1. Kansas ESEA Flexibility Waiver Overview
September 4, 2012

2. Why Was ESEA Waiver Available?
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 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
ESEA was due to be reauthorized in 2007
Given a lack of action in Congress, the administration announced in Sept the ability for states to apply for waivers from some NCLB provisions

3. Why Kansas Sought a Waiver
To move away from the narrowly defined accountability system in NCLB
To develop new accountability system using multiple measures and goals unique to each school/district
To gain a more meaningful measure of the success and progress of Kansas schools
Already doing many of the parts of the waiver
For too long, schools that had made tremendous gains in achievement were being labeled as failing simply because they had not met a prescribed target. Kansas wanted to define an accountability system that would set goals and measurements appropriate to each school’s unique circumstance and recognize and give credit to schools that were fostering strong improvements in student achievement.

4. What Changes in New System?
No more AYP beginning with 2013 assessments
No more 100% proficient by 2014
No more Title I schools or districts on improvement
No more sanctions for Title I schools - choice or supplemental educational services (SES—after school tutoring), etc.
The state’s final AYP determinations will be made for the school year and will be released on report cards issued in Sept
With the elimination of AYP, there is no longer a requirement to reach 100% proficiency in reading and math by 2014
Under the new accountability plan, we will no longer be identifying Title I schools or districts as being on improvement, which means there will no longer be a requirement for those schools to provide choice or supplemental educational services.

5. Principles of the Waiver
College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students
State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support
Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership
As part of the waiver application, the state had to address these three principles.

6. Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students
Implement KS Common Core Standards (College & Career Ready) in English/language arts and mathematics by
Implement new high quality assessments aligned with CCS in
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
Assessments in grades 3-8 and HS
Much of the work to address Principle 1 of the waiver application was already underway in Kansas.
The Kansas State Board of Education adopted the Kansas Common Core Standards in Oct. 2010, establishing college and career ready expectations in those content areas. The state had already become a governing state in the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium, working to develop assessments aligned to the Common Core Standards.

7. Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students
Adopt English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards aligned to CCS by
Administer new ELP assessments aligned to new ELP standards by (revise or replace the KELPA)
The state is working to develop and adopt new ELP standards aligned to the Common Core, and to develop and implement revised or new assessments aligned to those standards by

8. Principle 2: Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support
Still use state assessments for reading and math
Look at data in four ways
Improving achievement
Increasing growth
Decreasing gap
Reducing non-proficient
Participation rates on state assessments
Graduation rates
Much of the work in developing the state’s waiver application was in Principle 2, where we needed to define how schools, districts and the state would be held accountable for improving student achievement. The waiver required that the focus remain on reading and math results, but we were able to design a system that allowed us to look at the data in multiple ways so we could get a better picture of how the school was actually performing. Participation rates and graduation rates remain a part of the accountability system and will be measured in the same manner as in the previous system.

9. This is an example of what a building report might look like in the new accountability system. The graphic elements depict progress toward the AMOs, which are based on the all-student population, while the charts to the right report information for subgroups. We won’t be reporting based on the new accountability system until 2013, so we continue to work on what that reporting system might look like.

10. Principle 2 Accountability—AMOs
Each performance area has its own annual measurable objective (AMO)
AMOs calculated for schools, districts and state
AMOs unique to each school/district
All students, traditional subgroups, and lowest 30% group (if 30 students in group)
If meet 1 assessment AMO in each content area, plus participation rate, considered to be making progress (Title I)
If miss all 4 assessment AMOs, or participation rate AMO, not making progress (Title I)
There are 6 annual measurable objectives (AMOs) in the accountability system; four that relate to state assessments. Unlike the previous accountability system, where every school in the state had to hit the same target, the new accountability system establishes unique AMOs for each school and district. The four assessment AMOs are all based on showing improvement. The amount of improvement that needs to be made each year will vary from school to school. Schools that already have high levels of performance will have a goal based on a smaller percentage of improvement as compared to schools that may not be performing as well.
AMOs will be determined for the all-student population and for subgroups, and we’re adding an additional subgroup that represents the lowest performing 30% of students in the school or district. This new subgroup will be used with the gap measure.
In order to show that they’re making progress, schools will have to meet just one of the four AMOs for each content area (reading and math), as well as the participation rate AMO.

11. Achievement AMO Assessment Performance Index - API
Acknowledges results at all performance levels
AMO—Amount of Improvement based on what quartile school is in
The AMO related to achievement relies on the API – Assessment Performance Index. The API assigns a specific point value for each student performing in one of the five performance levels, granting a higher point value for students in higher performance levels. In this way, we’re able to look at performance across all of the levels and recognize when students are being moved out of lower levels and into higher levels. In that way, the index works in a similar fashion to our current Standard of Excellence calculation.

12. Calculating API
In this example of an API calculation, you can see how credit is given in increasing amounts as students are moved from one performance level to the next. In the previous system, schools were only given credit for getting students above the red line. There was no credit given based on how far above the red line they moved students, and no credit for upward movement that occurred below the red line.

13. This is an example of what performance looked like for one school under the old AYP system of accountability. While the school showed high performance, it wasn’t necessarily reflecting any improvement in performance.

14. This is what performance looks like for the same school using the API in the new accountability system. Because the API looks at improvement in all five performance levels, you can see that the school was effecting improvements in student performance, helping them move from lower performance levels into higher performance levels.

15. Growth AMO Student Growth Percentile Model
Develops predicted level of growth for each student based on performance trends of similar students
AMO—Be within top half of distribution of all school growth medians
The growth AMO will be based on the Student Growth Percentile Model. The model looks at performance over time for like groups of students and determines an expected level of growth for each student. The AMO is based on the percentage of students performing as expected.

16. Growth AMO
This is a frequency distribution of buildings’ median growth (SGP). Schools to the right of the red line will have met the growth AMO.

17. Decreasing Gap AMO Assessment Performance Index
Compare lowest 30% of students within building to state benchmark (highest 30% in state)
AMO—Reduce the base level gap by half in annual increments spanning 6 years
The gap AMO also uses the API in determining the performance of the top 30% of buildings in the state based on assessment performance. That calculation becomes the state benchmark. A building’s gap score is determined based on the difference between the performance of the lowest performing 30% of students in the building and the state benchmark. The goal is to decrease the gap by 50% over six years, but the AMO is the amount of decrease needed each year for the next six years to meet the 50% reduction. Ex: if the school must decrease the gap by 18% over the next 6 years to meet the goal of a 50% reduction, then the AMO is a 3% reduction.

18. Gap Reduction
This slide provides a graphic illustration of the gap measurement.

19. Reducing the Non-Proficient AMO
Performance level percentages
AMO—Reduce the base percentage of non-proficient students by half in annual increments spanning 6 years
This AMO looks only at the percentage of students who are not proficient in reading and math. The goal is to decrease that percentage in half within six years. The AMO is the percentage decrease needed each year in order to achieve the 50% reduction in the sixth year.

20. Reducing the Non-Proficient
This slide provides a graphic illustration of what this AMO would look like.
Proficient
Proficient
Now
2017

21. Example: Amount of Yearly Reduction of Non-Proficient for State-Level AMO
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
This AMO applies to the all-student group as well as the student subgroups. Therefore, goals will be established for each subgroup, and the progress of each subgroup will be measured.

22. Other AMOs Participation Rates State reading and math assessments
Follow same rules as did with AYP
AMO—95%
Under the new accountability plan, participation rates on state reading and math assessments are retained as accountability objectives. The measures surrounding them do not change.

23. 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
Graduation rates are also retained as an accountability objective in the new plan. The measures for graduation rate remain the same as in the old system. The graduation AMO considers the All Students group and appropriate student subgroups., i.e. Hispanic.

24. Principle 2 Recognition & Support
Identify Title I REWARD Schools
Highest performing or highest progress using API
Based on “All Students” group
Approximately 10% or 66 Title schools
Provide recognition and, when available, rewards
New list each year
The new accountability plan provides a mechanism for recognizing high-performing Title I schools. These Reward Schools will be identified based on high performance or high progress among the all-students group as measured by the Assessment Performance Index, using four years of reading and math assessment data. Ten percent of Title I schools will be identified as Reward Schools and will receive recognition. Rewards will be provided to these schools as funding is available.

25. 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
No new schools added to list for three years
We will no longer be identifying Title I schools on improvement, however, we will identify Title I priority and focus schools. Priority schools are the lowest achieving Title I schools based on their all-students API score. The determination is made using the most recent four years of assessment data for reading and math combined. We must identify five percent of Title I schools as priority schools. These schools will receive support from KSDE through the Kansas Learning Network and the Technical Assistance Support Network to implement interventions aligned with the turnaround principles. The list is good for three years; while schools may be removed the list prior to the end of the three-year period, no new schools will be added to the list during that time.

26. Turnaround Principles
Provide strong leadership—replace current principal OR demonstrate principal has track record of improving achievement & leading turnaround effort
Ensure teachers are effective—retain effective teachers, prevent ineffective teachers from transferring to school, provide job-embedded professional development
Redesign school day, week or year to increase time for student learning
This slide and the next outline the turnaround principles.

27. Turnaround Principles
Strengthen school’s instructional program
Use data to inform instruction and for continuous improvement
Establish environment that improves school safety and discipline and addresses non-academic factors that impact student achievement
Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement

28. Principle 2 Recognition & Support
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
No new schools added for three years
We will also identify Focus Schools. Focus schools will be named based on their gap scores. The 10% of Title I schools with the largest gap among the all-students population will be identified as Focus Schools. The gap determination will be made using two years of assessment data in reading and math. These schools will also be provided assistance in implementing interventions. Schools that are identified as Priority Schools will not also be identified as Focus Schools. Like the Priority Schools, the Focus School list is good for three years, with schools able to come off of the list, but no new schools being added during that time.

29. Principle 2 Recognition & Support
Title I NOT MAKING PROGRESS SCHOOLS
Missed all assessment AMOs OR
Missed participation rate AMO
Develop action plan to address identified needs including needs of specific subgroups
Title I schools that do not meet any of the four assessment AMOs, or missed the participation rate AMO, will be considered “not making progress.” It is possible that a school could be making progress in reading, but not be making progress in math, or vice versa. Schools not making progress will need to develop and submit an action plan to address student needs in order to improve performance.

30. Principle 3 Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership
Implement teacher & principal evaluation & support systems that:
Are used for continual improvement of instruction
Use at least 3 performance levels
Use multiple measures including student growth as significant factor
Are used to evaluate on a regular basis
Provide clear, timely, and useful feedback
Are used to inform personnel decisions
The third principle that had to be addressed in the waiver application was around supporting effective instruction and leadership and focused primarily on teacher and principal evaluations. The waiver requirements related to this principle are outlined on this slide.

31. 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
Kansas is not mandating a specific evaluation system for all districts, however we are requiring that all evaluation systems meet the state’s educator evaluation guidelines.
Through a collaborative effort with a variety of stakeholders, KSDE developed a model evaluation system known as the Kansas Educator Evaluation Protocol, or KEEP, and began piloting the system during the school year. Districts may choose to use KEEP as their evaluation system, but they are not required to. If they choose to use a different system, it will need to be reviewed by KSDE to ensure it is in compliance with the state guidelines.

32. Principle 3 Timeline
— Kansas guidelines submitted for ED Peer Review
By end of 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 three is an area in which our work is not yet complete, but we do have a plan for achieving the objectives of this principle. The waiver criteria stipulates that student growth must be a significant factor in educator evaluations. In Kansas, we are appointing a commission to make recommendations on the best method for integrating student growth in educator evaluation systems, including KEEP. Those recommendations will be presented to the State Board of Education, which will make the final decision. That work is set to be complete by the end of the school year.

33. Timeline (cont’d) 2012-13— 2013-14—Pilot 2014-15—Fully implement
Districts determine whether use KEEP or own system; submit own system for review
Teaching in Kansas Commission II
Pilot KEEP
—Pilot
—Fully implement
In the school year, we will continue the pilot of KEEP. The Teaching in Kansas Commission will meet and by the end of that school year we will know what the state guidelines for educator evaluations are. At that time, districts will need to decide which evaluation system they will use. If they decide to use a system other than KEEP, they will need to submit it to KSDE for review.
An additional pilot of KEEP, which will include the integration of student growth measures, will take place in the school year. By , KEEP will be fully implemented, and those districts using a different evaluation system will need to have their system fully implemented, as well.

34. Next Steps Inform the field
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
We expect to have the list of priority and focus schools finalized in early August. The first ITVs for the field will also take place in early August, and we’ll continue to find opportunities to share information about the waiver and the new accountability system throughout the year.

35. Waiver Helps with Transition
Focus on common core standards
Develop and implement next generation of state assessments
Design a new accreditation system
Prepare for a future reauthorized ESEA
It’s important to keep in mind that the waiver is not the end-game in terms of school accountability. That will come with the reauthorization of ESEA. The waiver allows us to be better positioned for the transition once ESEA is reauthorized. It allows us to focus on our implementation of the Kansas Common Core Standards and the development of our new assessments aligned to those standards. It also helps us as we design a new system of accreditation for our state.

36. Other Information
accountability information to be released in September
Assessment information, AYP determinations
Sept. 18 State Board of Education meeting
Release date for accountability information to be determined—probably fall 2013