Student, Parent and Teacher Engagement

Summer vacation is coming to a close, and Kentucky students are heading back to school, refreshed and ready to learn new skills and challenge themselves to achieve at higher levels in the 2012-13 school year.

Rigorous curriculum, data-driven instruction, high-quality teachers and strong school leadership all play a role in increasing student achievement. But student engagement, as research has shown, is also critical in improving student outcomes.

Quite simply, engaged students are more likely to perform well academically. They invest in their learning, devote time to their studies and persist despite challenges and obstacles. They participate and care about the quality of their work beyond grades. They are committed because they see their studies have significance beyond the classroom.

Achieving positive engagement and positive learning results in Kentucky schools, however, does not just fall to students. It is a collaborative effort that hinges on the involvement of school leaders, teachers, parents and community members.

Teachers are key players in fostering student engagement. They work directly with students and typically are the most influential persons in a student’s educational experience. Creating a culture of high expectations and excellence, developing and delivering challenging, interactive and relevant lessons and activities, and being encouraging and supportive to students are all ways in which teachers can foster student engagement in the classroom.

Parents and guardians also play a pivotal role in student success through engagement. Schools must break down any barriers that impede family involvement in a child’s education and work diligently to increase interaction between adults and students at school and at home. Schools and teachers can do this by creating a welcoming and inviting environment at the school for parents, providing opportunities for parents to collaborate with the school and/or teachers to identify and support student needs, and keeping the lines of communication open. If done thoughtfully and intentionally, cultivating solid family engagement is well worth the time invested.

Parents should realize that they do not have to be present in the classroom during the school day to be involved in their child’s learning; they can offer substantial support from home by reinforcing the importance of taking school seriously, attending classes and completing homework. They also can work with the school or their child’s teacher to identify tasks they could complete at home after work hours that would be helpful. In addition, parents can and should monitor their child’s Individual Learning Plan (ILP) and use it to engage in conversations with their child about school work, goal-setting and college and career aspirations. 

 

According to our Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning (TELL) Kentucky working conditions survey, educators say one of the most important components for successful schools is parent and volunteer engagement in support of teachers and their schools. As we analyzed the data from low-performing schools, in particular, and compared student learning outcomes with parent and volunteer engagement, we found strong correlations -- the greater the engagement, the greater the student success.

So my message this week is simple: Get involved in our schools. It makes a difference. In fact, it is critical to the change we are working for in our schools here in Kentucky.

Certainly, we appreciate everything our communities have and are doing to support Kentucky schools. But there is always room for more. As we begin the 2012-13 school year, I call on everyone – school leaders, teachers, parents and community members – to find ways to increase engagement in our schools. Doing so will not only ensure our students are ready for college and careers, but also help transform our schools and keep Kentucky competitive in the global marketplace.

Kentucky Is Committed to Education Technology

Since coming to Kentucky in 2009, I have been very impressed with the commitment to technology that is apparent throughout the commonwealth’s schools. I believe this commitment originates at the state level with a great plan and support from the General Assembly. Kentucky is certainly a leader among states with regard to state solutions for software and 21st-century classrooms.

Kentucky has a distinct advantage with the uniform student information system (Infinite Campus). This tool allows parent, student and educator access through a variety of platforms. Also, Kentucky has a strong advantage with the live@edu product from Microsoft. Kentucky was the first state in the nation to use cloud services for e-mail and storage. This was made possible by having a statewide active directory for e-mail addresses for educators and students. This active directory also has opened many other software solutions.

The Continuous Instructional Improvement Technology System (CIITS) is a powerful tool for educators across Kentucky. This tool provides educators with access to resources to support the implementation of the common core standards and teacher/principal evaluation systems.

The ASSIST software is another exciting tool for Kentucky educators. This tool will provide a single source for the development, implementation and monitoring of comprehensive school and district improvement plans. Schools and districts will not have to complete separate improvement plans for a variety of funding sources, and the plans will not have to be submitted in paper format. Also, schools and districts will submit Program Reviews required by 2009’s Senate Bill 1 through the ASSIST software.

MUNIS is our statewide solution for school finance. Over the past few months, we have been moving school districts to the MUNIS cloud solution. To date, we have over 100 of the 174 districts on the cloud. The cloud solution helped those districts impacted by recent storms meet payroll and financial obligations.

Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) are available for every student in Kentucky starting in 6th grade. During our recent Operation Preparation focus, we were able to increase the use of the ILPs by over 50 percent for parents of 8th-grade students. The ILP is an excellent way for parents to have conversations about long-range education plans for their children.

iTunes U is another great source for educators, students and parents. The resources from Kentucky educators, colleges and other sources are growing exponentially through this free and easy-to-access tool.

These are just a few of the great tools available to Kentucky educators, students and parents. Kentucky is certainly a 21st-century state when it comes to the use of technology. Again, this is due to strong financial support from the General Assembly; however, the FY 13 and 14 budget has taken a step back from this commitment. While we understand the short-range revenue shortfall, it is certainly our hope that the General Assembly will renew the commitment to education technology as soon as possible. I hope educators will let legislators know what a great impact technology has on the students, classrooms, schools and districts across Kentucky.

Impact of Poverty on Student Learning

Recently, I reviewed a story about poverty and the impact on education outcomes in Texas. Michael Marder, who is a professor of physics at the University of Texas at Austin, also is co-director of the UTeach program that encourages university grads to become math and science teachers.

In the article, Marder discusses his research around student learning outcomes and the correlations with poverty and ethnicity. Interested readers can connect to an excellent video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SPV_sIGncvQ.

Marder’s research shows the strong correlation of poverty to low student achievement and also shows how schools are failing to educate many children of color. Marder clearly states that we have not been able to take a solution to the poverty challenge to scale. He also points out that, while there are a few charter schools that are “beating the odds,” most charter schools in Texas are not achieving strong results.

Marder used the “Boeing” story to illustrate his key point. After World War II, the British tried to regain transportation supremacy through air travel with the de Havilland aircraft. After numerous crashes, the British were unable to develop a theory that would improve the aircraft; however, a young engineer with Boeing came up with a new way of thinking that allowed Boeing and the U.S. to take supremacy in air travel. The British theory had been “flaw free” and had failed. The Boeing theory was a “flaw tolerant” design of aircraft, and it succeeded.

Marder makes the point that “poverty is causing our public school system to crash and burn and fail many children.” He says that if we do not figure out how to address poverty, then we will lose our technical supremacy – as many reports have also documented (Gathering Storm, Incarceration and Social Inequity, a Center for American Progress report and more). Marder says that our current theory of only addressing teacher quality and accountability through standardized tests has not been proven to address failures on a sustained basis. He says we need a new “Boeing” theory.

During my recent visit to China, it was apparent the country is struggling with the same issues – poverty in rural and urban settings, poor performance of schools and failure of schools/society to meet the needs of a diverse group of children. The Chinese have developed five- and 10-year plans that have strategies of strong schools helping weaker schools and strong leaders and teachers helping weaker leaders and teachers. Also, there is a strong push to meet needs of individual learners and use higher level skills of problem solving, creativity and innovation.

Looking at our current national and state reform strategies, I do believe that we also are addressing a systemic approach to improving student learning outcomes. We are not focusing solely on standardized test results and accountability. We have a strong push for a more balanced approach to accountability, strong teachers and leaders, strong instructional support systems, and early childhood.

Marder has posed the concern about our public policy theories of action. The key for policy leaders is to not use poverty as the excuse, but to look for the “Boeing” theory of action that will meet the needs of our children and the future of our Commonwealth.

There are two issues that arise when we discuss poverty and impact on student learning. Either we do not believe children of poverty can learn to high levels, or we do not know how to help children of poverty achieve at high levels. It is difficult to say that we do not know how; however, that response can be addressed. If we do not believe that children of poverty can learn at high levels as well as any child, then we have a more difficult issue.

Planning for Proficiency

This week, the Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) reviewed progress toward the vision of “every child proficient and prepared for success.” The board presentation “The Good, the Bad, the Ugly” provided some background. To summarize from the presentation:
* There is good progress in 4th- and 8th-grade reading, with Kentucky outpacing the nation and also being the only state with significant gains between 2007 and 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores.
* Over the last decade, Kentucky also has made good progress in improving graduation rates; however, as we move toward the cohort graduation rate, we will see a decline in those rates.
* We are not making as much progress with 4th- and 8th-grade math on NAEP, with Kentucky scores being at or below national average.
* The real concerns continue to be with the persistent achievement gaps between groups of students at all levels for every indicator.

The KBE gave support for the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) to begin implementation of the proposed strategic plan. The plan will have four strategic priorities – Next-Generation Learners; Next-Generation Professionals; Next-Generation Support Systems; and Next-Generation Schools and Districts. The KBE gave me direction to develop specific measureable goals for my evaluation and, in turn, the evaluation of the department.

It is now time to turn our attention to finalizing how schools and districts will be measured under the proposed strategic plan. We have been conducting advisory group meetings to gain feedback on revisions to the Kentucky accountability model and school/district report cards. The proposed accountability model would include the following measures:
* Next-Generation Learners – schools and district will receive an A,B,C,D or F grade on student learning results based on new common core assessments. The grade would be derived from a composite of proficiency rates, closing gaps and growth. Middle schools would have a high school readiness component added based on the 8th-grade PLAN assessment. High schools would have a college readiness component and a graduation component added.
* Next-Generation Professionals – schools and districts will receive a grade based on percentage of effective teachers and leaders. This measure will be developed by the teacher and principal effectiveness steering committees.
* Next-Generation Support Systems – schools and districts will receive a grade based on results from the teacher/leader working conditions survey to be administered for the first time in spring 2011. Also, program review performance will be included to ensure schools and districts are continuing to focus on a complete education in addition to tested subjects.
* Next-Generation Schools/Districts – within this strategic priority, districts will be graded on percentage of schools they have at each grading level. Also, school report cards will be revised to show performance on the above measures.

Let me reiterate that the new report cards and accountability system are only PROPOSED at this point. We are gaining feedback from all stakeholders; however, the time for action by the Kentucky Board of Education is drawing close. The KBE will receive a draft proposal at the October board meeting, and a final vote will be taken at the December board meeting. Should legislation be required for any component, we will work with legislators during the 2011 short session.

We do anticipate the reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) next spring, and we anticipate the revisions to ESEA will contain many of the components we are proposing in the Kentucky model. Also, 2009’s Senate Bill 1 (KRS 158.6453) required the KBE to develop and implement a new accountability model by the 2011-12 school year – thus, the reason for the timeline.

Thanks for reading this blog, and remember that the driving force behind all of this work is “every child proficient and prepared for success.” A vision without work is just a dream. We are working to make the dream a reality!

Teacher Effectiveness

You can’t pick up an education publication these days without reading an article about teacher effectiveness. Teacher effectiveness is the new buzz word for this decade.

Since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) authorization, the focus has been on highly qualified teachers. During the past eight years of NCLB, we have seen many states and districts achieve 99 percent highly qualified teachers. What also happens is that teacher evaluation systems report over 95 percent of teachers at or above standard.

However, graduation rates indicate that children are not successful in school. Apparently, the inconsistency is due to lack of focus on teacher effectiveness. So, we have lots of proponents of tying evaluation to test scores, merit pay, performance pay, value-added and the list goes on.

Many foundations are promoting the teacher effectiveness conversation, and the U.S. Department of Education is focusing Race to the Top and NCLB/ESEA reauthorization on teacher effectiveness. This focus is the right focus; however, I am not so certain that the details are on target.

I read a great article in Education Week recently. The article was by Dr. James Stigler, who is a senior fellow with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. He cautioned readers that we need to rethink teacher accountability before it is too late. The article resonated with me since it had close alignment with the philosophies of W. Edwards Deming. In the article, Dr. Stigler talks about the Japanese model of “lesson study.” This is a highly engaging model where teachers develop common assessments, teach common curriculum, teach on a common calendar and work together to monitor student achievement and study best practices for intervening when students are not successful. Japanese teachers are provided with the time and support to have these professional conversations. In the U.S., we are calling this approach the professional learning community.

The reason I liked this article so much was the relationship to the work I was part of in my former school system. The Iredell-Statesville system in North Carolina was recognized as the 2008 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award recipient in education. A key reason for the recognition was the level of deployment of professional learning communities and classroom Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) cycles, which are a key component of the Deming philosophy. These cycles very much mirror the Japanese lesson study model. Teachers of same subject met weekly to develop common curriculum, learning targets for students and common assessments and to share best instructional strategies. The student learning results over seven years in the school system documented that the PDSA method worked for all subjects, all grades and all types of students.

While discussions about teacher effectiveness are extremely important, I could never support a system that utilizes only standardized testing to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers. I will support working with teachers and other stakeholders to develop a growth model for teacher effectiveness that has multiple measures. I have appointed a teacher effectiveness steering committee to follow up from our Race to the Top application. This group is comprised of teachers, principals, superintendents and other key stakeholders. I am very excited about their work and look forward to the discussions we will have.

This work is not easy, and it will take several years to develop a valid, reliable and fair system for gauging teacher effectiveness. I also know that we must measure the working conditions within which teachers work. Another Deming philosophy I strongly adhere to is that, in most cases, non-performance and poor results are a direct result of the system and not the people in the system. By measuring working conditions, we can determine at the school, district and state levels what working conditions need to be in place for teachers and principals to be more effective in helping more students succeed. The bottom line for me is that we must DO this work WITH teachers and principals and not just do it TO them.

Value-Added Systems and Accountability

Those who are following news articles about Race to the Top or other education communications know there is a great deal of debate about holding teachers and principals accountable for student test scores. I have gone on record that I could never support a teacher or principal evaluation system that was solely based on the results of student test scores on a one-day, one-time test.

I recently reviewed an excellent report from the National Academy of Science workshop called “Getting Value Out of Value Added.” I encourage you to read the full report at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12820.html. (The report is available as a free download.)

This report focuses on the value-added concept, but also provides an excellent overview of the current state of testing and accountability in the assessment world. There are several models of assessment:

Status Model – this model is a snapshot at a certain point in time and answers questions such as “What percentage of students are meeting state proficiency standards?”
Cohort-to-Cohort Model – this model compares one group of students against another group of students. “How are 4th graders doing this year as compared to 4th graders last year?”
Growth Model – this model usually shows growth from year to year for individual students, classrooms and schools. There is usually a developmental growth scale that is the basis for measuring growth. I am very familiar with this model, since it was utilized in North Carolina and South Carolina, where I served as superintendent and testing coordinator.
Value-Added Model – Tennessee probably has the best example of a value-added model. This model attempts to answer the questions around how much value a particular teacher, school or program added to a student’s or group of students’ performance.

There are MANY yet unanswered issues and problems with all of the models. The report cited several concerns with value-added models.

Some research findings focused, for example, on problems with the tests that provide the raw data for value-added analyses; others were concerned with technical aspects of different value-added approaches, especially with sources of bias and imprecision; and still others focused on issues of transparency and public understanding of the results. Some of the concerns, such as the fact that tests are incomplete measures of student achievement, are general problems that arise. The major concern with value-added models is the inability of principals and schools to randomly assign students to teachers.

In Kentucky, our approach to the development teacher and principal effectiveness measures will be led by groups of practitioners and other stakeholders. As commissioner, I am appointing a steering committee for the teacher and principal effectiveness work. These groups will begin work very soon to manage the pilot process that we have been developing this year through support from the Wallace Foundation. Eventually, we hope to work closely with the General Assembly to make any necessary statutory changes and with the Education Professional Standards Board and Kentucky Board of Education to make appropriate regulatory changes. Our intent is to develop a statewide system of evaluation that is a valid, fair and reliable measure of teacher and principal effectiveness. We also hope to continue to work with our partners to develop superintendent and school board effectiveness measures.

While Race to the Top is currently driving this conversation, we also have State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, Title I, Title II, School Improvement Grants and other competitive programs pushing this conversation. We are NOT rushing into methods that could turn out to be unfair and not valid measures of effectiveness. We ARE heavily involving stakeholders in the development of the process, and we hope that Race to the Top will provide the funding to develop an outstanding effectiveness process that would lead to more children proficient and prepared for success.

Remarks to House Education Committee Concerning HB 301

During the early ‘80s, I was doing an internship in order to receive my principal license. I was matched with a veteran high school principal, and I started at the beginning of the school year. During the first few days, I walked along with him as he patrolled the halls. He told me that his job for the first two weeks was to single out 10 to 12 “drop-back-in” students. The purpose, he told me, was to get them out as quickly as possible.

Why? The students usually just dropped back in to see if the rules had changed, and when they found out nothing had changed, they then started creating problems for teachers. He said teachers really liked this visible show of support for a safe environment. I thought at the time – what about the kids? What happens to them?

When I became an assistant principal at the same school, I was determined to do something different for the drop-back-in students. That was when I started to really investigate alternative programs. I quickly figured out that the adults needed to change, rather than expecting the children to be something they were not able to be.

As with most things, I was probably a little ahead of my time, but when I became a superintendent in North Carolina, I had to meet with 16-year-olds who wanted to drop out of school. At most of these meetings, I was frustrated and the parents were frustrated. Why?

There was something terribly wrong with these scenarios – the 16-year-old students were making the decisions and telling the adults what they were going to do. A 16-year-old does not have the capacity to understand how a short-term decision is going to have such long-lasting ramifications on his/her life.

In my next superintendent position, I established a policy that would not allow students to get a waiver to drop out and get a GED. While this frustrated parents, students and teachers, it was the right thing to do. What happened as a result was that we created model programs that lowered the dropout rate from being the highest in North Carolina to one of the 10 best. The graduation rate moved from 58 percent to more than 80 percent.

We have the capacity to implement House Bill 301 in Kentucky. The Kentucky Board of Education strongly supports college- and career-ready graduates as being the number 1 goal for our agency. We have initiatives in place that already support this bill, and in March and April meetings, the Governor’s Transforming Education in Kentucky Task Force will be looking at specific programs that can be implemented based on Section 2, Part 6 of this bill.

Many districts, like Warren County, Jessamine County and Fayette County, are already implementing initiatives that address the dropout rate. The adults can figure out how to address the needs of the children. While we could do this without the bill, the bill gives the adults the leverage we need to change what we do.

I encourage you to send a strong signal to students, parents and teachers - support this bill based on what is right for children and the future of Kentucky, not on what is convenient for adults.