What state testing tells us

There has been a lot of controversy over state testing in the last year. 

Fortunately, Kentucky has not seen much of this controversy thanks to the leadership of our General Assembly. In 2009, the Kentucky General Assembly passed Senate Bill 1 which required Kentucky to develop college- and career-ready standards, assessments based on these more rigorous standards and an accountability system aligned to both the standards and assessments. 

What has happened in other states?

While most other states adopted college- and career-ready standards in 2010-11 time frame, the adoption of the standards was voluntary. Major push back on college- and career-ready standards occurred after President Obama and Education Secretary Duncan supported adoption and implementation of the standards through the Race to the Top grants and No Child Left Behind Waivers. 

Most states moved slowly to implement the standards and relied on the Race to the Top (RTTT) assessment consortia – the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or Smarter Balanced – to develop new assessments. The first administration of these consortia-developed state assessments took place during the 2014-15 school year, and only now states are beginning to report the results.

Major push back on the state assessments happened within the last 12 months primarily due to opposition to the college- and career-ready standards; opposition from teachers who were concerned about being evaluated based on student test scores (a Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind waiver requirement); and opposition from parent organizations who were concerned about over testing of students and narrowing of curriculum due to an emphasis on tested subjects.

At one time, almost 40 states belonged to one or more of the assessment consortia. Very early in 2010, Kentucky belong to both. However, it became apparent to us that the consortia would not be able to provide an assessment that met our budget or timeline. 

Kentucky worked with classroom teachers and assessment experts to develop a Kentucky-specific assessment that was aligned from 3-8 through high school with the college-readiness expectations based on the ACT. Kentucky parents and teachers are able to determine as early as 3rd grade if a student is on track to reach the ACT college-readiness benchmark in the 11th grade. Since the ACT is a state-required assessment and is widely recognized by parents and colleges, this alignment seems to have given Kentucky an advantage with helping parents understand the importance of annual testing.

As I reflect on events since Senate Bill 1 in 2009, the key reasons that Kentucky has successfully navigated the rough political waters that have sunk other states are:
     1) General Assembly support and action on a comprehensive college- and career-ready agenda
     2) Overwhelming support and buy in from educators and parents for the college- and career-ready agenda.

Moving forward, I believe that we will continue to see other states struggle with state assessments. 

I predict the RTTT assessment consortia will have difficulty providing an assessment of college- and career-readiness that is comparable to accepted measures such as ACT. The consortia also will struggle to provide an assessment that is cost effective for states. Due to the political environment, we will continue to see more states drop out of the assessment consortia (currently the majority of states do not belong to an assessment consortium).

I am very proud of the leadership of the General Assembly and the work of Kentucky educators to make a smooth transition to a college- and career-ready agenda. I predict that the Kentucky economy will continue to improve due to the education focus on college- and career-readiness. 

Just this week, I reviewed data for the Class of 2013 that revealed students who graduated from high school, met the Kentucky college-readiness benchmarks and attend postsecondary out performed students who were not college ready. According to the data, in their first year of postsecondary, college-ready students 
     • have a much higher GPA (2.6 vs 1.7)
     • complete nearly double the number of college credit hours (21.9 vs 11.1) and 
     • return for a second year of postsecondary at a higher rate (85 percent versus 65 percent) 

This is great validation that our assessments and college-readiness benchmarks are strong predictors of postsecondary success.

The nature of education

Kentucky has been featured in numerous state and national media sources recently for the improved performance in college- and career-readiness rates and graduation rates. As commissioner, I have been very proud of the efforts of teachers, administrators, students, and education partners in implementing Senate Bill 1 (2009) which required more rigorous standards, assessments, accountability model and professional development for teachers.

While there has been a lot of good news recently, as I look closely at the performance of our students and schools, there are areas that should be addressed. One of the major areas is the continued achievement gap between student groups. 

I have been very encouraged by recent developments in Fayette County. The local equity council has worked with the school administration and the school board to adopt and implement 10 major recommendations for closing achievement gaps. 

I have also been encouraged by the commitment in Jefferson County schools to address the hiring of minority teachers. I have made a commitment to the Kentucky Board of Education to redouble our state efforts on closing achievement gaps. 

At the December meeting of the Kentucky Board of Education, we have invited a national group, Education Trust, to present findings from their recent report that questions the ability of current state accountability models to address the achievement gap. Over the coming months, the state board will look at ways to improve the accountability model to address concerns about the achievement gap. Also, the department will be working closely with advisory groups to develop specific state strategies that could help schools and districts develop local plans to address achievement gaps.

The other concern I have is mathematics performance. Kentucky students are above national averages in reading and science as measured by the National Assessment of Education Progress; however, our mathematics performance is lagging the nation. In a recent report from the National Governor’s Association titled Unlocking Young Children’s Potential: Governors’ Role in Strengthening Early Mathematics Learning, I noted three recommendations that could address our mathematics performance.

1) There is a need for states to build support for early mathematics education within pre-kindergarten expansion, early literacy, STEM education and future workforce preparation.
2) States should align high-quality standards throughout the education pipeline and mathematics instruction should reflect current research. The report was clear that too often our early mathematics education provides less time and less rigor than needed to help build a mathematics literacy in children.
3) States need to look at changes to improve educator preparation and ways to support building early childhood and elementary teachers’ capacity in mathematics instruction.

Lots of great accomplishments and lots of work left to do. That is the nature of education!

USED action contrary to state, federal law

For readers who missed my blog last week, you may want to review the good news and bad news about No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers. In the blog I said, “I believe the current waiver process represents a major federal intrusion into the rights of each state to develop, implement, and manage the public education of the state.” This created quite a stir in certain circles.

Let me explain my thinking on that by first giving a little background on NCLB waivers. In the original No Child Left Behind Act (2001) language, Section 9401 (b) provides the following guidance:

REQUEST FOR WAIVER –
(1) IN GENERAL – A State educational agency, local educational agency, or Indian tribe that desires a waiver shall submit a waiver request to the Secretary that –
(A) identifies the Federal programs affected by the requested
            waiver;
(B) describes which Federal statutory or regulatory requirements 
             are to be waived and how the waiving of those requirements
             will –
            (i) increase the quality of instruction for students; and
            (ii) improve the academic achievement of students;
(C) describes, for each school year, specific, measurable
             educational goals, in accordance with section 1111(b),
             for the State educational agency and for each local
             educational agency, Indian tribe, or school that would 
             be affected by the waiver and the methods to be 
             used to measure annually progress for meeting such
             goals and outcomes;
(D) explains how the waiver will assist the State educational
             agency and each affected local educational agency, Indian
             tribe, or school in reaching those goals; and
(E) describes how schools will continue to provide assistance
             to the same populations served by programs for which
             waivers are requested.

What this language describes is a state-led waiver process to encourage innovation to improve instruction and student achievement outcomes for the students served by the NCLB law. The current waiver process being implemented by the U. S. Department of Education (USED) is a conditional waiver process. States must submit waiver plans that meet three basic conditions:
     • standards/assessments
     • accountability systems
     • teacher/leader effectiveness 
In exchange for meeting these conditions, states are granted 11-13 waivers from the original requirements of NCLB.

Originally, this was a great deal for Kentucky since we had a state law (Senate Bill 1 – 2009) that required the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) to implement new standards/assessments, accountability systems, and teacher/principal evaluations. As Commissioner, I was fully supportive of Secretary Duncan's waiver process since the reform efforts were a great match for Kentucky. However, the waiver process has now started to stifle innovation and have a negative impact on improving instruction and student achievement. 

Here is one case in point. Kentucky adopted new science standards as required by Senate Bill 1. Our teachers began to implement these standards this school year. We have learned from teachers that they need at least two years of implementing standards prior to assessing them. Additionally, Kentucky teachers and national science assessment experts told us that new science assessments will need to be very different than typical multiple choice tests. Students will actually need to do science and exhibit scientific thinking. Our National Assessment of Educational Progress has given us an early look at this type of assessment through the Technology and Engineering Literacy assessment. Kentucky wanted to develop a model of science assessment using Kentucky teachers and national experts that would provide innovative ways to measure student achievement in science and provide teachers with much more meaningful feedback on student performance throughout the school year so that teachers could improve instruction and student achievement. 

Kentucky requested a one-year waiver from science assessment from the USED. We needed the waiver in order to provide time for our teachers to actually implement standards and develop new assessment items for field testing in spring of 2015. We committed to having an assessment of student achievement in science by 2016. 

Despite having set a precedent for this type of waiver by granting the PARCC and Smarter Balanced assessment consortia states a waiver from accountability and reporting math and language arts assessments for the 2014 year, USED rejected our request. Obviously we were stretching the limits of USED staff to provide a state-led waiver request that meets the original requirements of Sec 9401 of NCLB. 

This is only one example of how the current waiver process is stifling innovation and intruding on a state's ability to implement state requirements contained in state legislation. There are other Kentucky examples and, in a recent meeting with other state chiefs, I heard many similar stories from other states.

What now? USED expects Kentucky to give a science assessment that measures our previous science standards in spring 2015. This expectation not only violates our state law, but, also violates NCLB that requires states to assess science (once in elementary and middle school) based on current state standards.

Kentucky and many other states supported the waiver process since we had state laws matching the conditional requirements. Kentucky will be able to sustain our efforts for years to come; however, I do have concerns about other states that used the leverage of the Race to the Top (RTTT) grant and waiver process to implement reforms without state law. What happens when the current administration departs? What happens as the waiver process continues to become even more prescriptive and time consuming?

States are responsible for education. Local school districts have tremendous flexibility and control in implementing state expectations. The federal role is and should continue to be limited to support for disadvantaged children. Hopefully, Congress will reauthorize NCLB soon and build in the flexibility for states and local school districts to be innovative in meeting the needs of all children by improving teaching and learning.

Next week, I will review recent results from national polls showing the impact of RTTT and NCLB waivers on public opinion related to Common Core standards, standardized tests, and teacher evaluation.

Consortia assessments – yours, mine or ours?

As states moved to implement new, more rigorous college/career-readiness standards in English/language arts and mathematics, they faced a challenge:  how would they assess student progress on the new standards?  Writing high quality assessment items that truly measure student mastery of the standards would be no small task.  It would be both time consuming and expensive.

In Kentucky, due to the mandates of Senate Bill 1 (2009) to implement new standards and aligned assessments in 2011-12, the Kentucky Department of Education contracted with vendors to provide end-of-the year tests for students in grades 3-8, and an on-demand writing test and end-of-course exams in Algebra II, English II, Biology and U.S. History at the high school level.  The majority of the tests were traditional, multiple choice, fill-in-the-bubble tests that were really more narrowly focused than the standards demanded, but were nonetheless valid and reliable. 

Meanwhile, in 2010 through the Race to the Top Assessment Program, the U.S. Department of Education (USED) awarded $330 million to two assessment consortia to develop a new generation of tests designed to provide ongoing feedback to teachers during the course of the school year, measure annual student growth, and more accurately gauge students’ understanding and application of the standards. Through the consortia, states would benefit from having their dollars used in highly leveraged ways to support goals that would not otherwise be achieved without an infusion of federal funding.

Based on their applications, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) planned to test students' ability to read complex text, complete research projects, excel at classroom speaking and listening assignments, and work with digital media. 

The SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) would test students using computer adaptive technology that would ask students tailored questions based on their previous answers. 

The consortia would develop periodic assessments throughout the school year to inform students, parents and teachers about whether students were on track.

The requirements of the grant provided that  the consortia “…make all assessment content (i.e., assessments and assessment items) developed with funds from this competition freely available to the States, technology platform provides and other that request it for the purposes of administering assessments, provided they comply with the consortium or state requirements for test and item security.”

This provision was designed to ensure that content developed with public funds was widely available – including to states that were not part of grantee consortia. Initially, Kentucky was a participating state in each consortium, meaning we were monitoring but not leading the work. Eventually, due to capacity issues and a potential conflict of interest if either or both of the consortia would bid on Kentucky’s testing contract, the state withdrew from each.

Now, in an effort to save millions of dollars, the Kentucky Department of Education is seeking access to consortia-developed assessment items at the end of the 2014-15 school year so that we may enhance Kentucky's assessment item pool for the 2015-16 state assessments. Of course, before any new items are added to state K-PREP tests, they would move through the normal state review process.

It is my understanding, however, that several states have already contacted the consortia to request access to assessment items and have been denied access or told they would have to pay for access to assessment items. Both of these conditions seem to violate the program requirements of the publicly funded grant.  

So, the question is, who owns the assessment items and the consortia-developed assessments?  Are they yours (the consortia’s), mine (the states’) or ours (the federal government’s)?

I have written Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to ask for clarification. Kentucky and several other states anxiously await his response. Stay tuned.

Science standards, assessments and Senate Bill 1

Since the day Senate Bill 1 passed the General Assembly in spring 2009 and was signed into law, the Kentucky Department of Education and the Kentucky Board of Education have been working diligently to fully realize the requirements of this visionary legislation: more rigorous academic standards, new assessments, a balanced accountability system and professional development for educators in support of the new standards.

In early 2010, the Kentucky Board of Education, Council on Postsecondary and the Education Professional Standards Board took the first big step in carrying out Senate Bill 1 when they joined to adopt the Common Core State Standards in English/language arts and mathematics. Teachers immediately began working to unpack and interpret the standards.  During the 2010-11 school year, educators began developing curricula and instructional materials. Schools gave the first assessments of the new standards in spring 2012. Teachers had almost two years to develop instruction and materials that were aligned to the new standards prior to the assessments.

States began working to develop new science standards in 2010. These standards went through numerous review cycles and to date, 12 states have fully adopted the Next-Generation Science Standards. Kentucky did so in 2013, and since that time, we have been working with educators to repeat the process used for implementing the English/language arts and math standards. Also, just as we did with the new standards in the first two content areas, we will delay assessment of the new standards until teachers have had nearly years to implement. Testing on the new science standards will occur in spring of 2016.

The new science assessments will be very different than any previous assessments – not confined to  paper and pencil, fill-in-the-bubble, multiple choice.  The science assessments would be taken online – similar to what is being done with the new National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) assessment in Technology and Engineering Literacy (TEL).  This assessment measures not only science content, but also measures scientific process and problem solving. Early reports from the first administration of the TEL assessment are extremely positive. Students are much more engaged in the test- taking process and the data provide educators not only information on students’ factual knowledge but also their problem solving skills.

Due to the complexity of developing such a test, the new science assessment will require more funding to create than traditional tests.  However, online assessments produce savings in the long run since we are able to eliminate printing paper tests, shipping, storage and other related costs. With the need for additional funding to develop the science assessment, the Kentucky Department of Education identified a short term cost savings by not administering the K-PREP science exam in 4th and 7th grades in 2014-15. Teachers and administrators strongly supported this decision since the current K-PREP test in science assessed the old standards and starting in the fall, students would be learning the new standards.

However, this decision does not mean that we cannot track science learning  in Kentucky. In 2014-15, our students will still take science assessments as part of the Explore (8th grade), Plan (10th grade), ACT (11th grade), and Biology  end-of-course (high school) assessments. These assessments will provide a clear picture of our performance in science relative to other states and the rest of the nation. Also, Kentucky will continue to participate in and receive state-level results for the National Assessment of Education Progress science assessment for 4th- and 8th-grade students.

By 2015-16, we will have one remaining subject area to implement – social studies. We anticipate that the draft social studies standards will go out for public comment this fall and we will begin working with teachers in 2015-16 to implement the standards and develop new social studies assessments for 2016-17.

Transformation does not happen overnight. From a concept laid out in Senate Bill 1 in 2009 through actual implementation of all the requirements in 2017, will be an eight year journey that, thus far, has been very rewarding, frustrating and just plain hard work for teachers and administrators. Parents and students have also had to endure many changes and modifications to K-12 schooling during this time.

Over the next year or so, we will hear from many politicians (state and national) who were not involved in the Senate Bill 1 process. For political reasons, they will push for “education reform.” We will hear calls for new standards, new assessments and new accountability – once again.  However, we should all be persistent in asking why change is needed, what the cost will be, what impact another change would have on teacher morale, and what the impact would be for parents and students.

A systems approach to education reform

Kentucky is on the verge of what may be one of the most historic accomplishments that the Kentucky Board of Education has ever undertaken.  

At the board’s recent meeting, members approved the regulation governing the Professional Growth and Effectiveness System. This regulation implements the recommendations from the Teacher and Principal Effectiveness System steering committees that have been hard at work for several years. 

Also during meeting, Chief of Staff Tommy Floyd provided an update on the implementation of the superintendent effectiveness system. Tommy was supported by superintendents from Floyd and Kenton County.

A collective Professional Growth and Effectiveness System – for teachers, principals and superintendents – all slightly different, yet all aligned and with a common goal – continuous improvement toward becoming the most effective educators to prepare all of our students for success.

So why is this such a big deal? As readers may know, I am an advocate of systems thinking; my leadership derives from the work of Edwards Deming.  Systems thinking on the surface makes a lot of sense – think of it like an orchestra, a network of interdependent components work together to accomplish the aim of the system – for instance the performance of a symphony. As is the case with music, the implementation of systems thinking is very complex and requires many years of training and support. I have been fortunate that through the Baldrige National Quality Award, I have received such training and support on how to implement systems-based reform efforts in education. 

In Kentucky, we have been moving slowly but surely on our systems reform agenda. Our work began with the passage of Senate Bill 1 in 2009. This bill was very much a “systems” bill in that it addressed key elements of the education system in Kentucky – standards, assessment, accountability, teacher professional development, and a balanced approach to a world class education. Kentucky has moved forward and has led the nation in the implementation of standards, assessments, and accountability.

The final piece of the system was the human resource piece which addresses the capacity and the capability of all Kentucky educators to implement the standards, assessments, and accountability components so that all students reach their full potential and graduate from high school ready for college and careers. Based on the terrific leadership and hard work of our teacher, principal and superintendent effectiveness committees, the Kentucky Board of Education has adopted key processes to address the human resource piece of systems thinking. The board focused on effectiveness rather than evaluation. 

Through the regulations adopted, Kentucky educators will concentrate on the alignment of standards, assessment, accountability, balanced curriculum, and professional growth.  What the state values as outcomes for children will now be the focus of effectiveness discussions from the board room to the classroom. A few years down the road, if Kentucky stays committed to the system developed, we will see significant growth in student success. We have already seen significant success in graduation rates and college/career-readiness rates.

I have heard of educators leaving other states due to their disillusionment with the education reform efforts. I hope Kentucky educators recognize how important their role is and will be in advancing education reform efforts that make sense to improve the education system for ALL children and educators. I tip my hat to all of the tremendous work that Kentucky educators have done and will continue to do to this end.

Senate Bill 1: Plan...Do…Study…Act

Since Senate Bill 1 (2009) was enacted, Kentucky has certainly been seen as a leader in the nation for our work in implementing college/career-ready standards, assessments, a new accountability system and professional development for educators. As these core processes begin to stabilize after three full years of implementation, it is important that Kentucky look at the results of our efforts and make the necessary adjustments to help even more students graduate from high school who are prepared for college, careers, and citizenship.

Throughout the next year, Kentucky will be focused on several key topics. We will review results of our accountability system with all stakeholder groups and make recommendations for any adjustments to the Kentucky Board of Education. We will fully implement the Professional Growth and Effectiveness System for teachers, principals, and superintendents. Finally, we will be looking for innovative ways to deliver instruction and assess student performance that are grounded in what students need to be competitive in the 21st century.

The results from our Senate Bill 1 accountability model (now called Unbridled Learning) will be known to districts beginning in late summer. We are already talking with stakeholder groups about replacement assessments for the Explore and Plan tests that the ACT folks are discontinuing. Also, we are looking at replacement tests for our high school end-of-course assessments due to our concerns about alignment with our Kentucky Core Academic Standards and the poor delivery of the online assessments by ACT. These decisions will be made in late summer.

Our timeline for revisions to the Unbridled Learning system will include discussions with all advisory groups, public input, and culminate with the second annual local superintendent summit in September. The recommendations from all of the groups will result in key recommendations being made to the Kentucky Board of Education in the fall of 2014 and subsequent changes to the accountability regulations being made in the December – April time frame. The key question for our stakeholders and the Kentucky Board of Education will be the implementation date of new assessments and revisions to the state accountability model.

Through this blog, I am asking stakeholders to begin to think about two key questions.

     1. ACT has announced the end of the tests that Kentucky gives to all
     8th graders (EXPLORE) and 10th graders (PLAN). Kentucky has a
     choice to continue giving the test in the fall of 2014, however, that
     will be the final administration. A key question to consider is do we
     replace EXPLORE and PLAN for this coming year or do we
     administer one more time in the fall of 2014 and then replace in
     2015-16?

     2. The Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) has always been
     committed to reviewing the results of the Unbridled Learning
     accountability model after three years of data. The third year
     data will be released this fall. Should KDE implement stakeholder
     recommend changes for the 2014-15 accountability report cards
     or should KDE delay implementation of stakeholder
     recommendations until 2015-16?

There are many pros and cons for the choices prompted by these two questions. Through this blog and many upcoming meetings, KDE will be seeking input from stakeholders so we can bring forward well- informed recommendations to the Kentucky Board of Education this fall.

Thanks to all of our advisory groups for your careful thoughts and suggestions so that Kentucky education can continue to be seen as the leader in education reform in the nation and more importantly so we can continue to do what is right for our children.

Prioritizing education from cradle to career

It was my honor to attend the 2014 State of the Commonwealth address by Governor Steve Beshear this week. Education was a highlight of the speech (to watch the speech click here; to listen to the speech click here).

I was very excited about the emphasis on cradle-to-career education. This phrase captures our work with early childhood, Senate Bill 1, college/career-readiness and the recent push from the Council on Postsecondary Education for “15 to Finish.” 

The Governor was very clear about the need to reinvest in education in order to ensure a highly skilled workforce for the future.  A strong workforce is an educated workforce, and Kentucky has made enormous progress in creating a seamless, cradle-to-career education system that is better preparing students for a complex world.

With special focus on early childhood education, raising the graduation rate, and increasing college- and career-readiness for all students, Kentucky’s schools are emerging as national leaders in education reform and measurable student progress.

In 2013, Education Week’s annual “Quality Counts” report ranked Kentucky in the top 10 states in student performance and education progress. The state is implementing the Graduation Bill passed last session, which will require students to stay in school until age 18. And last month, Kentucky won a $44.3 million federal Race to the Top grant to improve early learning programs for thousands of Kentucky preschoolers.

But schools have stretched their dollars as far as they can, the Governor warned, and will lose ground without new investment.

Kentucky has frozen SEEK – the basic funding formula for K-12 classrooms – for six years, even as student enrollment expanded, costs increased and local support in some areas dropped. Plus, budget pressures forced deep cuts in areas ranging from textbooks to teacher training and school safety. Meanwhile, because of impending federal sequester cuts, schools face the prospect of significant layoffs, increased classroom sizes and out-of-date technology.

“We are in danger of losing all of the positive momentum which has been built up. And I am not going to allow that to happen,” the Governor said. “I am determined to find money to reinvest in education – even if I have to make harmful cuts in other areas to do so.”

Fiscal discipline and aggressive managing of the budget – including some $1.6 billion in spending cuts – helped Kentucky get through the recession, but in some areas the cuts went deep enough to damage programs and services critical to building a stronger future.

“We cannot continue making progress by paying teachers less than they deserve, by ignoring needs like textbooks and technology, by delaying research into innovative energy production, by pricing college out of reach, by leaving needed cancer screenings unfunded, and by retreating from things like child care and mental health services,” Gov. Beshear said.

The Governor identified two possible sources of new, recurring revenue with which to make investments: tax reform -- increasing competitiveness by broadening our tax base and improving our business climate will help stabilize future budgets -- and gaming.

Gov. Beshear said he would ask the General Assembly again to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot related to expanded gaming.

Over the years several economic studies of various gaming scenarios have projected potential Kentucky tax revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars – money that is currently crossing the border “to fund roads and schools in Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia and other states.”

Kentuckians “want to vote on this issue,” he said.

A Perfect Storm is Brewing

In 1990, the Kentucky General Assembly took bold action to reform P-12 education. Through passage of the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), the General Assembly agreed to invest in education and to implement numerous policies and actions that would raise student achievement. At the time, Kentucky was one of the bottom two or three performers among states.

Fast forward 23 years, and we now see Kentucky at or above national average on many measures of student achievement. KERA worked due to the bold vision of the General Assembly and the tremendous work of Kentucky educators.

In 2009, the Kentucky General Assembly again took bold action to reform P-12 education. With the passage of Senate Bill 1, the General Assembly pushed P-12 education toward a higher goal of college- and career-readiness for all students. While KERA had focused on basic academic performance, Senate Bill 1 now focused on college/career-readiness and national/international competitiveness of our Kentucky graduates. Senate Bill 1 has worked as evidenced by increased college/career-readiness rates and graduation rates.

With KERA, there was a significant investment in funds. Programs like Extended School Services, preschool, professional development, teacher salaries, school-based decision making councils, Family and Youth Resource Service Centers, textbooks, and technology received significant dollars through the state budget.

With the passage of Senate Bill 1, there were no additional dollars provided for standards development, assessments, accountability, professional development, textbooks, technology, or student support services. The clear message from the General Assembly was educators had the funding they needed in existing budgets. However, no one dreamed that throughout the next four years the General Assembly would have to greatly reduce funding for public education due to the recession.

Basically, the General Assembly has not been able to honor the commitments made through KERA or Senate Bill 1 due to the recession and lack of economic recovery. How deep have the cuts to education been?

Since the 2008 session of the General Assembly, the per pupil amount has dropped by $33. In FY 2009, the General Assembly provided $2,461,236,248 for basic SEEK funding; the amount in FY 2013 was $2,397,016,693. The General Assembly has allocated $64,219,555 less during a time that our Average Daily Attendance has increased by more than 10,000 students.

KERA provided Flexible Focus Funding for professional development, preschool, textbooks, safe schools, and extended school services. Since the passage of Senate Bill 1 in 2009, funding for professional development has been reduced by more than $9 million, safe schools have been reduced by more than $6 million, extended school services have been reduced by more than $19 million, textbooks have been reduced by more than $21 million, and preschool has been reduced by $3.8 million. In FY 2008, Flex Focus Funds totaled $154,099,600; in FY 2013, it was $93,143,900 -- a total reduction of $60,955,700.

KERA also established a strong focus on technology. In the last four years, we have seen a reduction in excess of $8 million in basic support for the technology infrastructure and the loss of a $50 million bond that helped districts purchase technology equipment.

The impact on education has been significant. In the last three years, we have lost more than 1,800 teachers due to budget cuts.

Local school districts have had to rely on local property taxes to offset some of the state cuts. In FY 2009, local support for education totaled $825,184,656. In 2013, the amount had increased to $872,904,155. This was an increase of $47,719,499 from local sources which rely heavily on property taxes. The net result is that the state is pushing more of the cost of public education on to local property owners. This means that we are seeing a growing gap in equity of funding between school districts. The gap between the school district with the highest funding per pupil and the school district with the lowest funding per pupil in FY 2009 was $8,719. By FY 2013, the disparity had increased to $11,338. This means that the highest funding school district has on average more than $250,000 per classroom to provide a high quality education.

The significant reduction in state funds is only one part of the perfect storm that is brewing. In the spring of 2014, our school districts will have to deal with the budget cuts from federal sequestration – an estimated $57 million in cuts to programs like Title I, special needs students, migrant students, and other at-risk student populations. Estimates of the loss in positions are around 1,300.

Finally, our school districts will see the other part of the perfect storm as they budget for 2014-15. The Kentucky School Board Insurance Trust settlement will happen in the next few months and will place another $50-60 million cost on our districts. Districts will have to borrow money to pay these assessments. To repay the loans, districts will have to take money out of their operating funds that normally would be used to hire staff and provide support services for students.

The perfect storm is certainly brewing in Kentucky education. The only possibility for our school districts is to seek restoration of state funds since we see little hope coming from the federal level of any type of resolution to federal budget and sequestration cuts.

Educators and parents all across Kentucky have come to together to focus on restoration of education funds during the 2014 General Assembly. Failure to see funds restored will result in significant layoffs for the 2014-15 school year. Parents will see the impact in larger class sizes and less support for children who are struggling. Kentucky will see declining graduation rates, higher dropout rates, fewer children reaching college- and career-ready requirements, and negative impacts on social, health, and juvenile justice programs. I hope readers will let their voices be heard.

Easy standards and tests don’t help students reach college/career-readiness

Last week, I attended the annual Policy Forum of the Council of Chief State School Officers.  Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee delivered a wonderful speech about the importance of the arts in a balanced education.

Also, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan participated in a question and answer session with chiefs from more than 30 states. Secretary Duncan, in response to a question about the rising tide of criticism about the Common Core State Standards, said he was surprised that “soccer moms” from affluent schools were pushing back on tests over the new standards because the results showed their students may not be performing at the levels they had been used to. This comment seemed very reasonable and factual in context, however, immediately the social media universe exploded with the “soccer mom” comment. From my point of view, the real issue runs much deeper.

For years, SAT and ACT data have told us that many students who graduate from high school are not ready for college-level work or to enter a career. “Not ready” means that students who graduate from high school have to take remediation classes in college -- classes that cost parents and students a lot of money and for which students do not receive credit. Students who graduate from high school college/career-ready are more successful in college/career. They have a significantly higher GPAs their freshman year in college, complete more credit hours and are more likely to return for a second year than those students who are not college/career-ready.

The Kentucky General Assembly recognized all of these issues when it passed Senate Bill 1 in 2009 and required higher education and K-12 education to work together to increase the percentage of high school graduates who are college-ready by 50 percent by 2015. When we started measuring in 2010, the percentage of high school graduates who achieved college/career-ready status was 34 percent. The Class of 2013 had improved to 54 percent. We are well on our way to reaching the goal of 67 percent by 2015.

The work to help students reach college/career-readiness begins with early childhood programs and continues through the K-12 experience. Students cannot wait until high school to start working toward reaching college/career-ready standards. With that understanding, Kentucky and other states changed state testing to be more aligned with the results from SAT and ACT. Kentucky aligned tests in grades 3-8 so that parents will know every year whether their child was on target to reach college- and career-readiness.

What Secretary Duncan was addressing was the pushback in New York from parents who did not like hearing their elementary and middle grade students were not achieving at the highest levels. Parents were upset that in previous years, their child had been “exceptional” on state tests but under the new state tests, their child may be at the “needs improvement” level. I believe many parents do not understand the simple message that we’ve intentionally raised the bar on state tests and from the 3rd grade, the results provide a clear indication of student progress toward college/career-readiness. We know these new tests are good predictors of the percentage of students who will graduate from high school college/career-ready because the tests are aligned to the SAT and ACT results that we have seen for many years.

My concern is that much of the national debate is focusing on the politics of common core, rather than helping children reach higher expectations. I believe that every parent wants their child to succeed and reach college/career-readiness. Our challenge as educators is to communicate in ways that parents can understand and fully support parents in helping their child reach this goal.

While Secretary Duncan’s remarks may have been taken out of context, I know that his intention is to help more students reach college/career-readiness so the students will be competitive in the global job market and our national economy will remain the top economy in the world. 

What's Next for Program Reviews

Recently, the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) released the first report on Program Reviews for arts and humanities, practical living/career studies and writing programs. These Program Reviews were required by Senate Bill 1 (2009) to be included as a part of the Unbridled Learning accountability system. For more information about the results from the Program Reviews, please see the news release.  I thought readers might want to know a little more about Program Reviews and what comes next.

Why do we have Program Reviews? Senate Bill 1 wanted to ensure that Kentucky children have access to a balanced education. A balanced education includes core academic areas (math, language arts, social studies and science) and areas such as arts/humanities, practical living (health and physical education), career studies, writing, world language and K-3 programs. Kentucky has had a vision of a balanced education since the 1990 Kentucky Education Reform Act and Senate Bill 1 continued that vision. Children are much more than test scores and test scores do not tell the entire story about a class, school or district. As a former high school band director, I am very proud that Kentucky includes an emphasis on the arts in the state accountability system.

What are Program Reviews? Program Reviews are systemic reviews of a program area that includes components such as curriculum, instruction, student assessment/performance, student opportunities and access, professional development and resources. In Kentucky, we worked with many education groups and educators to develop scoring rubrics for each of the components.

How valid and reliable are Program Reviews? Any component of an accountability system must be able to answer this question. All Program Reviews go through an extensive process of piloting and field testing before becoming part of the accountability system. Extensive research is done to address questions about validity and reliability. However, now that the “real world” results are in for the first year of inclusion in the accountability system, we are taking several steps to continue to address validity and reliability issues.

     1. KDE will initiate an audit process that was developed during the 
         last two years. This audit process will include a number of 
         random schools as well as “purposeful” schools. Purposeful 
         schools will be chosen by comparing other school data to 
         the Program Reviews scores for outliers.

     2. KDE will start a research project to determine connections 
         between quality programs and their impact on student 
         achievement. Writing tends to work best since there is a    
         writing achievement score and a program review score, 
         however, we have to be cautious in this approach since 
         the writing scores are derived from either on-demand 
         writing or language mechanics. A successful writing program 
         addresses more than these two areas. In arts/humanities and 
         practical living, KDE will make some connections between 
         overall scores and Program Review scores.

     3. KDE will work to find model programs that school staff 
         can use to assist their local scoring. Schools and districts 
         would use these exemplars just like examiners use
         exemplar writing papers in training and calibrating scores. 

     4. KDE will continue to upgrade training on the rubric 
         and the scoring process.

     5. Districts will receive support and training on how to 
         conduct local audits of Program Reviews.

Within the next few weeks, KDE will update the Unbridled Learning accountability scores for schools and districts to include the results from the 2013 Program Review results. KDE will then reset the 90th percentile and 70th percentile scores for schools and districts which will serve as the baseline for comparing accountability results in 2014. Readers can find the results of their school and district Program Reviews in KDE Open House.  The revised accountability scores and targets for schools and districts will be posted in the School Report Card later this month. 

Top 10 things you need to know about the Common Core

In the next few weeks, parents will receive information about the performance of their school system, school, and student.  Areas that will be reported include proficiency rates on state assessments in English/ language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.  Also, the reports will include information on achievement gaps, college/career-readiness, and high school graduation rates. Individual student reports will show parents how well their student is progressing toward the college/career-ready standard and how the student compares with other students in the school, district, state, and national levels.

These reports are built on the requirements from Senate Bill 1 (2009), the far-reaching education legislation that the General Assembly passed unanimously. The legislation required development of new standards that were more rigorous, fewer, and deeper. Also, there were requirements for the development of new assessments based on the standards and a new accountability system using the new assessments. To make certain the system was balanced, Senate Bill 1 also included program reviews in the arts and humanities, practical living, and writing.

Since the basis of Senate Bill 1 was the requirement for new academic standards that would ensure more of our Kentucky graduates are ready for college/career and to be competitive in today’s global market, I thought readers might be interested in more information about the standards that Kentucky adopted and implemented.

Kentucky educators have logged hundreds of thousands of hours over the past three years translating the standards into learning targets, aligning curriculum, professional learning on how to implement the standards, and developing assessments, lesson plans and interventions to help students meet the standards.

These standards were based on the work of educators in 48 states and many partners in higher education. These standards were originally called the Common Core State Standards. In Kentucky, our educators interpreted the standards so they are easily understood and developed the Kentucky Core Academic Standards. 

Here are the top 10 things readers need to know about the Common Core/Kentucky Core Academic Standards:

1.       Common Core is working!
Since implementation of the Common Core (Kentucky Core Academic Standards), we’ve seen improved college/career-readiness rates, improved graduation rates, lower remediation costs and more successful transitions to college and career.

2.       Common Core leaves Kentucky in control of its standards. 
Kentucky educators and the public provided input into the development of the standards so we, as a state, helped determined what they cover. Kentucky’s constitution calls for the state to establish a system of common schools, and common standards, as adopted by the Kentucky Board of Education under its authority, provide an equal opportunity for all students in the state to get a quality education.

3.       Common Core empowers local school districts and teachers.
They get to decide how the standards should be taught and develop the curriculum and resources that work best for their students while ensuring students learn the content and develop the skills they need for success.

4.       Common Core standards are more challenging.
In the past, many other states intentionally adopted lower standards in order to appear more successful under No Child Left Behind, cheating students of the level of preparation they deserved.  Although Kentucky was NOT one of those states, the new standards are more rigorous than Kentucky’s previous standards and on par with what are taught in leading countries around the world.

5.       Common Core is great for students.
It promotes creative and critical thinking over rote memorization, and prepares students with the collaboration, creativity and communication skills that the workplace demands.  By developing students’ ability to think, reason and problem solve, they can internalize their knowledge and apply it to various situations rather than just regurgitate it for a test.  It prepares students for success at every grade level and after graduation from high school.  Students who graduate college- and career-ready are more apt to complete college or postsecondary training and land higher paying jobs.

6.       Common Core is great for teachers.
The standards are clear, focused and easy for teachers and students to understand. In addition, common standards encourage teachers to collaborate, develop and share lessons, resources and what works in the classroom. This allows teachers to more easily individualize instruction to meet student needs and frees them up to create new, innovative, and more effective ways to actively engage students in the learning process. 

7.       Common Core is great for parents.
Because it is aligned with college- and career-expectations, students are better prepared for the demands they face after high school. College costs are reduced because there is less need for costly, remedial, non-credit bearing courses. Students are better prepared for success and are more likely to earn a college degree and/or get a job paying a living wage.

8.       Common Core is great for business and will move Kentucky forward. 
It equips students, our future workforce, with the skills that the workplace demands. A better prepared, more highly skilled workforce attracts new business to the state and allows current businesses to hire employees that are ready to work rather than having to spend money on extensive training or leaving jobs unfilled.

9.       Common Core is great for taxpayers.
By working with other states, Kentucky was able to develop and implement new college- and career-ready standards mandated by the Kentucky General Assembly and Senate Bill 1 (2009) at a much lower cost than doing this solely on our own. 

Plus, students who graduate from high school ready for college/career are more likely to be employed, pay taxes and have a positive impact on the state’s economy; they are less likely to be dependent on state-supported unemployment, welfare and health care benefits or end up in the prison system. This will have a positive impact on our long-term economy.

10. Abandoning the Common Core will be extremely costly to Kentucky taxpayers and have a negative impact on educators and student outcomes.
Since Senate Bill 1 (2009) requires new standards, Kentucky could not simply return to prior standards. We estimate it would take a minimum of $35 million to develop, train, and implement replacement standards in English/language arts and mathematics. Teachers would react very negatively to having to replace standards again just when they are getting used to new standards.

Supporting Kentucky’s future – or not?

This week, I was reading the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) legislative update and received an e-mail from Stu Silberman over at the Prichard Committee. Stu had been reading the same update. Here is the body of his e-mail.

The Southern Regional Education Board has released its most recent legislative update. As you will see in the chart below, Kentucky funding is falling behind and steps must be taken in this next session so we can be competitive.

State	K-12 Budget	Higher Ed Budget
Alabama*	Up 3 %	Up 2.4%
Delaware	Up 4 %	Up 4% (approximate)
Florida	Up 13.9%	Up 34.2%            (state universities)
		Up 3.1%            (state colleges)
Louisiana*	Down 1.7%	Down 10.0%
Oklahoma	Up 3.3%	Up 3.5%
South Carolina	Up 8.5% Charters up 40%	Up 9.4%       (4-year colleges & universities) Up 3.1%       (2-year colleges)
Tennessee*	Up 4.3%	Up 9%

*Also provided pay raises for teachers

In Kentucky, base student funding (SEEK) has remained flat in recent years, but an increase in the number of students has effectively cut per pupil spending. Basic grants (Flexible Focus Funds) that are used to implement Senate Bill 1 (2009) have been reduced by more than $61 million per year. The SREB report, however, shows other states are re-investing in education.

The Kentucky Board of Education is currently reviewing priorities for FY15-16 budget request. At a minimum KBE wants to see restoration of SEEK funding and Flexible Focus funding to 2008-09 levels. For SEEK, this would require an additional $60 million in FY15 and $90 million in FY16. This level of funding would only get us back to $3,866 per student which is woefully inadequate when compared to other states. To restore Flexible Focus Funds would require an additional $61 million in both FY15 and FY16. Flexible Focus Funds provide textbooks, digital resources for teaching/learning, extended school services, pre-school funding, and professional development to help educators implement Senate Bill 1 (2009).

Here is the big problem facing our legislators: there is no new money! Recently, the Consensus Forecasting Group, a non-partisan team of economists, predicted that FY15 state revenue would be fairly flat and indicated that with state obligations such as pensions and debt retirement, there is no new money for education.

Our schools have made remarkable progress in the last 25 years. More students are graduating from high school and reaching college- and career-readiness than at any point in our history. Our educators are taking money out of their own pockets to support children. Our parents are doing more fund raising to support basic needs in schools than ever before. However, this heroic effort by educators and parents cannot continue without a negative impact on morale. Teachers and parents will become extremely frustrated (if not already so) because they are being asked to fund items for students that should be provided through state and local funds.

The answer to this issue is NOT to pass on the reduced state funding costs to local property owners. Funding basic education needs through local property tax only exacerbates the inequities in education funding across 173 school districts (remember the Rose case). The answer to this issue is bold leadership from our state legislators.

As commissioner I am using this blog to announce my strong support for state legislators to address two possible funding sources during the 2014 session. I strongly support efforts at tax reform and also strongly support expanded gaming. These are not popular issues and they are extremely difficult to deal with during an election year, however, my job is to alert decision makers that without adequate funding, Kentucky educators will not be able to maintain current levels of student performance and certainly will not be able to continue improving student performance.

It is apparent from the SREB Report mentioned above that other states are re-investing in education because they know that education will have a positive impact on employment and the economy.

The upcoming session will be a make or break year for education in Kentucky. There are basically two choices – support restoration of funding for education so we can continue to make progress or don’t support restoration of funding. By not supporting restoration of funding, decision makers will be supporting the decline in outcomes for children that will have long term negative impacts on the futures of our children and the future of the Commonwealth.