2018-19 Thomas Jefferson Middle Diagnostic Review PDF

February 25–28, 2019
Results for: Thomas Jefferson Middle School

Diagnostic Review Report
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results .................................................................................... 4
Leadership Capacity Domain............................................................................................................... 4
Learning Capacity Domain .................................................................................................................. 5
Resource Capacity Domain ................................................................................................................. 6
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®) Results ....................................... 7
eleot Narrative.................................................................................................................................. 11
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 13
Improvement Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 13
Insights from the Review .................................................................................................................. 17
Next Steps......................................................................................................................................... 19
Team Roster ............................................................................................................................. 20
Addenda................................................................................................................................... 22
Student Performance Data ............................................................................................................... 22
Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 25
© Advance Education, Inc. 2 www.advanc-ed.org

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

District-level Administrators 1
Building-level Administrators 4
Professional Support Staff (e.g., Counselor, Media Specialist, Technology 16
Coordinator)
Certified Staff 22
Non-certified Staff 4
Students 8
Parents 58
Total 113

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

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

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

Learning Capacity Domain

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

Resource Capacity Domain

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

Results
The eProve™ Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot) is a learner-centric classroom observation
tool that comprises 28 items organized in seven environments aligned with the AdvancED Standards. The tool
provides useful, relevant, structured, and quantifiable data on the extent to which students are engaged in
activities and demonstrate knowledge, attitudes, and dispositions that are conducive to effective learning.
Classroom observations are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes.
Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team was eleot certified and passed a certification exam that established
inter-rater reliability. Team members conducted 34 observations during the Diagnostic Review process, including
all core content learning environments. The following charts provide aggregate data across multiple observations
for each of the seven learning environments.

A. Equitable Learning Environment
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Evident
Indicators Average Description
Very
Not
Learners engage in differentiated learning opportunities
A1 1.3 76% 15% 9% 0%
and/or activities that meet their needs.
Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

A2 2.7 3% 32% 53% 12%
activities, resources, technology, and support.
A3 2.8 Learners are treated in a fair, clear, and consistent manner. 3% 29% 56% 12%
Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

empathy/respect/appreciation for differences in abilities,
A4 1.7 50% 26% 24% 0%
aptitudes, backgrounds, cultures, and/or other human
characteristics, conditions and dispositions.
Overall rating on a 4
point scale:
2.1
B. High Expectations Learning Environment
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

B1 1.9 29% 56% 15% 0%
expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher.
Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

B2 2.1 24% 44% 29% 3%
but attainable.
Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

B3 1.6 53% 38% 9% 0%
quality work.
Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

B4 1.8 tasks that require the use of higher order thinking (e.g., 38% 47% 15% 0%
analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing).
Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

B5 1.9 26% 53% 21% 0%
learning.
point scale:
1.8

C. Supportive Learning Environment
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Learners demonstrate a sense of community that is positive,
C1 2.3 15% 47% 35% 3%
cohesive, engaged, and purposeful.
Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

C2 2.1 29% 32% 35% 3%
feedback).
Learners are supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or

C3 2.5 9% 44% 38% 9%
other resources to understand content and accomplish tasks.
Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

C4 2.6 15% 29% 32% 24%
relationship with their teacher.
point scale:
2.4
D. Active Learning Environment
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other

D1 2.2 12% 56% 29% 3%
and teacher predominate.
Learners make connections from content to real-life

D2 2.0 38% 26% 35% 0%
experiences.
D3 2.1 Learners are actively engaged in the learning activities. 18% 50% 32% 0%
Learners collaborate with their peers to

D4 1.8 accomplish/complete projects, activities, tasks and/or 35% 47% 18% 0%
assignments.
point scale:
2.0

E. Progress Monitoring & Feedback Learning Environment
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Learners monitor their own progress or have mechanisms
E1 1.7 41% 44% 15% 0%
whereby their learning progress is monitored.
Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

E2 2.3 teachers/peers/other resources) to improve understanding 6% 65% 26% 3%
and/or revise work.
Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

E3 2.3 9% 59% 29% 3%
lesson/content.
Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

E4 1.5 59% 29% 12% 0%
work is assessed.
point scale:
1.9
F. Well-Managed Learning Environment
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and

F1 2.6 12% 41% 26% 21%
each other.
Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

F2 2.2 18% 44% 35% 3%
rules and behavioral expectations and work well with others.
Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

F3 1.9 35% 44% 18% 3%
to another.
Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

F4 1.9 38% 41% 18% 3%
time or disruptions.
point scale:
2.1

G. Digital Learning Environment
Somewhat
Observed
Evident
Evident
Evident
Very
Not
Learners use digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate,
G1 1.6 62% 15% 24% 0%
and/or use information for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

G2 1.5 65% 21% 15% 0%
solve problems, and/or create original works for learning.
Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

G3 1.1 94% 6% 0% 0%
work collaboratively for learning.
point scale:
1.4
eleot Narrative
The Diagnostic Review Team for Thomas Jefferson Middle School conducted 34 classroom observations in core
academic classrooms, which provided sufficient information about the classroom learning environments. Of the
seven learning environments, the Supportive Learning Environment earned the highest overall rating of 2.4 on a
four-point scale and the Digital Learning Environment had the lowest overall rating of 1.4.
Several strengths emerged from the classroom observation data that all related to interactions among students
and teachers. Two were identified in the Equitable Learning Environment and two were identified in the
Supportive Learning Environment. In the Equitable Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident in 65
percent of classrooms that students had “equal access to classroom discussions, activities, resources, technology,
and support” (A2), and it was evident/very evident in 68 percent of classrooms that students were “treated in a
fair, clear, and consistent manner” (A3). In the Supportive Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident in 47
percent of classrooms that students were “supported by the teacher, their peers, and/or other resources to
understand content and accomplish tasks” (C3). Additionally, it was evident/very evident in 56 percent of
classrooms that students demonstrated “a congenial and supportive relationship with their teacher” (C4).
While the Diagnostic Review Team identified items needing improvement in all seven learning environments,
providing learning opportunities for students through the use of varied instructional approaches, including
individualized assignments, emerged as a significant leverage point for improving student performance. Instances
of students engaged “in differentiated learning opportunities and/or activities that [met] their needs” (A1) were
evident/very evident in nine percent of classrooms. It was evident/very evident in nine percent of classrooms that
students demonstrated or were “able to describe high quality work” (B3) and in 15 percent of classrooms that
students engaged “in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order thinking
(e.g., analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing” (B4). Additionally, it was evident/very evident in 12 percent of
classrooms that students understood and/or were “able to explain how their work is assessed” (E4). Instances in
which students monitored “their own progress or [had] mechanisms whereby their learning progress is monitored”
(E1) were evident/very evident in 15 percent of classrooms. These data from the Equitable Learning, High
Expectations, and Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environments provide the rationale to develop
processes that ensure the school-wide implementation of an evidenced-based curriculum. The Diagnostic Review
Team encourages the school to provide opportunities for teachers to share strategies and best practices (e.g.,

formative assessments, rubrics, exemplars, effective feedback, student self-monitoring) in order to improve
student performance.
The Digital Learning Environment received an overall rating of 1.4. The Diagnostic Review Team observed the
majority of students using computers for word processing and skill building. It was evident/very evident in 24
percent of classrooms that students used “digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate, and/or use information for
learning” (G1) and in zero percent of classrooms that students used “digital tools/technology to communicate and
work collaboratively for learning” (G3). Some students used computers for research, but the team rarely observed
students collaborating through the use of technology tools.
By examining the classroom observation data for all items within the seven learning environments, district leaders
will be able to identify additional leverage points to help the school improve instructional capacity and increase
student performance. In addition, the Improvement Priorities outlined within this report will guide the school in
prioritizing areas of focus.

Findings
Improvement Priorities
Improvement priorities are developed to enhance the capacity of the institution to reach a higher level of
performance and reflect the areas identified by the Diagnostic Review Team to have the greatest impact on
improving student performance and organizational effectiveness.
Improvement Priority #1
Review and refine the process that regularly engages multiple internal and external stakeholder groups that are
representative of the school population (particularly students) to support Thomas Jefferson Middle School's
purpose, while creating opportunities that provide meaningful two-way communication along with strategies that
result in measurable and active participation of all representative internal and external stakeholder groups.
(Standard 1.8)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

Student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, suggested that the individual needs of
students were not met. The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished increased in reading from
2016-2017 to 2017-2018 in both seventh grade (from 26.3 to 33.9 percent) and eighth grade (from 27.4 to 31.4
percent). However, the Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) scores in all content areas
were significantly below the state averages for proficiency attainment. In the 2017-2018 school year, the
percentages of English Learners, Economically Disadvantaged, and Disabled Students with an IEP who scored
Proficient/Distinguished were below the percentage of All Students who scored at those levels in all tested areas.
These data suggested the need to involve multiple stakeholder groups in decisions involving the development of
instructional systems to support student learning and increase proficiency.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data, as previously discussed, suggested that students lack a positive, supportive
relationship with their classroom teachers. In the Supportive Learning Environment, it was evident/very evident in
38 percent of classrooms that students demonstrated “a sense of community that is positive, cohesive, engaged,
and purposeful” (C1). Furthermore, in 56 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students
demonstrated “a congenial and supportive relationship with their classroom teacher” (C4). The Diagnostic Review
Team observed a concerted effort by most classroom teachers to implement the “relationship” piece of the
“Keeping it R.E.A.L” (Relationships, Engagement, Assessment, and Learning) process; however, there was a lack of
evidence that these relationship-building strategies were being implemented in other parts of the school, such as
the hallways, cafeteria, and other common areas.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

During the course of the diagnostic review, the team interviewed staff, students, parents, and other support
personnel. The interview data indicated that the administration allowed input into the decision-making process.
Additionally, staff members shared that their concerns were validated and addressed. In contrast, the interview
data revealed a strong belief that students had no voice in decision-making. Many students reported that they
were only told what to do and that their suggestions and feedback were of little value. Some stakeholders shared
that while the new discipline process reduced the number of student referrals, student behaviors did not change.
In addition, most students perceived they had no input into policy changes. When asked if students had a voice in

school decisions, one student stated, “Students should decide what activities we participate in during Team Time
on Fridays.” The team suggests that the school incorporate student input to establish the type of relationships
needed to provide a positive learning environment.
Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The stakeholder survey data indicated a discrepancy between student perceptions and staff member and parent
perceptions about effective two-way communication. Eighty-six percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed
with the statement, “Our school’s leaders engage effectively with all stakeholders about the school’s purpose and
direction” (D9). Also, 85 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “Our school’s leaders provide
opportunities for stakeholders to be involved in the school” (D10).
Seventy-three percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “In our school, all school personnel regularly
engage families in their children’s learning progress” (E19), while 76 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed
that “Our school provides opportunities for stakeholders to be involved in the school” (D6). Additionally, 76
percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed that “All of my child's teachers report on my child's progress in easy to
understand language” (E8). These data points contrasted with student survey results. Fifty-one percent of students
agreed/strongly agreed that “My school considers students' opinions when planning ways to improve the school”
(G2). Fifty-nine percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement “My school offers opportunities for
my family to become involved in school activities and my learning” (E5).
The student interview data also indicated that students received feedback inconsistently. While 77 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” (E11), most
students reported that they were not being challenged by the daily activities they were required to complete.
Although 70 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed that “All teachers in our school provide students
with specific and timely feedback about their learning” (E6), the interview data indicated that students received
feedback inconsistently and some students indicated that teachers did not grade or return student work. These
discrepancies point to the need to establish communication systems for all stakeholders, particularly students.
Documents and Artifacts:

A review of documents revealed that the school implemented strategies reflective of the purpose statement,
“Keeping it R.E.A.L.” (Relationships, Engagement, Assessment, and Learning). Relationships were measured using
the Learning Walk – Relationship Data tool. This observation tool outlined criteria being monitored by the school.
The rubric defined the ratings for this criterion as ineffective, developing, accomplished, or exemplary. The
Learning Walk data showed that school leadership had was creating “an environment of respect and rapport” (2A)
in 68.3 percent of classrooms observed. These data aligned with what the Diagnostic Review Team found in
classroom observations under the Supportive Learning Environment, as discussed earlier.

Improvement Priority #2
Develop processes to monitor the quality and fidelity of school-wide implementation of the adopted curriculum.
Involve all stakeholders in developing a system to collect, analyze, and use data to evaluate the quality and
effectiveness of a seamless curriculum that meets higher levels of learning expectations for all students, resulting
in preparedness for the next level. Use findings from the process to make ongoing revisions to the curriculum and
instruction. (Standard 2.5)
Evidence:
Student Performance Data:

The student performance data, as detailed in an addendum to this report, showed that the 2016-2017 and 2017-
2018 Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) assessment scores for Thomas Jefferson
Middle School students were significantly below state averages for the last two consecutive school years. These
data, as previously described in this report in Priority #1, were considered as the Diagnostic Review Team
identified Improvement Priority #2.
Classroom Observation Data:

The classroom observation data suggested that the school did not systematically implement a curriculum and
instructional process that clearly met higher levels of learning and expectations that prepared all students for the
next level. The High Expectations Learning Environment received an overall rating of 1.8 on a four-point scale. It
was evident/very evident in nine percent of classrooms that students demonstrated and/or were “able to describe
high quality work” (B3). In 15 percent of classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students strove “to meet or
[were] able to articulate the high expectations established by themselves and/or the teacher” (B1). The team also
observed in 32 percent of the classrooms, it was evident/very evident that students engaged “in activities and
learning that are challenging but attainable” (B2). It was also evident/very evident in 15 percent of classrooms that
students were engaged “in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or tasks that require the use of higher order
thinking (e.g. analyzing, applying, evaluating, synthesizing)” (B4). The Diagnostic Review Team determined that
supporting higher expectations for both students and staff would prove beneficial to student learning and the
continuous improvement process.
Stakeholder Interview Data:

The stakeholder interview data revealed that teachers believed classwork was challenging and rigorous for all
students, but many students indicated that their classes did not challenge them. One student remarked, “We cover
some things we have already learned about,” when asked to explain more about why classes were easy. Another
student indicated a desire for “more reading.” Staff member interview data indicated a lack of understanding of
the definition of “high expectations,” and staff members often interpreted high expectations to mean the high
level of student need, which they perceived as the major contributor to poor student performance data. The
interview data also indicated that although the school population was composed of approximately 20 percent
English Learners, the school staff had limited professional development on high-yield instructional strategies
focused on supporting that growing population. The classroom observations confirmed that differentiating
instruction to meet the needs of individual students rarely occurred. Interviews also revealed that teachers
working together as co-teachers need further professional development to effectively collaborate and plan
instruction to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

The stakeholder survey data indicated differences of opinions among staff members, parents, and students
regarding the level of expectations within classrooms. While 82 percent of staff members agreed/strongly agreed
with the statement, “All teachers in our school use a process to inform students of their learning expectations and
standards of performance,” (E5) students did not fully agree, as evidenced by 66 percent of them who
agreed/strongly agreed that “In my school the principal and teachers have high expectations of me” (D3).
Additionally, only 59 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed that “In my school a high quality education is
offered” (C3). Finally, 86 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “My child knows the
expectations for learning in all classes” (E10). Additionally, the interviews with teachers and school leaders
indicated that the need to continually hire new or additional staff members created a barrier to building teacher
instructional capacity.
Documents and Artifacts:

The school developed a “Learning Walk” that was based on the Fundamental Five and the school’s vision of
“Keeping it R.E.A.L.” (Relationships, Engagement, Assessment, and Learning); however, the “Learning Walk Round
2” (2018-2019) data lacked emphasis on standards-based instruction and other measures of student learning. The
interview data indicated that actual teaching of the standards was included in teacher feedback, although this was
not part of the Learning Walk form. The Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) for 2018-2019 lacked
evidence of progress monitoring benchmark dates. The School Quality Factors (SQF) indicated that many learners
experienced “rigorous and challenging tasks, activities, and projects that focus on developing higher order thinking
skills and problem-solving” (C1). In addition, the SQF also indicated that learners monitoring “their progress and
[being] supported when they are not meeting expectations” (D1) was partially embedded in the school’s culture.
The SQF data also showed that some “instructional staff [had] the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to
implement high quality learning experiences,” (G3). The district provided overall curriculum guides, and the school
adopted the math and language arts series used to meet the standards included in the district curriculum guides.

Insights from the Review

The Diagnostic Review Team engaged in professional discussions and deliberations about the processes, programs,
and practices within the institution to arrive at the findings of the team. These findings are organized around
themes guided by the evidence, examples of programs, and practices and provide direction for the institution’s
continuous improvement efforts. The insights from the Review narrative should provide contextualized
information from the team deliberations and provide information about the team’s analysis of the practices,
processes, and programs of the institution within the Levels of Impact of Engagement, Implementation, Results,
Sustainability, and Embeddedness.
Engagement is the level of involvement and frequency with which stakeholders are engaged in the desired
practices, processes, or programs within the institution. Implementation is the degree to which the desired
practices, processes, or programs are monitored and adjusted for quality and fidelity of implementation. Results
represent the collection, analysis, and use of data and evidence to demonstrate attaining the desired result(s).
Sustainability is results achieved consistently to demonstrate growth and improvement over time (minimum of
three years). Embeddedness is the degree to which the desired practices, processes, or programs are deeply
ingrained in the culture and operation of the institution.
Strengths:
With approximately 1,100 students, Thomas Jefferson Middle School was the largest designated Comprehensive
Support and Improvement middle school in Kentucky. The school ranked second out of 150 schools in the Jefferson
County Public Schools Overall Needs Index. One out of five students is an English Learner, as the student body is
composed of more than 40 different countries of origin with 26 different native languages. Ninety-three percent of
students attending Thomas Jefferson Middle School received free or reduced priced lunch, representing an
increase of 18 percent over the last eight years.
Thomas Jefferson Middle School developed a new teacher support initiative with intensive mentoring called TJ101
that provides modeling, co-teaching, instructional feedback, and professional advocacy. This initiative was
recognized by the Kentucky Department of Education as a “Best Practice.” The school provided tiered-level
coaching to all teachers, which included walkthrough cycles. The school worked on incorporating professional
learning community (PLC) protocols based on Rick DuFour’s work. Administrators, guidance counselors, resource
teachers, and other support personnel were restructured to provide greater support to teachers and students. The
school focused on Essential Standards and adopted the district’s “Instructional Workshop” model. Thomas
Jefferson Middle School worked with district personnel to align school initiatives to the district’s “Quality Work
Protocols” that are known as “Patriot Success Skills” at Thomas Jefferson. The school also worked on a common
curriculum for English language arts and mathematics. Additionally, an emphasis was on improving grade-level and
schoolwide common area behavioral expectations. Social-emotional lessons were developed to provide students
with support based on identified behavioral needs.
The school leadership team rated itself high in several areas when completing the School Quality Factor
Diagnostics (SQF). These included Clear Direction, Healthy Culture, High Expectations, Impact of Instruction,
Resource Management, Efficacy of Engagement, and Implementation of Capacity. In the area of Clear Direction,
the school reported that most “school staff embraces and shares the institution's vision, mission, purpose and/or
priorities” (6a). Under Healthy Culture, the school reported that most “learners participate in structures, programs
and/or initiatives that attend to their social emotional/ non-cognitive learning” and the practice is fully embedded
(3a, 3b). Also, the leadership team indicated that most “instructional staff is provided relevant, targeted support
and training to reach high standards” and the practice is fully embedded (4a, 4b). Finally, under this category the

school reported that most “instructional staff collaborates with each other through structures and schedules that
maximize collaboration and collegial learning” (5a).
In the area of High Expectations, the school reported that “leadership sets high standards for teaching, learning
and improvement” and that this practice is fully embedded in the school’s culture (5b). Also, the team reported
“most of Leadership's actions, words and attitudes demonstrate their belief that all learners can meet high
standards” (6a).
Regarding the area of Impact of Instruction, leadership reported that “leadership almost always monitors and
evaluates impact of instruction on learner engagement, outcomes and overall success” (5a). In the area of
Resource Management, the school reported that “most learners have appropriate digital, material and other
resources to support their learning success” (1a). Also, the school indicated that “most learners receive services
and support that align with their needs” (2a). Additionally, the school reported that “most instructional staff has
material and technology resources and professional development/training to implement the institution's vision,
mission, and/or purpose” (3a) and “leadership aligns the allocation of resources with the institution's priorities for
learning” and that the practice was fully embedded (4a). Finally, the school reported that “most of leadership
almost always actively seeks resources (human, material and fiscal) to meet the needs of every learner” (5a, 5b). In
the area of Efficacy of Engagement, the school reported that most of the “other school staff almost always actively
engages learners in positive and productive ways within their respective areas of responsibility” (8a, 8b).
The last category, Implementation Capacity, was reported by the school as one of the highest. The school reported
that most of the “leadership has the capacity to drive the implementation of actions designed to improve the
institution's culture and organizational effectiveness and leadership describes that these actions are of excellent
quality” (4a, 4b). The school also reported that most of the “leadership has the capacity to drive the
implementation of actions designed to improve teaching and learning” (5a). Finally, the school reported that most
of the “leadership has the capacity to drive the implementation of actions designed to improve learner
engagement” (6a).
Continuous Improvement Process:

The improvement planning process was part of the leadership’s summer retreat and continued to be discussed
during instructional support team meetings, PLCs, and the school’s new teacher induction program. The process
was guided by data from sources such as K-PREP, Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), Learning Walk, common
formative assessments, multi-tier system of supports (MTSS) District Learning Observation tool, Backpack of
Success Skills Dashboard, Envision Equity Scorecard, team level 30-60-90 results, Quarterly Report, Hero Behavior
Tracking System, and lesson plans. Data are consistently and regularly collected through established procedures;
however, no evidence showed that these data were consistently analyzed or converted into actionable strategies
that resulted in significantly improved student outcomes.
The number of student suspensions across all racial and social-economic subgroups decreased by 40 percent from
the 2017-2018 school year. The school closed the equity gap based on behavior data at a greater rate than the
district. The 2018-2019 school year fall to winter MAP data showed growth in reading above the 50th percentile.
These results were the highest based on seven-year trend data. Reading resulted in High Growth (Quadrant 2).
MAP data also showed an increase in the percentage of African-American students achieving at grade level
compared to a decrease in the average for Jefferson County Public Schools students. While data were collected
and analyzed to monitor and identify improvements in student learning, there was no evidence of longitudinal

data from the instructional monitoring processes that demonstrated sustained improvements to student learning
or changes to instructional practices over time.
The school implemented a professional learning community (PLC) structure, based on DuFour’s model and
continued to make necessary adjustments. The school also developed lessons using a Social Emotional Curriculum.
During instruction of these lessons, students developed personal, academic, and behavioral goals. To meet the
needs of students and families, the schools had community-based providers serve the student population and their
families. Guidance counselors and mental health counselors conducted counseling sessions. While there were
some improvements, no evidence showed that the implementation of behavioral management systems resulted in
sustained improved behaviors over time.
There was limited evidence that all stakeholders were included in the school’s improvement planning process, or
any type of two-way communication other than a limited number of surveys administered to families and
students. The parent interview data indicated that parents had minimal input in the planning process. Although
the school had a student council and a student advisory committee, interviews with students indicated that not all
students were aware of or involved in the improvement planning process. There was a lack of evidence of parents
and students having a thorough understanding of the improvement plan’s goals, objectives, strategies, activities to
deploy strategies, measures of success, progress monitoring, and needed funding to accomplish the plan.
Next Steps
The results of the Diagnostic Review provide the next step for guiding the improvement journey of the institution
with their efforts to improve the quality of educational opportunities for all learners. The findings are aligned to
research-based criteria designed to improve student learning and organizational effectiveness. The feedback
provided in the Diagnostic Review Report will assist the institution in reflecting on current improvement efforts
and adapting and adjusting their plans to continuously strive for improvement.
Upon receiving the Diagnostic Review Report, the institution is encouraged to implement the following steps:
• Review and share the findings with stakeholders.
• Develop plans to address the Improvement Priorities identified by the Diagnostic Review Team.
• Use the findings and data from the report to guide and strengthen the institution’s continuous improvement
efforts.
• Celebrate the successes noted in the report.

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

Dr. Anna D. Diaz Dr. Anna D. Diaz is the CEO of Disability Expert Solutions, a company dedicated to
helping families and teachers navigate the special education system. She also
works with K-12 educational leaders to increase academic achievement for all
student populations. Her educational experience spans over 30 years. She has
served as a teacher, dean, high school assistant principal, middle school principal,
high school principal, executive area director, and associate superintendent for
exceptional education and area superintendent. As area superintendent of up to
38 K-12 schools, she implemented and monitored systems, coupled with intense
support, that continue to result in high levels of academic achievement. Dr. Diaz
earned degrees from the University of South Florida and the University of Central
Florida. Dr. Diaz is a mentor, graduate faculty scholar, and member of a national
faculty for the National Urban Special Education Leadership Institute at the
University of Central Florida.
Dr. Lori Franke-Hopkins Dr. Lori Franke-Hopkins serves as the Director of Illinois for AdvancED/Measured
Progress. She earned her bachelor’s degree in speech communication, master’s
degree in secondary English education, education specialist degree in school
administration, and concluded her educational path at Southern Illinois University
Edwardsville (SIUE), earning a doctorate in educational leadership. Dr. Hopkins
served as a military police officer in the United States Marine Corps. She taught
English, speech, and drama at Carrollton High School, coordinated the testing
program at SIUE, directed teacher education and clinical placements at Blackburn
College, and served in several administrative positions in the Jersey Community
Unit School district No. 100, concluding her tenure as superintendent. She is the
author of Transforming District Office Culture One Strategy at a Time and recently
released a children’s book: I Want to be Just Me that encompasses the idea that
each child is unique and has the ability to change the world.
Dr. Joan Keller Dr. Joan Keller works with AdvancED/Measured Progress as a lead evaluator for
school reviews and as a team member for diagnostic and systems reviews in
Indiana and Kentucky. She also has worked with the Indiana Department of
Education, Indiana Educators Employee Relations Board, Vincennes University,
and school corporations as a consultant in various capacities. Dr. Keller earned her
bachelor’s degree from Evansville University and her master’s degree, education
specialist degree, and doctorate degree from Indiana University. During Dr.
Keller’s 43 years as an educator, she served as a junior-senior high school teacher
of language arts and physical education, high school principal, elementary
principal, superintendent of schools, and fulltime university lecturer. Her vast
background in education has provided her with experience at all levels from
educating students and future principals to being responsible for single schools
and entire corporations.

Team Member Name Brief Biography

Royce F. Mayo Mr. Royce F. Mayo has worked for the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE)
since 2011 in the role of Education Recovery Leader. Mr. Mayo has been involved
in education for 35 years and has served as a teacher, assistant principal, principal,
co-operative consultant, and educational recovery staff member. Mr. Mayo has
served on several diagnostic and internal review teams through his work with KDE.
Mr. Mayo received his educational credentials through Eastern Kentucky
University in Richmond, KY and Morehead State University in Morehead, KY.
Sam Watkins Mr. Sam Watkins has had a positive impact on students, schools, and districts he
has led in Kentucky. During his 33 years as an educator, he served students in the
capacities of teacher, coach, athletic director, assistant principal, principal,
Director of Districtwide Programs, and Education Recovery Leader. Mr. Watkins
obtained a master’s degree in business administration from Eastern Kentucky
University and received superintendent’s certification from the University of
Kentucky. Recognized as a leader across the state of Kentucky, he successfully led
two high schools and helped numerous districts in Kentucky increase student
achievement.

Addenda
Student Performance Data
Section I: School and Student Proficiency and Separate Academic Indicator Results
Content Area %P/D School %P/D State %P/D School %P/D State
(16-17) (16-17) (17-18) (17-18)
Reading 6th* 29.7 58.9 29.7 59.7
Reading 7th 26.3 54.6 33.9 57.4
Reading 8th 27.4 57.1 31.4 62.9
Math 6th* 20.8 49.1 14.6 47.5
Math 7th 22.9 43.3 15.9 47.4
Math 8th 24.2 48.7 17.4 46.1
Science 7th n/a 11.0 25.9
Social Studies 8th 26.0 60.5 18.8 60.2
Writing 8th 8.1 37.2 11.1 44.3
Plus
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in seventh-grade reading increased from
26.3 percent in 2016-2017 to 33.9 percent in 2017-2018.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in eighth-grade reading increased from
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in eighth-grade writing increased from
Delta
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in seventh-grade science was the lowest
in a content area overall with 11 percent in 2017-2018 compared to the state average of 25.9 percent.
• The percentage of students who scored Proficient/Distinguished was below the state average in all tested
areas in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.

Section II: Student Growth Index (2017-2018)

Content Area Index State Index
Reading 12.3 16.1
Math 5.3 8.0
EL 7.0 8.0
Growth Indicator 8.8 12.1
Plus
• The reading index was the highest area of student growth; however, the score was below the state index.
Delta
• Indices in all areas were below the state indices.

• The math index was the lowest score of all indices.
Section III: Gap Group for 2017-2018 %P/D

Reading Math Science Social Studies Writing
Gap Group
%P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D %P/D
All Students 31.7 15.9 11.0 18.8 11.1
Female 35.5 14.6 11.3 17.2 14.2
Male 28.4 17.0 10.8 20.3 8.5
White 47.5 26.2 21.8 29.3 13.3
African American 22.8 8.4 4.3 11.7 7.8
Hispanic 31.5 17.2 11.8 23.1 12.3
Asian 18.2 24.2 10.0 7.1 14.3
American Indian or NA NA NA NA NA
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Other NA NA NA NA NA
Pacific Islander
Two or More Races 52.0 24.0 NA NA NA
Title I 31.7 15.9 11.0 18.8 11.1
Foster 20.0 0 NA NA NA
Migrant NA NA NA NA NA
Homeless NA NA NA NA NA
English Learner (EL) 9.5 6.3 0 12.0 10.0
English Learner plus 15.4 9.1 0 12.7 10.9
Monitored
Economically 30.1 14.3 10.3 17.1 10.9
Disadvantaged

Free/Reduced-Price
Meals
Gifted/Talented NA NA NA NA NA
Disability-With IEP (Total) 10.5 1.6 4.8 6.1 3.0
Disability-With IEP (No 11.3 1.9 5.4 6.9 0
Alt)
Disability (no ALT) with NA NA NA NA NA
Accommodation
Disability-With IEP Alt 5.6 0 NA NA NA
Only
Consolidated Student 26.2 11.5 7.5 15.0 9.7
Group
Plus
• The percentages of Female (35.5 percent), White (47.5 percent), and Two or More Races (52 percent)
students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in reading were all higher than the All Students group (31.7
percent).
• The percentages of Male (17 percent), White (26.2 percent), Two or More Races (24 percent), Asian (24.2
percent), and Hispanic (17.2 percent) students who scored Proficient/Distinguished in math were above
the All Student group (15.9 percent).
• The percentages of Female (11.3 percent), White (21.8 percent), and Hispanic (11.8 percent) students
who scored Proficient/Distinguished in science were higher than the All Student group (11 percent).
• The percentages of Male (20.3 percent), White (29.3 percent), and Hispanic (23.1 percent) students who
scored Proficient/Distinguished in social studies were higher than the All Student group (18.8 percent).
• The percentages of Female (14.2 percent), Hispanic (12.3 percent), and Asian (14.3 percent) students who
scored Proficient/Distinguished in writing were higher than the All Student group (11.1 percent).
Delta:
• The percentages of English Learners, Economically Disadvantaged, and Disabled with IEP students who
scored Proficient/Distinguished were below the All Student group in all tested areas.

Schedule
Monday – February 25, 2019
Time Event Where Who
4:00 p.m. – Brief Team Meeting Hotel Diagnostic
4:30 p.m. Conference Review Team
Room Members
4:30 p.m.– Principal/Superintendent Presentation Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
5:15 p.m.– Team Work Session #1 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Tuesday - February 26, 2019

7:00 a.m. – Team arrives at Thomas Jefferson Middle School School office Diagnostic
7:40 a.m. Review Team
Members
7:40 a.m. – Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact School Diagnostic
4:00 p.m. Review Review Team
Members
4:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
5:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #2 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Wednesday - February 27, 2019

7:30 a.m. – Team arrives at Thomas Jefferson Middle School School Diagnostic
7:45 a.m. Review Team
Members
7:45 a.m. – Interviews / Classroom Observations / Stakeholder Interviews / Artifact School Diagnostic
4:00 p.m. Review Review Team
Members
4:00 p.m. – Team returns to hotel
5:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. – Team Work Session #3 Hotel Diagnostic
Room Members
Thursday - February 28, 2019

8:00 a.m. – Final Team Work Session Hotel due to Diagnostic
10:30 a.m. school closure Review Team
Members

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

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

2018-19 Thomas Jefferson Middle Diagnostic Review PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018-19 Thomas Jefferson Middle Diagnostic Review PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

February 25–28, 2019

Results for: Thomas Jefferson Middle School

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

Stakeholder Groups Number

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

AdvancED Standards Diagnostic Results

Leadership Capacity Domain

Leadership Capacity Standards Rating

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

Learning Capacity Domain

Learning Capacity Standards Rating

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

Resource Capacity Domain

Resource Capacity Standards Rating

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

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool® (eleot®)

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

A. Equitable Learning Environment

Learners have equal access to classroom discussions,

Learners demonstrate and/or have opportunities to develop

B. High Expectations Learning Environment

Learners strive to meet or are able to articulate the high

Learners engage in activities and learning that are challenging

Learners demonstrate and/or are able to describe high

Learners engage in rigorous coursework, discussions, and/or

Learners take responsibility for and are self-directed in their

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

C. Supportive Learning Environment

Learners take risks in learning (without fear of negative

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

Learners demonstrate a congenial and supportive

D. Active Learning Environment

Learners' discussions/dialogues/exchanges with each other

Learners make connections from content to real-life

Learners collaborate with their peers to

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

E. Progress Monitoring & Feedback Learning Environment

Learners receive/respond to feedback (from

Learners demonstrate and/or verbalize understanding of the

Learners understand and/or are able to explain how their

F. Well-Managed Learning Environment

Learners speak and interact respectfully with teacher(s) and

Learners demonstrate knowledge of and/or follow classroom

Learners transition smoothly and efficiently from one activity

Learners use class time purposefully with minimal wasted

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

G. Digital Learning Environment

Learners use digital tools/technology to conduct research,

Learners use digital tools/technology to communicate and

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

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data:

Documents and Artifacts:

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

Student Performance Data:

Classroom Observation Data:

Stakeholder Interview Data:

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

Stakeholder Perception/Experience Data: