Kansas ESEA Flexibility Waiver Overview

1. Kansas ESEA Flexibility WaiverOverview 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

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

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.

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

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 2013-2014 • Implement new high quality assessments aligned with CCS in 2014-2015 • Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium • Assessments in grades 3-8 and HS

7. Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students • 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. Principle 2: Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support • Accountability • 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

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)

11. Achievement AMO • Assessment Performance Index - API • Acknowledges results at all performance levels • AMO—Amount of Improvement based on what quartile school is in

12. Calculating API

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

16. 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

18. Gap Reduction

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

20. Reducing the Non-Proficient Non-Proficient Non-Proficient Proficient Proficient Now 2017

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

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

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

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

25. Principle 2 Recognition & Support • Identify Title I PRIORITYSchools • 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

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

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 FOCUSSchools • 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

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

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

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

32. Principle 3 Timeline • 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

33. Timeline (cont’d) • 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

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 • http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=5075

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

36. Other Information • 2011-2012 accountability information to be released in September • Assessment information, AYP determinations • Sept. 18 State Board of Education meeting • Release date for 2012-2013 accountability information to be determined—probably fall 2013