1. 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 2

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 3

4. 4

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 5

6. 1. College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students 2. State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support 3. Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership 6

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) 7

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) 8

9. 9

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 10

11. 11

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 12

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 13

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16

17.  Increasing Growth Student Growth Percentile Model AMO—Be within top half of distribution of all school growth medians 17

18. 18

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 19

20. 20

21.  Reducing the Non-Proficient Performance Level Percentages AMO—Reduce the percentage of non- proficient students by half in annual increments spanning 6 years 21

22. 22 Proficient Proficient Non- Proficient Now2017

23. Student Group Reading AMOMath AMO All Students 1.071.32 Free &Reduced Lunch Status 1.661.96 Students with Disabilities 2.202.64 English Language Learners 2.502.30 Hispanics 1.872.00 African Americans 1.982.53 American Indians 1.722.01 Asian & Pacific Islanders 1.100.98 Multi-Racial 1.311.71 White 0.921.16 23

24.  Participation Rates State reading and math assessments Follow same rules as did with AYP AMO—95% 24

25.  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

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 26

27.  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

28. 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

29. 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 non- academic factors that impact student achievement 7. Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement 29

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 30

31.  Title I NOT MAKING PROGRESS SCHOOLS Missed all assessment AMOs Develop action plan to address identified needs including needs of specific subgroups 31

32. 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

33.  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

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 34

35.  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

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 36

37.  Develop web-based tools for new accountability system and reports  Convene Teaching in Kansas Commission II  Continue piloting KEEP 37

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 38

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) 39