July, 2012
 Congress hasn’t reauthorized Elementary &
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently
known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
 U.S. Department of Education (ED) offered
states opportunity for relief from certain
provisions of ESEA
 In order to improve academic achievement and
increase the quality of instruction for all students
through state and local reforms
2
 To move away from the narrowly defined
accountability system in NCLB
 To have a new accountability system that uses
multiple measures with goals that are unique to
each school/district
 To have results which are more meaningful
measures of the success and progress of Kansas
schools
 KS is already doing many of the parts, i.e.
common core standards
3
New AYP Goals: Mathematics
K-8 math
9-12 math
100.0
95.6
100
86.7
90
77.8
88.2
73.4
82.3
66.8
70
60.1
60
76.4
60.1
70.5
64.6
53.5
46.8
100
94.1
82.3
80
50
91.1
46.8
55.7
40
46.8
46.8
2005
2006
38.0
30
29.1
29.1
2002
2003
20
10
0
2004
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
4
 No more AYP beginning with 2013 assessments
 No more 100% proficient by 2014
 No more Title I schools or districts on
improvement
 No more required Title I school choice or
supplemental educational services (SES—after
school tutoring)
 No more Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT)
Improvement Plans
5
1. College- and Career-Ready Expectations for
All Students
2. State-Developed Differentiated Recognition,
Accountability, and Support
3. Supporting Effective Instruction and
Leadership
6
 Implement KS Common Core Standards
(College & Career Ready) in reading/language
arts and mathematics by 2013-2014
 Implement new high quality assessments
aligned with CCS in 2014-2015
• Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
• Assessments in grades 3-8 and HS
• Regular & alternate assessments (no KAMM)
7
 Adopt English Language Proficiency (ELP)
standards aligned to CCS by 2013-2014
 Administer new ELP assessments aligned to
new ELP standards by 2014-2015 (revise or
replace the KELPA)
8
9
 Accountability
• Four ways of looking at state reading and math
assessment results
• Improving achievement
• Increasing growth
• Decreasing gap
• Reducing non-proficient
• Participation rates on state assessments
• Graduation rates
10
11
 Four ways to calculate state assessment results
 Each has own annual measurable objective
(AMO)
 AMOs calculated for schools, districts and state
 All students, traditional subgroups, and lowest
30% group (if 30 students in group)
 If meet 1 of AMOs, considered to be making
progress
 If miss all 4 AMOs, not making progress—
submit a plan to KSDE
12
 Improving Achievement
• Assessment Performance Index—API
• Similar to Standard of Excellence—
acknowledge results at all performance
levels
• AMO—Amount of Improvement based on
what quartile school is in
13
14
% Proficient—Old System (AYP)
100
90
92.7
93.5
93.6
90.9
80
70
% Proficient
60
50
40
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
15
Assessment Performance Index (API)
750
748
745
744
740
735
API
730
729
725
727
720
715
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
16
 Increasing Growth
• Student Growth Percentile Model
• AMO—Be within top half of distribution of all
school growth medians
17
18
 Decreasing Gap
• Assessment Performance Index—compare
lowest 30% of students within building to
state benchmark (highest 30% in state)
• AMO—Reduce the gap by half in annual
increments spanning 6 years
19
20
 Reducing the Non-Proficient
• Performance Level Percentages
• AMO—Reduce the percentage of non-
proficient students by half in annual
increments spanning 6 years
21
NonProficient
NonProficient
Proficient
Proficient
Now
2017
22
Student Group
Reading AMO
Math AMO
All Students
1.07
1.32
Free &Reduced Lunch Status
1.66
1.96
Students with Disabilities
2.20
2.64
English Language Learners
2.50
2.30
Hispanics
1.87
2.00
African Americans
1.98
2.53
American Indians
1.72
2.01
Asian & Pacific Islanders
1.10
0.98
Multi-Racial
1.31
1.71
White
0.92
1.16
23
 Participation Rates
• State reading and math assessments
• Follow same rules as did with AYP
• AMO—95%
24
 Graduation Rate
• 4-year and 5-year adjusted cohort graduation rates
• Follow same rules as did last two years
• AMO—Goal 80% and Targets are
• If rate is 80% or higher, target is 0
• If rate is between 50-79%, target is 3%
improvement
• If rate is less than 50%, target is 5% improvement
• If goal or target is met for 4-year adjusted cohort
rate, made AMO
• If goal or target is not met, use five-year adjusted
cohort rate
25
 Identify Title I REWARD Schools
• Highest performing and highest progress
using API
• Based on “All Students” group
• Approximately 10% or 66 Title schools
• Provide recognition and when available,
rewards
26
 Identify Title I PRIORITY Schools
• Lowest achieving Title I schools using API
• Based on “All Students” group
• 4 years of reading & math data combined
• 5% or 33 schools
• Implement interventions aligned with
turnaround principles
• Provide supports and assistance, i.e.
KLN,TASN
27
1. Provide strong leadership—replace current
principal OR demonstrate principal has track
record improving achievement & leading
turnaround effort
2. Ensure teachers are effective—retain effective
teachers, prevent ineffective teachers from
transferring to school, provide job-embedded
professional development
3. Redesign school day, week or year to increase
time for student learning
28
4. Strengthen school’s instructional program
5. Use data to inform instruction and for
continuous improvement
6. Establish environment that improves school
safety and discipline and addresses nonacademic factors that impact student
achievement
7. Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and
community engagement
29
 Identify Title I FOCUS Schools
• Largest gap when comparing lowest 30%
against state benchmarks
• Based on “All Students” group
•
•
•
•
Based on 2 years of assessment data
10% or 66 schools identified
Implement interventions
Provide supports and assistance,
i.e. KLN, TASN
30
 Title I NOT MAKING PROGRESS SCHOOLS
• Missed all assessment AMOs
• Develop action plan to address identified
needs including needs of specific subgroups
31
Implement teacher & principal evaluation &
support systems that:
 Use for continual improvement of instruction
 Use at least 3 performance levels
 Use multiple measures including student
growth as significant factor
 Evaluate on a regular basis
 Provide clear, timely, and useful feedback
 Use to inform personnel decisions
32
 No specific system is required; however, all
teacher and principal evaluation systems must
meet the Kansas guidelines for educator
evaluation
 Kansas Educator Evaluation Protocol (KEEP) is a
model which districts may use
 If districts use own system, it will be reviewed
by KSDE to ensure it meets guidelines
33
 2011-12— Kansas guidelines submitted for ED
Peer Review
• By end of 2012-2013 define student growth & how
used as significant factor in educator evaluations
• State assessments
• Other measures to be determined
• Teaching in Kansas Commission II
• Makes recommendations on student growth as
significant factor in educator evaluations
• State Board makes final decision
34
 2012-13—
• Districts determine whether use KEEP or own
system; submit own system for review
• Teaching in Kansas Commission II
• Pilot KEEP
 2013-14—Pilot
 2014-15—Fully implement
35
 Inform the field
• Notify priority & focus schools as soon as list
is final
• Schedule numerous webinars, ITV sessions,
presentations throughout state
• Work with various stakeholder groups to
ensure understanding
• Develop and post documents including fact
sheets, power points, Q & A
•
36
 Develop web-based tools for new accountability
system and reports
 Convene Teaching in Kansas Commission II
 Continue piloting KEEP
37
 Focus on common core standards
 Develop and implement next generation of state
assessments
 Design a new accreditation system
 Prepare for a future reauthorized ESEA
38
 Affect of waiver on 2013 QPA still under
development
 2012 was last “AYP” for QPA
 2013 possibly use new annual measurable
objectives (AMOs) to measure student
performance (“P” in QPA)
39