowest in
science (9.4) and math (29.7) in 2017-2018.
• The percentages of students in the Disability groups who scored Proficient/Distinguished were in single
digits for all content areas.

© Advance Education, Inc. 26 www.advanc-ed.org

Schedule

Monday, March 4, 2019

Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:30 p.m.– Principal Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
5:15 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
5:15 p.m.– Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
9:00 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members

Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Time Event Where Who
7:15 a.m. Team arrives at Olmsted South Academy 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
9:00 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members

Wednesday, March 6, 2019 (Note: Due to the school being closed, no observations took place.)
Time Event Where Who
7:30 a.m. Team arrives at Olmsted South Academy 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
8:00 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members

Thursday, March 7, 2019

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

© Advance Education, Inc. 27 www.advanc-ed.org

advanc-ed.org

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

9115 Westside Parkway, Alpharetta, GA 30009

About AdvancED

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

professionals in the world. Founded on more than 100 years of work in continuous improvement,

AdvancED combines the knowledge and expertise of a research institute, the skills of a management

consulting firm and the passion of a grassroots movement for educational change to empower

Pre-K-12 schools and school systems to ensure that all learners realize their full potential.

©Advance Education, Inc. AdvancED® grants to the Institution, which is the subject of the Engagement Review Report,
and its designees and stakeholders a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license, and release to
reproduce, reprint, and distribute this report in accordance with and as protected by the Copyright Laws of the United
States of America and all foreign countries. All other rights not expressly conveyed are reserved by AdvancED.