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.

Financial Aid and Lottery Dollars in the Governor's Budget Proposal

| By Susan Perkins Weston | 

The Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority (KHEAA) will be able to offer almost $251 million in FY 2017 financial aid if Governor Bevin's budget proposal become law. 

Here's a breakdown for the programs included in the KHEAA budget, with yellow shading for cuts and green shading for increases and a new workforce training and development program.

Counting the workforce proposal as a lottery funded effort, this plan honors the state law that calls for nearly all lottery dollars to flow to postsecondary education. 

However, that also means overriding the legal provision calling for the College Access Program and the Tuition Grant Program to receive 55 percent of those dollars.  Those two needs-based programs will receive $35 million less than promised in statute, with those dollars moved to the workforce initiative and to KEES scholarships awarded based on grades and test scores.  The chart below shows the available dollars and compares the statutory approach to the one the Governor proposes.

 

Source note: The dollar figures above reflect the 2016-18 Executive Budget released by the Office of State Budget Director.  KRS 154A.130 sets the rules for allocating lottery proceeds, with $3 million annually committed to literacy development and the rest divided between 45 percent to KEES and 55 percent to CAP and Tuition Grants.

Notes on Governor Bevin's P-12 Budget Recommendations

| By Susan Perkins Weston | 

Total state P-12 funding for FY 2017 will be essentially the same as the originally budgeted amount for the current year if Governor Bevin’s recommendations become law. The Governor’s General Fund proposal provides $4,093,226,500 for the Department of Education, while the bill signed two years ago by his predecessor provided $4,093,244,600. That’s a change of $18,100 and a decrease of 0.0004%, though rising costs probably mean the decline in buying power will be larger.

The more important shifts may be in how the money will be used. The budget proposal includes:

• $12.3 million more for equalized facilities than the FY 2016 budget bill
• $8.7 million more for local district health insurance
• $8.3 million more for local district teachers' retirement match
• $6.4 million more for Tier 1 equalization funding to school districts 

 

• $0.6 million less for gifted and talented programs
• $0.9 million less for education of state agency children
• $1.5 million less for SEEK base funding
• $1.5 million less for Read to Achieve grants
• $1.5 million less for textbooks and other instructional resources
• $2.3 million less for after school tutoring and other extended school services
• $4.7 million less for family resource and youth services centers
• $7.9 million less for preschool programs 

•  $14.7 million less for the rest of the Department of Education’s work, including additional dollars the Department distributes to schools and districts.

Of course, that list also invites many questions.

How are career and technical education, professional development, and KETS funding for school technology addressed?
The Governor’s budget recommendation does not show those programs with separate line items the way legislative documents do. Instead, they’re included in a single figure that may include several programs, use some federal dollars, or cover some of the Department’s operating costs. The numbers that are shown look like they probably include moderate reductions, but the detail just isn’t available yet.

How can SEEK base funding be down if the base guarantee is unchanged?
Governor Bevin did indeed say that base guarantee be unchanged, staying at $3,981 per pupil. There is also agreement that Kentucky will have more pupils to fund. However, the state guarantee is paid by combining local revenue with state dollars: the state pays what districts don’t bring in with taxes designed to raise 30¢ per $100 in taxable property. When that local revenue is rising fast enough, the state share can go down even if the number of students is going up. As a result, the Governor can indeed propose to keep the same guarantee and spend less to cover it.

What will happen to P-12 funding in 2018?
Under the governor’s proposal, the second year of the budget will cut $9.3 million more from the Department’s share of the General Fund. Major elements of that change will be increases for health insurance, retirement, and facilities, and decreases for SEEK base funding and Tier 1 equalization.

Will there also be cuts for the current 2016 fiscal year?
The Governor has indeed proposed cuts to spending in the current year, even before a new budget can be approved. For gifted and talented, extended school services, FRYSCs, Read to Achieve, state agency children, textbooks, and preschool, those cuts seem to be half the amount shown above for next year—or about $11 million from current funding. The Kentucky School Boards Association is reporting that the total is about $18 million.

How will the Education Professional Standards Board and the School Facilities Construction Commission be funded?
Those two P-12 agencies have budgets separate from the Department’s funding. EPSB is slated to receive an increase of $415,900. SFCC has a recommended increase of $13 million for 2017 (and 2018 funding will be another $5 million higher than that). When combined with the added dollars for facilities equalization in the Department section of the budget, there’s clear evidence that investment in facilities is a priority in this proposal.

Where is the money for the pension shortfall?
The Governor’s proposal includes paying an additional $323.8 million toward that problem in 2017 and very nearly as much in 2018. The pension challenge is a huge factor in why the rest of the budget is so tight. It’s also an obligation that Kentucky simply must meet. That said, the big added payments into KTRS are not paying to educate current students. They’re late payments for work educators did in years past. They must be paid, but paying them does not add to what we can to do for the learners in Kentucky schools today and in the next two years.

Source note: This blog post compares the 2016-18 Executive Budget released by the Office of State Budget Director to 2014’s House Bill 235.

Beneficial Returns to Public Investment in All Levels of Education (UK Research)

| by Perry Papka, Senior Policy Director |

Recent research published by the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) at the University of Kentucky highlights that public investment in all levels of education – early childhood, K-12, and postsecondary - yields significant beneficial returns to both students and society.  This information provides important data supporting continued strategic investment across the spectrum of the state’s public education system.

Early Childhood – Returns $5 for every $1 invested

Cost-benefit analyses conducted by the CBER in 2009 estimated that investment by Kentucky in expanded early childhood education would yield a return of $5 in public and private benefits for every $1 of public investment. The research also noted additional benefits beyond the financial return-on-investment such as: reduced need for special education, higher rates of educational attainment, reduction in health costs, reduction in the incidence of crime, and less demand for social welfare services.

With only 50% of Kentucky's children arriving in kindergarten ready for early success (see Figure 3 below), greater effort is needed to ensure that all children are given the opportunity to succeed.  CBER’s research reinforces the fact that investments in high quality early childhood education and care programs for at-risk children is not only a solution for reducing achievement gaps and improving academic performance, but pays long-term dividends to society as a whole.  
 

Source: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence. Progress and Next Steps for Early Childhood in Kentucky: Birth through Third Grade (January 2016)

K-12 – Kentucky Schools Perform Better than Expected Given Challenges Faced

Earlier this month, CBER released a new issue brief highlighting Kentucky’s progress in education over the last 25 years. The research shows that across twelve broad measures of educational attainment and achievement, Kentucky ranks the same or higher than 34 other states and lower than only 15 – a far cry from very near the bottom in 1990. 

Moreover, while acknowledging that work remains to reach the achievement goals Kentucky has set for students and schools, the data shows that Kentucky is one of only eight states (see map in Figure 2 below) whose academic performance – as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) – for every $1,000 in per pupil investment is better than to be expected given other obstacles students face such as poor health, poverty, disabilities or parents with low educational attainment. 

The bottom line is that Kentucky’s schools are cost-effective in providing a strong return-on-investment given significant demographic challenges facing many Kentucky communities. 

Source: Childress, Michael. Kentucky’s Educational Performance & Points of Leverage (January 2016) Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Kentucky.



Postsecondary – Higher Education has Significant Pay-Off for Individuals and the State
In October of 2015, CBER released a series of seven issue briefs highlighting the dynamic effects of educational attainment on Kentucky’s economy. Noting concern that Kentucky’s postsecondary educational attainment is lower than the national average, the research examined the effects raising attainment levels to the national average across seven key outcomes: income/earnings, employment, state income taxes, Medicaid costs and participation, health, crime, and participation in the federal SSI and SNAP programs. 

Not surprisingly, the analysis found that greater educational attainment leads not only to better employment outcomes, higher earnings and more tax revenue, but also lower crime, less chronic disease, and lower demand for public service programs. While these positive outcomes might have been expected in the state’s urban centers, the research showed similar effects to education across rural regions of the Commonwealth as well (see figure 1 below).

Source: Bollinger, Chris. Education Pays Everywhere! (September 2015) Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Kentucky.



CBER’s findings also estimate that raising Kentucky’s educational attainment level to the national average would generate $903 million annually in new tax revenue and cost savings.  Specifically, the state would realize approximately $500 million in additional income tax receipts, $200 million in Medicaid cost savings, $200 million in other healthcare cost savings, and $3 million in crime-related cost savings. 

Conclusion

Kentucky’s long-term success in continuing progress in student achievement, ensuring a dynamic, talented workforce, and developing thriving communities will be made stronger through increased investment that recognizes our educational system as a seamless web of opportunity for all citizens. The recent findings by the University of Kentucky’s Center for Business and Economic Research reinforce this notion and offer important reminders that the smart money is on public investment in a high-quality educational system – from early childhood through postsecondary – which is certain to yield significant returns to the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

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!

Prichard Committee Statement on Charter Schools

The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence conducted extensive research on issues related to the creation of charter schools, producing a report in 2014 - Charter Schools: An Informational Guide. The Committee does not have an official position in support of, nor in opposition to, charter schools. However, if the Kentucky General Assembly considers charter enabling legislation, the Committee believes strongly that the law must have the clear goal of closing gaps in student achievement. In addition, as one of seven states in the nation without charter schools, Kentucky is in an excellent position to learn from the experiences of other states.

The following policy statement frames Kentucky’s education progress over the past 25 years, briefly reviews the research on charter school effectiveness, and outlines clear criteria for charter school legislation in Kentucky.

National Efforts to Improve Student Outcomes

Since 1991, 43 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation allowing charter schools. Charter schools are intended to improve student outcomes by allowing for local autonomy, innovation and encouraging community engagement and support. In 1990, Kentucky chose an alternate path to those same objectives by implementing a governance model for all schools that requires school-based decision making councils to be comprised of parents and teachers.  Another common rationale for charter schools is that providing more choice or competition among schools will improve the quality of schools and increase student outcomes. Kentucky did not inject competition into its public school system as part of the 1990 reforms.  Rather, it set up an accountability system to increase the quality of all schools and it set up collaborative systems such as Family Resource Youth Service Centers (FRYSCs) to connect at-risk students and families with community supports in an effort to decrease barriers to learning. 

Since 1990, Kentucky has made significant progress in student achievement for all students.  On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Kentucky now ranks 8^th across states in 4^th grade reading, is above the national average in 8^th grade reading, and is at the national average in 4^th grade math.  Gains since the 1990’s place Kentucky in the top quarter of all states for positive growth in 4^th and 8^th grade reading and math.  

Despite these positive results, achievement gaps persist in Kentucky and across the nation for African-American and Hispanic students, students with disabilities, and students from low-income families. In many cases, these gaps have widened over the past 25 years. States across the nation, including Kentucky, are seeking ways to reverse this trend, considering everything from rigorous standards, innovative teaching practices, community support services, and charter schools.

The most complete research evaluating outcomes of charter schools is from The Center for Research on Student Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University. The center has found the overall performance of charter schools to be mixed, with significant variance in whether charter schools actually improved overall reading and math. However, the research concludes that charters can be beneficial in urban settings with African- American and Hispanic students, students living in poverty, and English language learners.  When one or more of these designations was combined (i.e. African-American and poverty) the results were increasingly positive.

Policy Criteria for Charter Schools

As outlined by the Committee’s Informational Guide, there are eight key questions to ask regarding charter school policy – the answers to which should guide the development of any effective charter school legislation in Kentucky:

1.    What student results will charter schools be expected to deliver?

2.    Which public school requirements will be waived, and which will be required?

3.    How will students be admitted or assigned to charter schools?

4.    Who will authorize charter schools?

5.    Who will be able to apply to run a charter school?

6.    Will charter school numbers and enrollments be subject to caps?

7.    How will charter schools be closed if they do not deliver?

8.    What funding will charter schools receive?

Since its review of the charter school issue, the Committee has identified certain principles as vital to the continued success of public schools and assuring that charter school legislation maintains Kentucky’s commitment to student achievement and ending achievement gaps. These principles address key issues of accountability, authorization, enrollment and funding.

• Charter schools should, at a minimum, be held to the same standards of expectation, accountability, performance, and data collection as required by Kentucky law of all other public schools. Further, charter schools may not be exempted from the same requirements of all other public schools regarding health, safety, civil rights, open meetings rules, open records requests, and sound financial and accounting practices.

• Authorization of charter schools should be by local boards of education following rules established by the state Board of Education that define processes for creation, conversion, renewal, revocation, closure and dissolution. Training of local boards, provided by the Department of Education, on charter school regulations, procedures and oversight should be required prior to any authorization.  Authorization of charter schools should be allowable only in circumstances of persistently low-achieving schools and/or significant achievement gaps.

• Charter schools may not discriminate in the enrollment of students in any fashion, including on the basis of ability, performance, geography, socio-economic status, race or ethnicity, and also must provide free and reduced-price meals and full services for students with disabilities.

•  Funding for charter schools should not diminish the resources currently available to school districts to educate and increase achievement for all students.  Any proposal must guarantee that schools and districts remain adequately and equitably funded according to Kentucky law as outlined in Rose v. Council for Better Education.

Excellence with Equity

Whether Kentucky enacts enabling legislation for charter schools, we must recognize that too many students are not achieving at high levels, putting their future at risk and keeping the state from creating and sustaining a dynamic, competitive workforce.  Policymakers, elected officials, educators, citizens and business leaders must come together to ensure Kentucky achieves excellence with equity for the education of all of its students.

When it comes to early childhood, we’ve come a long way and still have a ways to go

| by Brigitte Blom Ramsey, Executive Director |

The Prichard Committee convened a study group of nearly 50 early childhood experts, advocates and interested citizens to review Kentucky’s progress in early childhood and make recommendations for our future areas of focus. 

The study group’s report, Progress and Next Steps for Early Childhood in Kentucky: Birth Through Third Grade, identifies key areas of progress beginning with the unanimous passage of the KIDSNow legislation in 2000 which allocated 25 percent of Kentucky’s Master Tobacco Settlement funds to early childhood.  More recent areas of progress include: 1) creation of the Governor’s Office of Early Childhood, 2) development of a definition of kindergarten readiness, 3) adoption of a statewide kindergarten readiness screener, and 4) increased investments in public preschool, child care assistance and HANDS home visiting.

We’ve come a long way in our understanding of the importance of the early years and we still have a ways to go.  If all of Kentucky’s children are to arrive in kindergarten ready for early success and all of Kentucky’s 3^rd graders are to realize proficiency in foundational subjects like math and reading, we need to recommit to using our resources wisely and increasing the quality of public programs. 

The study group developed a vision statement to guide its work.  It is a statement that resonates with everyone who has ever held the gaze of an eager and curious young child, witnessing their unbridled capacity and seemingly limitless potential. 

“All Kentucky children, birth to age 8, will have intellectually engaging, imaginative, and culturally responsive learning experiences that extend their curiosity and support social and emotional health and well-being. Developmentally appropriate early childhood experiences will immerse children in hands-on inquiry, sensory- and language-rich environments that support their potential to be creative and critical thinkers. As a result, all children will be well prepared for success in kindergarten and proficient in math and reading by the end of third grade.”

To achieve this vision, the study group identified five areas of focus going forward:

•  Linking early childhood to third grade
•  Community collaboration
• Health and development
• Family engagement
•  Funding

This latest report builds on a 2007 report, Strong Start Kentucky: Investing in Quality Early Care and Education to Ensure Future Success, but extends the focus past kindergarten readiness to 3^rd grade. 

We know significant gains can be made with the right supports in the early years and we want to ensure these gains are extended all the way through to 3^rd grading reading and math proficiency.  

One way we do this is by ensuring quality throughout the system.  We need to invest in quality public preschool and quality child care for more of Kentucky’s children. To use our resources wisely, we need to encourage more public preschools to partner with quality child care centers to leverage current funding streams and provide the best environment for young children (Pre-K Collaboration in Kentucky: Maximizing Resources for Kindergarten Readiness).  We also need to ensure that best practices in health and development, beginning prenatally, are supported throughout Kentucky’s early childhood system and among its partners.  Finally, and the most critical of all, we need to do a better job engaging families.  As a child’s first and most influential teacher, families need to better understand early brain development and the simple things they can do to better support their early learner. 

Kentucky has a rich history supporting early childhood from birth through the early elementary years.  Our 4^th grade math and reading scores provide some proof.  On the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), known as "the nation’s report card", Kentucky now ranks 8^th in fourth grade reading and has the third best increase since 1992 of all states.  In fourth grade math, we are at the national average and have the 12^th best increase of all states since 1998. 

It’s important that we stay the course with Kentucky’s early childhood investments, increase them as possible, and continue to increase the quality of our public programs.  Kentucky’s youngest learners deserve the best we can give them.  They, and the Commonwealth, will benefit as a result. 

Senate Bill 1: State Standards and Much More [REVISED]

THIS POST HAS BEEN REVISED TO CLARIFY THREE ISSUES. THE CHANGES ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN THE TEXT. THE ATTACHED PDF VERSION HAS ALSO BEEN REVISED.
 
Senate Bill 1 has drawn headlines describing it as a call to repeal the Common Core State Standards. Filed Wednesday by Senate Education chair Mike Wilson and Senators Givens, Girdler, Seum, and Thayer,  the bill does include a process for standards revisions, but it also includes substantive changes to Kentucky assessments, accountability, graduation requirements, program reviews, school councils, and work on teacher growth and effectiveness. It's a big bill.

What follows is a systematic summary of SB 1's major changes.  The same information is available here as a downloadable two-page PDF, and the actual text of the bill can be downloaded here.

GOALS AND STANDARDS 

FOR WHAT STUDENTS KNOW AND CAN DO

ARTS CAPACITIES
In the list of seven capacities schools are expected to develop for all students, the final capacity will change from “Sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or her cultural and historical heritage” to “Sufficient grounding in the arts that: (a) Enables each student to appreciate his or her cultural and historical heritage; or (b) Is a result of an application experience in coursework that incorporates design content, techniques of creativity, and interpretation.”

STANDARDS
In 2017-18 (and at six year intervals after that), standards for language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies will be revised as follows:

• Educators and the public will comment on current standards through a website, with an independent third party collecting and transmitting those comments.

• Advisory panels will review the standards, assessments, and comments and recommend changes for their subject and grade level. Each panel will include six public school teachers and a representative of higher education chosen by the Kentucky Board of Education (KBE).

• Review and development committees will recommend changes to standards and alignment of assessments for their entire subject. Review and development committees will include six public school teachers and two higher education representatives appointed by KBE.

• Educators and the public will comment on the recommendations through a website.

• House and Senate Education committees will review the recommendations.

[• A recommendations committee of three state senators, three state representatives, and three others appointed by the governor will make final recommendations.

• KBE will adopt the final standards.]

• 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 bill does not address revisions to standards for arts & humanities and practical living/career studies.

GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS
Students will be able to meet the arts requirement with a “foreign language course, application-oriented career and technical education course, or a computer technology or programming course that incorporates design content, techniques of creativity, and interpretation.”

METHODS FOR CHECKING PROGRESS 

TOWARD MEETING GOALS AND STANDARDS

ASSESSMENTS
Language arts, mathematics, and science assessments will continue to be used, as will industry-recognized certifications/licensures/credentials.

A college admission and placement test of English, mathematics, science, and reading will be given in the fall of grade 9 and spring of grade 11, replacing fall of grade 11 use of the ACT.

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

Students with disabilities who need more than four years to complete high school will not be included in assessment after their fourth year.

Schools and districts will receive copies of each assessment, along with individual test item results for each student and school.

PROGRAM REVIEWS
Program reviews will no longer be required. The bill contains no provisions to check the quality of student learning opportunities in arts and humanities, practical living/vocational studies, sustained writing or world languages/global competence.

TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS
Local districts will have greater control of their professional growth and effectiveness systems. The Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) will set a framework for district use but no longer gather data or conduct site visits. Student growth will not be part of the framework.

ACCOUNTABILITY STEPS TO ENSURE PROGRESS

TOWARD GOALS AND STANDARDS

ACCOUNTABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS
In classifying schools, the greatest weight will be given to schools’ growth over three years as compared to a band of schools. That band will be “a group of Kentucky schools at the same level that have similar student demographics, percentages of exceptional children and youth [as defined in state law], percentages of limited English proficiency students, and mobility rates.”

Weight will also be given to:

• Assessment results
• Progress toward English proficiency for limited English proficiency students
• Elementary and middle schools’ school climate and safety
• High schools’ graduation rates
• High schools’ postsecondary readiness results, including college admission and placement exams, industry-recognized certifications/licensures/credentials, postsecondary credits earned in high school, and data on graduates going on to postsecondary education will be added. Added credit will be given for postsecondary enrollment by low-income students and for industry certifications/licensures/credentials in high demand fields.
• Any other factors required by federal law.

Student growth scores, program reviews, and professional growth and effectiveness data will no longer be used for accountability.

FOCUS SCHOOLS
Focus schools will be schools with three years of graduation rates below 68% or three years of low performance by a student group (male/female students, students with/without disabilities, students with/without English proficiency, minority/nonminority students, and students eligible/not eligible free and reduced-price lunches). Focus schools will revise their school improvement plans with district assistance.

INITIAL INTERVENTION SCHOOLS
Initial intervention schools will be the lowest-performing twenty-five percent (25%) of schools at each level that fail to meet state accountability targets for three years. At those schools, the superintendent will select the principal with school council input, and collective bargaining rules will not apply to hiring decisions the vacancy provisions of KRS 160.380(1)(d) 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.”

PRIORITY SCHOOLS
Priority schools will be schools with results in the lowest five percent at each level that fail to meet state accountability targets for three years.

An external audit team will analyze each priority school, reporting causes of low performance, assessment of on principal’s capacity and interaction with superintendent and central office, recommendations on turnaround process for school and recommendations on turnaround principles and strategies for superintendent. The local board of education will hire that team.

After the audit, each priority school will go through the following process:

• A turnaround team will be hired to provide training support. The local board will also hire that team based on bids by nonprofit external management organizations.

• An advisory leadership team representing staff and parents will be created.

• The school council’s powers will be transferred to the superintendent. If the school moves out of priority classification for two years, the local board may restore the council’s powers.

• The superintendent will be able to reassign the principal and other certified staff to comparable positions elsewhere in the district and to hire a new principal after consulting the turnaround team, parents, certified staff, and classified staff.

• The principal, working with the turnaround team and advisory leadership team, will propose short-term and five-year turn around plans. The plan will need approval from the superintendent, receive KDE review and recommendations, and get final approval from the local board.

A school does not leave priority status after four years will be subject to state-level based on KBE regulation, which may include new audit and planning provisions, school improvement funds, and support from highly skilled educators.

ACHIEVEMENT GAP TARGETS
Locally established gap reduction targets will be set for three-year periods (replacing the current targets set for one year at a time).

___________
* 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.”

'Tis a Gift to be Curious

| by Brigitte Blom Ramsey, Executive Director |

In the midst of a gubernatorial campaign year, I’ve been asked a number of times to participate in discussions about Kentucky’s Academic Standards.  Each time, I shared that the four-year trend in our test scores is positive, that 3^rd grade reading and math proficiency levels are up since we adopted the new standards and ACT scores have increased. But, adoption of standards - any standards – is not a magic fix to increase student outcomes.  I challenged the audience each time to look more deeply into the classroom - to look for evidence that teaching and learning is changing and that students and teachers alike are deeply engaged.

At a national meeting recently, I quietly rejoiced when I heard Robert Pondiscio of the Fordham Institute assert that we are generally “incurious about the classroom”. We spend so much time discussing and debating standards, assessment, and accountability and, while these are necessary and important policy discussions, we so rarely step back to peer into the classroom where policy and practice converge. 

This holiday season, we would like to give you the gift of curiosity - a window into Kentucky classrooms in Bowling Green, Nicholasville and Covington.  We were curious about implementation of the standards, how teachers are improving their practice and how students are responding.  We hope you enjoy the three briefs below and, as a result, feel inspired and curious about what is happening in Kentucky classrooms near you. 

The real test of any set of standards is what’s happening in real classrooms, between real teachers and real students. 

Celebrating Vicki Phillips - Visionary and Kentucky Native

| by Brigitte Blom Ramsey, Executive Director |

Recently, I had the great pleasure of visiting with Vicki Phillips while she and her colleagues at the Gates Foundation were visiting Pikeville, Kentucky.  We gathered around a table during a reception at the Blue Raven and Vicki began recounting her path to becoming a leader in education. 

From a humble beginning in a small Kentucky town, Vicki didn’t even envision herself in college.  She found herself there, nonetheless, because of the encouragement and active support of a high school peer who could see Vicki’s potential. She went on to complete a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree.  She taught in Kentucky schools and ended up working alongside leaders in the Kentucky Department of Education to implement the Kentucky Education Reform Act.  Very early on, Vicki was known for her leadership and her ability to connect best practices in schools to policies at the state level. Before long, Vicki was on the national stage - leading school districts, state departments of education and national conversations about education.  Her focus has always been on changing outcomes for students and knowing that this happens in a rich classroom environment and in the relationship between teacher and student. 

Like so many who have a lasting and positive impact on our world, it became clear to me that Vicki’s passion for her work is deeply rooted in a desire to make things better for those who come behind. Her life’s work is in service to the students and teachers in our classrooms and the system that serves them. 

Right before visiting with Vicki around that table in Pikeville, she announced that she would be leaving the Gates Foundation.  She remarked that she had been with Gates for eight years - the longest she’d been anywhere and that it was time to open the space for the next person and to move on to her next thing.  This post is a tribute to Vicki’s amazing work, work that has been supporting Kentucky’s reform efforts since the 1990’s.  Below you will find comments from teachers who have been impacted by Vicki’s vision and passion. 

We wish Vicki all the very best and look forward to hearing about the next chapter in her life.  Until then, send your own best wishes to Vicki and see what others are saying at #whyilovevicki.    

Photo: (From left to right) Me, Brian Bishop, Vicki Phillips, Cory Curl and Brad Clark

Vicki Phillips has changed my life professionally and personally by allowing me to serve as part of the Teaching Advisory Council, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Not only did this opportunity open my eyes to a national perspective of teacher leadership, but my doors are now open to best practice outside of Kentucky.  I have colleagues with whom I collaborate daily in all corners of the United States.  Vicki was our mentor and believed that our voice mattered.  She embraced the quote, “Nobody knows teaching like teachers” and I have the deepest respect for the culture change for which she helped create in Kentucky and nationally.  Thank you, Vicki Phillips, for being a true inspiration and elevating the profession for all teachers and students.

~ Kip Hottman, Spanish teacher, Louisville, KY

“Dr. Vicki P” has been one of the driving forces in my teacher leadership journey.  I will never forget being in her presence for the first time at my initial Teacher Advisory Council experience last June in Seattle.  Her passion came through every word; all in attendance were captivated. In the months since, I’ve had the opportunity to hear her speak in several settings.  Her message continues to be that teachers know what the profession needs, and the time is now to make our voices heard.  The work that teacher leaders do across the Commonwealth is linked by her leadership and vision for improving both student and teacher learning.  

~ MeMe Ratliff, Physical Education teacher, Louisville, KY

Vicki Phillips has been a change maker in education and a guiding light for Kentucky teachers. As a teacher who is spreading her teacher leadership wings Vicki provides an amazing example of what a lil’ ole Kentucky teacher can become and what they are capable of doing for teachers and students around the US. Vicki is an inspiration and I am honored to have had the pleasure of meeting her as well as sharing our Kentucky roots. She will be missed at the Foundation, however nothing but great things lie ahead for the amazing Vicki Phillips.

~ Samantha Sams, Math & Science teacher, Versailles, KY

Dr. Phillips has always been a thoughtful supporter of the education reform work in Kentucky.  Her attention to detail and willingness to ask the difficult questions of teachers on how to improve student and teacher learning experiences created ripe conditions for classroom practitioners to lead the redesign of education systems.  Kentucky will miss her support but what Dr. Phillips and her team kick-started in Kentucky is a sustainable distributive leadership movement that has the potential to deeply impact the public school students of Kentucky.

~ Brad Clark, Hope Street Teaching Fellows, Kentucky

Dr. Vicki Phillips has irrevocably changed my life.  She mentored me while I served on the Teacher Advisory Council for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but has paved the way for Kentucky teachers--and those of the nation--to do what they know best.  Her mentorship has fostered my relationship with teachers across the nation, and her parting words to “raise my voice” collectively with my teaching peers has never been more timely.  I know Vicki will continue to mentor, raise her voice, and challenge all teachers to do what they know best--and I can’t wait to see what the next chapter holds for her.

~ Missy Callaway, English Language Arts teacher, Louisville, KY

Kentucky teachers work together to implement standards

| by Suzetta Yates, Development Director |

On Saturday, December 5, I observed a teacher convening in Louisville organized by Student Achievement Partners. Student Achievement Partners is a nonprofit working to support teachers across the country in their efforts to realize the promise of academic standards focused on college and career readiness for all students. Their website is full of free content designed to help Math and English Language Arts (ELA) educators understand and implement college- and career-ready standards. The goal is to build teacher capacity by giving them tools to increase student achievement.

Jana Bryant, a Daviess County math instructional coach, is the captain of a group of 14 state-wide Kentucky teachers that have been trained on implementing standards here in Kentucky. Jana led a group to organize this convening to train even more teachers.  “The Kentucky Core Advocate convening offered teachers the opportunity to reflect on the necessary shifts needed within their own instructional practices that are essential to implementing the math and ELA standards. Teachers had time to learn about new resources and to collaborate with one another about strategies that are working within our classrooms. Conversations focused on how we must set the expectation high for EVERY student and use the time we have within our school day most effectively. We are honored that Student Achievement Partners selected Kentucky to support as we built a Core Advocate Leadership team who designed programming specific to the needs of students and teachers,” Bryant said. 

Sandra Alberti, Director of State and District Partnerships and Professional Development at Student Achievement Partners, welcomed the crowd of over 100 educators by saying, “Kentucky always ends up first”.

“The Standards first and foremost were designed to support teachers in their commitment to prepare students for opportunities after graduation.  It has always been the intent that teachers own this work – that they have the opportunity to build understanding, share that understanding with their colleagues, and support each other as they do the work with the students in their classrooms. My colleagues and I from Student Achievement Partners left Kentucky completely inspired by some amazing and incredibly committed educators.  I am confident that the educators and the students of the state stand to benefit from this network,” Alberti said.

Dr. Angela Gunter, a National Board Certified Teacher from Daviess County writes, “I think the real power of the convening was the energy in the room. Spending two long days on a weekend digging deeply into theory and practice of knowledge building and acquisition could seem daunting, but the genuine dedication to improving practice and the spirit of collegiality among the Kentucky Core Catalysts made the time fly by. We had to make people leave their work groups to go to lunch and breaks. Teachers are thirsting for training that helps them improve their practice, and the Kentucky Core Advocate Text Set Project offers the training, the alignment, the relevance, and the ongoing collaboration designed to affect both teacher and student growth.”

Michelle Ruckdeschel, Heritage Park High School, writes, “it is quite a commitment to ask a teacher to give up their weekend to come together to have deep, meaningful conversations about mathematics and literacy, but the overall feeling in the room as the Catalysts left on Sunday was renewal and excitement to get back to their schools and districts to share the information that they had received. The conversations and sharing of practices and initiatives from all corners of the state were wonderful. The KY Mathematics Coherence Campaign allows the new Catalysts to educate others on the importance of understanding the connections of mathematical concepts across grades as well as within grades to allow students the best possible designed instruction our Kentucky teachers can offer.”

Spending time with this group of teachers was a privilege and the enthusiasm in the room was contagious. Kentucky students are in good hands.

Federal Education Law Set for Revamp

| by Cory Curl, Associate Executive Director |

It appears that the United States Congress is poised to give state and local education leaders a mighty and surprising gift as 2015 comes to a close – a very long-awaited reauthorized version of the federal Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA). The new version appears to be one that gives far greater influence to state and local leaders to design and carry out school accountability systems.

(Some background: A conference committee of House and Senate leaders has approved a draft version of a bill to replace the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which has been overdue for reauthorization since 2007. In 2011, given the delay in reauthorizing the law, the U.S. Department of Education began a process to grant waivers from NCLB for state accountability systems – waivers that came with some additional strings attached. Currently, Kentucky’s school accountability system operates under the federal waiver policy.)

The new name of the federal law will be the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Here are a few ways that ESSA will look the same and look different from the world according to NCLB and the slightly different world according to the Department’s waiver policy, and potential implications for Kentucky.

What looks the same, or mostly the same:

• States will test all students each year in grades 3-8, and once in high school, in both reading and mathematics, with testing in science once per grade span.
•  A new provision will allow up to seven states to pilot test new kinds of assessments that would then be deployed in districts across the state.
• States will need to report assessment data at the school level as well as for groups of students – by race/ethnicity, income, students with disabilities, and English learners.
• As a departure to the waiver policy, states will not be able to combine groups of students into “super-subgroups” – such as Kentucky’s “Gap Group” – for accountability purposes. 
• Similar to the Priority Schools approach in the current waiver policy, states will need to identify the lowest performing five percent of schools based on test results and graduation rates. States also need to identify schools where specific subgroups of students are struggling – similar to today’s Focus School approach.
• At least initially, however, local districts will have greater discretion in how they support these schools.

What looks different:

• States will have greater autonomy to select academic and non-academic indicators in the accountability system. They will need to include proficiency on state assessments, another academic indicator (such as student growth rates), and English language proficiency – and these need to have greatest weight in the system. They will, however, need to include at least one indicator beyond test results, such as student engagement, completion of advanced coursework, post-secondary readiness, etc. High schools will also need to include graduation rates.
• States are pretty much on their own in setting school performance goals based on these indicators. States will need to set goals that call on improvement from all groups of students, but faster progress for students that start out farther behind. This is an important opportunity for state leadership, and a critical area for Kentucky to get right, and with shared ownership and enthusiasm across the Commonwealth among educators, families, policy leaders, and communities for meeting the goals.
• The ESSA draft does not include any federal requirements for teacher evaluation, as in the current waiver policy, or highly-qualified teachers, as in NCLB. As a result, implementation of Kentucky’s Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES), as well as its continuous improvement, will not be affected by federal requirements.

In the next few weeks, Congress is expected to vote on the bill, and the President is expected to sign it by the end of the year. From there, it appears that the current waiver policy – under which Kentucky’s school accountability system falls now – will sunset in August 2016.