Kentucky Accountability: Equity Questions For The Revised Regulation

| Post By Susan Perkins Weston |

Achievement gaps get substantial attention in Kentucky’s proposed school accountability regulation. A revised version of the regulation is up for final vote at the August 23 Kentucky Board of Education meeting (see item VI on the agenda). This post summarizes the big approach to tackling gaps and flags some key elements that still need clearer language or further explanation.

THE BIG APPROACH
In Kentucky’s new system, schools will receive overall ratings of one to five stars, and student group results will matter in deciding those ratings, in several ways:

• Student groups results compared to other groups will be one part of an achievement gap closure indicator that contributes to the overall ratings
• Student group results compared to proficiency will also be part of that achievement gap closure indicator contributing to the overall rating
• If student group results are troubling enough, that by itself will enough to limit a school to a maximum of three of the five possible stars

There is impressive consensus around that broad approach, and the questions that follow address specifics of putting that approach to work.

WHICH GAPS BETWEEN GROUPS WILL BE CONSIDERED “PRACTICALLY SIGNIFICANT"?
As revised, the regulation says the Department will calculate the gaps between groups and take a new step to check whether each gap is “statistically and practically significant.” What kind of gap is “practically significant?” The regulation defines “practical significance” by saying it “means a measure of the differences between student groups has real meaning,” but “real meaning” does not seem any clearer. The term matters, because gaps that are not practically significant will not matter for the indicator rating or the five stars.

FOR A GROUP’S GAP TO PROFICIENCY, WHAT “ANNUAL TARGET” WILL BE USED?
The regulation says that group results will be compared to “the current year’s annual target for each student demographic group.” What are those targets? For this question, the regulation could mean the “Long Term and Interim Goals for Public Reporting” that are also on KBE’s August 23 agenda. However, those goals are in a separate document, not part of the regulation, and they are not identified as targets at all.

WHAT WILL BE “A SUFFICIENT PERCENTAGE POINT” FOR A PARTIALLY REDUCED GAP TO PROFICIENCY?
The regulation says that a school can get two gap closure points if a gap is reduced and one point if the gap is partially reduced. In a previous edition, partial reduction meant being at or above the annual target “minus five percentage points.” In the revised edition, partial reduction is explained as the annual target minus “a sufficient percentage point.” What will count as sufficient is not clear.

HOW WILL A “FEDERAL STUDENT GROUP DESIGNATION” BE GIVEN?
Federal student group designation is a new term in this version of the regulation, used in two places:

• Early on the regulation defines that term by saying it “includes targeted support and improvement, and comprehensive support and improvement as provided in KRS 160.346“
• Much later, the regulation says a school “shall receive a federal student group designation for statistically significant achievement gaps or low-performing students”

Those two provisions do not seem to match. KRS 160.346 requires targeted support if a student group has results like the lowest 5% of schools for one year or the lowest 10% of schools for two years. It requires comprehensive support if the whole school is in the lowest 5%, graduation is below 80%, or a school stays in targeted support too long. KRS 160.346 never mentions statistical significance. The seeming use of two conflicting rules is an additional puzzle.

WHAT WILL LIMIT A SCHOOL TO THREE STARS?
As noted earlier, there’s broad agreement on limiting a school to three out of five stars based on problems with student group results.

In one place, the regulation says that schools “with statistically significant achievement gaps may not be rated above three stars.”

A bit later, the regulation offers matrix tables showing schools' star ratings will be decided. Each of those tables has a  columns saying “Can receive no higher than 3-Star rating if Achievement Gap Closure is “Low (l), “Very Low (VL),” or if identified for Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI).”

That seems to set up three different routes to hitting the three-star limit:

• significant gaps or
• a low rating on the achievement gap closure rating or
• qualifying for targeted support

For legal interpretation, the wording appears clear, but having three routes seems unfamiliar from the earlier presentations and town hall discussions. The shift is important enough that it’s worth treating as something that still needs further explanation and understanding.

A CLOSING NOTE
This accountability regulation is a major chance to improve our schools and shape the futures of Kentucky’s students. It sets our course toward excellence with equity. The equity questions above are technical issues but important ones for getting the results we want and need. In effect, they’re final checks to be sure this policy plane is ready for takeoff.