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.

A history lesson to remember

As we wrap up the 2014-15 school year, I have high hopes for the future of our high school graduates in Kentucky. We will have a higher percentage of students successfully complete high school in four years than at any point in the history of the Commonwealth. Of those who graduate from high school, we will have the highest percentage of students reaching college- and career-readiness in the history of the Commonwealth. This is an amazing testament to the hard work and dedication of educators, parents and students in Kentucky. 

Given these amazing results, I feel it important to remind readers of the recent important events in education history that have helped Kentucky reach these significant milestones.

The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) of 1990 was and remains the foundation of our work. KERA became reality based on significant business support and support from the Prichard Committee to reform education in Kentucky. By any measure of student success, KERA has been the basis for improvement. 

While KERA moved Kentucky from the cellar of state rankings to about the midway point, there was continued concern voiced through the late 1990s and 2000s about how prepared high school graduates were for college and career. Too many high school graduates were taking college placement tests and finding out that they needed to take remedial courses prior to taking credit-bearing college courses. The college remediation rates were as high as 80 percent in a number of our technical colleges. Remediation is a significant cost for students and colleges, and students who need remediation are much less likely to return to college after their first year than students who are ready for college when they enroll. 

In 2009, the Kentucky General Assembly came together again, as they did in 1990, and passed significant education reform legislation – Senate Bill 1. This legislation required the Kentucky Board of Education to set a goal to reduce by 50 percent by 2015 the percentage of high school graduates who were not ready for college-level work or prepared with the skills necessary to enter a career that would lead to a job that pays a living wage. In 2010, the percentage of students ready for college level work was 34 percent. A goal was set for at least 67 percent of high school graduates to be ready for college and career by 2015. From all indications, Kentucky will reach this goal with the Class of 2015.

In order to reach our goal, Senate Bill 1 required new standards, assessments, and accountability systems. 

Throughout the 2009 session of the General Assembly and during the interim session of 2009, all of the stakeholders in Kentucky were aware and supportive of Kentucky adopting and implementing the Common Core standards for English/language arts and mathematics. It was very clear that a student must master these basic standards in order to achieve college- and career-readiness. Certainly, local districts could exceed the standards, however, not every student in Kentucky needs to take AP Chemistry, AP Calculus or other high level coursework in order to reach the college- and career-ready level. Acceptance into a top tier university requires students take more rigorous courses, however taking these courses is a decision students and their parents must make depending on college- or career-plans. 

Senate Bill 1 asked Kentucky educators to implement standards, assessments and a new accountability system so more students would reach college readiness. The universally accepted definition of college readiness is that a student would reach a level of performance that would enable the student to enter credit-bearing course work at a two-year or four-year university. The measures include ACT, Compass, and the state placement exams used by all public higher education programs – KYOTE.  All Kentucky higher education institutions agreed on these measures and the scores needed for high school graduates to reach college readiness. 

As parents talk with their students in grades 3-8 about the end of year K-PREP assessments and the high school end-of-course assessments, it is important to note that each parent and student will receive an assessment report in the fall. This assessment report will enable parents to know if their student is on track to reach the college- and career-readiness level upon graduation. It is very important for students that parents have a discussion with their child’s teacher and school officials concerning student performance and how to support students in reaching college- and career-readiness by high school graduation.

Over the next few months, there will be a lot of political discussion and debate about the Kentucky’s academic standards, assessments and accountability systems. While we can certainly revise the systems and make them stronger, it is important that parents recognize that the systems are working. More students are graduating from high school with the skills needed for college and career success. 

Lots of politicians will tell you what they are against, however, it is difficult to find out what they really support, and if what they support has a track record of success. Hopefully, this brief history lesson will help filter the political rhetoric from the reality of proven systems that are successful in helping more children reach college- and career-readiness and emerge from high school ready to take the next step in life.

Grappling with testing questions

This is the second blog in a series on the reauthorization of the Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA), last reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Last week's blog provides the overview.

Many will look at education reform from 1983-2015 as having four distinct waves. During the period from 1983-1989, several key governors and state legislatures led the way in education reform based on reports like A Nation at Risk. From 1989-2000, these governors were bolstered in their efforts by national legislation supporting the implementation of more rigorous standards for learning and development of optional state assessments and accountability. 2001-2011 was the era of NCLB. The fourth wave began in 2011 with the NCLB waivers made possible through executive action by President Obama and implemented by Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan.

We come now to 2015 and it appears Congress is finally serious about reauthorization of a law that was due for reauthorization in 2007. Last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander (who served as U.S. Secretary of Education under President George H.W. Bush) presented a discussion draft for a bill called the Every Child College and Career Ready Act of 2015. One of the key elements in the proposed legislation and discussion draft has to do with annual testing requirements. 

NCLB required every student to be tested annually in grades 3-8 in reading and math and once in high school. Also, schools were required to test every student in science at least once in elementary, middle and high school.

Many supporters of annual testing say that it is a civil rights issue and a moral imperative. This concept was supported by the requirement in NCLB that every student make annual yearly progress and the public receive annual information on the progress of certain groups of students who were identified in NCLB.  Supporters of annual testing also say that schools, parents and students need to know if students are learning and if they are not, then teachers, schools, districts, and states should be required to do something to address the learning gaps.

On the other side of the equation, there are many who say that annual testing has narrowed the curriculum in schools, led to reductions in the arts, social studies, science and other curriculum offerings that lead to a balanced curriculum. They focus blame on schools and teachers when the real issue is poverty. Also, many opponents of annual testing fear that the testing regiment has had a negative impact on critical thinking and other 21st-century skills.

Recent NCLB waiver requirements have received significant concern from both sides. Many critics say they support annual testing but do not support the use of test results for evaluation of teachers, principals or schools. Opponents of annual testing also promote more creative and innovative ways of assessing student progress and reporting the annual results of student progress.

Several education writers have said that NCLB worked so we should keep the component of annual testing. Others have said that NCLB did not work. Some critics say that states actually made more progress in 1992-2000 than after NCLB was implemented in 2001.

While many states did make significant reforms to education finance and education processes during the waves of reform, I want to highlight three specific states – Kentucky, North Carolina and Texas. Of course, Kentucky reform efforts were driven by the General Assembly through the passage of the Kentucky Education Reform Act in 1990. North Carolina certainly had strong leadership from Gov. James Hunt to develop and implement the ABC’s of Public Education. Texas, however, was the state that became the eventual model for No Child Left Behind assessment and accountability provisions. Governor George W. Bush certainly championed the efforts in Texas.

I looked at national progress and the progress in KY, NC and Texas on the ONLY independent measure of student learning that we have as nation and is respected as the Nation’s Report Card – National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP is given every 2 years in 4th grade and 8th grade for reading and mathematics. I looked at scale score gains. One important caveat is that NAEP had adjustments due to implementing more accommodations for special needs students and increasing the percentage of special needs students taking the NAEP during this period.

In reading at 4th grade during the pre-NCLB era of 1992-2000, the nation lost 4 points in reading; KY gained 6; NC gained 10; and Texas gained 4. In 4th grade reading for the post-NCLB era of 2000-2013, the nation gained 9 points; KY gained 5; and NC/TX stayed the same.

In 8th grade reading for the pre-NCLB era, the nation gained 4; KY gained 3; and there were no gains in NC or TX. In the post-NCLB era, the nation gained 4; KY gained 5; NC had no gain; and TX gained 2.

In 4th grade math for the pre-NCLB era, the nation gained 8 points, KY gained 6; NC gained 19; and TX gained 15. In the post-NCLB era, the nation gained 18; KY gained 22; NC gained 15; and TX gained 11.

In 8th grade math for the pre-NCLB era, the nation gained 12; KY gained 15; NC gained 30; and TX gained 17. In the post-NCLB era, the nation gained 12; KY gained 11; NC gained 10; and TX gained 15.

I will leave readers to do their own analysis; however, it does appear that the nation has gained in reading and math during both eras. As is usually the case, schools are able to impact math achievement more than reading achievement.

I used the three states for comparison for a very specific purpose. NC and TX were both states that were implementing strong annual testing and accountability programs well in advance of NCLB. Kentucky had to be dragged into NCLB. The Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 pushed for more authentic assessment of student progress and Kentucky was leading the nation in development of performance-based assessment through a robust portfolio system. Of course, the annual testing was the route the nation followed due to validity, reliability, and low cost of a multiple choice annual assessment.

My key point – there are many methods that states could use to provide annual determinations of student progress and report the results for individual students, groups of students, parents, schools and districts. Annual low cost multiple choice tests are not the only answer. In the 1990s Kentucky made significant progress in providing more performance-based assessments that informed instruction, however, the efforts were lost because the performance assessments lacked the validity and reliability of multiple choice tests. Also, performance assessments are more expensive due to teacher training and assessment scoring.

My concern is that advocates of annual testing are trying to paint anyone who proposes an alternative model such as grade span testing with more formative assessments that drive instructional improvement as being an opponent of civil rights and equity for all students. This seems to be a false dichotomy since more formative assessment could better inform instruction and allow for earlier interventions for students who have learning gaps.

As states, our problems stem from our own lack of leadership in the pre- and post-NCLB era. Our track record in closing achievement gaps and pushing for higher standards has been mixed from state to state. Many believe that without federal requirements that states will go back to an era of “bigotry of low expectations.” They may be right. The debate will continue.

My hope is that all parties will engage in serious dialogue utilizing the rich research that we have built since the 1980s on education reform rather than engage in hyperbole and casting opponents in a negative light.

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.

Learning from other countries

Last week, teams from Kentucky, Colorado and New York City participated in the semi-annual meeting of the Global Education Leaders’ Program (GELP). The Kentucky team included several Kentucky Department of Education folks, two local superintendents and a member of the Kentucky Board of Education. Travel and expenses for the U.S. teams were covered by a grant from the Gates Foundation.  

The purpose of GELP is to learn from each other about education initiatives across the globe and to discuss ways to lead innovation to ensure more students are successful. The semi-annual meetings are led by the Innovation Unit from the United Kingdom.

I thought readers might be interested in a few of the insights we gained from the meeting.

Standards – When we discussed learning standards with other nations, it was apparent that most of the nations that are recognized as leaders in education have national standards. Finland made a presentation on the development process for their national standards. The process is driven by the Ministry of Education, however, local schools and teachers have a lot of flexibility in adopting curriculum and implementation of the standards. Australia has national standards that were developed using a similar process. The other nations or states present included British Columbia, China, South Korea, Victoria, New Zealand, and India. All of these provinces/nations also use national standards as a way to set expectations for student learning and ensure that graduates are globally competitive.

Teacher Effectiveness – One of the most respected countries in the world for the preparation and support of teachers is Finland. During the meeting, we were able to spend a great deal of time learning the details on how Finland changed teacher preparation, selection, and professional development. A key word for Finland is trust. Finland does not have a national testing system and there is no accountability system in place. Finland trusts teachers and local municipalities to provide an excellent education for all children. Finland and South Korea are well known for the selectivity of teacher candidates. South Korea draws teacher candidates from the top 10 percent of graduates and then provides full funding for a college education. Finland also recruits from the top 10 percent and has 10 applicants for every one position in teacher preparation.

Assessment – One of the most striking things we learned came from the Chinese delegation. China (Shanghai) is well known for being number one in math and reading on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests. However, China is not very happy with its education system. The Chinese are pushing for more creativity and problem solving skills for students. The Chinese recognize that their schools do a great job in preparing students for assessments that measure basic skills, however, they also understand that in order for their economy to continue to grow they must have graduates who have the 21st-century skills of creativity, collaboration, communication and problem solving.

The collective work of the GELP community has led to publication of an excellent book that I highly recommend – Redesigning Education: Shaping Learning Systems Around the Globe. It is interesting that we in the states are still debating things like common core standards, teacher preparation and standardized testing while the nations we compete against globally have moved well beyond this debate. When you get outside of the United States, you see a world that understands this century will probably be the “Asia Century” due to the rapid expansion of economies in China and India.

When I talk to key business leaders in Kentucky, most of them tell me that their business interests are spread globally and the Kentucky education system must increase the focus on preparing students for the 21st century and global competition. Our General Assembly got that message when they passed Senate Bill 1 in 2009. By participating in the GELP program, we are keeping Kentucky at the forefront of education not only in the U.S. but also across the globe. Many countries were very interested in our implementation process for common core standards and districts of innovation. 

It was very satisfying to see that Kentucky is keeping up with the world!

Testing Accommodations: Changes to Benefit Students

The Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) recently approved changes in 703 KAR 5:070, the regulation related to testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Due to the legislative process, these changes will not take place until the 2012-13 state assessments. The most controversial change in accommodations was the elimination of adult or technology-based readers for the Kentucky reading tests. There were three major reasons for this decision.

1. Validity – Kentucky is changing its state assessments this year, and the reading test for 2012 and beyond will be a decoding and comprehension assessment. If we allow adult or technology-based readers on the reading test, then we are invalidating the construct of the test, and we would have to invalidate the assessment scores of any student provided with a reader. Allowing readers on a decoding and comprehension test turns the test into a listening comprehension test.

2. More than 42 percent of special education students in Kentucky were allowed readers on the reading test in 2011. This number has grown steadily since the enactment of the Kentucky Education Reform Act. Schools and teachers are under great pressure to produce proficient scores on state and federal assessments. By allowing the use of a reader, we have provided a negative incentive to help students with disabilities learn to read. It is the goal of special education to help students become independent readers so they can be successful in college, military and/or the workplace.

3. 2009’s Senate Bill 1 mandates national comparisons. Kentucky’s performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) could be questioned due to the large number of students who are provided readers. Students who are provided readers on state assessments are exempted from the NAEP assessments. NAEP allows a state to exempt up to 15 percent of its disabled students; however, in Kentucky 58.2 percent of the 8th-grade disabled students and 53.1 percent of the 4th-grade disabled students were excluded from 2011 NAEP reading tests. Therefore, the NAEP results could be questioned, and in the future, states that have large percentages of exempted students will come under increasing scrutiny.

Moving forward, it is essential to provide teachers and students with the levels of support needed to help more students become independent readers. While the KBE action does eliminate readers for state assessments on reading, readers will continue to be allowed for mathematics, social studies and science assessments, since those are tests of content and not reading. Also, daily instructional practice is not impacted by the change. Teachers certainly will continue to utilize readers with students during daily instruction as they move to transition students to independent reading.

Some national organizations have questioned Kentucky’s decision; however, once they realize that Kentucky changed the assessment to a reading assessment and Kentucky’s decision is in alignment with recommendations from the National Assessment Governing Board, then it is clear that the Kentucky decision was based on research and ensuring validity of assessments.

See information on the changes to state regulation 703 KAR 5:070 made by the KBE at its December 2011 meeting here.

Great Teachers and Leaders in Kentucky

As readers know, I have a goal to visit all 174 Kentucky school districts by August 2012. Currently, I have visited more than 100 districts and over 300 schools. When I visit, I like to ask teachers and principals about the challenges they are facing.

In 2009, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 1 (SB 1)without opposition. This legislation required implementation of new standards, new assessments and a new accountability system by the 2011-12 school year. When I talk with teachers and principals, this is usually the focus of my conversation.

What I often hear is the overwhelming nature of what we have asked teachers and leaders to do. They have been asked to completely transform expectations for students and student performance during a time when there have been significant cuts to professional development and instructional resources.

In spite of the challenges, I have found terrific leaders and teachers in every school. They are working hard to meet the challenges of SB 1. They are digging hard to find resources to help each other and to help each student reach his or her potential.

To all the teachers and leaders in our schools, I want to say “thank you” for your professionalism and dedication to the future of our children. Hang in there, because two or three years from now, we will certainly see the payoff for your hard work and dedication.

ESEA/NCLB: Time for Refocusing

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan testified at the House Education and Workforce Committee this week. He addressed many topics, including budget issues and the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization.

One statement he made gained attention from the media. Sec. Duncan said that the U.S. Department of Education was projecting that as many as 82 percent of schools will not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) next year. Many people have questioned this number; however, I believe he is pretty accurate in the projection. Certainly, something must be wrong with a system that labels 82 percent of our schools and districts as failures.

I have written about this issue in several past blogs. (NOTE: See the links at the end of this blog for those postings.) On a few occasions, my support for a rewrite of ESEA has been misinterpreted. Let me be clear that I support high expectations for all students, teachers, principals, school districts and state agencies. Our number-one goal should be student success. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) focused on student success; however, the actual details of implementation lacked equity across the nation.

What I am supporting is a change from the NCLB minimum levels of proficiency for students and schools to a focus on a college and career readiness and a focus on student growth. Kentucky is leading the way in developing an accountability model with these components to replace No Child Left Behind. I have requested that Sec. Duncan review our model. I have worked with the Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO’s) committee on next-generation accountability systems to mirror our state model after the committee’s work.

Our proposed model will be reviewed for the final time by the Kentucky Board of Education at its April 2011 meeting. If you are interested in the details of our model, see the model and the regulatory language that the KBE will be asked to approve next month here.

Finally, let me be clear that no one is trying to avoid the consequences of NCLB. We are trying to build a system that promotes high expectations for ALL children, accountability for students, teachers, principals, districts, and state agencies, and resources/support for all involved.



Blog Postings on ESEA


March 26, 2010 – Focusing on Post-High School Life and Achievement Gaps

April 23, 2010 – Vision for Education Reform in Kentucky

April 30, 2010 – Priorities for School and District Accountability

June 11, 2010 – Teacher Effectiveness

August 6, 2010 – Planning for Proficiency

Don’t Slow Down on Senate Bill 1

On January 14, 2011, I sent a letter sent to legislative leaders opposing any moves to slow down implementation of or redirect funding for 2009’s Senate Bill 1 (SB 1).

The letter was addressed to Senate President David Williams and Speaker of the House Greg Stumbo. Gov. Steve Beshear, Rep. Carl Rollins (chair of the House Education Committee), Sen. Ken Winters (chair of the Senate Education Committee) and members of the Kentucky Board of Education also received copies of the letter.

I sent this letter to counter calls to slow down implementation and use any funding directed for SB 1 for other purposes.

SB 1 is a top priority for the Kentucky Department of Education and Kentucky Board of Education, because students and teachers need an education system that will prepare children for the competitive world environment. I know of no more important expenditure of funds than to prepare our children for their future.

Senate Bill 1 was passed in the 2009 session of the Kentucky General Assembly and is a comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses many items in the area of public school assessment and accountability. The bill, which revised 14 existing laws and created one new statute, requires that a new system of public school assessment and accountability be implemented in the 2011-12 school year.

Although the bill did not specify funding for implementation, monies in the P-12 education budget have been redirected for that purpose, including professional development funds.

You can see the full letter here. Please join me in advocating for steady, strong implementation of this crucial piece of legislation.

Assessment Plans for Kentucky

Senate Bill 1 requires development of new standards in language arts, mathematics, science and social studies by December 2010. As of today, we have been able to partner with 48 other states to develop internationally benchmarked standards in language arts and mathematics.

Kentucky was the first state to adopt the standards, and work begins on April 12 to unpack the standards and begin to translate them into teacher-friendly tools that should help guarantee a strong curriculum in every classroom in Kentucky. We also are in conversation with national leaders who are working on science standards; however, we do not anticipate those standards being completed until 2012. Due to the complicated nature of social studies standards, we are continuing to explore possible partnerships with other states.

Our attention now turns to development of summative and formative assessments based on the Common Core Academic Standards. The federal Race to the Top (RTTT) funds provided $350 million for this work. This week, the U.S. Department of Education released guidelines for states who are interested in applying for the funds. There are two categories of funding.

Category 1 addresses states who want to develop assessments in language arts and mathematics for grades 3-8 and high school (one assessment). States may apply for up to $160 million. The guidelines require a minimum of 15 states for a consortium, with five states serving as governing states. States also may work as design states and/or partnering states. In joining a consortium, states agree to implement the assessments, and the assessments would meet all requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Currently, there are two excellent consortia, and Kentucky is a member of both. However, we may only belong to one consortium, and we have to make a decision on membership within the next few weeks. Kentucky teachers would be heavily involved over the next few years in the development of assessment items and field testing the items from other states, regardless of which consortium we join.

The second category for funding is for development of high school course assessments. Again, Kentucky is well-positioned for this work. The Kentucky Board of Education has provided direction for end-of-course assessments. Senate Bill 1 provided end-of-course assessments as an option. Funding from the RTTT grants is up to $30 million. Through our partnership with the National Center on Education and the Economy, we will apply for these funds to assist in the adaption of existing international assessments to meet requirements of the grant.

Based on the guidelines, we believe that Kentucky will be a member of a funded consortium for both grants. However, we will encounter difficulties with Senate Bill 1 deadlines. We are scheduled to have an assessment ready by spring 2012. Under the funding guidelines, the new NCLB common core assessments would not be ready until the 2014-15 school year. The high school end-of-course assessments could be ready as soon as 2012.

Once the General Assembly session ends, we will meet with key legislators and the Interim Joint Committee on Education to seek guidance on the interim period. We hope to have clarity on this issue by the June-July state conferences. So … the good news is that the cost of development should be provided by the Race to the Top funding. The bad news is that the Senate Bill 1 deadlines may be a concern.

Our goal for state assessments is to provide formative assessment items throughout the year that are open-response, problem-solving and higher-order thinking types of assessment. We will provide standard scoring rubrics or allow school districts to develop and validate their own assessments. The summative assessments will be primarily multiple choice and constructed response. We are hoping to have a plan to score regionally and/or locally and provide feedback on assessments in a much shorter period than current practice. Reaching this goal will depend on our ability to gain funding for deployment. We have great leadership at KDE with the Office of Assessment and Accountability’s Associate Commissioner Ken Draut and the assessment team. Couple that with the terrific leadership of the district assessment coordinators, and Kentucky is in great shape for the future.

Assessments and Common Core Standards

This week’s blog begins a conversation on development of assessments to support the national common core standards.

The conversation about common core standards developed due to states coming together to address the concerns of many parents, legislators and business leaders about the wide variability in the academic standards across the states. The common comparison tool was the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The results of this assessment were used to correlate the level of proficiency on state tests compared to the NAEP level of proficiency. States that had large gaps were said to have lower standards.

In order to remove this debate, the states and National Governors Association (NGA) collaborated on the common core standards movement. If the debate on standards is valid, then it would seem to follow that states develop common core assessments. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has set aside $350 million for this work. The timeline for states to access this funding will probably include a March application deadline and funding availability in June 2010. Kentucky will certainly apply for this funding and be involved in this process. Our position is strong, since we will adopt the common core standards in February, and Senate Bill 1 requires our development of new assessments.

A couple of issues are coming up for discussion. One issue deals with consortia of states who might apply for funding to develop assessments. Why would we have five to ten consortia competing against each other when the final product should be a common core assessment available to each state? Why would we develop a national assessment and then continue to have NAEP administered? Is this not a waste of time and money? I would think that NAEP would need to be revised to match the expectations from the common core standards. Should the new assessment not be benchmarked against international competition? Should the assessments not include levels of formative assessment to help inform instruction?

The answers to these questions will drive the final product. The U.S. Department of Education is currently holding national feedback sessions prior to developing guidance for the application process for assessment dollars. As with any organization, it is what is measured that eventually gains the most attention.

Education is a national defense, moral, civil rights and economic issue. We must make certain that this assessment process has strong support from every stakeholder and that we can ensure the results are valid and reliable predictors of success for individual students, schools, school districts, states and our education system.