Draft Accountability Regulation: Support and Additional Data

| Post By Susan Perkins Weston |

The Kentucky Board of Education recently held its first reading of a new accountability system regulation. My earlier posts looked at how the draft deals with standards and with indicators and how it deals with goals and with ratings. This post takes on a final three questions (identifying schools for support, providing support, and sharing additional data)

For more background, take a look at this quick summary of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and Kentucky’s Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) or at the full regulation draft included in the June 7 KBE agenda (scroll down to item XXI).

5. How will we identify schools for added support?
The draft regulation does not address support, but SB 1 provides identification rules that include:

• Tier I targeted support (early warning) for schools where one or more student groups have results like the lowest 10% of schools for two or more years

• Tier II targeted support for schools where one or more student groups has results like the lowest 5% of schools

• Comprehensive support for schools where overall 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

For ESSA approval, each state needs three tiers of support:

1. Targeted support must be given to schools where any student group is “consistently underperforming,” but leaves states to define that category. Kentucky’s Tier I (like lowest 10%) rule is a viable option for providing that definition.

2. Additional targeted support must be given to schools with groups like the lowest 5% of schools, and Kentucky’s Tier II targeted support rules tightly fits that rule.

3. Comprehensive support must be given if overall results are in the lowest 5% of schools, graduation rates are below 67%, or a school has not additional targeted support after multiple years. Do notice that SB 1's 80% graduation rate sets the bar substantially higher than the federal minimum.

6. What support will we provide to identified schools?
The draft regulation does not address this issue, but (again) SB 1 provides a process for this work. As a very brief summary of those steps:

• For schools identified for targeted support, local school personnel will work with parents and educators to develop a revised school improvement plan for local board of education approval.

• For schools identified for comprehensive support, the local board of education will select a turnaround audit team to study the school. Once the report is in, the board will select a turnaround team and collaborate with others to develop a three-year plan, with the Kentucky Department of Education monitoring and reviewing the plan’s implementation.

7. How will we promote accountability for results not included in the ratings and support rules?
The draft regulation does not address reporting data that will not be used for accountability. The Department will, of course, have the option of including additional data in school report cards, and recent discussions across the state has shown substantial interest in seeing and using that added information.

Draft Accountability Regulation: Goals And Ratings

| Post By Susan Perkins Weston |

The Kentucky Board of Education recently held its first reading of a new accountability system regulation. My earlier post looked at how the draft deals with standards and indicators, matching the first two questions I’ve been using to track accountability ideas. This post takes on questions 3 and 4, and my next post will deal with questions 5-7 (identifying schools for support, providing support, and sharing additional data)

For more background, take a look at this quick summary of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and Kentucky’s Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) or at the full regulation draft included in the June 7 KBE agenda (scroll down to item XXI).

3. How far and how fast do we intend to raise our indicators?
For students overall, the draft regulation does not identify any goals or methods for setting goals.

For student groups with lower recent results, the draft regulation mentions goals that will be used to rate achievement gap closure, but does not specify how they will be set.

For ESSA approval, states must set “ambitious state-designed long-term goals” for “all students and separately for each subgroup of students.” For groups that are behind, the goals must call for improvement quick enough to “make significant progress in closing statewide proficiency and graduation rate gaps.” For both kinds of goals, states must also set interim measures of progress on the way to meeting those goals.

The Department’s June 12, 2017 PowerPoint does propose an approach to long-term goals, aiming “to increase student proficiency rates significantly for all students in the state by 2030” and “to decrease the achievement gap of lower-performing student groups by 50% by 2030.”

4. How will we rate (or differentiate) schools each year?
Low, moderate, strong, very strong ratings will be given on each indicator, but the draft does not say how ratings will be determined.

One to five stars will be given to each school based on the indicators, but the draft does not say what formula or rules will be used to award the stars.

In addition to the stars, a gap closure designation will be given for “closing the differences in achievement between students demographic groups” and a gap issue designation will be given for “very large achievement gaps and low-performing students.” The draft does not give specifics on how either designation will be earned.

The draft does not provide for changing schools’ ratings if any student group is “consistently underperforming.”

For ESSA approval, each state’s system for “meaningfully differentiating” its public schools must “include differentiation of any such school in which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming.” The schools with an underperforming student group must also be offered targeted support.

SB 1 requires targeted support for schools with a student group with results “at or below that of all students, based on school performance, in any of the lowest-performing ten percent of all schools for two consecutive years.”

That SB 1 rule looks like a workable way for Kentucky to fill in ESSA’s call for a definition of “consistently underperforming.” To meet ESSA requirements for differentiating/rating schools, however, that “like-lowest-10%” rule will also have to matter in the school rating system.

Draft Accountability Regulation: Standards and Indicators

| Post By Susan Perkins Weston |

The Kentucky Board of Education recently held its first reading of a new accountability system regulation, and this post summarizes how that draft addresses two of the questions I’ve been using to summarize accountability issues. I’ll address the goal and rating questions in my next post, and I’ll cover plans for identifying and supporting schools with performance weaknesses in a post after that.

For more background, take a look at this quick summary of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and Kentucky’s Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) or at the full regulation draft included in the June 7 KBE agenda (scroll down to item XXI).

1. What should our rising generation know and be able to do?
Kentucky’s academic standards are established in another regulation, and SB 1 calls for each subject to be reviewed on a six-year cycle for “possible revision or replacement to ensure alignment with postsecondary readiness standards necessary for global competitiveness and with state career and technical education standards,” using a process of public input, subject-area committees, legislative committee attention, and KBE final decisions. Accordingly, the draft accountability regulation does not need to address standards.

2. What indicators can we use to track our progress toward those desired results?
For elementary and middle schools, the draft regulation calls for indicators that include:

• Proficiency on state assessments, with partial credit for apprentice results extra credit for distinguished work, and extra credit for proficient or distinguished work on assessments for higher grade levels
• Achievement gap closure on state assessments, looking at income, race, disability status, English learner status, and a “consolidated group” based on race, disability status, and English learner status
• Growth, using state reading and math assessments to check whether individual students move to higher performance levels from one year to the next and also checking English learners’ progress toward English proficiency
• Opportunity and access, including chronic absenteeism, gifted and talented services, rich curriculum (arts, health and physical education, science, and social studies), and access to counselors, nurses, and librarians. For middle schools, career exploration will also be part of the curriculum data.

For high schools, the draft calls for indicators that include:

• Proficiency
• Achievement gap closure
• Growth, checking English learners’ progress toward English proficiency
• Opportunity and access, including chronic absenteeism, graduation rate, advanced coursework, rich curriculum (global competency/world language, career and technical), and access to nurses, librarians, and career counselors
• Transition readiness, shown by earning a diploma, demonstrating essential skills, and showing either academic readiness (college entrance exam, AP, IB, dual credit) or technical readiness (industry certification, KOSSA, dual credit) or military readiness (ASVAB)

One more element:

• A local measure will be chosen by districts and charter schools and included in district and charter ratings. (The Kentucky Department of Education’s June 12, 2017 PowerPoint http://education.ky.gov/comm/Documents/CTP%206-17%20Accountability%20System2.pdf includes a small modification, calling for the local measure to included as a part of the Opportunity and Access indicator rather than being a separate indicator in the overall design.

For ESSA approval, four-year graduation rates must be used as a measure, with five-year rates and other extended periods allowed as optional additions. Kentucky’s ESSA plan will need to include the four-year approach.

For ESSA approval, indicators must be reported and used “for all students and separately for each subgroup of students.” The one exception is the English proficiency measure, which can be used without disaggregation. In recent discussions, Department leaders have noted that it may not be possible to break out access to nurses, librarians, and counselors that way. Data that cannot be disaggregated by student groups will not be used in accountability ratings, but could still be included in other reporting.

ESSA, SB 1, and Kentucky's Draft Accountability Regulation

| Post By Susan Perkins Weston |

On June 7, the Kentucky Board of Education held a first reading of a new accountability system regulation intended to encourage rising student performance and to meet the requirement of two new laws. I'm planning a set of posts on the main elements of the draft regulation, but first, here comes a quick look at the two bills that shape how the regulation will work.

The federal Every Student Succeeds Act replaces the older No Child Left Behind Act. Signed in December 2015, ESSA changes the rules for how states qualify for Title I funding. States must still set academic standards, create assessments of those standards, and have ambitious goals for raising results on those assessments and graduation rates, along with interim measures of progress toward meeting those goals. The goals must still apply separately for low income students, students with disabilities, and students of color, and states must still plan steps to get the schools with the weakest result back on track. However, ESSA allows states considerably more flexibility in using additional measures of school quality and student success, in choosing their goals and their timelines for achieve goals, and in planning out support for schools with weak results.

ESSA is one reason Kentucky needs a new accountability regulation: it will show our choices about how to use the new federal flexibility.

Senate Bill 1, enacted this year, fills in some of those details. It sets a process for revising our academic standards and calls for matching changes to how we test those standards. It adds new ways to measure college readiness and career readiness, including giving added weight to career tests in fields that are in high demand in each region. It defines three new categories of schools in need of support and new approaches to providing that help, filling in some of the ESSA blanks. Notably, where ESSA requires comprehensive support for schools with graduation rates below 67%, SB 1 commits Kentucky to provide that support anywhere graduations are below 80%.

SB 1 is another reason we need a new accountability regulation: we need to fill in how the changed measures will be used to set goals, rate schools, analyze achievement gaps, and decide which schools qualify for the new support methods.

So, in the posts that follow, I’ll look at the June 7 draft of the regulation, and I’ll also share a few more specific details from ESSA and SB 1 at the points where they matter.

One more thing: I should underline that word draft. During the KBE discussion, the Department recommended additional changes and took input from Board members on upcoming improvements. A revised version of the draft regulation is scheduled to get its second reading at the August 2-3 state board meeting, to be followed by a board vote, a public comment period and reviews by legislative committees. You can see the Department's "Data and Measures" document shared with the Board (including a set of proposed further changes) here, and find a more recent PowerPoint about KDE’s recommendations here. For the draft regulation itself, go to the state board's June 7 agenda and scroll down to item XXI.

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 

New Accountability: SB 1 Amended in Committee

On Thursday, Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Senator Mike Wilson was approved by the Senate Education Committee with amendments in a committee substitute. On Friday, the bill passed the full Senate. House Committee consideration will be the next step.

Along with some smaller changes, the amendments:

• Removed a change to the arts-based high school graduation requirement  
• Deleted a requirement for the new accountability system to include a "band of schools" approach to school improvement
• Revised the rules for identifying schools for targeted support and improvement based on weak results for student groups

To reflect the amendments, the Prichard Committee has updated its bill summary. Key issues include:

• Standards for what students know and can do
• Assessments and approaches to meeting standards
• Accountability steps to ensure progress toward meeting standards
• Other changes (including certified staff evaluations, school council changes, and Department of Education changes)

You can download the complete summary here or the full bill in its current edition here.

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.

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!

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.

Prichard Committee Statement on 2015 ACT Results

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

The ACT results released today by Kentucky Department of Education show positive trends for the 2015 graduating class overall, but raise concerns about whether African American, Hispanic, and American Indian students are receiving the full support they need and deserve.

The good news is that members of the 2015 class as a whole looked stronger than their 2014 peers. In English, mathematics and reading, more of them met Kentucky’s benchmarks for college readiness. Progress in mathematics was especially strong, with an increase of more than 4% in students who are ready for credit-bearing college work.

For some student groups, however, the results were clearly not strong enough. Students from different racial backgrounds still have quite different results. Looking at ACT composite scores, 2015 African American graduates did no better than their 2014 peers, and Hispanic graduates did slightly worse. American Indian students improved just slightly faster than white students and not at a pace to close the big gap between the two groups. All three groups have results showing them less ready for college success than their white and Asian classmates.

The Kentucky Board of Education has already added important new efforts to reduce novice performance in all subgroups, signaling that it is time for deeper, more sustained work to end these gaps. To support renewed and expanding work on increasing achievement and closing gaps, a Prichard Committee study group will be working through the fall to analyze data, policy and practice, with the aim to share recommendations at the beginning of 2016.

For Kentucky to flourish, we need for Kentucky students of every background to reach their potential and join in building a strong, shared future. While progress is evident overall, important student subgroups still lag behind, demonstrating the need for more concerted efforts to close these gaps rapidly. Our goal must be for all Kentucky students to graduate from high school truly ready for adult success.

ACT Readiness Moves Forward, But With Important Gaps

The Kentucky Department of Education released ACT results for 2015 public school graduates this afternoon, showing a sturdy trend for students overall but raising concerns about how well we're serving our African-American, Hispanic, and American Indian students.

First, here's the overall good news, with upward movement on the percent of students reaching all three of the college readiness benchmarks set by the Council on Postsecondary Education.

Second, here's a look at the trends for subgroups, this time showing composite scores (combining English, math, reading, and science) rather than percent meeting benchmarks. Highlighted, you can see that:

• African American students made no gains compared to last year
• Hispanic students lost one-tenth of a point
• American Indian students gained three-tenths of a point, growing a bit faster than students overall, with results still far behind their white classmates

Results for students with disabilities and students who receive free or reduced-price meals were not included in the press release but will be included in the 2014-15 school report cards now scheduled for release in early October.
.

Readiness Gaps: Important Work Ahead

While we can take pride in the work that has brought Kentucky to a 62.5% overall rate of demonstrated readiness for college and/or career for our 2014 high school graduates, we still have lots of work to do, both to raise the overall readiness rate and to close some major readiness gaps. Here comes a frank look at the basics of those gaps, in the form of two charts and some comments on each.

Here, the painfully low readiness rates for students with disabilities and with limited English proficiency are first to catch the eye, but the rates for students receiving free and reduced price meals are also bad news.

The gap group is pretty much identical to the free/reduced meal group, which is pretty much to be expected. Within the gap group, the free/reduced students hugely outnumber the other groups, including students with disabilities and limited English proficiency, along with African American, Hispanic, and American Indian or Native American students.

One more note: I've estimated the results for four advantaged groups: those without disabilities, without limited English proficiency, without free/reduced meal eligibility, and not included in the gap group. Most data for this post can be found in the state's school report card, but these better-served groups are not shown. Still, with a bit of multiplication and subtraction, it's possible to get quite close to what those results must be. They're marked with asterisks to show they did not come directly from the Department of Education.

Next, these are the 2014 rates by students' ethnic background.

White and Asian students are clearly being better prepared for adult success than the other student groups, showing another challenge we face if we want all students to reach the readiness they need.

A second, uncomfortable thing needs to be said out loud: the results for African-American students are lower than those for the free and reduced-price meals group, showing that something more than the challenge of family low-incomes has been going wrong for those students. There's something we're doing or leaving undone for those students, beyond the main economic challenge. That's a distinctive problem that we need to look at frankly and tackle with vigor.

More broadly, each of these gaps are about student possibilities not yet realized and adult contributions that may be lost as a result, weakening all our communities as well as their individual opportunities. Changing that pattern and ending those losses will be important work we must take on.

Kentucky's Tests Are Harder Now

A new National Center for Education Statistics study provides a sturdy basis for thinking about how our K-PREP assessments, launched in 2012, compare to the earlier Kentucky Core Content Tests.  The study worked out a 2013 NAEP scale score equivalent to scoring proficient on each state's 2013 reading and mathematics assessment, using NAEP's 0-500 scale.  The results for Kentucky are consistently higher than similar findings from 2009, providing a quick, helpful confirmation that Kentucky really is aiming higher.

Sources: 2013 and 2009 comparison studies here, with a hat tip to EdWeek's Curriculum Matters blog.

Readiness Trends (Added Detail!)

In recent years, Kentucky has expanded the evidence we use to show that Kentucky students are ready for college, career, or both, and this post shows some of the details of how that expansion has worked. First, a graph to show what's changed:

 Next, some background about the parts of the graph:

• For 2010, the graph shows the total percent of public high school graduates who met all three ACT readiness benchmarks (English, mathematics, and reading) set by the Council on Postsecondary Education. It combines the students who met those benchmarks while participating in the statewide required 11th grade administration of the test and those who retook the test and reached the benchmarks at a later date.

• Starting in 2011, students who reached the benchmarks on the 11th grade statewide administration are shown separately from those who reached the benchmarks later on.

• Starting in 2012, student success on Compass and KYOTE placement tests, used by universities and KCTCS to assign students to courses, can also be seen. More exactly, students who have not met all three ACT benchmarks can be counted as college ready based on scores from Compass, KYOTE, a combination of subject scores from both tests, or a combination of scores from those two tests and ACT.  

• Also starting in 2012, career ready students are included. For career readiness, students must reach required scores on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) or ACT WorkKeys to show academic readiness, and they must also meet needed scores on a Kentucky Occupational Skills Standards Assessment (KOSSA) or earn an industrial certificate to show technical readiness.

The newest results, adding up to 62% of 2014 graduates being counted as ready for college and career, provide the most complete information. The 2014 information includes data from all the assessments Kentucky recognizes as showing readiness. 2014 also reflects an culture in which schools encourage students to prepare for and take additional assessments, especially if their early ACT scores show that they need to improve.

In contrast, the 2010 results are clearly incomplete. The 30% shown as ready reflect only the ACT results. We know that some Kentucky students took each of the other assessments in those years, but their results are not included. Plus, schools had less incentive then to encourage students to try the other ways of demonstrating readiness, so some students may have been ready but not taken any test to make that easy to see.

And, of course, none of the results are superb indicators of the full results we really want for our students. The available assessments can't track students' capacity for sustained work, like using reading skills to research a problem and writing skills to explain a possible solution or taking on a real-world challenge and applying their mathematics skills to wrestle their way to a sound response. They also give very little indication of students' perseverance, teamwork, and other capacities that we know matter deeply for college and career success.

Still, the available information clearly shows Kentucky students as increasingly able to show their readiness as measured by the available assessments, and the same information makes it clear that we have plenty more work to do to make sure every student is equipped for adult success.

Source note: the graph above combines several slides from a December presentation given by the Office of Education Accountability.  See below for the way OEA displayed the same results.

.

Finding Solutions (New Prichard Report On Implementing Standards in Kentucky Classrooms)

Important news fresh from Tuesday's Prichard Committee press release:

A first-hand look at how Kentucky’s academic standards are spurring innovative teaching and learning in classrooms is the focus of a special report from the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.

“Finding Solutions: Standards Push Students Toward Real-Life Problems” features eighth-grade math teacher Christa Lemily’s approach to introducing her South Warren Middle School students to mathematical formulas by determining the value of investing in a classic car. Such connections between challenging math and real-world situations have grown as a result of Kentucky’s academic standards.

“The standards focus not just on repetition, but on understanding and applying mathematic reasoning,” Lemily said. “These standards help teachers focus on how students are taught to reason and think through math as much as they focus on the skills that students are taught. The goal is math thinkers, not just math do-ers.”

Teachers at Pembroke Elementary and Millbrooke Elementary, both in Christian County, also share their experiences with the standards. Pembroke teacher Jettie Payne said the standards are prompting her fifth-grade math students to gain a solid understanding of fractions and decimals.

She also said her classroom represents a change from the way she learned to teach. “I remember sitting in class thinking, ‘When will I ever use this?,’” she said, adding that her lessons now draw clear connections between math and everyday application.

Millbrooke’s Cindy Wyatt said the standards have prompted her to select more challenging books for her second graders, leading to more interesting reflections and conversations in reading groups and stronger vocabulary development.

Kentucky's academic standards are also the focus of a second Prichard Committee report released today on “Progress in Kentucky Education: Higher Standards, Assessments and Teaching." Together, the reports provide an overview of progress in Kentucky education and how that is reflected in both policy developments and classroom practices.  Both are available at www.prichardcommittee.org.

New Prichard Report: Progress in Kentucky Education: Higher Standards, Assessments and Teaching

And more important news from Tuesday's release:

LEXINGTON, KY –Kentucky’s academic standards are the focus of a new Prichard Committee report, which shares additional information about the state’s assessment and teacher evaluation systems.

“Progress in Kentucky Education: Higher Standards, Assessments and Teaching” describes the interconnected elements of the state’s education system:

• academic standards that establish what students should know and be able to do as they move from grade to grade toward graduation
• an assessment system that measures how well students and schools are meeting those standards
• a professional growth and effectiveness system to ensure that educators are able to improve their skills every year and equip students for steadily higher levels of performance

The report points out that higher academic standards are critical because Kentucky’s students face a future where jobs will require that they can adapt and learn new skills on a continuing basis; in other words, they must learn how to learn. Kentucky’s state standards help them do that, the report notes.

Making sure schools and students are on the right track is essential, and Kentucky’s statewide assessments provide evidence about the learning that is taking place in schools. The report notes that assessments are particularly important for spotting and addressing achievement gaps between groups of students – a continuing, significant challenge for Kentucky.

The report also emphasizes the relationship between effective teachers and student success, pointing up the need to give educators ongoing feedback and opportunities to develop stronger professional skills. Kentucky’s new Professional Growth and Effectiveness System looks closely at both the quality of what teachers do and the learning that takes place in the classroom.

The system identifies areas where each teacher is already effective and where improvement is needed, and it promises consistent support for making those improvements, the Prichard Committee report points out. It also sets clear criteria and quick timelines for ineffective educators to improve their practice or move out of the profession. A matching system is in place for principals, and similar approaches are being developed for counselors, librarians, instructional supervisors, and other professional education positions.

“It’s clear we are on the right track in Kentucky. Our students are performing at higher levels and teachers are meeting the standards by providing deeper learning opportunities in the classroom. Staying the course and working together will ensure continuous improvement for our students and for our state,” said Stu Silberman, executive director of the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.

“Progress in Kentucky Education” was released today along with a special Prichard Perspectives report on  implementing the standards in Kentucky classrooms: “Finding Solutions: Standards Push Students Toward Real-Life Problems.” Together, the reports provide an overview of progress in Kentucky education and how that is reflected in both policy developments and classroom practices.

Both reports are available at prichardcommittee.org.

Every Child Achieves Act?

In 1965, it was called  the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and in 2002, it was renewed with the major changes that made it the No Child Left Behind Act. 

Now the"Every Child Achieves Act of 2015" seems to have a shot at becoming law, renewing the ESEA and changing the NCLB requirements.  Last week, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) and Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash)  proposed a bipartisan approach.  Politics K-12 reports that amendments are due today for the committee markup that begins tomorrow.

If the current bill became law without changes, states would still be required to:

• set academic standards
• assess reading and math once per grade in grades 3-8 and once in high school
• assess science three times between grade 3 and grade 12.
• report assessment results broken out by student subgroups
• establish accountability rules that make use of those assessment results and graduation rates
• identify low-performing schools

However, if the current bill became law without changes, states would be able to:

• pilot innovative assessment systems in school districts
• use additional indicators of student and school performance in accountability calculations (Politics K-12's example of a possible addition is "percent of students taking AP tests")
• design accountability rules with considerably more flexibility, including an absence of federal requirements about how many schools to identify as low-performing.

In the nature of the legislative process, the current bill almost certainly will see changes, and it may end up never becoming law.  Still, after years and years of failed proposals for ESEA reauthorization, this bipartisan draft may have more potential than most.

Also in the nature of the legislative process, the current bill has many more parts, and I've settled for a few main issues.  You can read the committee summary here, the Politics K-12 summary here, or the full text of the bill here. 

--Posted by Susan Perkins Weston

Will AMOs Ever Be Bigger Than One Point?

Question
Will Kentucky schools ever have AMOs (annual measurable objectives) that ask them to improve by more than a single point per year?

Short Answer
Under Kentucky's current accountability system, AMOs greater than 1.0 are effectively impossible.

More Detailed Answer
It is mathematically possible for Kentucky AMOs to be bigger than 1.0, but scores would have to change so dramatically that it is simply not a meaningful possibility.

For example, if the top half of elementary schools all raised their scores by 10 points and the bottom half all dropped their scores by 5 points, that would allow AMOs of 1.1 points.

A change like that, with elementary scores changing radically in both directions so that the strong and weak are pulled much further apart, is hugely improbable. Effectively, it's impossible.

Middle and high schools would need even more improbable-to-impossible changes, with even bigger growth in the difference between the upper and lower results.

Technical Answer 
(To Avoid Statistical Details, Skip the Fine Print Below)
In Kentucky, our AMOs are based on standard deviations. A standard deviation is a way of saying how results spread out around the mean.  If results all clump together close to the mean, the standard deviation is small. If they spread out a lot, the standard deviation is large.

Under changes voted on by the Kentucky Board of Education earlier this month, future AMOs will ask most schools to improve their next-generation learner scores by one-third of a standard deviation in five years, meaning one-fifteenth of a standard deviation a year.

That formula means a standard deviation of 15.8 or higher will be needed to allow a 1.1 AMO.

A web-based standard deviation calculator allowed some experiments about what scores would yield that 15.8.

Entering the 2014 next-generation learner results for our 720 elementary schools yielded a 9.2 standard deviation.  One-fifteenth of that would be about 0.6. With a result like that, the new minimum AMO of 1.0 will apply.

A next step was adding 5 points to the top 365 scores, subtracting 5 points from the bottom 355, and entering those results in the calculator.  That change was not big enough to yield a 15.8 standard deviation. 

Moving each group 6 points did not work either.

10 up and 5 down worked.

10 up and 4 down did not, showing 10 and 5 to be one of the smallest elementary changes yielding 15.8 as the standard deviation and 1.1 as an AMO.

For middle and high schools, the 2014 standard deviations were smaller than at the elementary level, so it would take even bigger changes to get to a 15.8 standard deviation and a 1.1 AMO for most schools.

Why did the experiments try scenarios with some schools moving up and others down?  Because, again, standard deviations get larger when results get further apart. Bigger AMOs can only happen when the distance between the top and bottom results gets larger.  

Bottom Line
Under Kentucky's current accountability system, AMOs greater than 1.0 are effectively impossible.  The scale of change that would be required just isn't going to happen.

--Posted by Susan Perkins Weston