KansasESEA Flexibility Waiver

Overview

July, 2012

2

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

Why Was ESEA Waiver Available?

3

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

Why Kansas Sought a Waiver?

New AYP Goals: Mathematics

100

95.6

91.186.7

82.377.8

73.4

66.8

60.160.1

53.546.846.8

100.0

94.1

88.2

82.376.4

70.5

64.6

55.7

46.846.8

38.0

29.129.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

K-8 math 9-12 math

5

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

It’s approved; what does it mean?

6

1. College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students

2. State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support

3. Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership

KS Agreed to Principles

7

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)

Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All

Students

8

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)

Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All

Students

10

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

Principle 2: Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support

12

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

Principle 2 Accountability—AMOs

13

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

Accountability-AMO #1

Calculating API

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-201140

50

60

70

80

90

100

90.9

92.7 93.5 93.6

% Proficient—Old System (AYP)

% Proficient

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011715

720

725

730

735

740

745

750

727

729

744

748

Assessment Performance Index (API)

API

17

Increasing Growth• Student Growth Percentile Model

• AMO—Be within top half of distribution of all school growth medians

Accountability—AMO #2

Growth AMO

19

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

Accountability—AMO #3

Gap Reduction

21

Reducing the Non-Proficient• Performance Level Percentages

• AMO—Reduce the percentage of non-proficient students by half in annual increments spanning 6 years

Accountability –AMO #4

Reducing the Non-Proficient

Proficient

Proficient

Non-Proficien

t

Non-Proficien

t

Now 2017

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

Example: Amount of Yearly Reduction of Non-Proficient for State-Level AMO

24

Participation Rates• State reading and math assessments• Follow same rules as did with AYP• AMO—95%

Other AMOs

25

Other AMOs

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

26

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

Principle 2 Recognition & Support

27

Principle 2 Recognition & Support

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

28

Turnaround Principles

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

29

Turnaround Principles

4. Strengthen school’s instructional program5. Use data to inform instruction and for

continuous improvement6. Establish environment that improves

school safety and discipline and addresses non-academic factors that impact student achievement

7. Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement

30

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

Principle 2 Recognition & Support

31

Principle 2 Recognition & Support

Title I NOT MAKING PROGRESS SCHOOLS• Missed all assessment AMOs• Develop action plan to address

identified needs including needs of specific subgroups

32

Principle 3 Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership

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

33

Which Evaluation System?

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

34

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

Principle 3 Timeline

35

Timeline (cont’t)

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

36

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•

Next Steps

37

Develop web-based tools for new accountability system and reports

Convene Teaching in Kansas Commission II

Continue piloting KEEP

Next Steps

38

Focus on common core standards

Develop and implement next generation of state assessments

Design a new accreditation system

Prepare for a future reauthorized ESEA

Waiver Helps with Transition

39

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)

Quality Performance Accreditation (QPA)