Accountability Changes: A Proposal from the Kentucky Department

| Post by Susan Perkins Weston |

Over recent months, the Kentucky Department of Education has coordinated a wide array of discussions about our next accountability system.  The most recent published proposal based on those discussions was shared with the Kentucky Board of Education at its February meeting. 

Here's a look at how that proposal answers the "six big questions" from my November blog post about accountability change, along with a few notes on topics for further exploration.

1. What should our rising generation know and be able to do?
The proposal does not require revisions to Kentucky’s academic standards.

2. What indicators can we use to track our progress toward those desired results?
The elementary and middle school indicators for school accountability ratings will include:

• Proficiency on state assessments
• Student growth data, using progress toward a student’s annual personal target for improvement
• Achievement gap closure data by income, race, disability status, English learner status, plus a “consolidated group” based on race, disability status, and English learner status
• Transition readiness, focused on learning about non-tested subjects, career fields, and essential skills, using measures that are under development
• Opportunity and access measures that include arts opportunities and standards-based teaching and learning in science, social studies, health, physical education and career studies

For high schools, the indicators used for ratings will include:

• Proficiency on state assessments
• Achievement gap closure data
• Transition readiness, shown by graduation rates and by academic readiness (ACT, SAT, AP, IB, or dual credit) or technical readiness (industry certification, KOSSA, dual credit) or military readiness (ASVAB)
• Opportunity and access measures that consider advanced coursework, arts, writing, global competency/world language, practical living/career studies, and specialized career pathways

In addition to the indicators used for ratings, state reporting will include additional opportunity and access measures (discussed under Question 7).

Topics To Explore
• How will annual personal targets be set?
• When will transition readiness measures be announced?

3. How far and how fast do we intend to raise those indicators?
For students overall, the proposal calls for base goals that reflect recent history, asking for improvement that matches the statewide improvement for the highest scoring student group in 2014-16.

For student groups with lower scores, the proposal calls for additional goals that will cut achievement gaps in half by 2030. Those gaps will be defined by comparing one group to another.

Topics To Explore
• Will there be custom goals for each school?
• Will there be interim benchmarks on the way to each goal?
• If the highest scoring  group declined, how will goals be set?

4. How will we rate (or differentiate) schools each year?
For elementary and middle schools, the proposal calls for public reporting of four performance levels (low, moderate, strong very strong) for:

• Proficiency and growth
• Transition readiness
• Opportunity and access
• Achievement gap closure

For high schools, the same four levels will be use for:

• Proficiency and transition
• Opportunity and access
• Achievement gap closure

Based on a matrix of all of those results, schools will also receive

• An overall school ratings using six categories from outstanding to intervention
• A gap closure designation or a gap issue designation

Topics to Explore
• How will standards be set for the four performance levels?
• How will citizens be included in the standard-setting?
• How will those levels relate to the state’s long-term goals?

5. How will we identify schools for added support?
The proposal calls for:

• Tier I targeted support (early warning) for schools where one or more student groups have results like lowest 10% of schools
• Tier II targeted support for schools where one or more student groups has results like the lowest 5% of schools
• Intervention for schools where results are in the lowest 5% of schools, high schools where graduation rates are below 80%, and schools that have qualified for tier II targeted support for three or more years

Topics to Explore
• How many schools will qualify for targeted support?
• Will all targeted support schools get a gap issue designation?

6. What support will we provide to identified schools?
The current proposal promises an additional document to describe the kinds of support and adds that the “breadth, depth, and intensity of school support will depend in large part on the available resources.”

Topics to Explore:
• When will the support document be available?

7. How will we promote accountability for results not included in the ratings and support rules?
A major innovation in the proposal is a call to report an additional set of indicators that are not counted for the ratings.

For schools, the proposal calls for reporting on:

• Reading and math proficiency as good or better than kindergarten readiness rates for all groups of third-grade students
• Global competency and/or world language exposure for elementary and middle school students
• Proportional identification rates for the Primary Talent Pool and Gifted and Talented services for all student groups
• Proportional out-of-school suspension rates for all student groups
• Chronic absence rate (percent of students who miss 10% or more days in a school year)
• Teachers with appropriate certification
• Teacher turnover rates
• First year teachers as a share of all teachers
• Librarian/media specialists and guidance counselors, with attention to the professional roles they play

For districts, the reporting may also include:

• ALL STAR ratings for the state-funded preschool program
• The percentage of of students served in half-day and full-day kindergarten programs 

ESSA Update: The Details Matter for Equity

| by Cory Curl, Associate Executive Director |

As we discussed here late last year, the U.S. Congress approved a new version of the federal Elementary and Secondary Act. This version, known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), gives states some more leeway in how they design their K-12 school and district accountability systems.

This move at the federal level gives us an opportunity to do what we do so well in Kentucky. We have a long history of working together to set clear, meaningful goals for student and school success. We then come together around a set of shared measures to show how schools and districts are – or are not – making progress toward these goals.

To that end, the Kentucky Department of Education has just concluded a series of 11 town hall meetings across the Commonwealth. At the town hall meetings, Commissioner of Education Stephen Pruitt and Associate Commissioner Rhonda Sims shared information about ESSA and listened to educators, parents, and students about how they define student and school success. Videos and summaries of these meetings are available online, along with comments that have been submitted via email.

The next few months will be an important time for Kentuckians to continue engaging in these conversations. Everyone has a seat at the table to contribute to the process of setting these goals and measures, which will have so much influence on the priorities that schools and districts set for years to come.

As the process unfolds, it will be critical to make sure that the goals and measures give schools and districts a big push to prioritize equity, making sure that every child gets what he or she needs to be successful in their next steps. This is the only way that Kentucky will be able to close the achievement gaps that have persisted for so long.

ESSA will help us on this front. While it gives states more flexibility in how they design their systems, it includes several requirements intended to ensure that equity is a priority for schools and districts.

To keep you informed on ESSA’s requirements and flexibilities, we are partnering with The Education Trust, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for high academic achievement for all students, particularly students of color and students in poverty. We have developed a series of fact sheets, below, to translate what’s in the federal law to what it means for us here in Kentucky.

The Every Student Succeeds Act: What’s In It? What Does it Mean for Equity?
• Overview
• Accountability
• Public Reporting

Update: View our May 12th Community Conversations webinar with The Education Trust 

Teacher and student voices matter now more than ever

| By Cory Curl |

Dollars, Decisions, and Data – from my experience, these “Three D’s” have been the traditional foundation for much of education policy work for as long as I can figure. If you were trying to decide how to improve student achievement and educational attainment, you worked out how to increase or redirect funding; what policy decisions need to be added or taken out, or made tighter or looser; and what data should be collected, analyzed, and reported to drive change throughout the system.

Education policy experts were largely those who specialized in one or more of the Three D’s.

In the last few years, however, it’s become clear that the Three D’s, while necessary, are completely insufficient for us to make the dramatic gains in student achievement and educational attainment we need as a commonwealth and as a nation.

Hope Street Group Teacher Fellow Tricia Shelton, other teacher leaders, and Student Voice Team members share their classroom insights to inform their postsecondary transition study

Around 2007, the education policy world had a collective “aha!” moment that the key to unlocking educational improvement rested in promoting great teaching – teaching that leads to strong student learning. Reports from The Hamilton Project, TNTP (formerly The New Teacher Project), and many others underscored that the quality of teaching varied, and the education system itself did little to value great teaching over not-yet-great teaching.

Education policy experts reacted to this discovery by relying on the Three D’s, and set about redirecting dollars, making policy decisions, and developing new measures to evaluate and value great teaching.

But then, in 2013 or so, it became abundantly clear that this was but a first step.

• John Hattie’s research indicated that one of the most powerful practices for student learning is for teachers to give specific, actionable feedback to students.
• The Gates Foundation’s Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project found that students have accurate insights into teacher practices that lead to learning.
• A National Academies of Science report highlighted that most important factor for learning in the early childhood years are the interactions between – you guessed it – teacher and student.

Now we know – we will never get the change we seek until strengthening the learning process between teachers and students is the foundation of our work.

If you’re trying to work on how to improve student achievement and educational attainment, you are missing the boat if you don’t have the most important experts – teachers and students – around the table as equal partners.

For the Prichard Committee to do justice to our efforts to inform the public and policymakers, study the issues, and engage with business and community leaders, families and other citizens, we are ever more committed to lifting up the expertise of students and their teachers.

We collaborate with Hope Street Group Kentucky State Teacher Fellows and other teacher leaders across the state to share teachers’ stories of implementing higher standards, incorporate their insights into our in-depth studies of issues such as the achievement gap, and partner with them in engaging with families and communities. We have launched our Student Voice Team to conduct outreach to collect and share diverse students’ stories, facilitate study groups on a range of issues from school climate to the achievement gap, and lend its expertise and research to educators and other thought leaders as it engages in conversations across the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Student Voice Team leader Andrew Brennan learns from the young Kentucky students

Looking ahead, expect to see us continue to make teacher and student voices an essential part of our work to help build awareness and deepen understanding of what is happening – or not yet happening – in classrooms so that parents, local school board members, and other citizens throughout the state can ask good questions and raise demand for great teaching that leads to strong learning.

Meshing SB 1 with ESSA? Some Challenges

| By Susan Perkins Weston | 

Kentucky's Senate Bill 1 (SB1) and the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) both address standards, assessments, accountability, and public data reporting. On many issues, the two line up well, but there are definite mismatches on lowest performing schools, low graduation rates, and the contents of school report cards. The Q-and-A below explains those issues and the implications.

WHAT ARE SB 1 AND ESSA?
SB 1 is a Kentucky bill that has been approved by our Senate. Depending on action by the House and Governor Bevin, SB 1 could become state law in a matter of months. Our PrichBlog summary is available here, but needs updating to show that Senate floor action restored social studies testing.

ESSA is the replacement for the federal No Child Left Behind law and includes rules for what states must do to receive certain types of federal funding. ESSA was signed into law in December 2015, and EdTrust offers an overview here. This PrichBlog post looks specifically at section 1111 of ESSA and its requirements for statewide accountability systems and school improvement and support activities. To qualify for federal Title I funding, states must submit plans that show alignment with ESSA in these areas in time for the 2017-18 school year.

HOW DO THEY DIFFER ON LOWEST PERFORMING SCHOOLS?
If SB 1 becomes law in its current version, it will identify priority schools based on overall scores “in the bottom five percent of overall scores by level for all schools that have failed to meet the achievement targets of the state accountability system under Section 5 of this Act for at least three or more consecutive years.”

ESSA says states must identify schools with achievement results “in the lowest-performing 5 percent of all schools receiving funds under this part in the State” for “comprehensive support and improvement.”

That is, under SB 1, schools will not be identified so long as they have met their target for any one of the last three years. If only 200 schools missed three targets in a row, SB 1 could identify just 10 priority schools. In contrast, ESSA says that if 800 schools get Title I funding, the lowest 5 percent –40 schools– must be identified for added support, and it does not matter whether they met or missed targets while bringing in those low results.

HOW DO THEY DIFFER ON GRADUATION RATES? 
SB 1's current language will require focus school identification if the graduation rate “has been less than sixty-eight percent for three consecutive years.”

ESSA calls for states to identify high schools that are “failing to graduate one third or more of their students” for “comprehensive support and improvement.

Again, the three-year provision in the state version does not match the federal one. If a school graduates 69 percent of students in one year, 40 percent the next, and 30 percent the year after that, SB 1 does not identify that school for focus assistance. ESSA does require that school to be identified for support and improvement.

HOW DO THEY DIFFER ON SCHOOL REPORT CARDS?
SB 1 also calls for four elements to be included in school report cards published by the state, and allow a further local-option element:

• Student academic achievement on state tests, broken out by gender, English proficiency, free/reduced-price meal eligibility, disability status and minority/non-minority background.
• Advanced Placement, Cambridge Advanced International, and International Baccalaureate participation and results, broken out by “gender, race, students with disabilities, and economic status”
• School's attendance, retention, graduation rates, and student transition to adult life
• Parental involvement
• Other school performance data that local school districts want to see added

To fit ESSA, school report cards must include elements that are not in the SB 1 list, including:

• Achievement results disaggregated for migrant students, homeless students, students in foster care, and students with a parent on active duty in the armed forces
• Graduation results and an “other academic indicator” disaggregated the same ways
• School climate and safety data
• Preschool enrollment numbers
• Teacher qualification information
• Per-pupil expenditures, broken out by local, state, and federal sources

SB 1 does not appear to allow state officials to add those ESSA elements. The existing statute says report cards “shall include but not be limited to” a set of components, and that lets the Kentucky Board of Education add other things. SB 1 deletes the “but not be limited to,” which seems to mean that the listed items are the only items that can be in the state-issued report cards.

WILL THESE DIFFERENCES COST US TITLE I FUNDING?
Not necessarily. If SB 1 becomes law, Kentucky can probably keep the funding if we live with two overlapping set of rules. That is, we can:

• Use low assessment results to identify a small group of SB 1 priority schools and a larger group that get the ESSA-required support and improvement efforts
• Use low graduation rates to identify a small group of SB 1 focus schools and a larger group for ESSA support and improvement
• Issue state-published school report cards that fit the SB 1 data limits and have school districts responsible for publishing the rest of the ESSA-required information on each of their schools on their websites

Those side-by-side systems might be confusing and require intensive efforts to explain, but they can offer a possible solution if SB 1 becomes law in its Senate-approved form.

SOURCE NOTES: SB 1’s full text is available here. The full text of ESSA is here, using the last link in the Resources sidebar to download the law, and Section 1111 on state plans can be found at pages 19-51. For lowest performing schools and graduation rates, see SB 1, page 69, and ESSA, page 36. For school report card contents, see SB 1, pages 36-37, and see ESSA, pages 45-49, looking first at the listed requirements for a report on the whole state and then noting that local reports must include all the same data except for NAEP results.

ADDED NOTE: This post has been mildly edited to make it clear that SB 1 is legislation being considered, rather than a bill that has already become state law. 

Senate Bill 1: Changes from the Senate Committee (With A New Overview)

| By Susan Perkins Weston | 

Senate Bill 1 is the proposed legislation to revise Kentucky standards, assessments, and accountability rules.  Yesterday, the Senate Education approved a substitute provision of the bill, keeping many major features but making a number of changes as well. 

For those who liked the PrichBlog summary of the original language, here's a downloadable next edition in the same two-page format.

This post will give a quick tour of the changes, with one clarification about the original bill included at the very end.

GOALS AND STANDARDS
The arts language in the state law defining student capacities that schools must increase will not be amended. The original bill would have changed that wording to allow “application experience in coursework that incorporates design content, techniques of creativity, and interpretation” to be part of the arts expectation. That change has been deleted.

The Commissioner will participate in the standards revision process, presenting recommendations to the Interim Joint Committee on Education and serving as a non-voting member of the recommendations committee composed of legislators and members appointed by the governor.

Standards for arts & humanities and practical living/career studies will be revised in 2017-18 (and every six years after that). Those standards were not addressed in the original bill.

METHODS FOR CHECKING PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING GOALS & STANDARDS
Students with disabilities who spend more than four years in high school will not be exempted from testing during those added years.

An assurance form will require principals to describe how social studies, arts & humanities, practical living/career studies, and writing are integrated into the school curriculum. School council members will sign off on the form. Students, parents, and staff will be able to take concerns about those subjects first to the school council and (if needed) on to the Kentucky Department of Education for investigation. The form and the approach to concerns are new provisions.

ACCOUNTABILITY STEPS TO ENSURE PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS & STANDARDS
Graduation rates will include alternate diplomas. That is a new provision.

College admission and placement scores will be included using increases in percent of students earning composite scores that meet benchmarks. The original bill called for using the scores rather than change in scores.

Intervention schools will not be exempted from the vacancy definition found in KRS 160.380. The sentence on that has been deleted.

For priority schools, there are four new provisions.

• Audits done by the Kentucky Department of Education will be an option if a local board cannot find another outside team of educators.
• Turnaround teams will not have to have to be organized as nonprofit organizations.
• Turnaround plans will need approval from the Kentucky Board of Education as well as the superintendent and local board, but will not need Kentucky Department of Education review and recommendations.
• Superintendents will report to local boards and the Commissioner on turnaround plan implementation.

A CLARIFICATION ON FOCUS SCHOOLS
The original bill and the committee substitute both call for state-level intervention if schools fail to leave priority status or focus status for four years. The previous summary noted that provision for priority schools but not for focus schools.

To see PrichBlog's two-page summary of the complete provisions, click here.  To see the complete legislative language in the committee substitute, click here.

SB1 Summary with three clarifications

The PrichBlog summary of Senate Bill 1 has drawn many readers and a few incisive notes.  It's been especially helpful to hear about three elements of the original summary that may not have been precise enough, so we're offering a revised edition, with the changes explained below.  The original post has been updated with the changes clearly labeled, and a two-page PDF version with the changes is available for download.

STANDARDS/REVISION 1
The revised summary says:

• A recommendations committee of three state senators, three state representatives, and three others appointed by the governor will make “final recommendations for implementation to the Kentucky Board of Education” on standards changes. 

 • KBE will adopt changes to Kentucky’s academic standards.

The earlier wording struck at least one reader as implying that KBE would be legally required to adopt what the committee recommends. The bill wording does not include a requirement like that.

SOCIAL STUDIES AND READINESS ASSESSMENTS/REVISION 2
The revised summary has two sentences on assessments to be eliminated if SB 1 becomes law:

Social studies assessments will be dropped. Readiness tests for grades 8 and 10 will also be dropped.

The earlier wording left an uncertainty about the plans for social studies testing in grade 5. The bill calls for ending the grade 5 assessment, the grade 8 assessment, and the high school end-of-course test for U.S. History.

INTERVENTION SCHOOLS/REVISION 3
Senate Bill 1 calls for hiring to be done differently at "intervention schools," and the revised summary describes those changes this way:

At those schools, the superintendent will select the principal with school council input, and the vacancy provisions of KRS 160.380(1)(d) will not apply.*

In a footnote, the revision provides the exact wording of the statute that will not apply:

* KRS 160.380(1)(d) says: “ 'Vacancy' means any certified position opening created by the resignation, dismissal, nonrenewal of contract, transfer, or death of a certified staff member of a local school district, or a new position created in a local school district for which certification is required. However, if an employer-employee bargained contract contains procedures for filling certified position openings created by the resignation, dismissal, nonrenewal of contract, transfer, or death of a certified staff member, or creation of a new position for which certification is required, a vacancy shall not exist, unless certified positions remain open after compliance with those procedures.” 

The earlier wording attempted to explain how that change would affect schools, but there turn out to be multiple possible interpretations.  The revised version allows readers to see the language for themselves.

Special PrichBlog thanks to the readers who alerted us to these issue!

Statement on 2015 Accountabilty Results

Here's the full text of the Prichard Committee statement released today:

The accountability results released this morning show strong growth in the college and career-readiness of Kentucky’s high school graduates, moving from 62.5% to 66.8% of graduates reaching those benchmarks. This good news is coupled with the fact that scores for high school students in groups who have historically struggled to meet state standards have improved at a quicker pace than the achievement results for all students. These indicators are positive news for Kentucky’s students and our shared future.

However, the decline in overall scores for elementary and middle school is cause for immediate concern and focused attention. Student outcomes in the early grades must continue to improve as they lay the essential foundation for later success. As a combined group, African-American, low-income, Hispanic, English-language learners, and students with disabilities also lost ground at the elementary and middle school levels, showing that we need to deepen our focus on providing richer opportunities for each and every child.

In addition, this year’s results fell short of some of the goals Kentucky set for educational improvement. Our statewide elementary and middle school results are below the goals set by the Kentucky Board of Education. While the high school outcomes met these goals and college and career readiness continues to increase, it is important that we recognize the weaknesses in other areas and actively build more consistent year-over-year improvement going forward.

The Prichard Committee plans further study of these results and urges all Kentuckians to renew our focus on making sure all students learn deeply, thrive, achieve, and contribute to our communities. The Committee’s Achievement Gap Study Group, representing participants from across the state, is working this fall to identify the most important next steps to support each and every Kentucky child’s academic growth and achievement. We applaud the Kentucky Department of Education for recognizing the moral imperative of ensuring all students achieve at high levels. It is clear that we have urgent work ahead.

The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence is an independent, non-partisan citizens’ advocacy group. Since 1983, the Committee, made up of volunteer parents and citizens from across Kentucky, has worked tirelessly to improve education for Kentuckians of all ages.

House Bill 174: One Approach To Charters

In November, the Prichard Committee released Exploring Charter Schools in Kentucky: An Informational Guide, a report designed to "be useful to Kentuckians with many different views" on the charter issue, "clarifying possibilities and challenges and informing a broader public discussion about how best to equip Kentucky students for successful futures."

The body of the report was organized around "Eight Questions for Any Charter School Bill."

With the opening of the 2015 General Assembly, House Bill 174 is the first that can be analyzed using those questions.

In "Answers For House Bill 174," you can find two pages that do just that.

It's available in a public DropBox folder, and if other bills are filed on this issue, the plan is to share similar summaries in the same folder.

Check it out, and do share questions if you have them!

--Posted by Susan Perkins Weston

Reaching Top 20 Will Require Hard Push for Kentucky Improvement

LEXINGTON, Ky. – Moving Kentucky into the top tier of states in key areas of education by 2020 will require a hard push for improvement in the next six years, according to a new report from the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.

The 2014 update of the Committee’s “Top 20 by 2020” found Kentucky’s performance in six categories to be on track to reach the goal. These include reading scores, Advanced Placement credits and teacher salaries.

But other indicators show reason for concern. The report noted that Kentucky lost ground in the math achievement of eighth-grade students and the share of higher education costs that families must pay. The state’s performance also showed no net improvement in total higher education funding or bachelor’s degrees earned in science, technology, engineering and math.

The state’s ranking in other areas showed some improvement, but not at a rate sufficient to reach the Top 20 by 2020. These include the number of adults with a high school diploma, preschool enrollment, per-pupil funding and adults with a bachelor’s degree.

The Prichard Committee began its Top 20 measurements in 2008, when it issued a challenge to the state to accelerate the improvement of its education system. The latest report is the third update of the initial measurement. The update is available here.

Education Commissioner Terry Holliday applauded the report for highlighting Kentucky’s progress in areas like reading, Advanced Placement and teacher salaries, and for also providing a clear roadmap of the areas that need further attention going forward.

“We are proud of the progress Kentucky students and educators have made the past several years as they have embraced more rigorous standards and become more focused on college- and career-readiness,” Holliday said. “At the same time, the report confirms what we already know:  there is still much work to be done. We need to be making faster gains in key content areas like mathematics and science while also continuing to close achievement gaps so that all students have the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in life. We are committed to making continuous progress, and are grateful for partners like the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence for joining us in this critical work.”

Bob King, president of the Council on Postsecondary Education, noted the state’s increase in bachelor’s degrees, from 44th to 39th in the last six years, and expressed the importance of partnerships to work toward the Prichard Committee’s 2020 goal. 

“The steady improvement in bachelor degrees or higher and adults with a high school diploma is welcome news to Kentucky’s economic future. We look forward to working alongside Prichard and our other partners to make even greater gains in the future.”

The update also noted the Committee’s three overarching priorities for Kentucky education:
·         A strong accountability system that measures the performance of students, teachers, principals and postsecondary graduates;
·         Adequate funding;
·         Sustained and expanded engagement of parents, community members and businesses in support of schools.

“It is great to see the areas where we are making good progress but we still have a lot of work to do. We will continue to monitor these areas and look forward to evidence of more forward progress in the 2016 report,” said Stu Silberman, executive director of the Prichard Committee.

--Prichard Commitee Press Release

for September 3, 2014 publication

Check out our last blog post on Ed Week.

http://bit.ly/1olvn0I

Thanks for the Engagement

By Stu Silberman on August 25, 2014 1:05 PM 

I want to take this opportunity to say thanks to all who have contributed to our public engagement blog. I would also like to thank Education Week for giving us the opportunity to share information and opinions on what has been happening in education over the last couple of years. This will be our last post, and I hope we have helped broaden the public's understanding of developments in education, particularly in Kentucky.

We recently released the Prichard Committee's Ed Guides, reader-friendly information about the work that is taking place in Kentucky schools. We also will release our "Top 20 by 2020" report soon, showing how the state's performance on key education indicators has changed since our last update two years ago. We conducted research on charter schools this summer and will convene a study group to prepare a report we will share with our members in November. We also plan to convene a group to review where we are in early childhood care and education programs. I share all of this with you to invite you to continue keeping up with our work via our website, onFacebook, Twitter @prichardcom, and our Prichard Committee blog.

Clearly, all of us have much to do for our kids. Among the items on the list (and there are many others):

· A focus on early childhood education to prevent the development of achievement gaps and allow all kids to start school on a level playing field. Although there is near unanimous agreement that this is a long-range solution worthy of support, states are still coming up short on funding.

· Initiatives to attract more of the best and brightest to the teaching profession. Teaching is one of the most important and most difficult jobs that exist, but salaries for beginning teachers do not reach the level of professional pay. We must begin to pay a professional wage and bring more top students into the profession.

· Efforts to engage families in schools in ways that improve student achievement. We must encourage and help develop parent/guardian advocates and leaders. When families are truly engaged, supporting our schools and advocating for excellence, kids are the beneficiaries. This is a major focus for us at the Prichard Committee with the Governor's Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership.

· Listening to the people on the front lines - students as well as teachers. Given the chance, they can provide the knowledge, resulting from their experience, that we need to move to the next level of educational excellence. We are particularly proud of the Prichard Committee's Student Voice Team and the input they have been providing.

And, of course, there are efforts related to testing, academic standards, funding, governance, teacher evaluation - a long, growing and important list. Yes, we are making progress, but it always seems to be two steps forward and (at least) one step back. I worry that politics continues to drain the energy needed for progress. We must find a way to end the partisan games and focus on doing what is best for the kids of this country.

In closing, I also want to thank our staff for all the time they have devoted to organizing, reviewing and editing the posts to this space. We would not have been able to participate in this endeavor had it not been for your help and wisdom.

For those of you who continue to be interested in sharing your thoughts we welcome you to do so via the Prichard blog.

Empowerment Begins With Preparation

Ronda Harmon, the Executive Director of the Kentucky Association of School Councils (KASC) in Danville, Kentucky talks about preparing for a new beginning.

http://bit.ly/1uLgRTS

Family Engagement Matters

Cory Curl, member of the Prichard Committee talks about the importance of family engagement.

http://bit.ly/1d6mYeA

Stu interviews Roger Marcum, State Board of Education Chair and Prichard Committee member

Stu interviews Roger Marcum, State Board of Education Chair and Prichard Committee member

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/engagement_and_reform/2013/10/_stu_roger_congratulations_on.html

Roger Marcum is Chairman of the Kentucky Board of Education and a Prichard Committee member.

Stu: Roger, congratulations on being elected as the chairman of Kentucky's State Board of Education. Would you please share a little about your background?

Roger: Thanks Stu. I consider it an honor to be selected chair of the KBE. When I consider the past chairs of KBE....individuals I greatly respect like David Karem, Helen Mountjoy, and Joe Kelly. Also, to be selected by the current KBE members means a lot to me. This board has a laser-like focus on making student-centered decisions. I consider it a privilege to serve with them.

My career in KY public education began in 1975 after receiving my BS degree from Berea College in 1974. In 3 different school districts, I served 10 years as a middle school social studies teacher, 6 years as a middle school principal and gifted talented coordinator, I year as an assistant superintendent and 10 years of service as superintendent of Marion County Public Schools. After 34 years of service in KY public education, I retired in 2009. I continued my career in education when I accepted the position of Executive Vice President of St. Catharine College in July 2009 and I continue to serve in that position today. From 2003-2009, I served as member of the St. Catharine College Board of Trustees. July 2010, Governor Beshear appointed me as a KBE member. I was selected vice chair in 2011 and served two years in that position. I have also served as a Prichard Committee member since 2010. This is my 39th year as a KY educator/administrator.

Stu: Kentucky is seen as a leader in education across our country. What do you see as the strengths and accomplishments of Kentucky's schools?

Roger: During my career there have been two major reform movements in KY....... The Kentucky Education Reform Act in 1990 and now SB 1. The comprehensiveness of KERA certainly impacted all aspects of P-12 public education. This is evident in the progress made in equity of funding, improved facilities, professional growth of certified and classified staff and most importantly teaching and learning. I see the passage and implementation of KERA as the time when KY became serious about providing a high quality education for each and every child. SB I in 2009 is moving us forward in the development and implementation of the KY Core Standards for Learning (based on the Common Core Standards of 45 states), an assessment and accountability system focused on each and every student being career and college ready, and a much improved professional growth and evaluation system for the adults who serve KY's children. Because of those two major pieces of legislation, since 1990, Kentucky has been a national leader in P-12 education reform. I am very proud of our progress during the past 23 years!

Stu: With the reductions in funding for our schools what are your thoughts about continued progress and what are the priorities of the state board around funding?

Roger: While I am proud of our progress, my greatest disappointment has been the lack of adequate funding. I keep thinking....with the significant progress made, what would/could have been accomplished if KY educators had adequate resources to meet higher expectations for all children? This has been very frustrating to observe as the funding for KERA dwindled each year since 1994 and most recently with additional funding reductions during the implementation of the reforms required by SB 1.

I expect KBE in the development of a legislative agenda for the 2014 Session of the KY General Assembly will include a call for restoration of SEEK to the 2008 level, restoration of Flexible Focus Funds to the 2009 level and the necessary funding to maintain our current technology infrastructure and replacement of end devices.

KY educators have done a remarkable job during the past 23 years of taking the framework for reform provided by KERA and SB 1 and making the reforms real in the lives of KY's children. As a result, an increasing number are receiving a high quality education. The most recent evidence is the 2013 assessment/accountability results with more than 54% of KY's high school graduates demonstrating career and college readiness. Only two years ago that number was 34%. The 86% graduation rate for the Class of 2013 is one of the highest in the United States.

While KY is a leader in educational reform in the US, we are near the bottom of the 50 states in regard to per pupil expenditure. Again my question remains..."what more could be done for KY'S children, if KY educators had adequate resources to meet the needs of all children?" We cannot continue to expect more in regard to results unless we restore the funding levels and provide the resources necessary to do the important work of educating each and every child.

Stu: As you move forward as chair of the board, what are your goals and major priorities?

Roger: If we are to be successful in implementing more rigorous learning expectations with career and college readiness as our goal for all KY's children, I see two major concerns. First, adequate funding. A good beginning toward that goal would be restoration of SEEK to the 2008 level, Flexible Focus Funds to the 2009 level and providing funding to maintain our technology infrastructure and replace end devices. Second, a united education community. I know we cannot agree on all issues, but KDE/KBE must strive to build stronger working relationships with our educational partners. Those relationships must be based on mutual respect and a laser-like focus on student centered decision making.

Stu: Are there any other items about Kentucky education you would like to share?

Roger: With the passage of SB 1 in 2009, one of my expectations and hopes was we would make significant progress toward a seamless P-20 system of education in KY. While we have made progress, not as much as I hoped for or expected. As we continue to move forward, it is my hope and desire that the working relationship between postsecondary education and P-12 education will become more collaborative and cooperative with the common goal of providing all students the opportunity to receive a high quality education.

Getting Parents Engaged is Key to Improving Schools

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20121128/OPINION04/311280047/1016/OPINION/Getting-parents-engaged-key-improving-schools?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Opinion|p

A Fruitcake to a Powerful Organization

Somtimes it is difficult for parents to have their voices heard.  Check out this post on Ed Week to learn more:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/engagement_and_reform/2012/08/a_fruitcake_to_a_powerful_organization.html

Jefferson County Prospects

My remarks to the Louisville Forum included the historic data I blogged yesterday, followed by some thinking about recent developments and future prospects.   Because Dewey Hensley had already described some of the district's strategies, I shortened and changed some of what I had planned to say, but the substance was the same as this prepared version:

Watching from a distance, I see multiple signs that you are on a stronger track: 

1. Your school board and your superintendent are now setting numerical goals for specific years.  If they follow through with annual reporting, celebrating goals met and confronting goals missed, you’ll be developing a culture that expects improvement year over year. 

2. Dr. Hargens has reorganized your district administration and used the savings to fund assistant principals.  That’s an impressive focus on making resources follow priorities. 

3.  Dr. Hargens has also brought a major shakeup to the Gheens Academy, designed to ensure more responsive professional development and support for your teachers. 

4.  Dewey Hensley, the man without excuses who turned around Atkinson Elementary and provided KDE leadership for your recent high school turnaround, is now your in-district chief academic officer.  

Now, let me add a "theory of action" on what will matter most in the next several years.  I’m sold on the research saying that the approach that raises scores and closes gaps involves a particular kind of learning culture.  It’s one where educators work together regularly, looking at student work to understand what the learners need next, designing changes, and coming back together to see what worked and decide what to improve next.  That approach travels under multiple names: 

·      It’s called "formative assessment "by those emphasize how teachers use the evidence. 

·      It’s called "professional learning communities" by those who emphasize the shared way the evidence gets considered. 

·      It’s called "job-embedded professional development" by those who emphasize the cycle of learning. 

·      And it’s called “instructional leadership” by those who emphasize the roles of principals in building and sustaining that focused work. 

When you read any of the accounts of what’s been changing in your historically troubled high schools, you hear versions of that teachers gathering that evidence, sharing the exploration, and staying in the cycle of identifying needed changes together.  You also hear principals focusing on helping that happen—and that’s where adding those assistant principals can be an excellent first step. 

In the coming year or two, the central issue will be making or solidifying that change in school after school. That’s a tough kind of priority because no school board can do it by policy and no superintendent can do it by memorandum.  It takes lasting engagement, with the central leadership making sure it’s a priority for school leadership, fending off distractions and sending in resources—and dedicated people in each building doing the most important work for themselves. 

So, the way to find out what’s happening, without waiting for the state scores, will be to ask teachers and principals what’s happening. Listen for reports of teams working together to examine work and plan instruction. Listen for reports of having time for that because other requirements have been pushed aside.  Listen for principals spending more time in classrooms.  Especially, listen for examples of students making breakthroughs their teachers hadn’t previously thought were in reach—because when teachers find the ways to do that, they’re excited and they’re exciting. 

It can be done.  Your children need for it to be done, and to be frank, the rest of Kentucky needs Jefferson County back in a leadership role. You’re the leading engine of our statewide economy, and in an information age, we need you as the leading engine of our learning economy as well.

Good Giving Challenge

Friends,

I'm writing today with a time-sensitive request that may give the Prichard Committee an enormous boost in reaching our fundraising goals.

At 7:59 a.m. today, Blue Grass Community Foundation and Smiley Pete Publishing (Chevy Chaser, Southsider and Business Lexington Magazines) officially launched their GoodGiving Guide Challenge, and we're thrilled to be a part of it. These two organizations have combined their efforts to promote scores of Kentucky nonprofits and have set a goal of raising over $100,000 before the end of the year. They've also lined up several challenge grants to award bonus money to the nonprofits who raise the most donors and dollars.

Can you help us win those challenges by giving right now at https://www.goodgivingguide.net/npo/prichard-committee-for-academic-excellence/?

In addition to the challenges for nonprofits, Smiley Pete has lined up a ton of thank you gifts to individuals who give at different levels.

Give now to receive some of these fabulous gifts donated from the GoodGiving Guide Challenge's sponsors.

If you're planning on including us in your charitable giving plans this year, please consider making your donation today.

Thanks in advance for your support!
Rachel

Rachel Belin


PS - If you don't feel you can donate at this point, will you consider forwarding this email to 5 of your friends? Many of the prizes are based on number of donors, and we'd greatly appreciate the introduction to your friends and family.

The Debates About What Is Really Best

Listed below are some of the topics being debated about educational reform. What are your thoughts about these?


Student Achievement - Everyone wants our students to receive a world class education and be able to compete in the global environment. Here are some of the questions being discussed and debated in this area:

• Where do we rank nationally and internationally? Is that good or bad?
• How bad are the achievement gaps? What needs to happen to close these gaps?
• Does the federal “No Child Left Behind” law help or hurt? Should there be penalties and sanctions for not making 100%?
• Should the U.S. follow what some countries do in only allowing the highest performing students to attend high schools that lead to college?
• With Finland being considered at the top of the international lists for educating students, should the U.S. model what they are doing? What are they doing differently and would that work here?
• How important is “college and career readiness” and do tests like the ACT test truly predict this? Do remedial courses in college really make a difference and are they needed?
• What is the actual and real dropout rate from high school? Is this important and how do we deal with this? What about the dropout rate from college?
• Should the age for compulsory attendance be raised from 16 to 18 years of age?
* Do we need to provide high quality pre-schools for ALL students?
• Is the culture of a school a determining factor in student achievement?
• Is more time in the day and school year needed to raise achievement?
• Should class size be significantly reduced?
• Is a solution gender based classrooms and individualized instruction for all?
• Does the leadership of the school determine the outcomes?
• How should technology and virtual learning be utilized?
• How important is early childhood education? How do we balance developmentally appropriate practices with the need for school readiness data? Should incoming kindergarten kids be assessed?
• What about dual credit courses (with high schools and colleges) and early college enrollment programs? Should they be allowed?
• Competency based or seat time credit? Should students be able to test out of classes in high school?
• Should every child make at least a year’s growth each year?
• Should students be retained if they cannot do the work? Are there a maximum number of times a student should be retained?
• Should schools be responsible for health and wellness of students including issues like obesity?

Curriculum and Standards - There are intense debates about what should be taught and what should not be taught along with the debate about high stakes testing. Listed below are some of these topics:

• Are the new Common Core Standards what we need? Do people know what these are? How do we help teachers, parents, and students understand the standards?
• Are standards needed? What levels of math and science, for example, should be required? Should topics like sex education and evolution be taught in schools?
• Should the arts and humanities be part of the accountability system?
• Is requiring proficiency in a foreign language important?
• Are textbooks needed or can online electronic books and materials be used?
• Should schools, teachers, and students be ranked and compared statewide and nationally for academics, graduation rates, etc.?
• Should homework be part of a student’s academic grade or be a separate grade?
• How should students with special needs both in areas of disabilities and giftedness be served?

Accountability and Testing - There is a lot of debate about high stakes testing. Below are some of the questions being discussed:

• How much should we be testing students using standardized tests?
• What should an accountability system look like? Do we need accountability systems?
• What does it mean to be proficient and who decides what proficiency is?
• Does testing inhibit creativity?
• Is there an alternative to standardized testing and still have accountability?
• Are teachers teaching to the test? Is teaching to the test good or bad?
• What about the Atlanta cheating scandal? Can that happen to us?
• Should statewide end of course exams be part of a student’s grade?
• What about students being required to pass a statewide proficiency test in order to graduate from high school?
• How should accountability be extended to postsecondary, particularly in the preparation of teachers?

Teachers - At the heart of our educational systems is the teacher. These are some of the major questions being debated nationally about teachers:

• How should teachers be evaluated and should those evaluations be tied to student performance and then to pay? Can evaluations be used to significantly improve instruction?
• Should teacher pay be differentiated based on the subjects taught with the highest pay going to areas in most demand or should pay be equal and based upon education and experience?
• Should schools be allowed to hire teachers and administrators from organizations like Teach for America who have not gone through formal teacher certification programs in college?
• Is the pay for teachers too low or too high? What if we changed the benefit structure to make benefits less generous and salary more generous on the front end of a teacher’s career? Would a starting salary of six figures for teachers change the profession?
• What is the impact of the U.S. teacher salaries being ranked 22nd out of 27 countries?
• Why are so many teachers leaving the profession?
• Are teacher unions a help or a hindrance?
• Should tenure for teachers and college professors be abolished?
• How much time is needed for professional development and collaboration, and what does that look like to be effective?
• How can professional development for teachers and school leaders be relevant and helpful for improving teaching and learning? What should it look like and who should decide this?
• Are colleges and universities doing a good job in preparing teachers, principals, and superintendents?

Factors Outside the classroom - There is much debate about the role of influences outside the classrooms and how they impact the educational process.

• Can students who live in poverty learn at high levels? Is poverty the problem?
• What is the role of the parent at home?
• Is parent involvement at school important and what does effective and systemic involvement look like?
• What should be the role of the business community? The faith based community? Coalitions?
• Are before and after school tutoring and enrichment programs needed?
• Should extra-curricular activities like sports, music, drama, clubs, etc. continue?

School Choice - The debate about school choice is very intense. It is very important to look at the data and research before coming to a conclusion in these areas.

* Do we need Charter schools? Do they work?
• Should public funding be used for vouchers to private schools?
• What about schools and programs of innovation within the current systems?
• Are alternative schools with different structures and approaches effective and needed?
• Should home schools be legal?
• Do you favor neighborhood schools? Magnet schools?
• What about vocational and technical schools – are they needed?
• How about having virtual schools available for all students?

Funding - Some say we are spending too much on education while others argue that we are not spending enough. This is also an intense debate.

• Is funding adequate to accomplish the goals?
• Is funding equitable between districts?
• Are schools and colleges good stewards of the funding that is currently provided?
• Is there equity/adequacy in funding for special needs—poverty, transience, disabilities, English language learning, and giftedness?
• Are employee benefits costs such as health insurance, retirement, and sick leave reasonable? What about the minimum number of years of service for full retirement for educators (27 years)? Should this be changed?
• Should Kentucky teachers be required to start paying into the social security system?
• How does Kentucky’s higher education spending compare to other states?
• Should we accept significant federal funding if it means following their guidelines?

Governance - There is also a debate about how to best govern schools in terms of boards of education, site based councils, etc.

• Should the state and federal departments of education be eliminated?
• Do we need to do away with site based councils? Boards of Education?
• Should board members be paid salaries?
• If schools follow the business model will it make a positive difference?
• Should school board members be appointed or elected?
• Should city government (mayors, judge executives) govern the schools?

As you can see from the above, education reform and teaching and learning are very complex. Before anyone makes a decision about any of these issues it is critical that the decision go beyond a general feeling. There is a lot of research and a multitude of data out there about each of these issues that must be reviewed carefully and examined before coming to any final conclusions. We at the Prichard Committee will be coming back to discuss these issues in more depth in the months ahead but would welcome you to share your thoughts at any time.

The following is a wiki that was developed by a participant in this weekend's CIPL STEM session.  
http://www.wikispaces.com/t/c/3IzxvbwBl1BcpBW42bCWUX
It is exciting to see our parents using technology to share the work with others immediately.   Check it out!
Welcome to the home page for the Kentucky Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership wiki for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math.  As this is a wiki, all members can add, read and modify content as is appropriate.  We can add pages, links, resources, and project information as we wish and help provide this information to all parents in Kentucky.
CIPLSTEM Membership
Please visit: http://www.wikispaces.com/t/c/3IzxvbwBl1BcpBW42bCWUX
Below is a message from bennis47:
We've created a wiki to keep this group talking, sharing and attached to resources. Currently, members can post and change things, but anyone can view. Keep adding resources and ideas. We also have discussion boards if we want to use them.
Thanks,
The Wikispaces Teamhelp@wikispaces.com
Getting Started Tips
Watch our tours to learn the basics of working in Wikispaces.
Need assistance?
Contact us at help@wikispaces.com
       
Sent by Wikispaces.com - 67 Langton St, San Francisco CA 94103 

Prichard Committee focuses on new academic standards, teacher evaluation

The Prichard Committee held its spring meeting June 5 and 6, with great discussions described in the press release below:

CARROLLTON, Ky. - Kentucky's tough new academic standards defining what students should know before they graduate from high school offer exciting opportunities for progress, a group of teachers told the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence during its recent spring meeting.

Beginning this fall, teachers and students across Kentucky will be working with a new set of standards in math and English language arts. A few school districts got an early start with the standards under a grant from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Educators from one of those districts spoke with Prichard Committee members about their experiences so far with the new language arts standards.

"The beauty of these new standards is they take these big ideas (of what students should know upon graduation) and back them all the way to kindergarten," said Marty Dixon, middle and high school English language arts specialist for Fayette County Public Schools.

Robin Reid, social studies department chair at Lafayette High School in Lexington, said she was excited about the new standards because they encourage the use of writing to help students learn more about all subjects - a view echoed by Brian Toy, the science department chair at Lafayette. "This type of writing increases content knowledge and prepares students for college and careers," he added.

"Students can do this. They really can," noted Lafayette literacy specialist Sherri McPherson who has worked with diverse classrooms and had initial concerns about whether struggling students could master the work.

The committee also heard from Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday, who encouraged the group to continue its vocal advocacy for the tougher standards and the new assessment and accountability system that is being developed.

The state's limited resources will result in more cuts in education funding, Holliday said, predicting that the department will be pressured to spend less on the standards and assessment work to make money available for other purposes. He reinforced the importance of the standards and the need to improve the college/career preparation of all students with some statistical projections. According to the commissioner:

• Of the 50,000 students who finished 8th grade this spring, between 10,000 and 15,000 will drop out before graduating from high school.
• Of the remaining 35,000, only 10,000 will graduate ready for college-level courses or the demands of the modern workplace. The rest will need additional training or instruction.

The Prichard Committee has launched a public engagement initiative, ReadyKentucky, to help teachers, parents and other involved Kentuckians understand and prepare for the new standards. The committee is working in partnership with several other organizations and the support of The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to disseminate information statewide. More details are available at ReadyKentucky.org.

The role of teachers in student success is critical, and improving the way teachers are evaluated was the focus of another presentation to the committee by Sarah Buhayer, program manager of the MET Project: Measures of Effective Teaching for The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

"In this country, teacher evaluation is broken," Buhayer said in describing the research project that involves more than 3,000 teachers in seven school districts across the country. "Teachers want to be evaluated in ways that are fair and meaningful."

The study includes student surveys, correlations between student responses and classroom performance, videos of teachers' classroom presentations that they can use for self-evaluation, coaching and materials. The goal is to boost the effectiveness of all teachers through effective evaluation and targeted professional development.

The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence is a statewide citizens' advocacy group, founded in 1983, working to improve education for all Kentuckians.