Report of the Diagnostic Review Team for Knox … Count… · Report of the Diagnostic Review Team...

Report of theDiagnostic Review Team

forKnox County Board of Education

200 Daniel Boone DrBarbourville

KY 40906US

Date: April 11, 2017 - April 14, 2017

Document Generated On May 18, 2017

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

designees and stakeholders a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license and release to reproduce, reprint, and distribute this report in

accordance with and as protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States of America and all foreign countries. All other rights not expressly

conveyed are reserved by AdvancED™.


Kentucky Department of Education Knox County Board of Education

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

Table of Contents Introduction 4

Results 8

Teaching and Learning Impact 8

Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for Learning 9

Standard 5 - Using Results for Continuous Improvement 10

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot™) 11

eleot™ Data Summary 15

Findings 18

Leadership Capacity 28

Standard 1 - Purpose and Direction 29

Standard 2 - Governance and Leadership 29

Resource Utilization 30

Standard 4 - Resources and Support Systems 30

Conclusion 32

Addenda 37

Team Roster 37

About AdvancED 38

References 39

Attachments 40





© 2017 Advance Education, Inc. All rights reserved unless otherwise granted by written agreement. Page 3

-

-

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

adherence and commitment to the research-aligned AdvancED Standards. The Diagnostic Review Process is

designed to energize and equip the leadership and stakeholders of an institution to achieve higher levels of

performance and address those areas that may be hindering efforts to reach desired performance levels. The

Diagnostic Review is a rigorous process that includes examination of evidence and relevant performance data,

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

The Diagnostic Review Team used the AdvancED Standards and related criteria to guide its evaluation,

looking not only for adherence to standards, but also for how the institution functioned as a whole and

embodied the practices and characteristics of quality. Using the evidence at their disposal, the Diagnostic

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

Standards help to delineate what matters. They provide a common language through which an education

community can engage in conversations about educational improvement, institution effectiveness, and

achievement. They serve as a foundation for planning and implementing improvement strategies and activities

and for measuring success. AdvancED Standards were developed by a committee comprised of talented

educators and leaders from the fields of practice, research and policy who applied professional wisdom, deep

knowledge of effective practice, and the best available research to craft a set of robust standards that define

institutional quality and guide continuous improvement. Prior to implementation, an internationally recognized

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

and provided feedback, guidance and endorsement.

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

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

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

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

the Diagnostic Review Team members' individual ratings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

team;

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

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








-

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

validated instrument.

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

ratings, identification of Powerful Practices and Improvement Priorities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

institution's improvement plan.

The ReviewKnox County Public Schools hosted a Diagnostic Review on April 11-14, 2017. The four-day onsite review

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

Review process and developing this written report of their findings.

The Diagnostic Review Team expresses its appreciation to the staff and stakeholders of Knox County Public

Schools for their hospitality and welcoming attitude throughout the visit. Throughout the Diagnostic Review,

district and school leaders, faculty and staff were straightforward and open in discussing the continuous








improvement efforts taking place across the district. The district's leadership team is commended for their

preparations for the onsite review, prompt response to the Team's varied requests and commitment to the

process of continuous improvement. The district's Internal Review was conducted collaboratively with a range

of stakeholders and all diagnostics were completed and uploaded into ASSIST™ for access and review by the

Team. Evidence and documentation to support the district's Self Assessment were provided and made

available to the Diagnostic Review Team onsite. The district's essential documents were organized by

standards and easily accessed by the Team.

Prior to arrival in the district, the Team conversed electronically to begin a preliminary examination of the

district's Self Assessment, as well as to review documents and evidence provided, determine Team Member

assignments and discuss the management of logistics for the onsite review. In addition, the Lead Evaluator

and Associate Lead Evaluator communicated and collaborated with district officials on numerous occasions

prior to the visit to promote a positive, productive onsite review.

Team members arrived in Corbin, Kentucky on April 11, 2017, for their first Team work session to discuss the

preliminary review of data and information, consider points of inquiry, review team member individual

schedules and prepare for interviews to be held the following day. During off-site and onsite review sessions,

the AdvancED Diagnostic Review Team examined artifacts and evidence provided by Knox County Public

Schools. During the onsite portion of the review, the Team examined additional artifacts, collected and

analyzed data from interviews and conducted observations using the eProve™ Effective Learning

Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®). Three additional Team members from the Kentucky Department of

Education joined the Diagnostic Review Team on April 12 and April 13, 2017 to assist with collecting

classroom observation data from multiple school sites. In addition, the Team met on the evenings of April 12

and 13, 2017 to review interview and classroom observation data, discuss additional evidence, rate each of the

indicators and identify Improvement Priorities.

The Diagnostic Review Team was pleased to interview 43 stakeholders to gain further insights regarding the

district's adherence to the AdvancED Standards and Indicators, continuous improvement efforts and quality

assurance processes. Interviews with stakeholders included five Board members, 19 administrators/directors,

nine instructional staff, four students and six parents and community members. In addition, the Diagnostic

Review Team was given the opportunity to visit nine of the district's schools.

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

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

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

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

groups.








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

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

Stakeholder Interviewed Number

Administrators 24

Instructional Staff 9

Students 4

Parents/Community/Business Leaders 6

Total 43








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

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

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

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

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

learning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

student performance and institution effectiveness.

Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for LearningThe system's curriculum, instructional design, and assessment practices guide and ensure teacher

effectiveness and student learning across all grades and courses.

Indicator Description Review TeamScore

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

2.17

3.2 Curriculum, instruction, and assessment throughout the system are monitoredand adjusted systematically in response to data from multiple assessments ofstudent learning and an examination of professional practice.

2.17

3.3 Teachers throughout the district engage students in their learning throughinstructional strategies that ensure achievement of learning expectations.

2.00

3.4 System and school leaders monitor and support the improvement of instructionalpractices of teachers to ensure student success.

2.50

3.5 The system operates as a collaborative learning organization through structuresthat support improved instruction and student learning at all levels.

2.83

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

2.00

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

2.50

3.8 The system and all of its schools engage families in meaningful ways in theirchildren's education and keep them informed of their children's learningprogress.

2.17

3.9 The system designs and evaluates structures in all schools whereby eachstudent is well known by at least one adult advocate in the student's school whosupports that student's educational experience.

2.17










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

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


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

1.50

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

3.12 The system and its schools provide and coordinate learning support services tomeet the unique learning needs of students.

2.17


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

2.33

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

2.33

5.3 Throughout the system professional and support staff are trained in theinterpretation and use of data.

2.50

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

2.33

5.5 System and school leaders monitor and communicate comprehensiveinformation about student learning, school performance, and the achievement ofsystem and school improvement goals to stakeholders.

2.50










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

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

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

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

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

learning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Diagnostic Review Team visited nine schools in the Knox County Public School District. Eighty classroom

observations were conducted by the Team, which provided ample opportunity for instructional practices and

Learning Environments to be observed across the district. Classrooms were generally well-managed, as

shown by its rating of 3.20 on a four-point scale. Students, generally, spoke and interacted respectfully with

teacher(s) and their peers, which was rated a 3.60 on a four-point scale. Also earning a relatively high rating of

3.5 was the item indicating that students followed classroom rules. Observations also revealed that students

eleot™ Results

Review

A. E

quita

ble

Lear

ning

B. H

igh

Expe

ctat

ions

C. S

uppo

rtive

Lea

rnin

g

D. A

ctiv

e Le

arni

ng

E. P

rogr

ess

Mon

itorin

g an

d

Feed

back

F. W

ell-M

anag

ed L

earn

ing

G. D

igita

l Lea

rnin

g

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Per

form

ance

Lev

els

2.492.80 2.85 2.84

2.59

3.18

1.47










demonstrated a positive attitude about learning, as that item earned a 3.20. Students typically were provided

the support and assistance needed to accomplish tasks being asked of them. Other noted characteristics of

classrooms included students who knew classroom routines, behavioral expectations and consequences,

which earned a 3.6.

Conversely, the digital Learning Environment was identified as an opportunity for growth, as it earned an

overall average rating of 1.50 on a four-point scale. Students were observed using technology to gather,

evaluate and use information for learning more frequently than they were observed using digital tools to

communicate and work collaboratively for learning. Although the Team did not observe technology consistently

used by students throughout the district, there was evidence of effective use in some classrooms and in some

schools. Interview data also reinforced the need to ensure students have access to a wealth of current

technology hardware and software that supports a high level of use to enhance or engage student learning.

The Equitable Learning Environment received an overall rating of 2.50 on a four-point scale and represented

the second lowest rating of all Learning Environments for the district. A relative strength within this Learning

Environment was that students had "equal access to classroom activities, resources, technology and support"

(A2), which received a rating of 3.30 and was evident/very evident in 89 percent of the classrooms. Another

relative strength was that students knew that "rules and consequences are fair, clear and consistently applied"

(A3), which also received a rating of 3.30 and was evident in 89 percent of the classrooms. Of concern to the

Team was the lack of student access to "differentiated learning opportunities and activities that meet his/her

needs" (A1), which received a rating of 1.90 and was evident/very evident in 26 percent of the classrooms. In

addition, students were given few "opportunities to learn about their own and other's

backgrounds/cultures/differences" (A4) with this indicator being evident/very evident in 14 percent of the

classrooms.

The High Expectations Learning Environment received an overall rating of 2.80 on a four-point scale. In 82

percent of the classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students knew and strived to meet the high

expectations established by the teacher" (B1). During classroom observations, "activities and learning that are

challenging but attainable" (B2) were evident/very evident in 74 percent of the classrooms and received a

rating of 3.00. Team members found that questions that required "higher order thinking" (B5) were evident/very

evident in 66 percent of the classrooms, and students were "engaged in rigorous coursework, discussions,

and/or tasks" (B4) in 70 percent of the classrooms with these items receiving a 2.80 and 2.90, respectively. Of

concern to the Team was the lack of evidence to suggest students were "provided exemplars of high quality

work" (B3). Instances of exemplars being used was evident/very evident in 38 percent of the classrooms and

received the lowest rating of this Learning Environment at 2.20 on four-point scale.

The Supportive Learning Environment received an overall rating of 2.90 on a four-point scale. A strength in this

Learning Environment was that students demonstrated or expressed that "learning experiences are positive"

(C1), which received one of the highest ratings within this Learning Environment at 3.20 and was evident/very

evident in 87 percent of the classrooms. Another relative strength found within this Learning Environment was

that students demonstrated "positive attitudes about the classroom and learning" (C2), which was also rated at

3.20 and was evident/very evident in 88 percent of the classrooms. Students generally took "risks in learning"










(C3), which was evident/very evident in 72 percent of the classrooms and were frequently provided "support

and assistance to understand content and accomplish tasks" (C4), which was evident/very evident in 71

percent of the classrooms and received a rating of 3.00. While support and assistance were provided in some

classrooms, "additional/alternative instruction and feedback at the appropriate level of challenge for his/her

needs" (C5) was evident/very evident in 29 percent of the classrooms and received the lowest rating in this

Learning Environment. Of concern to the Team was the lack of re-teaching and progress monitoring occurring

for individual students.

The Active Learning Environment received an overall rating of 2.80 on a four-point scale. It was evident/ very

evident in 84 percent of the classrooms that students were "actively engaged in the learning activities" (D3),

which received the highest rating of this Learning Environment at 3.20. Moreover, students were routinely

given "opportunities to engage in discussions with teacher and other students" (D1), which was evident/very

evident (D1) in 70 percent of the classrooms. Students provided opportunities to "make connections from

content to real-life experiences" (D2) was observed less frequently, with this item being evident/very evident in

42 percent of the classrooms.

The Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment received an overall rating of 2.60 on a four-

point scale. Many of the items in this Learning Environment were closely associated with the need to provide

individualized feedback and progress monitoring. Students "asked and/or quizzed about individual

progress/learning" (E1) and/or "responding to teacher feedback to improve understanding" (E2) were

evident/very evident in 54 percent of the classrooms. Furthermore, students who demonstrated or verbalized

"understanding of the lesson/content" (E3) were evident/very evident in 71 percent of the classrooms, with this

item receiving the highest rating in this Learning Environment at 3.00. Of concern to the Team was the item

where students understood "how her/his work is assessed" (E4), which was evident/very evident in 42 percent

of the classrooms, suggesting that students were unclear as to how their learning and/or achievement were

evaluated. Moreover, students had few "opportunities to revise/improve work based on feedback" (E5), which

was evident/very evident in 47 percent of the classrooms.

The Well-Managed Learning Environment received an overall rating of 3.20 on a four-point scale and

represented the strongest of the seven Learning Environments. The Team found it evident/very evident in 96

percent of the classrooms that students spoke and interacted "respectfully with teacher(s) and peers" (F1). In

addition, it was clear that students followed classroom rules and worked well with others (F2), which was

evident/very evident in 92 percent of the classrooms. Students who knew "classroom routines, behavioral

expectations and consequences" (F5) were evident/very evident in 91 percent of the classrooms and received

a rating of 3.60. Furthermore, students generally transitioned "smoothly and efficiently to activities" (F3), which

received a rating of 2.80. Classroom observation data suggested that an area of growth within this Learning

Environment would be providing students with additional opportunities to "collaborate with other students

during student-centered activities" (F4), which was evident/very evident in 49 percent of the classrooms.

The Digital Learning Environment received an overall rating of 1.50 on a four-point scale and represented the

lowest rating of all Learning Environments observed. While there were meaningful instances of students

observed using technology to "gather, evaluate, and/or use information for learning" (G1) with this indicator










being rated a 1.60 on a four-point scale, there were few observations of students who used "digital tools to

conduct research, solve problems and/or create original works for learning" (G2), which was evident/very

evident in 20 percent of the classrooms or used "technology to communicate and work collaboratively for

learning" (G3), which was rated 1.20 on a four-point scale.










eleot™ Data Summary

A. Equitable Learning %

Item Average Description

Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 1.88 Has differentiated learning opportunitiesand activities that meet her/his needs

11.25% 15.00% 23.75% 50.00%

2. 3.31 Has equal access to classroomdiscussions, activities, resources,technology, and support

45.00% 43.75% 8.75% 2.50%

3. 3.30 Knows that rules and consequences arefair, clear, and consistently applied

42.50% 46.25% 10.00% 1.25%

4. 1.48 Has ongoing opportunities to learnabout their own and other'sbackgrounds/cultures/differences

2.50% 11.25% 17.50% 68.75%

Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 2.49

B. High Expectations %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.14 Knows and strives to meet the highexpectations established by the teacher

33.75% 47.50% 17.50% 1.25%

2. 2.99 Is tasked with activities and learning thatare challenging but attainable

26.25% 47.50% 25.00% 1.25%

3. 2.15 Is provided exemplars of high qualitywork

17.50% 20.00% 22.50% 40.00%

4. 2.91 Is engaged in rigorous coursework,discussions, and/or tasks

23.75% 46.25% 27.50% 2.50%

5. 2.79 Is asked and responds to questions thatrequire higher order thinking (e.g.,applying, evaluating, synthesizing)

22.50% 42.50% 26.25% 8.75%











C. Supportive Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.19 Demonstrates or expresses thatlearning experiences are positive

37.50% 48.75% 8.75% 5.00%

2. 3.22 Demonstrates positive attitude about theclassroom and learning

38.75% 48.75% 8.75% 3.75%

3. 2.86 Takes risks in learning (without fear ofnegative feedback)

22.50% 48.75% 21.25% 7.50%

4. 2.95 Is provided support and assistance tounderstand content and accomplishtasks

32.50% 37.50% 22.50% 7.50%

5. 2.02 Is provided additional/alternativeinstruction and feedback at theappropriate level of challenge for her/hisneeds

13.75% 15.00% 31.25% 40.00%


D. Active Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.99 Has several opportunities to engage indiscussions with teacher and otherstudents

38.75% 31.25% 20.00% 10.00%

2. 2.31 Makes connections from content to real-life experiences

13.75% 27.50% 35.00% 23.75%

3. 3.21 Is actively engaged in the learningactivities

38.75% 45.00% 15.00% 1.25%











E. Progress Monitoring and Feedback %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 2.66 Is asked and/or quizzed about individualprogress/learning

25.00% 28.75% 33.75% 12.50%

2. 2.64 Responds to teacher feedback toimprove understanding

17.50% 36.25% 38.75% 7.50%

3. 2.95 Demonstrates or verbalizesunderstanding of the lesson/content

27.50% 42.50% 27.50% 2.50%

4. 2.30 Understands how her/his work isassessed

16.25% 26.25% 28.75% 28.75%

5. 2.40 Has opportunities to revise/improvework based on feedback

18.75% 27.50% 28.75% 25.00%


F. Well-Managed Learning %

Item Average DescriptionV

ery

Evi

den

t

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 3.61 Speaks and interacts respectfully withteacher(s) and peers

67.50% 27.50% 3.75% 1.25%

2. 3.54 Follows classroom rules and works wellwith others

62.50% 28.75% 8.75% 0.00%

3. 2.84 Transitions smoothly and efficiently toactivities

38.75% 28.75% 10.00% 22.50%

4. 2.36 Collaborates with other students duringstudent-centered activities

20.00% 28.75% 18.75% 32.50%

5. 3.56 Knows classroom routines, behavioralexpectations and consequences

65.00% 26.25% 8.75% 0.00%











FindingsImprovement PriorityDevelop and implement a district-wide grading and reporting system to ensure students’ grades are based on

clearly defined criteria that represents the attainment of content knowledge and skills. Regularly monitor

grading and reporting practices to provide consistency across all grade levels and courses.

(Indicator 3.10)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.10

Evidence and Rationale

Student Performance Data:

Student performance data, as detailed in the attachments of this report, suggested student performance and

achievement in the district was not systemically or systematically aligned to grading and reporting practices

across the district. Student performance declined in the percentage of students scoring proficient/distinguished

between the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years in elementary language mechanics, middle school

language mechanics and high school Writing, U.S. History, English II and Biology. Moreover, the high school

performed below the state average in percentage of students meeting ACT benchmark scores in English, math

and reading. The percentage of students meeting benchmark on ACT in English and math decreased from

2014-2015 to 2015-2016 by 4.3 and 1.6 points, respectively. Overall, several proficiency and gap delivery

targets were not met at the elementary, middle and high school levels for the 2015-2016 school year, and the

district did not meet college and career readiness or graduation rate targets. Analysis of individual student data

revealed those who routinely earn high marks in terms of classroom grades are being identified as the same

students who did not perform on a proficient or distinguished level relative to state assessments. Moreover,

G. Digital Learning %


Ver

yE

vid

ent

Evi

den

t

So

mew

hat

Evi

den

t

No

tO

bse

rved

1. 1.55 Uses digital tools/technology to gather,evaluate, and/or use information forlearning

11.25% 6.25% 8.75% 73.75%

2. 1.64 Uses digital tools/technology to conductresearch, solve problems, and/or createoriginal works for learning

18.75% 1.25% 5.00% 75.00%

3. 1.21 Uses digital tools/technology tocommunicate and work collaborativelyfor learning

5.00% 1.25% 3.75% 90.00%











while improvements had been achieved in the district’s state performance data, 21 of the 24 accountability

assessment areas were still behind the state average, most of them significantly behind.

Classroom Observation Data:

Classroom observation data, as detailed in the Teaching and Learning Impact section of this report, did not

reveal the existence of consistent practices or procedures that clearly informed students of how they were

assessed or the intentional use of teacher feedback for revision opportunities. The Progress Monitoring and

Feedback Learning Environment received an overall rating of 2.60 on a four-point scale. Many of the items in

this Learning Environment were closely associated with the need to provide individualized feedback and

progress monitoring. Of concern to the Team was the item about students who understood “how her/his work

is assessed” (E4), which was evident/very evident in 42 percent of the classrooms and suggested students

were unclear as to how their learning and/or achievement were being evaluated. Moreover, students had few

“opportunities to revise/improve work based on feedback” (E5), which was evident/very evident in 47 percent of

the classrooms.

Stakeholder Survey Data:

Eighty-nine percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “The school’s leaders expect

staff to hold all students to high academic standards,” suggesting that a significant percentage could not

confirm the existence of this effective practice. Similarly, 80 percent of staff members indicated they

agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school provide students with specific and timely

feedback about their learning,” which again puts into question the consistency of the grade reporting process.

Eight-two percent of staff members indicated they agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of the

teachers in our school use consistent common grading and reporting policies across grade levels and courses

based on clearly defined criteria,” indicating inconsistencies with district practices for grading and reporting.

Finally, 61 percent of middle/high school students indicated they agreed/strongly agreed with the statement,

“All of my teachers fairly grade and evaluate my work,” leaving some doubt about the consistency of equitable

grading and reporting practices across all content areas and grade levels.

Stakeholder Interview Data:

In interviews, administrators were inconsistent in their definitions and explanations regarding grading and

reporting practices. Grading criteria across the district in the multitude of elementary schools, for example,

were not considered to be uniform; administrators expressed concern about students who had transferred

within the district and not been able to immediately comprehend content due to these gaps in learning.

Interview data showed that district-wide common assessments were being implemented. Although the

superintendent and central office administrators expressed a concern about grading and reporting practices,

there was not an effective system established to ensure that grading and reporting were based on clearly

defined criteria that represented the attainment of content knowledge and skills and were consistently

implemented across grade levels and courses.










Documents and Artifacts:

A review of Professional Learning Community (PLC) meeting agendas, the district’s assessment plan, lesson

plan documentation, the district’s Response to Intervention (RtI) plan, mission-vision meeting analysis and

school improvement plans did not reveal the existence of a defined and implemented district-wide grading and

reporting system that ensured student grades reflected defined criteria. In addition, the Team was unable to

identify a system for monitoring or supporting implementation.

Improvement PriorityDevelop and implement a program evaluation process for internal stakeholders to monitor program

effectiveness, district-wide initiatives and verifiable improvement in student learning that includes, but is not

limited to, ensuring implementation fidelity and clearly documenting and analyzing the results of existing

systems. Use this process to identify gaps and to prioritize and connect all systems across the district.

(Indicator 5.2)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 5.2



Student performance data, as detailed in the attachments of this report, suggested the district had not formally

established a mechanism by which programs could be uniformly monitored and evaluated to determine the

impact on student success or determine verifiable improvement in student learning. Although Knox County

Public Schools met its 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) goal, the percentage of

students scoring proficient/distinguished in elementary language mechanics, middle school language

mechanics, high school writing, U.S. History, English II and Biology demonstrated a decline in performance

between the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years on the End-of-Course Assessments. Moreover, the high

school performed below the state average in percentage of students meeting ACT benchmark scores in

English, math and reading and the percentage of students meeting benchmark in English and math decreased

from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016 by 4.3 and 1.6 points, respectively. Overall, several proficiency and gap delivery

targets were not met at the elementary, middle and high school levels for the 2015-2016 school year. The

district did not meet college and career readiness or graduation rate targets.

Although program reviews for Knox County Public Schools in 2015-2016 demonstrated three of the four review

areas at the middle school level were classified as proficient, four of the five review areas at the elementary

school received a proficient classification. All program review areas at the high school were rated proficient.

World Language and Global Competency resulted in a “needs improvement” at the elementary and middle

school levels.











Although stakeholder survey data indicated 92 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the

statement, “Our school uses data to monitor student readiness and success at the next level” and 92 percent

of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school leaders monitor data related to

student achievement,” stakeholder interview data did not confirm that data was systematically collected and

used to inform decision-making related to curriculum, instruction, resource allocation or organizational

effectiveness. Moreover, student performance data did not substantiate student readiness and success as

students transition through the system.


Stakeholder interview data showed there was not a formalized process for collecting and analyzing

programmatic data across the district to inform decision-making related to curriculum, instruction, resource

allocation or organizational effectiveness. Although multiple pieces of data were collected and analyzed,

interview data revealed there was not a formally documented process for the systematic collection, analysis

and setting of next steps district-wide.


A review of evidence and artifacts revealed little indication of a systematic data collection and analysis process

to inform programmatic decision-making regarding curriculum, instruction and assessment decisions for

continued school improvement. Although there were data sources included as evidence, no analysis or

triangulation of data was provided to the Team to provide a picture of programming effectiveness.

Improvement PriorityEngage all staff members in a process to develop, implement, monitor and document a district-wide

instructional process. Use research-based instructional practices that 1) are responsive to individual student

needs, 2) require students to respond to higher order thinking questions, 3) provide students exemplars of high

quality work and 4) use formative assessments to inform students with specific and timely feedback about their

learning.

(Indicator 3.6)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.6



Student performance data, as detailed in an attachment to this report, demonstrated that Knox County Public

Schools met its annual measurable objective (AMO) and is currently classified as a Distinguished school

district according to Kentucky school accountability measurements. Student performance declined in the

percentage of students scoring proficient/distinguished between the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years in

elementary school for language mechanics, middle school language mechanics, high school writing, U.S.










History, English II and Biology. Moreover, the high school performed below the state average in percentage of

students meeting ACT benchmark scores in English, math and reading. The percentage of students meeting

benchmark on ACT in English and math decreased from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016 by 4.3 and 1.6 points,

respectively. Overall, several proficiency and gap delivery targets were not met at the elementary, middle and

high school levels for the 2015-2016 school year, and the district did not meet college and career readiness or

graduation rate targets. The implementation and monitoring of a district-wide instructional process is pivotal to

the meeting of these proficiency and gap delivery targets and can serve as a catalyst for growth and

improvement.


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

the district did not systematically use an instructional process that clearly informed students of expectations

and standards of performance. During classroom observations, “activities and learning that are challenging but

attainable” (B2) were evident/very evident in 74 percent of the classrooms. Of concern was the lack of

evidence to suggest students were “provided exemplars of high quality work” (B3). Instances of exemplars

being used were evident/very evident in 38 percent of the classrooms and received the lowest rating in this

Learning Environment at 2.2. Little evidence was found to indicate that students were informed about how their

work would be assessed with the Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment receiving an

overall rating of 2.6 on a four-point scale. Students “asked and/or quizzed about individual progress/learning”

(E1) and/or who responded to “teacher feedback to improve understanding” (E2) were evident/very evident in

54 percent of the classrooms. Of concern to the Team was the item of “understands how her/his work is

assessed” (E4), which was evident/very evident in 42 percent of the classrooms and suggested that students

were unclear as to how their learning and/or achievement were evaluated. Moreover, students were given few

“opportunities to revise/improve work based on feedback” (E5), which was evident in 47 percent of the

classrooms. Collectively, these data showed a lack of evidence about the degree to which the district had

systematically implemented an instructional process and/or engaged students in their learning through

instructional strategies to ensure achievement of learning expectations.


Survey results indicated 80 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our

school personalize instructional strategies and interventions to address the individual learning needs of

students.” Conversely, 43 percent of middle/high school students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement,

“All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs,” suggesting there is limited agreement on

the degree of consistent and systematic use of differentiated instructional strategies to enhance instruction.

Furthermore, 65 percent of middle/high school students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My school

gives me multiple assessments to check my understanding of what was taught,” and 61 percent of middle/high

school students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my teachers provide me with information

about my learning and grades,” suggesting the use of formative assessments to inform students with specific

and timely feedback about their learning is not a consistent practice across the district.











Stakeholder interview data revealed the district had implemented instructional policy to support teaching and

learning across the district; however, district and building level administrators were inconsistent in defining or

explaining a specific, district-wide framework or instructional process that informed students of learning

expectations and standards of performance. Furthermore, interview data indicated the effective use of

formative assessments was a growth area for the district and was identified as a next step as part of the

system’s continuous improvement efforts. Although formative assessments were used to modify and guide

instruction, interview data revealed there was much work to be completed in this area. Staff interview data

indicated the use of focused walkthroughs, with an emphasis on the use of exemplars, differentiation and

higher-order questioning. As walkthroughs were conducted by not only central office administrators but also

building level principals and curriculum coaches, the immediate calibration of the resulting data and the

communication to staff members could lead to a more effective focus on the instructional process.


A review of documents and artifacts provided by the system did not uncover a defined, district-wide

instructional process that clearly informed students of learning expectations and standards of performance.

Improvement PriorityFacilitate the development of a district-wide consistent core curriculum that aligns all instructional components,

including content, skills, assessments, activities and resources across and within all grade levels and content

areas.

(Indicator 3.1)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.1



Student performance data, as detailed in an attachment to this report, demonstrated that Knox County Public

Schools (KCPS) met its annual measurable objective (AMO) and was classified as a Distinguished school

district according to Kentucky school accountability measurements. However, student performance evidenced

a decline in the percentage of students scoring proficient/distinguished between the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016

school years in elementary language mechanics, middle school language mechanics and high school writing,

U.S. History, English II and Biology. Moreover, the high school performed below the state average in

percentage of students meeting ACT benchmark scores in English, math and reading. The percentage of

students meeting benchmark on ACT in English and math decreased from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016 by 4.3 and

1.6 points, respectively. Overall, several proficiency and gap delivery targets were not met at the elementary,

middle and high school levels for the 2015-2016 school year and the district did not meet college and career

readiness or graduation rate targets. Analysis of these data indicated the need to continue efforts to develop a










consistent core curriculum as detailed in the previous Improvement Priority.



the district had not developed a common core curriculum to ensure all students received challenging and

equitable learning experiences. The Team was concerned with the lack of student access to “differentiated

learning opportunities and activities that meet his/her needs” (A1), which received a rating of 1.90 and was

evident/very evident in 26 percent of the classrooms. In 82 percent of the classrooms, it was evident/very

evident that students “knew and strived to meet the high expectations established by the teacher” (B1). During

classroom observations, “activities and learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2) were evident/very

evident in 74 percent of the classrooms and received a rating of 3.00. Team members found that “questions

that require higher order thinking” (B5) were evident/very evident in 66 percent of the classrooms, and students

were “engaged in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks” (B4) in 70 percent of the classrooms, with

these items receiving a 2.80 and 2.90, respectively. Students were frequently “provided support and assistance

to understand content and accomplish tasks” (C4), which was evident/very evident in 71 percent of the

classroom and received a rating of 3.00. While support and assistance were provided in some classrooms,

“additional/alternative instruction and feedback at the appropriate level of challenge for his/her needs” (C5) was

evident/very evident in 29 percent of the classrooms and received the lowest rating in this Learning

Environment. Of concern to the Team was the lack of re-teaching and progress monitoring with individual

students.


According to staff survey data, 89 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In our

school, challenging curriculum and learning experiences provide equity for all students in the development of

learning, think, and life skills,” and 92 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement,

“Our school uses data to monitor student readiness and success at the next level.” Eighty-nine percent of

elementary students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My teachers help me learn things I will need

in the future.” Furthermore, 85 percent of elementary students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My

teachers use different activities to help me learn.” In contrast to staff and elementary student data, 60 percent

of middle and high school students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My school provides me with

challenging curriculum and learning experiences.” Fifty-three percent of middle and high school students

agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My school prepares me to deal with issues I may face in the

future.” Moreover, 43 percent of middle and high school students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement,

“All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs.” Sixty-one percent of middle and high

school students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My school prepares me for success in the next

school year.” The disparity in agreement between middle and high school student survey data and staff survey

data regarding the delivery of curriculum demonstrated the need to develop consistent core curriculum at all

levels of schooling across the district.











Stakeholder interview data indicated the district used professional learning days (i.e., Teacher Equivalent

Days) to support teachers in the development of horizontally aligned instructional units and common

summative assessments. While interview data confirmed a process existed for the development and

monitoring of a collection of grade-level specific instructional units and summative assessments across the

district, interview data demonstrated the absence of (1) a cohesive curriculum map identifying essential

standards students must master in each content area and grade level (2) common pacing guides outlining

when teachers will guarantee instruction of specific essential standards and the delivery of specific instructional

units and (3) a set of common criteria outlining the necessary evidence for determining student mastery of

specific essential standards.


A review of documents and artifacts confirmed findings from stakeholder interview data. Although a collection

of collaboratively developed instructional unit plans and summative assessments were shared, there was an

absence of a district-wide curriculum map, common pacing guides and/or a set of common expectations for

student mastery.

Improvement PrioritySystematically and continuously use data to identify and coordinate learning support systems to address the

unique learning needs of all students. Devote continued attention to the trends and patterns of learning and

achievement by the various accountability subgroups within the district so that instructional and assessment

practices, curriculum development and professional development emphasizes differentiation and personalized

learning experiences for all students.

(Indicator 3.12)

Primary Indicator

Indicator 3.12



Student performance data, as detailed in the attachments of this report, suggested the district had not formally

identified a learning support system to address the unique learning needs of all students. Although Knox

County Public Schools met proficiency and gap delivery targets at the elementary level in writing and social

studies, at the middle school level in social studies and at the high school level in Combined Reading and Math

for the 2015-2016 school year, the district did not meet any proficiency or gap delivery targets at the

elementary, middle or high schools in reading and math for 2015-2016. Moreover, the high school performed

below the state average in percentage of students meeting ACT benchmark scores in English, math and

reading. The percentage of students meeting benchmark on ACT in English and math decreased from 2014-

2015 to 2015-2016 by 4.3 and 1.6 points, respectively. Overall, the district did not meet college and career

readiness or graduation rate targets.












the district had not formally identified a learning support system to address the unique learning needs of all

students. Of concern to the Team was the lack of student access to “differentiated learning opportunities and

activities that meet his/her needs” (A1), which received a rating of 1.90 and was evident/very evident in 26

percent of the classrooms. Additional classroom observation data that addressed individual learning needs

where students generally took “risks in learning” (C3) was evident/very evident in 72 percent of the classrooms.

Instances of students frequently “provided support and assistance to understand content and accomplish

tasks” (C4) were evident/very evident in 71 percent of the classroom and received a rating of 3.00. While

support and assistance were provided in some classrooms, “additional/alternative instruction and feedback at

the appropriate level of challenge for his/her needs” (C5) was evident/very evident in 29 percent of the

classrooms and received the lowest rating in the Supportive Learning Environment.


Although stakeholder survey data indicated 84 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the

statement, “In our school, related learning support services are provided for all students based on their needs”

and 85 percent agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, all staff members use student data to address the

unique learning needs of all students,” stakeholder interview data did not confirm a district-wide systematic and

continuous process regarding the use of data to identify the unique learning needs of all students at all levels.

Moreover, 72 percent of middle/high school students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In my school,

programs and services are available to help me succeed” and 45 percent of middle/high school students

agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning

needs,” suggesting many students did not confirm their needs were being met through the coordination of

learning support systems across the district.


Interview data showed stakeholders referenced a district level written process of universal screenings with

tiered interventions and validated that Response to Intervention (RTI) coordinators were identified at each

building. Although multiple pieces of data were collected and analyzed, staff members often shared that there

was not a formally documented process for determining the fidelity of delivery of identified interventions or the

monitoring of these support services to determine successful outcomes.


A review of evidence and artifacts revealed little evidence of coordinated learning support systems to address

the unique learning needs of all students. Although there were some data sources included as evidence from

individual schools, there was no documented process identified to ensure all schools implemented or

monitored a district-wide system that supported the academic achievement of all students.










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

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

commitment to its institutional purpose and direction, the effectiveness of governance and leadership to enable

the institution to realize its stated objectives, the ability to engage and involve stakeholders in meaningful and

productive ways, and the capacity to enact strategies to improve results of student learning.

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

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

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

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

to a disengaged and dissatisfied workforce."

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

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

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

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

effectiveness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vocal citizens (Greene, 1992).

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

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

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

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

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

equity of learning opportunities and support for innovation.










Standard 1 - Purpose and DirectionThe system maintains and communicates at all levels of the organization a purpose and direction for

continuous improvement that commit to high expectations for learning as well as shared values and beliefs

about teaching and learning.

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

system effectiveness.


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

2.67

1.2 The system ensures that each school engages in a systematic, inclusive, andcomprehensive process to review, revise, and communicate a school purpose forstudent success.

2.83

1.3 The school leadership and staff at all levels of the system commit to a culturethat is based on shared values and beliefs about teaching and learning andsupports challenging, equitable educational programs and learning experiencesfor all students that include achievement of learning, thinking, and life skills.

2.67

1.4 Leadership at all levels of the system implement a continuous improvementprocess that provides clear direction for improving conditions that supportstudent learning.

2.33


2.1 The governing body establishes policies and supports practices that ensureeffective administration of the system and its schools.

2.67

2.2 The governing body operates responsibly and functions effectively. 2.67

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

3.17

2.4 Leadership and staff at all levels of the system foster a culture consistent with thesystem's purpose and direction.

2.50

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

2.67

2.6 Leadership and staff supervision and evaluation processes result in improvedprofessional practice in all areas of the system and improved student success.

2.33










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

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

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

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

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

evidence of long-range capital and resource planning effectiveness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ensures compliance with applicable governmental regulations.

Standard 4 - Resources and Support SystemsThe system has resources and provides services in all schools that support its purpose and direction to ensure

success for all students.


4.1 The system engages in a systematic process to recruit, employ, and retain asufficient number of qualified professional and support staff to fulfill their rolesand responsibilities and support the purpose and direction of the system,individual schools, and educational programs.

2.67

4.2 Instructional time, material resources, and fiscal resources are sufficient tosupport the purpose and direction of the system, individual schools, educationalprograms, and system operations.

2.67

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

2.50

4.4 The system demonstrates strategic resource management that includes long-range planning in support of the purpose and direction of the system.

2.50

4.5 The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates the effectiveness of informationresources and related personnel to support educational programs throughout thesystem.

2.17











4.6 The system provides a technology infrastructure and equipment to support thesystem's teaching, learning, and operational needs.

2.67

4.7 The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates the effectiveness of supportsystems to meet the physical, social, and emotional needs of the studentpopulation being served.

2.17

4.8 The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates the effectiveness of servicesthat support the counseling, assessment, referral, educational, and careerplanning needs of all students.

2.17










ConclusionSeveral themes emerged related to student success and organizational effectiveness. The district had

operationalized its vision and mission into actionable steps through strategic planning and continuous

improvement efforts. The vision and mission provided a direction and focus for work occurring across the

district and were maintained through the collaborative efforts of various stakeholder groups. Stakeholders

shared that the district's vision and priorities emphasized student achievement, positive school and community

partnerships and fiscal responsibility as evidenced by the district's commitment to each child. Moreover,

interview data indicated that a current set of shared values and beliefs for teaching and learning had been

identified and used to inform or drive the purpose and direction of the district. A review of artifacts and

stakeholder interviews revealed a broad awareness of and support for the positive direction the district had

taken to improve student achievement.

Interview data revealed an improved awareness of the roles and responsibilities of the governing body of the

district. Stakeholder interview data revealed the governing body had not always maintained a clear distinction

between its roles and responsibilities and those of district and school leadership. However, Board members

expressed an awareness of past lapses, and from their participation in training and, through their working

relationship with the superintendent, had developed a commitment to support the district mission and vision

within their appropriate leadership roles for the community and district. Moreover, interview data revealed

many believed the Board of Education had empowered school leaders with the autonomy to lead and make

decisions for their respective schools.

Stakeholder interview data indicated the Board of Education had established policies and support practices

that ensured the effective administration of the district and its schools. The superintendent and Board of

Education had developed and implemented a process to review all policies and practices to ensure a

connection to the district's purpose and direction and organizational effectiveness. Furthermore, they had

internalized the AdvancED Standards for Quality to frame and guide the agendas of their monthly meetings in

pursuit of their vision and mission, as well as to evaluate their decisions and actions. As a result, district

leadership and the Board of Education had cultivated a culture of celebrating staff and student success.

Interview data revealed stakeholders believed the superintendent was dedicated to the school community and

demonstrated genuine caring for the success of each student within the district. Furthermore, the district had

assembled a team of leaders who shared the common vision and mission and clearly understood their roles in

the continuous improvement process. Stakeholder interview data revealed the district leadership team

advocated a systems approach to the continuous improvement process and had supported these efforts at the

schools by providing resources necessary to improve student achievement and professional practice. These

resources included support of teachers in providing quality learning experiences for students through the

allocation of curriculum coaches who worked alongside school staff in a coaching and feedback role, as well as

the allocation of protected time for staff members to participate in a continuous program of professional

learning in all schools. This collaborative time was supportive of the district's purpose and direction and built

capacity among staff members.












It was evident from stakeholder interview data that continuous learning was expected and valued for all staff

members across the district. This expectation clearly supported the ongoing improvement of teaching and

learning, as well as the capacity of the district to sustain continuous improvement. Evidence and artifacts

revealed the district focused on providing professional development experiences to staff members on the

implementation of effective instructional strategies and had developed and implemented a mentoring and

induction program for staff members new to the district. In addition, the district facilitated the development of

kindergarten through twelfth grade instructional units, common unit assessments and the identification of

lesson plan "essentials" to support quality instruction in the classrooms. Interview data indicated the district

had developed and implemented a walkthrough process to monitor and adjust professional practice. This

process was research-based and provided opportunities for leadership and curriculum coaches to calibrate

their observations and expectations, as well as to provide immediate feedback to teachers.

Stakeholder interview data and a review of evidence and artifacts revealed the district had been an active

community partner and had leveraged external partnerships to prioritize funding supportive of the teaching and

learning process. Community and business partnerships allowed the district to provide support and services to

meet some of the academic and behavioral needs of students. Moreover, the district had developed a strong

partnership with the local newspaper, which provided monthly opportunities for the district to communicate,

share, recognize and celebrate achievements with its stakeholders. Interview data with community partners

indicated strong support of the district and many openly shared the district had not experienced such high

academic achievement by students in several years. These collaborative relationships promoted high

expectations and assisted the district in advancing improvement efforts and system effectiveness.

Addressing curriculum, instruction and assessment practices remain areas of needed improvement for the

district. Stakeholder interview data revealed the district had implemented instructional policy to support

teaching and learning across the district; however, teachers and administrators were inconsistent in defining or

explaining a specific, district-wide framework or instructional process that informs students of learning

expectations and standards of performance. Classroom observations revealed a lack of research-based,

rigorous instruction being consistently implemented. Furthermore, high quality work and meaningful feedback

was seldom observed. Assessment practices indicated teachers sometimes used data in purposeful ways to

inform instruction. The use of formative assessment data was rare. The district must find ways to actively

engage teachers in collaboration related to curriculum alignment, assessment development, data use to

assess student progress and differentiated instruction to meet the individual needs of students. Furthermore,

the district must engage all staff members in a collaborative process to implement and monitor a district-wide

instructional process that emphasizes research-based instructional practices responsive to individual student

needs, engage students in rigorous and challenging learning experiences and clearly inform students of

learning expectations and standards of performance. The use of instructional strategies that require student

collaboration, self-reflection and critical thinking skills, as well as provide differentiated instruction, frequent

checks for understanding, opportunities for re-teaching and the effective integration of technology to support

academic achievement will be important.

Although stakeholder interview and staff survey data and a review of evidence and artifacts suggested the

district had developed, implemented and monitored a district-wide curriculum plan. It also revealed the












absence of a cohesive curriculum map identifying essential standards that students must master in each

content area and common pacing guides that outline when teachers will guarantee instruction and the delivery

of specific instructional units. Furthermore, staff survey data suggested many teachers monitor and adjust

curriculum and assessment based on student performance data; however, interview data revealed

stakeholders were not consistently able to define or explain how curriculum, instruction and assessment were

monitored and adjusted systematically in response to multiple data points. Moreover, classroom observation

data revealed students had limited differentiated learning opportunities and activities to meet their unique

learning needs and were rarely provided additional and/or alternative instruction and feedback at the

appropriate level of challenge. Teachers across the district participated in professional learning communities;

however, the use of formative assessment data to determine student mastery of standards was unclear and

there was not routine conversation of how the examination of professional practice directly linked to curriculum,

instruction and assessment decisions. Consequently, it will be important for the district to facilitate the

development of a district-wide consistent core curriculum that aligns all instructional components, including

content, skills, assessments, activities and resources across and within all grade levels and content areas to

ensure learning experiences are equitable, rigorous, challenging and prepare students for success at the next

level. In addition, it will be important for the district to develop a process to systematically review and adjust

curriculum, instruction and assessment based on multiple student performance data, as well as to routinely

examine professional practices.

A review of evidence and artifacts revealed little evidence of a systematic data collection and analysis process

to inform programmatic decision-making regarding curriculum, instruction and assessment for continued school

improvement. Although data sources were examined, the Team found little evidence that the district

implemented a program evaluation process for internal stakeholders to monitor program effectiveness, district-

wide initiatives and verifiable growth in student learning. This process could be used to identify gaps as well as

prioritize and connect all systems across the district. By having the ability to evaluate the impact and success

of new or existing programs, the district will be able to make informed decisions with supporting evidence to

identify programs that are working, programs needing revision and programs that should be discontinued. In

addition, evidence gathered through this process can be used to help determine resource allocation for

programming to support the district and its schools in achieving their mission and vision.

While stakeholder interview data and a review of evidence and artifacts indicated the district had established

policy regarding grading and reporting practices, inconsistencies across content areas and grade levels

existed. Interview data showed inconsistencies in the definitions and explanations regarding grading and

reporting practices. Grading criteria in most elementary schools, for example, were not uniform. Many

administrators expressed concern about students who may transfer within the district and not be able to

immediately comprehend content due to learning gaps. Curriculum Coaches expressed that district-wide

common assessments were being implemented to align formative and summative practices. Although the

superintendent and district level administrators expressed a concern about grading and reporting practices,

there was not an effective system to ensure that grading and reporting were based on clearly defined criteria

that represented the attainment of content knowledge and skills and that was consistent across grade levels

and courses. Therefore, it will be important for the district to develop a common understanding of grading

practices at all levels to ensure grades reflect attainment of content knowledge and skills. Grading practices












-

that are clearly understood, implemented, and monitored across all grade levels and contents will ensure all

students have access to equitable, rigorous learning and assessment experiences across the district.

The district had embraced social media as means of communication with its parents and stakeholders, as well

as identified and implemented programs and processes to openly solicit feedback and invite two-way

communication. However, stakeholder interview and survey data suggested the district had not effectively

engaged parents in meaningful ways in support of continuous improvement efforts as evidenced by the lack of

participation in the Diagnostic Review survey process. The participation rate for parents was not met;

therefore, results were not reflected in the Diagnostic Review report as supporting evidence. The Diagnostic

Review Team recommends the district identify and promote additional opportunities for parents to be involved

in the work of the schools, as well as staying informed of their children's learning progress.

Although stakeholder interview data referred to a district level written process of universal screenings with

tiered interventions and validated that Response to Intervention (RtI) coordinators were identified in each

building, classroom observation data and student survey results suggested the district had not formally

identified a learning support system to address the unique learning needs of all students. Multiple pieces of

data were collected and analyzed; however, staff shared that there was not a formally documented process for

determining the fidelity of delivery of identified interventions or the monitoring of these support services to

determine successful outcomes. In addition, classroom observation data revealed a lack of differentiated

learning opportunities for students with support and assistance to understand content and accomplish tasks

being provided infrequently. While support and assistance was provided in some classrooms,

additional/alternative instruction and feedback at the appropriate level of challenge to meet the needs of

individual students was minimal. Furthermore, student survey data strongly suggested the needs of all

students were not met through the coordination of learning support systems across the district. It is imperative

that district and school personnel provide and coordinate learning support services to meet the unique learning

needs of all students across the system.

The district is committed to being proactive in promoting change and using the Diagnostic Review process to

guide how they conduct business in moving forward. Therefore, the Diagnostic Review Team encourages

Knox County Public Schools to use the Improvement Priorities identified as part of the review process to build

on the foundation of growth and improvement that has been established across the district. This emphasis will

ensure all students receive a challenging and equitable education through the implementation of rigorously

aligned curriculum, differentiated learning experiences, improved instructional practices, common grading and

reporting practices, the coordination of learning support systems and the evaluation of program effectiveness.

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

institution must address the Improvement Priorities listed below:

Develop and implement a district-wide grading and reporting system to ensure students’ grades are

based on clearly defined criteria that represents the attainment of content knowledge and skills.

Regularly monitor grading and reporting practices to provide consistency across all grade levels and












-

-

-

-

courses.

Develop and implement a program evaluation process for internal stakeholders to monitor program

effectiveness, district-wide initiatives and verifiable improvement in student learning that includes, but is

not limited to, ensuring implementation fidelity and clearly documenting and analyzing the results of

existing systems. Use this process to identify gaps and to prioritize and connect all systems across the

district.

Engage all staff members in a process to develop, implement, monitor and document a district-wide

instructional process. Use research-based instructional practices that 1) are responsive to individual

student needs, 2) require students to respond to higher order thinking questions, 3) provide students

exemplars of high quality work and 4) use formative assessments to inform students with specific and

timely feedback about their learning.

Facilitate the development of a district-wide consistent core curriculum that aligns all instructional

components, including content, skills, assessments, activities and resources across and within all grade

levels and content areas.

Systematically and continuously use data to identify and coordinate learning support systems to address

the unique learning needs of all students. Devote continued attention to the trends and patterns of

learning and achievement by the various accountability subgroups within the district so that instructional

and assessment practices, curriculum development and professional development emphasizes

differentiation and personalized learning experiences for all students.












AddendaTeam Roster

Member Brief Biography

Dr. Lynn M Simmers Lynn Simmers is currently the Assistant Superintendent of Southwest AllenCounty Schools in Fort Wayne, IN. She has twenty-three years of experience asa professional educator and is completing her nineteenth year of administration.Her interests include literacy; analyzing statistical trends to promote improvedstudent achievement; and professional development specifically related tocurriculum development, instructional strategies and teacher induction programsfor beginning teachers. Dr. Simmers has had various experiences as a LeadEvaluator of school and district accreditation visits as well as DiagnosticReviews. She serves as an AdvancED Field Consultant for the state of Indiana.Dr. Simmers also serves on the Indiana AdvancED State Council.

Mr. Sam Watkins Sam graduated from Eastern Kentucky Univerisity with a BBA in BusinessManagement and Business Education. In addition to earning a MBA fromEastern Kentucky University, he has a certification to teach mathematics at thesecondary level and received his Superintendency Certification from theUniversity of Kentucky. Sam taught math for seven years, led two high schoolsas principal over a period of thirteen years, and was Director of DistrictwidePrograms for Woodford County Schools for seven years. For the past two and ahalf years, he has been an Educational Recovery Leader for the state of KY.

Marti Ginter Marti Ginter’s career includes experiences as both a middle and high schoolspecial education teacher, special education consultant/diagnostician servingages 3- 21, and development and coordination of district-wide programs as aDirector of Special Education/Preschool. Currently, she provides leadership andsupport to 22 school districts as the Central Kentucky Educational CooperativeDirector of Special Education Services.

Mr. Rodney Schwartz I currently work as the Director of Pupil Personnel, Intervention Specialist, andSafe Schools Director at Cumberland County Schools. I have worked in thisschool system my entire career, beginning as a high school math teacher in1990. I moved to the elementary school as assistant principal in 2000 beforebecoming principal there in 2001. I left the principal position in 2011 to move tomy current position. I have also been a part-time college math instructor from1995 to present, the first twelve years for KCTCS, and the last ten at LindseyWilson College. I have also been a baseball coach for 14 years and a basketballcoach for 7 years, and am currently the assistant athletic director. In addition tobeing certified as a DPP and Principal, I also hold Kentucky certifications forInstructional Supervisor and Superintendent.

Tyler Stevens Tyler Stevens is an educational recovery leader (ERL) with the KentuckyDepartment of Education. Previously, Tyler served as an educational recoveryspecialist (ERS) at Fern Creek High School and Myers Middle School. Tylercurrently serves as the ERL at Olmsted Academy North Middle School inLouisville, KY.

Ms. Donna J Wear Donna Wear currently serves as the principal of the Commonwealth MiddleCollege in Paducah, KY. She began her career as a teacher of English, socialstudies and business education. She has served as a Middle College principal,high school principal, middle school principal, high school assistant principal andprofessional development coordinator. She has been a field consultant for KYAdvancED for several years. She has been an AdvancED lead evaluator forseveral schools in Kentucky and has served as team member on severalsystems accreditation visits outside of Kentucky. Currently, she is the Kentuckyrepresentative on the Board of Directors of the National Beta Club and serves onthe Friends of KET (Kentucky Educational Television) Board of Directors.














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

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

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

United States and 70 countries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

designed to engage educational institutions in continuous improvement.














-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

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

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

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

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

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

London: CIPD.

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

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

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

Improvement Center.

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

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

Educational Governance, USC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership, 8, 373-398.

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

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

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

(2), 220-236.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning, 22(11), 18-33.

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

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














1.

2.

3.

4.

AttachmentsThe following attachments have been included in this report.

Student Performance Data Analysis

Stakeholder Survey Plus/Delta

Diagnostic Review Team Schedule

Leadership Assessment Addendum
















Student Performance Team Worksheet Template for Knox County District

Annual Measurable Objective (AMO)

Year Baseline (Prior Year

Learners Total Score)

AMO Goal Learners Total Score

Met AMO Goal

Met Participation

Rate Goal

Met Graduation Rate Goal

2015-2016 58.0 58.5 64.1 YES YES YES

Year Prior Year

Overall Total Score

AMO Goal Overall Total Score

Met AMO Goal

Met Participation

Rate Goal

Met Graduation Rate Goal

2014-2015 59.6 60.6 65.6 YES YES NO

Plus:

Data indicated that Knox County School District met the AMO goal and the Participation Rate Goal in 2014-2015 and in 2015-2016.

The district met its Graduation Rate Goal for 2015-2016.

Delta:

The district did not meet its Graduation Rate Goal in 2014-2015. Percentages of Students Scoring at Proficient/Distinguished (P/D) Levels on the K-PREP Assessments at the District and in the State (2014-2015, 2015-2016)

Elementary School Content Area

%P/D School (2014-15)

%P/D State (2014-15)

%P/D School (2015-16)

%P/D State (2015-16)

Reading 41.8 54.2 45.4 56.0 3rd grade 40.3 54.3 42.9 53.7

4th grade 39.5 52.2 44.0 56.3 5th grade 45.9 56.0 49.5 58.1

Math 31.8 48.8 38.5 51.8

3rd

grade 29.6 47.6 35.4 47.7 4

th grade 33.7 48.6 41.3 51.7

5th

grade 32.1 50.3 38.8 56.1

Social Studies 60.2 60.6 68.0 57.7

Middle School Content Area

%P/D School (2014-15)

%P/D State (2014-15)

%P/D School (2015-16)

%P/D State (2015-16)

Reading 47.5 53.8 49.3 55.2

6th

grade 43.3 52.9 48.9 55.5

7th

grade 50.1 54.5 50.6 56.6 8

th grade 49.2 54.1 48.4 53.6

Math 31.5 42.8 41.0 47.0

6th

grade 30.5 43.2 42.5 50.2 7

th grade 31.7 40.9 41.3 45.4

8th

grade 32.4 44.2 39.4 45.5

Social Studies 57.3 58.6 69.6 59.7

8th

grade 57.3 58.6 69.6 59.7

Writing 32.0 39.2 46.6 44.4

6th

grade 34.0 44.1 43.1 48.0 8

th grade 29.9 34.3 49.9 40.7

Language Mech. 32.6 46.1 33.9 41.2

6th

grade 32.6 46.1 33.9 41.2

5th grade 60.2 60.6 68.0 57.7

Writing 34.3 43.8 40.9 41.0

5th

grade 34.3 43.8 40.9 41.0

Language Mech. 40.1 55.6 37.5 51.9

4th grade 40.1 55.6 37.5 51.9

High School Content Area

%P/D School

(14-15)

%P/D State

(14-15)

%P/D School

(15-16)

%P/D State

(15-16)

Plus:

The percentage of students scoring proficient/distinguished in elementary reading demonstrated a 3.6 point increase between the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school year.

The percentage of students scoring proficient/distinguished in elementary math demonstrated a 6.7 point increase between the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school year.

The percentage of students scoring proficient/distinguished in elementary social studies demonstrated a 7.8 increase while writing showed an increase of 6.6 percentage point from the 2014-2015 school year to the 2015-2016 school year.

The percentage of students scoring proficient/distinguished in middle school social studies, math, reading and writing increased from the 2014-2015 to the 2015-2016 school year.

The percentage of students scoring proficient/distinguished in middle school writing increased 14.6 points from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016 school year.

The percentage of students scoring proficient/distinguished in Algebra II increased 16.5 points from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016 school year.

The percentage of students scoring proficient/distinguished in language mechanics at the high school level increased 1.9 point between the 2014-2015 school year and the 2015-2016 school year.

At the elementary level the percentage of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished level in social studies outpaced the state average.

At the middle school level the percentage of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished level in social studies and writing was above the state average.

English II 44.1 56.8 43.1 56.5

Algebra II 29.4 38.2 45.9 42.3

Biology 20.3 39.7 13.9 37.6

U.S. History 40.1 56.9 39.9 59.2

Writing 42.9 50.0 35.6 43.5

10th grade 33.3 39.8 23.4 32.8

11th grade 53.9 60.9 48.3 55.3

Language Mech.

35.1 51.6 37.0 54.4

10th grade 35.1 51.6 37.0 54.4

At the high school level the percentage of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished level in Algebra II was above the state average.

Delta:

Between 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, scores declined in the percent scoring proficient/distinguished in elementary language mechanics, high school writing, U.S. History, English II and Biology.

Eighth grade reading declined in the number of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished level between the 2014-2015 school year and the 2015-2016 school year falling from 49.2 to 48.4.

The percentage of students scoring proficient/distinguished in tenth grade writing declined 9.9 percentage points from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016.

At the elementary level the percentage of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished level in reading, math, writing, and language mechanics lagged behind the state average.

At the middle school level the percentage of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished level in reading, math and language mechanics was below the state average.

At the high school level the percentage of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished level in English II, Biology, U.S. History, writing and language mechanics was below the state average.

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

Content Area

Percentage School

(14-15)

Percentage State

(14-15)

Percentage School

(15-16)

Percentage State

(15-16)

English 38.4 55.3 34.1 54.3

Math 22.3 38.1 20.7 39.7

Reading 30.2 47.4 35.1 49.2

Plus:

The percentage of students meeting benchmark in Reading increased 4.9 percentage points from 30.2 in 2014-2015 to 35.1 in 2015-2016.

Delta:

The percentage of students meeting benchmark in English, math, and reading fell significantly below state averages for those content areas in both 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.

The percentage of students meeting benchmark in English and math decreased from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016.

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

Elementary School Tested Area

Proficiency Delivery Target

for % P/D

Actual Score Met Target (Yes or No)

Gap Delivery

Target for % P/D

Actual Score

Met Target (Yes or

No)

Combined Reading & Math

47.6 41.9 NO 45.0 38.5 NO

Reading 49.6 44.9 NO 47.4 41.6 NO

Math 45.6 38.8 NO 42.6 35.4 NO

Social Studies

59.7 67.6 YES 55.4 63.8 YES

Writing 35.6 41.4 YES 34.0 40.8 YES

Middle School Tested Area


for % P/D


Gap Delivery

Target for % P/D

Actual Score

Met Target (Yes or

No)


48.6 45.3 NO 44.8 40.9 NO

Reading 53.5 49.1 NO 49.7 45.3 NO

Math 43.7 41.4 NO 40.0 36.5 NO

Social Studies

61.7 70.5 YES 57.2 66.7 YES

Writing 48.4 46.6 NO 45.1 41.9 NO

High School Tested Area


for % P/D


Gap Delivery

Target for % P/D

Actual Score

Met Target (Yes or

No)


45.0 47.7 YES 41.8 42.6 YES

Reading 55.2 46.8 NO 50.6 41.9 NO

Math 34.8 48.6 YES 32.9 43.3 YES

Social Studies

46.6 41.6 NO 44.1 37.5 NO

Writing 48.2 38.1 NO 45.0 33.3 NO

Science 39.4 16.4 NO 44.1 37.5 NO

Plus:

Knox County District met proficiency and gap delivery targets at the elementary level in writing and social studies for the 2015-2016 school year.

Knox County District met proficiency and gap delivery targets at the middle school level social studies for the 2015-2016 school year.

Knox County District met proficiency and gap delivery targets at the high school level in Combined Reading & Math as well as math for the 2015-2016 school year.

Delta:

Knox County District did not meet any proficiency or gap delivery targets at the elementary or middle school levels in Combined Reading & Math, Reading, and math for the 2015-2016 school year.

Knox County District did not meet any proficiency or gap delivery targets at the middle school level in writing for the 2015-2016 school year.

Knox County District did not meet any proficiency or gap delivery targets at the high school level in reading, social studies, writing and science for the 2015-2016 school year.

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

Delivery Target Type

Delivery Target (School)

Actual Score

(School)

Actual Score

(State)

Met Target

(Yes or No)

College and Career Readiness

70.7 69.6 68.5 NO

Graduation Rate (for 4-year adjusted cohort)

92.4 88.7 88.6 NO

Delta:

Knox County District did not meet college and career readiness or graduation rate targets in the 2015-2016 year.

Program Reviews 2015-2016

Elem. School Program Area—

Curriculum and

Instruction (3 pts possible)

Formative & Summative Assessment

(3 pts possible)

Professional

Development and

Support Services

(3 pts possible)

Administrative/ Leadership

Support and Monitoring

(3 pts possible)

Total Points

(12 points possible)

Classification

Arts and Humanities

2.46 2.24 2.43 2.44 9.6 Proficient

Practical Living

2.32 2.21 2.43 2.43 9.4 Proficient

Writing 2.51 2.52 2.46 2.47 10.0 Proficient

K-3 2.78 2.54 2.55 2.61 10.5 Proficient

World Language and Global Competency*

1.33 1.12 1.75 1.20 5.4 Needs Improvement

Middle School

Program Area

Curriculum and

Instruction (3 pts

possible)


(3 pts possible)

Professional Development and Support

Services (3 pts

possible)



(3 pts possible)

Total Points


Classification

Arts and Humanities

2.35 1.93 2.38 2.15 8.8 Proficient

Practical Living

2.25 2.42 2.44 2.54 9.7 Proficient



1.50 1.33 2.06 1.54 6.4 Needs Improvement

High School

Program Area

Curriculum and

Instruction (3 pts

possible)


(3 pts possible)

Professional Development and Support

Services (3 pts

possible)



(3 pts possible)

Total Points


Classification

Arts and Humanities

2.29 2.07 2.19 2.30 8.9 Proficient

Practical Living

2.23 2.42 2.44 2.46 9.6 Proficient



2.04 1.92 2.19 1.85 8.0 Proficient

Plus:

Three of the four Program Review areas at the middle school level were classified as “Proficient.”

Four of the five program review areas at the elementary school were rated “Proficient.”

All program review areas at the high school were rated “Proficient.”

Professional Development and Support Services typically rated consistently higher than the other areas.

Delta:

World language and global competency were rated as “Needs Improvement” at the elementary and middle school level.

Writing, at all three school levels, scored consistently high compared to the other program areas.

Stakeholder Feedback Plus/Delta

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

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

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

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

Teaching and Learning Impact (Standards 3 and 5)

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

1. 92 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school uses data

to monitor student readiness and success at the next level.”

2. 92 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In our school, all staff

members participate in continuous professional learning based on identified needs of the

school.”

3. 92 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school uses

multiple assessment measures to determine student learning and school performance.”

4. 93 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school has a

systematic process for collecting, analyzing and using data.”

5. 92 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school leaders

monitor data related to student achievement.”


monitor data related to school continuous improvement goals.”

7. 95 percent of elementary students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My school has

computers to help me learn.”

8. 95 percent of elementary students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In my school,

my principal and teachers want every student to learn.”

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

1. 43 percent of middle/high school students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of

my teachers change their teaching to meet my learning needs.”

2. 46 percent of middle/high school students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My

school offers opportunities for my family to become involved in school activities and my

learning.”

3. 48 percent of middle/high school students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of

my teachers keep my family informed of my academic progress.”


school shares information about school success with my family and community members.”

5. 50 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All of my child’s teachers

meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction.”*


work as a team to help my child learn.”*

7. 45 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school provides

opportunities for stakeholders to be involved in the school.”*


keep me informed regularly of how my child is being graded.”*

9. 52 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school ensures that all

staff members monitor and report the achievement of school goals.”*

*The participation rate (equal to or greater than 20%) for parents was not met; therefore, parent survey

results were not reflected as evidence in the Diagnostic Review report.

Leadership Capacity (Standards 1 and 2)


1. 91 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school’s purpose

statement is clearly focused on student success.”


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


systematic process for collecting, analyzing, and using data.”


monitor data related to school continuous improvement goals.”


my principal and teachers want every student to learn.”


my teacher wants me to do my best work.”



students treat adults with respect.”

2. 50 percent of elementary students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My principal

and teachers ask me what I think about school.”


school considers students’ opinions when planning ways to improve the school.”


school provides me with challenging curriculum and learning experiences.”

5. 38 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school’s purpose

statement is formally reviewed and revised with involvement from parents.”*


provide an equitable curriculum that meets his/her learning needs.”*


give work that challenges my child.”*

8. 46 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school’s governing body

operates responsibly and functions effectively.”*

9. 48 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school communicates

effectively about the school’s goals and activities.”*

10. 51 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school’s governing body

does not interfere with the operation or leadership of our school.”*



Resource Utilization (Standard 4)


1. 90 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school provides

instructional time and resources to support our school’s goals and priorities.”


many places I can learn, such as a library.”


computers to help me learn.”


1. 45 percent of middle/high school students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In my

school, the building and grounds are safe, clean, and provide a healthy place for learning.”


school, computers are up-to-date and used by teachers to help me learn.”


school, a variety of resources are available to help me succeed (e.g. teaching staff, technology,

media center).”

4. 49 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school ensures the

effective use of financial resources.”*

5. 54 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school provides

excellent support services (e.g. counseling and/or career planning).”*

6. 57 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school ensures that

instructional time is protected and interruptions are minimized.”*

7. 58 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school provides an

adequate supply of learning resources that are current and in good condition.”*



Knox County Public Schools

Diagnostic Review Team Schedule

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Time Event Where Who Check in 3:00 p.m. External Review Team External Review Team

5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Evening Work Session #1/

Prepare for Day 1

Hotel Conference Room

External Review Team

6:30 p.m.

Dinner TBD External Review Team

Wednesday, April 12, 2017 (Breakfast at hotel) Time Event Where Who 7:30 a.m. External Review Team

Depart for System’s

Central Office

Hotel External Review Team

8:15 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Superintendent’s Overview Board Room Superintendent, District

Leadership Team

9:00 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.

Director Interviews

(Two members of the

Review Team per interview)

Board Room (Team 1)

District Work Room (Team 2)

Superintendent’s Office (Team 3)

Team 1

Team 2

Team 3

9:45 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Break

10:00 a.m. - 10:45 a.m.

Director Interviews

(Two members of the


Board Room (Team 1)



Team 1

Team 2

Team 3

10:45 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.

Director Interviews

(Two members of the


Evidence Review

Board Room (Team 1)



Team 1

Team 2

Team 3

11:45 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.

Lunch & Team Debriefing Board Room


12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.

Superintendent’s Interview Superintendent’s Office Superintendent, Review Team

1:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. Community Interviews

(Two members of the


Board Room (Team 1)



Team Members

2:30 p.m. - 2:45 p.m. Break

Board Room External Review Team

2:45 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.

Interviews continued Board Room (Team 1)



Team 1

3:30 p.m. Team Debriefing Board Room External Review Team

4:00 p.m. Team returns to hotel External Review Team

5:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

Evening Work Session #2 /

Prepare for Day 2

Hotel


Thursday, April 13, 2017 (Breakfast at hotel) Time Event Where Who

6:45 a.m. - 7:15 a.m.

Breakfast


8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

School Visit

Classroom Observations

Lynn Camp (K-12) External Review Team

11:50 a.m.

Return to District Office


12:00 p.m. - 12:45 p.m. Lunch


1:00 p.m. – 1:50 p.m.

Principal Interviews

(Divided among team, two

principals per interview

session)

Team 3/4: School Visits

Board Room (Team 1)



Team 1

Team 2

2:00 p.m. – 2:50 p.m.


Board Room (Team 1)



Broadcast Studio Annex (Team 4)

Team 1

Team 2

Team 3

Team 4

3:00 p.m. – 3:50 p.m.


Instructional Coach

Interviews

Board Room (Team 1)



Broadcast Studio Annex (Team 4)

Team 1

Team 2

Team 3

4:00 p.m. Return to hotel


5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Evening Work Session #3 /

Prepare for Day 3


Friday, April 14, 2017 (Breakfast at hotel) Time Event Where Who

7:30 a.m. Check out of hotel and depart

for District Office

Hotel Name External Review Team

8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Team Work Session


8:30 a.m. Leadership Determination

Meeting


9:30 a.m. Interview Hotel External Review Team

Kentucky Department of Education Knox County Diagnostic Review Report

2016-17 LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT/DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW ADDENDUM

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

Improvement Priorities from the 2015-16 Diagnostic Review or Progress Monitoring Visit for

Knox County.

Improvement Priority 1

Indicator 3.1

2015-16 Team Rating

2016-17 School/District

Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

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

1.40 3.25 2.17

3.1 Improvement Priority (2015-16) Develop, implement and monitor a district curriculum plan and process that addresses: 1) the development and use of district-wide curriculum documents: (e.g., congruent Pacing Guides, Instructional Units, Lesson Plans and Assessments), 2) vertical and horizontal curriculum alignment so that all essential standards are taught at each grade level, 3) the inclusion of challenging and equitable opportunities for all students to develop learning skills, thinking skills and life skills, 4) individualized learning activities for each student in a way that supports achievement of expectations, and, 5) monitoring of progress by examining student academic performance data.

District Self- Rating

Team Rating

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


District Evidence: Knox County Public Schools (KCPS) Curriculum Plan Vertical/horizontal curriculum alignment through teacher equivalent days (emails, timeline, description) KCPS district recommended lesson planning template District leadership instructional walkthrough process Professional Learning Community (PLC) Process Instructional management system (IMS) and GradeCam monitoring tools IMS guiding documents Teacher equivalency days survey data document District leadership calibration walkthrough schedule GradeCam monitoring reports Gifted Education Services Handbook Individual Education Program Guiding Document KCPS District Response to Intervention (RTI) Plan Individual Learning Plan Document Data Analysis and Monitoring Tools Curriculum Plan Timeline 5-Year Plan

District Supporting Rationale: Flashback/reflection to School Year 2013/14 School Year 13/14 Curriculum development School Year 14/15 Instructional Units School Year 15/16 Continue/Revise Instructional Units with new Districtwide programs School Year 16/17 Lesson Planning and revision of instructional units School Year 17/18 Revision of Curriculum Maps and Pacing Guides Teacher equivalency days have driven this work The work with different grants Pimser Math and Science

Team Evidence: Documents and artifacts Stakeholder interviews Stakeholder survey data Observation data

Team Supporting Rationale:


Although 89 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “In our school, challenging curriculum and learning experiences provide equity for all students in the development of learning, thinking, and life skills,” observation data indicated differentiated learning opportunities and activities that met student needs were evident/very evident in 26 percent of classroom observations. Stakeholder interview data and a review of documents and artifacts demonstrated the use of professional learning days (i.e., Teacher Equivalent Days) during which teachers developed horizontally aligned instructional units and common summative assessments. Although a review of documents and artifacts and stakeholder interview data revealed the district had a process for the development and evaluation of standards-based instructional units and lesson plans, data also indicated the absence of several elements: 1) a cohesive curriculum map identifying essential standards students must master in each content area and grade level; 2) common pacing guides that outline when teachers will guarantee instruction of specific essential standards and the delivery of specific instructional units and 3) a set of common criteria outlining the necessary evidence for determining student mastery of specific essential standards. Stakeholder interview data and a review of documents and artifacts demonstrated the use of assessment data from multiple assessments during professional learning communities to determine student progress toward mastery of standards; however, the degree to which these practices were consistently applied across schools was unclear. Some schools were following a formalized process for the collaborative review of student learning outcomes on common assessments to determine specific standards-based adjustments to curriculum and instruction. Observation data indicated instances in which students were provided additional/alternative instruction and feedback at the appropriate level of challenge for their learning needs were evident/very evident during 29 percent of classroom observations.



Indicator 3.3/3.6

2015-16 Team Rating


Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

Teachers throughout the district engage students in their learning through instructional strategies that ensure achievement of learning expectations. Teachers implement the system's instructional process in support of student learning.

1.80

1.00

3.0

3.0

2.00 2.00

3.3/3.6 Improvement Priority (2015-16) Develop, implement and monitor a district-wide instructional plan and process that ensures teachers develop lesson plans and instructional strategies that: 1) inform students of clear learning expectations, 2) provide students examples of how they will demonstrate learning, 3) formatively assess student learning to guide and modify instruction and provide on-going student performance feedback, 4) provide students with exemplars of high quality work, 5) require student collaboration and self-reflection, 6) address student development of critical thinking skills, and, 7) are individualized to meet unique student learning needs.


Team Rating

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

District Evidence: KCPS Instructional plan and process Lesson plan monitoring tool Principal’s monitoring tool Walkthroughs Minutes from district instructional planning team meetings Minutes from District Leadership Team Samples of Lesson Plans


District Supporting Rationale:

Team Evidence: Classroom observation data Superintendent’s Overview Stakeholder interviews Documents and artifacts District Self Assessment

Team Supporting Rationale: The Superintendent’s Overview and a review of documents and artifacts revealed that “lesson plan essentials” had been developed and used on a district-wide basis. These essentials target the seven points addressed in this improvement priority and were monitored by principals at the school level. Stakeholder interviews indicated district level staff monitor the development of lesson plans and provide feedback to principals to ensure teacher lesson plans are meeting the expectations established. Stakeholder interview data confirmed the consistent use of this lesson plan format throughout the district. Lesson plans emphasizing the seven essentials were reviewed by the Diagnostic Review Team. Classroom observation and walkthrough data revealed components of the lesson plan essentials and instructional strategies were being implemented in classrooms across the district.



Indicator 3.2/5.1/5.2

2015-16 Team Rating


Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

Curriculum, instruction, and assessment throughout the system are monitored and adjusted systematically in response to data from multiple assessments of student learning and an examination of professional practice. The system establishes and maintains a clearly defined and comprehensive student assessment system. Professional and support staff continuously collect, analyze and apply learning from a range of data sources, including comparison and trend data about student learning, instruction, program evaluation, and organizational conditions that support learning.

1.00

1.40

1.00

3.25

3.00

2.50

2.17

2.33

2.33

3.2/5.1/5.2 Improvement Priority (2015-16) Develop, implement, document and monitor a comprehensive assessment system that ensures all district and school personnel 1) use data from multiple assessments of student learning, 2) use consistent measurement practices across all classrooms, courses and educational programs, 3) use data to monitor and adjust curriculum, instruction and assessment to ensure vertical and horizontal alignment, and, 4) regularly evaluate the assessment process for reliability and effectiveness in improving instruction and student learning.


Team Rating


District Evidence: Assessment Timeline PLC RTI


Master Schedules (including RTI groups) Data Notebooks Comprehensive School Improvement Plans (CSIPs) Lesson Plans (student self-reflections) Extended School Services Plans District Leadership Team Minutes (achievement)

District Supporting Rationale: Purpose statement Originally a timeline of yearly assessments, now more data driven. Discuss development/purpose of workgroups

Team Evidence: District Curriculum Plan District Assessment Plan Lesson plan documentation and checklists GradeCam documentation Superintendent’s Interview Superintendent’s Overview District leadership interviews Staff survey data PLC agendas Quarterly walk-through meeting minutes School leadership interviews District assessment timeline Mission/Vision documentation District’s Comprehensive Improvement Plan (CDIP) and Schools’ Comprehensive Improvement Plans (CSIPs) Reading Plus documentation Data walls School level Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) data meeting agendas

Team Supporting Rationale: Stakeholder interview and staff survey data and a review of professional learning community


agendas revealed instructional walk-throughs were routinely occurring and being monitored and analyzed by district and school level leadership.

Stakeholder interview data and the Superintendent’s Overview indicated Teacher Equivalency days were structured, intentional and focused on the system’s continuous improvement efforts and directly aligned to curriculum, instruction and assessment priorities. A review of the district’s Curriculum Plan revealed specific calendar dates had been identified for analyzing student achievement and assessment data. The plan also contained a five-year assessment timeline to move the district towards common assessments in all grade levels by 2018. A review of professional learning community meeting agendas and documents provided by the district indicated conversations amongst staff members were taking place regarding course grades assigned to students compared with state proficient and distinguished percentages with discussion specific to the huge disparity in the data.

Administrative interview data yielded a plethora of discussions revolving around data walls, their use and individualization of student progress organized by content areas. Moreover, greater than 90 percent of staff member respondents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school has a systematic process for collecting, analyzing, and using data.” Quarterly walk-through data meeting minutes explicitly outlined details such as students at risk of failing (and thus needing intervention services), attendance rates, tutoring rosters and walk-through data relating to future teaching adjustments and practices. Additionally, staff survey data indicated that over 80 percent of respondents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “All teachers in our school monitor and adjust curriculum, instruction, and assessment based on data from student assessments and examination of professional practice.” Over 90 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school has a systematic process for collecting, analyzing, and using data, suggesting this practice is being consistently implemented across schools in the district.



Indicator 2.6/3.4

2015-16 Team Rating


Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

Leadership and staff supervision and evaluation processes result in improved professional practice in all areas of the system and improved student success. System and school leaders monitor and support the improvement of instructional practices of teachers to ensure student success.

1.80

1.60

2.5

3.0

2.33

2.50

2.6/3.4 Improvement Priority (2015-16) Develop, implement, and monitor a district supervision and evaluation plan and process that: 1) ensures teachers are teaching the district-approved curriculum and that the curriculum emphasizes the use and development of higher-order thinking skills for all students, and, 2) provides immediate and specific feedback to teachers that allows for adjustment of classroom instructional practice to ensure student learning.


Team Rating


District Evidence: Committee meeting minutes, agendas and sign in sheets Instructional units approved in the Continuous Instructional Improvement Technology System (CIITS) Learning Targets aligned to standards (lesson plan monitoring tool) Lesson plan template HOTS tid-bits in “In the Know” “Principals Matters” Walkthrough feedback (ewalk emails, debrief notes) Evidence from CIITS of Curricular units, instructional units and lesson plans District Leadership meeting agendas – Lesson plans (2nd Monday) GradeCam monitoring Unit Assessment Assignment template doc


Ewalk 3C1 (HOTS) Ewalk reports Debriefing session minutes District Leadership Team (DLT) notes PLC Plans Summative Evaluation Lists

District Supporting Rationale:

Team Evidence: Staff survey data Superintendent’s Overview Stakeholder interviews Documents and artifacts District Self-Assessment

Team Supporting Rationale: Stakeholder survey data revealed 79 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school's leaders ensure all staff members use supervisory feedback to improve student learning.” These data suggested staff member use information derived from district and school walkthroughs, GradeCam monitoring and data from the universal screeners, MAP and iReady to inform classroom instruction on a consistent basis. Staff survey data indicated 89 percent agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school's leaders regularly evaluate staff members on criteria designed to improve teaching and learning.” The implication of these results revealed the use of various forms of evaluation, such as Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES), instructional walk-throughs, the monitoring of lesson plans and the analysis of both formative and summative data improved professional practices in all areas of the district and increased student achievement. Information from the Superintendent’s Overview indicated when using CIITS, staff members linked instructional units to the Common Core standards. These units were developed by teachers based on curriculum used, grade level and content area. Interview data with various stakeholders noted that district personnel participated in regularly scheduled walk-throughs at each school. Data derived from these walk-throughs was calibrated with data from principal and school leadership team walk-throughs. These results were shared


with staff members during PLC meetings. These results were used to adjust classroom instructional practices to ensure student learning. A review of documents and artifacts provided by the district, such as school data notebooks, district report card, daily lesson plans and CSIPs revealed evidence of the district’s implementation, monitoring and evaluating of plans and processes used in the continuous improvement of student learning. The use of these documents by staff members indicated an intentional focus on success for each student at the next level. From information derived from the district’s Self-Assessment, information indicated that the “2016-2017 school year focus was on the development of congruent pacing guides, instructional units and lesson plans.” These essential elements were established by the district as pivotal components of the curriculum. The continued refining, monitoring and adjusting of these components indicated district personnel understood that growth and necessary adjustments were vital to the continuous improvement process.



Indicator 2.2

2015-16 Team Rating


Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

The governing body operates responsibly and functions effectively.

1.00 2.75 2.67

2.2 Improvement Priority (2015-16) Review and comply with all board policies, procedures, laws and regulations pertaining to the roles and conduct of individual board members and the board as a whole. Implement a process to evaluate board decisions and actions to ensure they are in accordance with defined roles and responsibilities, a formally adopted code of ethics, free of conflict of interest, and for the benefit of student learning.


Team Rating


District Evidence: Board Member Training Records Board Meeting Agendas and Minutes Governance Work Team Plan

District Supporting Rationale: The District has established a Governance Work Team that reviews all policies and procedures prior to their first and second reading by the Board. Each proposal is first reviewed by the team before adding to the agenda and action. The Governance team will be reviewing all existing policies and procedures in a five year rotation to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations and to address any conflicts for the benefit of student learning. The Board has attended trainings conducted by the Kentucky School Boards Association since the last Diagnostic Review that addresses roles and responsibilities of the Board. Changes to


the Board leadership and member makeup have occurred since the last Diagnostic Review.

Team Evidence: Stakeholder interviews District Self-Assessment Superintendent’s Overview Review of documents and artifacts Staff survey data

Team Supporting Rationale: Stakeholder interview data and the Superintendent’s Overview revealed district leadership had developed a Governance Work Team that had developed and implemented a process to review all policies and practices to ensure an intentional connection to the district’s purpose and direction and organizational effectiveness. The Superintendent and Board of Education had internalized the AdvancED Standards for Quality to frame and guide the agendas of their monthly meetings in pursuit of their vision and mission, as well as to evaluate their decisions and actions for the benefit of student learning. Stakeholder interview data revealed all Board members had attended trainings conducted by the Kentucky School Boards Association that specifically addressed the roles and responsibilities of the Board and the adoption of policies that directly supported the district’s purpose and direction as well as the effective operation of the system and its schools. A review of documents and artifacts revealed the Board of Education had reviewed and adopted policies that reflected current state statutes, directly supported the district’s mission and continuous improvement efforts and gave direction for the professional growth of staff, oversight of fiscal management and promotion of conditions that support student learning.

Stakeholder interview data and a review of documents and artifacts indicated the district had established policies and practices for monitoring the effectiveness of instruction and assessment through the collection of walkthrough data, the development of instructional units and common assessments as well as the identification of lesson plan “essentials” to support quality instruction in classrooms.

Although 75 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school's governing body or school board complies with all policies, procedures, laws, and regulations,” stakeholder interview data indicated the Board of Education clearly understood its role in adopting, establishing and maintaining policy for the benefit of its students,



Indicator 2.3

2015-16 Team Rating


Self- Rating

2016-17 Team Rating

The governing body ensures that the leadership at all levels has the autonomy to meet goals for achievement and instruction and to manage day-to-day operations effectively.

1.00 2.75 3.17

2.3 Improvement Priority (2015-16) Review board policies and practices to ensure, support and respect the autonomy of system and school leadership to accomplish goals for achievement and instruction and to manage day-to-day operations of the system and its schools. Maintain a clear distinction in all board actions between the roles and responsibilities of the school board and those of system and school leadership.


Team Rating

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

personnel and community.

District Evidence: Survey results Budgets Policy and Procedure Manual Board Training Records Governance Work Team Plan

District Supporting Rationale: Interviews with stakeholders will reflect survey results that schools feel more autonomy in the decision making at the local level. Budgets, both school council (SBDM) and grant, will show school participation in the decision making.


The Board has attended trainings conducted by the Kentucky School Boards Association since the last Diagnostic Review that addresses roles and responsibilities of the Board. Changes to the Board leadership and member makeup have occurred since the last Diagnostic Review.

Team Evidence: Stakeholder interviews District Self-Assessment Superintendent’s Overview Review of documents and artifacts Staff survey data

Team Supporting Rationale: Stakeholder interview data revealed the Board of Education was supportive of district and school leadership as well as the teaching and learning process. They operated in a fiscally responsible manner that maximized the district’s financial resources while maintaining strong educational programs for students.

Although 74 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “Our school's governing body or school board maintains a distinction between its roles and responsibilities and those of school leadership,” stakeholder interview data revealed they believed the Board of Education consistently maintained a distinction between its roles and responsibilities and those of district and school leadership.

Interview data with district and school level leadership revealed the Board of Education protected, supported and respected the autonomy of its leadership team to accomplish goals for achievement and instruction and to manage the day-to-day operations of the system's schools. The Superintendent’s Overview and stakeholder interview data indicated the Board of Education supported the "chain of command" protocol currently in place and recognized the superintendent as the executive, administrative and leadership authority within the district. The Board of Education provided a leadership and governance structure that promoted a collaborative approach to decision-making and revealed a school community of leaders who were advocates for the district's vision and improvement initiatives.

Stakeholder interview data, the district’s Self-Assessment and a review of documents and artifacts revealed the Board of Education and district/school leadership teams worked to build public support, secure sufficient resources and act as stewards of district resources.


Stakeholder interview data revealed all Board members attended trainings conducted by the Kentucky School Boards Association that specifically addressed the roles and responsibilities of the Board in the adoption of policies that directly supported the district’s purpose and direction and the effective operation of the system and its schools.

A review of documents and artifacts revealed the Board of Education had reviewed and adopted policies that directly supported the district’s mission and continuous improvement efforts and gave direction for the professional growth of staff, oversight of fiscal management and promotion of conditions that support student learning.

District Diagnostic Review Summary Report

Knox County

School District

4/11/2017 – 4/14/2017

The members of the Knox County District Diagnostic Review Team are grateful to the district leadership,

staff, students, families and community for the cooperation and hospitality extended to us during the

assessment process.

Pursuant to KRS 160.346, the Diagnostic Review Team has examined extensive evidence and arrived at

the following recommendations:

District Authority:

District leadership does have the capacity to implement and manage the five Improvement

Priorities developed from the Diagnostic Review (April 11 – April 14, 2017).

Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Education

________________________________________________Date:________________

I have received the diagnostic review report for Knox County School District.

Superintendent, Knox County

________________________________________________Date:________________

Report of the Diagnostic Review Team for Knox … Count… · Report of the Diagnostic Review Team...

Documents

Transcript of Report of the Diagnostic Review Team for Knox … Count… · Report of the Diagnostic Review Team...