1. Joshua E. Powell Patricia Sheffer

2. Rationale for Improvement Index20082009* District161/17587/175 High School165/175115/175 Middle School145/17599/175 Elementary School147/17565/175 * 2009 scores were entered AFTER the presentation was made at the KASC Conference due to the data still being embargoed at the time of the presentation

3. Individual Rankings  Rankings unite community  Understand data: rankings vs. generational improvement (NCLB)  District ranked 161 out of 175  High School ranked 185 out of 201  Middle School ranked 166 out of 216  Morganfield Elem. ranked 671 out of 713  Sturgis Elem. ranked 373 out of 713  Uniontown Elem. ranked 247 out of 713

4. The Blessing of Deprivation  The ability to build a strong foundation  Do not have to negotiate with terrorists  Everybody has to drink the COOL-AID  Sense of urgency  Viewing proficiency as a minimum requirement  Brief window of opportunity to do what is right

5. Initiatives  Creation of Department of Student Achievement  Passing of Formative Assessment Initiative  Paradigm shift Student-centered vs. adult centered  Empowerment of the best and brightest  Accountability: data drives decisions

6. Establishing a Foundation  Promotion: talent/ability vs. experience Right people in key spots  Take advantage of the honeymoon— Board and community relations  Winning the first battle will lead to winning the war  Establish relationships with best and brightest organizations with proven success

7. Why KASC?  Proven track record  100% student achievement driven  Not politically motivated  Personal characteristics of individual members  Mindset—high expectations  Ownership of Kentucky and each individual district  Belief that Kentucky should be the best

8. Partnering with KASC  Established foundation--trained key players  Existing respect and rapport with teachers  Thoroughbred philosophy  Avoidance of groupthink  Assertive confrontational model Brutal honesty Constructive feedback

9. Formative Assessment  Weekly ongoing formative assessment model  Linking performance to evaluation  Data makes decisions  Lead to growth and improvement but accept no excuses  Urgency Critical developmental periods for children

10. Formative Assessment  Protocol Weekly KCCT-like assessments Immediate analysis of data Plan for improvement (teacher and student) District Benchmark assessments  Principal walkthroughs  Instructional walkthroughs  Data presented to Civic Organizations IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING DATA

11. Formative Assessment  Formative Assessments “for” learning  Summative Assessments “of” learning  People don’t perform because of what’s expected, they perform because of what’s inspected  The importance of follow-through  Curriculum specialists: critical component High expectations The Navy SEALS of curriculum and instruction

12. Formative Assessment Validity 2008 KCCT Feb. 09 Formative Assessment Predicted Gain Actual 2009 KCCT Gain Arts & Humanities 71.887.515.784.112.3 Practical Living 84.197.813.7101.317.2

13. What does Formative Assessment look like?  Curriculum specialists and teachers model structure of KCCT-like assessment  Analyze student responses/conference with individual student Builds student confidence and motivation Guides future instruction Monitor progress toward academic goals  Assessment is instruction

14. Carnegie Math: UCMS Grade Percent Proficient and Distinguished Grade2008Jan. Formative (pre-Carnegie) 2009 (1 Semester with Carnegie) 6th30%46%? 7th47% ? 8th46%19%? Overall41%37%? Index7271?

15. Success?  Anticipate that we will make extraordinary gains at every level  Anticipate that the accuracy of our Formative Assessment will be great  Anticipate that rankings will dramatically improve at every level *The aforementioned anticipations are based on Formative Assessment analysis

16. Why all the fuss?  Kentucky is 34 th  Accountability system is at a standstill  Opportunity New commissioner Partnership of KASC, Prichard Committee, and Council for Better Education  Our children