March 12, 2010

Common Core Standards  K-12  Feedback by April 2, 2010, and finalized early spring.  Professional Development

Senate Bill 1 (r.s. 2009) and Revised Content Standards The revised content standards must meet the following requirements set forth in SB1: – Focus on critical knowledge, skills, and capacities needed for success in the global economy; – Results in fewer, but more in-depth standards to facilitate mastery learning; – Communicate expectations more clearly and concisely to teachers, parents, students, and citizens; – Be based on evidence-based research; – Consider international benchmarks; and – Ensure that the standards are aligned from elementary to high school to post secondary education so that students can be successful at each educational level.

Common Core Standards Initiative CCSSO & NGA Common Core Standards Initiative – English/Language Arts and Mathematics College Readiness and Grade-by-Grade Progressions Work teams convened to provide input on standards (K-12 educators, Faculty, business & industry) Revision of Science, Social Studies, Arts & Humanities, Practical Living/Career Studies Dissemination of Standards to all stakeholders

Transforming Teaching and Learning at the Classroom Level Emphasis on the Characteristics of Highly Effective Teaching and Learning Design curricular materials and which align to the new standards Deconstruction process of the new standards Clear understanding and implementation of a balanced assessment system Time to reflect on practice and engage in conversations about instruction and practice Ensure appropriate collaborations are in place to provide the necessary supports/interventions for students

Professional Development and Support Regional model Collaborate with the educational cooperatives, special education and universities Engage in the dissemination with targeted audiences at the local level Network design Networks will be guiding district leadership teams through the process of unpacking the standards District leadership teams facilitate this process with local school leadership teams/professional learning communities One goal is for the content and examples of work from these networks to be used to populate the continuous instructional software tool

Continuous Instructional Improvement Technology System (CIITS) Instructional Improvement System Utilizing Technology and Software Tools Co-Developed by P-12 Teachers, Post-Secondary Faculty, Researchers

Race To The Top  Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;  Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;  Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and  Turning around our lowest-achieving schools.

House Bill 176  Defines “Persistently Lowest Performing Schools” and describes how the Kentucky Department of Education is going to intervene.  Leadership Assessment  Each persistently low achieving school shall engage in one of the following intervention options: External management option Restaffing option School Closure Option Transformation Option

Current Topics  Seclusion and Restraint Legislation CASE Publication “Lucky 21” Behavior Homepage CCBD Whitepaper  SLD Workgroup KSI (a.k.a. RtI) Guidance will be disseminated

Legislation to Watch  HB 109 RtI  HB 301 Graduation Bill  SB 67 Early Graduation  SB 163 Adolescent Literacy

Senate Bill 1  Interim Accountability Regulation

Interim Accountability Regulation

Elementary and Secondary Education Act  State Improvement Grant (SIG)  Tier Process  Reauthorization RtI

General Supervision  Desk Audit and Onsite Monitoring Visits Intervention and on-going progress monitoring prior to referral Alignment of Due Process components Present level of performance OHI/ADHD Goals and Objectives Participation in alternate assessment without meeting the eligibility

Eligibility ○ General lack of knowledge ○ Multiple Disabilities ○ Missing Required Evaluation Components ○ “Fishing for Eligibility” ○ Pattern of no evaluation beyond the intitial evaluation ○ SLD with regular assessment on nondiploma track???