Over the past few weeks, Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) staff have presented on several occasions at conferences sponsored by our partners.
In late June, we had the opportunity to present to the Kentucky Association of School Superintendents (KASS) summer conference. Thanks to Executive Director Wilson Sears and the KASS board for their collaboration and support of TELL Kentucky and our Unbridled Learning strategic plan. KASS and the regional cooperatives are extremely important in implementing the Common Core Standards.
Last weekend, we had an opportunity to address the Kentucky School Boards Association (KSBA) summer conference. Our many thanks to Executive Director Bill Scott and his great staff for their focus on TELL Kentucky and Unbridled Learning. KDE staff put together a great session that provided school board members with up-to-date information on the KDE and Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) initiatives.
This week, numerous KDE staff had the opportunity to present to the 43rd annual Kentucky Association of School Administrators (KASA) summer conference. I had the pleasure of addressing the group at the opening session. KASA has changed its logo to focus on next-generation learning and leading, which is very much aligned with the KBE focus on next-generation learning. Executive Director Wayne Young and his excellent staff are strong supporters of the implementation work for our Unbridled Learning and TELL Kentucky initiatives.
I was very impressed with Wayne Young’s “top ten” presentation that he does annually at the conference. One of the most impressive presentations I have heard in many years came from Manuel Scott. Manuel was one of the students documented in the movie Freedom Writers. Manuel’s message was very motivational. He speaks for the many children in our nation’s schools who have no one to speak for them or to listen to them. He praised the administrators for what they do every day for children, but also challenged the group to make a difference for even more children.
In case readers are interested in presentations that I make to partners, you can access those presentations on my Web page. Our partners in Kentucky are extremely important if we are to reach our vision of every child proficient and prepared for success. We are very privileged to have such great partners in Kentucky.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Our Students Are Watching Our Behaviors
In the spring of 2009, I had the honor of standing on stage with my fellow state superintendents of the year at the annual American Association of School Administrators (AASA) conference in San Francisco. Little did I know that one day I would be working with one of the four finalists -- Stu Silberman -- in Kentucky.
This past week, I was reminded of that recognition ceremony but not in a positive way. Beverly Hall was selected as the AASA National Superintendent of the Year in 2009. Beverly was the superintendent of the Atlanta Public Schools at that time. This week, the state of Georgia released the results of an investigation concerning cheating by principals and teachers on standardized tests.
This report from Georgia comes on the heels of two major national reports on standardized testing. From the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a recent report entitled Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education and from the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), a report entitled Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An American Agenda for Education Reform. I think it appropriate to highlight some of the key points from these reports.
The NAS report has two major conclusions and two major recommendations. The report concludes that test-based incentive programs have not increased student achievement enough to bring the U.S. close to the levels of the highest-achieving countries. The other conclusion is that high school exit exam programs decrease the rate of high school graduation without increasing achievement.
The recommendations from the report promote the development and evaluation of promising new models that use test-based incentives in more sophisticated ways as one aspect of a richer accountability and improvement process. Also, the report recommends that policymakers and researchers design and evaluate new test-based incentive programs in ways that provide information about alternative approaches to incentives and accountability.
From the NCEE report, the basic premise is that the U.S. should look to those practices from countries that are performing at higher levels than the U.S. on international assessments. The report discusses a focus on teacher preparation, rigorous standards, continuous improvement and support for the existing teaching force. The report highlights the fact that no country performing at higher levels than the U.S. has a singular focus on standardized testing and incentives related to performance on standardized testing.
What does the Atlanta scandal and other testing scandals in D.C. and Baltimore mean for our work in Kentucky? What implications do we draw from these recent reports? The key learning for me is balance. Standardized tests do not create scandals. People create scandals. How leaders both in the classroom and outside the classroom utilize results from standardized tests can either create a focus on improvement of teaching and learning or create negative pressure. How leaders use the results for personnel decisions and incentives can either create a focus on teaching and learning or create negative conditions for teaching and learning.
In Kentucky we are committed to a growth model for our accountability system that is balanced. We are committed to utilizing standardized test results as part of the accountability model; however, test results will not be the singular component of the model. While the state can certainly set the tone, it will always be up to individual school boards, superintendents, principals and teachers to model professional behavior for the eyes that are watching – the students.
This past week, I was reminded of that recognition ceremony but not in a positive way. Beverly Hall was selected as the AASA National Superintendent of the Year in 2009. Beverly was the superintendent of the Atlanta Public Schools at that time. This week, the state of Georgia released the results of an investigation concerning cheating by principals and teachers on standardized tests.
This report from Georgia comes on the heels of two major national reports on standardized testing. From the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a recent report entitled Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education and from the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), a report entitled Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An American Agenda for Education Reform. I think it appropriate to highlight some of the key points from these reports.
The NAS report has two major conclusions and two major recommendations. The report concludes that test-based incentive programs have not increased student achievement enough to bring the U.S. close to the levels of the highest-achieving countries. The other conclusion is that high school exit exam programs decrease the rate of high school graduation without increasing achievement.
The recommendations from the report promote the development and evaluation of promising new models that use test-based incentives in more sophisticated ways as one aspect of a richer accountability and improvement process. Also, the report recommends that policymakers and researchers design and evaluate new test-based incentive programs in ways that provide information about alternative approaches to incentives and accountability.
From the NCEE report, the basic premise is that the U.S. should look to those practices from countries that are performing at higher levels than the U.S. on international assessments. The report discusses a focus on teacher preparation, rigorous standards, continuous improvement and support for the existing teaching force. The report highlights the fact that no country performing at higher levels than the U.S. has a singular focus on standardized testing and incentives related to performance on standardized testing.
What does the Atlanta scandal and other testing scandals in D.C. and Baltimore mean for our work in Kentucky? What implications do we draw from these recent reports? The key learning for me is balance. Standardized tests do not create scandals. People create scandals. How leaders both in the classroom and outside the classroom utilize results from standardized tests can either create a focus on improvement of teaching and learning or create negative pressure. How leaders use the results for personnel decisions and incentives can either create a focus on teaching and learning or create negative conditions for teaching and learning.
In Kentucky we are committed to a growth model for our accountability system that is balanced. We are committed to utilizing standardized test results as part of the accountability model; however, test results will not be the singular component of the model. While the state can certainly set the tone, it will always be up to individual school boards, superintendents, principals and teachers to model professional behavior for the eyes that are watching – the students.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Activity Moving Quickly on NCLB Flexibility
This past week, I spent time at the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) Legislative Conference. It was my honor to serve on two panels. One panel discussed the “new normal” of higher expectations with less funding, and the other panel discussed the middle grades report that will soon be released by SREB.
Several House and Senate members from Kentucky were in attendance, along with members from the 10 other states that comprise the SREB. Kentucky Senator Jack Westwood chairs the SREB legislative conference. A much-discussed topic during the meeting was Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization and Kentucky’s request for flexibility, waiver and replacement of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability model.
This week, I also had the honor of serving on a panel sponsored by the American Institutes for Research and Education Week. The meeting location was the new Capitol Visitors Center in Washington, D.C. The topic of this panel was school turnaround. The meeting was attended by numerous D.C. advocacy groups and key staff with the House and Senate committees that are revising NCLB.
It appears that the House and Senate remain split on how to move forward with reauthorization. In discussions with Senate staff, there is strong support for the Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO’s) guiding principles for next-generation accountability systems to replace NCLB. Of course, these guiding principles were the basis for the Kentucky accountability model that was submitted to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan by Gov. Steve Beshear in our waiver request. On the House side, it appears that Chairman John Kline (R-MN) has a lot of new members on the committee and is moving toward several pieces of legislation to address components of reauthorization. Bottom line – most people in D.C. predict that we will not see reauthorization until after the presidential election in 2012.
This week, NPR highlighted Kentucky and Idaho as having two different approaches toward NCLB. Idaho, along with Utah, South Dakota, Montana and Nevada, has informed Sec. Duncan of its intent not to “raise the bar” for student proficiency this year as required by existing NCLB legislation. Kentucky has asked for replacement of NCLB accountability with a more rigorous model that promotes student growth and college/career readiness for all students.
While the two may seem at odds, they actually are not. The western states are asking for a method that would keep NCLB relevant. If 100 percent of schools and districts are labeled as “needs improvement” (which will soon happen due to the nature of NCLB legislation), then the law is not relevant. By holding the line at the current proficiency level, these states believe they would keep the law relevant until they develop new accountability models based on the CCSSO principles. The only difference between the two approaches is that Kentucky and other states (North Carolina and Colorado, to name just two) are ready to propose new accountability models based on CCSSO principles.
Over the next few weeks, CCSSO staff, chiefs from the states and our Kentucky staff will be communicating directly with the U.S. Department of Education to establish expectations and guidelines for the waiver process. My expectation is that Kentucky will have clear direction from the department concerning our accountability model prior to the start of the school year. Stay tuned – events are moving quickly.
Several House and Senate members from Kentucky were in attendance, along with members from the 10 other states that comprise the SREB. Kentucky Senator Jack Westwood chairs the SREB legislative conference. A much-discussed topic during the meeting was Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization and Kentucky’s request for flexibility, waiver and replacement of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability model.
This week, I also had the honor of serving on a panel sponsored by the American Institutes for Research and Education Week. The meeting location was the new Capitol Visitors Center in Washington, D.C. The topic of this panel was school turnaround. The meeting was attended by numerous D.C. advocacy groups and key staff with the House and Senate committees that are revising NCLB.
It appears that the House and Senate remain split on how to move forward with reauthorization. In discussions with Senate staff, there is strong support for the Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO’s) guiding principles for next-generation accountability systems to replace NCLB. Of course, these guiding principles were the basis for the Kentucky accountability model that was submitted to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan by Gov. Steve Beshear in our waiver request. On the House side, it appears that Chairman John Kline (R-MN) has a lot of new members on the committee and is moving toward several pieces of legislation to address components of reauthorization. Bottom line – most people in D.C. predict that we will not see reauthorization until after the presidential election in 2012.
This week, NPR highlighted Kentucky and Idaho as having two different approaches toward NCLB. Idaho, along with Utah, South Dakota, Montana and Nevada, has informed Sec. Duncan of its intent not to “raise the bar” for student proficiency this year as required by existing NCLB legislation. Kentucky has asked for replacement of NCLB accountability with a more rigorous model that promotes student growth and college/career readiness for all students.
While the two may seem at odds, they actually are not. The western states are asking for a method that would keep NCLB relevant. If 100 percent of schools and districts are labeled as “needs improvement” (which will soon happen due to the nature of NCLB legislation), then the law is not relevant. By holding the line at the current proficiency level, these states believe they would keep the law relevant until they develop new accountability models based on the CCSSO principles. The only difference between the two approaches is that Kentucky and other states (North Carolina and Colorado, to name just two) are ready to propose new accountability models based on CCSSO principles.
Over the next few weeks, CCSSO staff, chiefs from the states and our Kentucky staff will be communicating directly with the U.S. Department of Education to establish expectations and guidelines for the waiver process. My expectation is that Kentucky will have clear direction from the department concerning our accountability model prior to the start of the school year. Stay tuned – events are moving quickly.
Friday, June 24, 2011
What’s the Rush?
It was another interesting week in Kentucky. Two years of hard work culminated in the release of the Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO’s) guiding principles for next-generation accountability models and the request by Gov. Steve Beshear that Kentucky be allowed to utilize the Kentucky next-generation accountability model as a replacement for the out-of-date No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability model.
These activities met with a lot of support from teachers and administrators. The activities also were met with some skepticism. One statement that surprised me was a concern from a legislator that we were premature in our request. So, this blog provides a little background on why we are pushing hard to get a waiver approved before the start of the 2011-12 school year.
In April of 2009, the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) and Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) began working very diligently to implement 2009’s Senate Bill 1. This bill required new standards, new assessments, a new accountability model and support for teachers. The deadline was the 2011-12 school year.
We have met the deadline with standards in English/language arts and mathematics, with science and social studies to come online within the next 12 months. We have met the deadline for assessments and the deadline for the accountability model. Over the past two years, we have provided multiple opportunities for feedback from teachers, principals, superintendents, parents and partners. Our work has been guided by the state assessment and accountability council and the national technical advisory panel. The Kentucky Board of Education has held numerous work sessions to receive and provide guidance on the development of the accountability model.
The next-generation student learning component is ready to go and will be implemented in 2011-12. The next-generation instructional programs and support (Program Reviews) will be implemented in 2011-12, with results from the Program Reviews added to the accountability scores in 2012-13. Next-generation professionals (effective teachers and principals) will be added in 2013-14, dependent on a statewide validity and reliability study.
Parallel to our state work on accountability, CCSSO has been working on Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization and the guiding principles for reauthorization and next-generation accountability models. The Kentucky work informed the CCSSO work and vice-versa. We have been very clear in numerous blogs, Fast Five e-mails, KBE meetings and stakeholder presentations that our first priority was reauthorization of ESEA; however, if ESEA was not authorized, we would move forward with a waiver request to replace NCLB accountability with the Kentucky model.
The Kentucky model is built upon the key components of NCLB (proficiency, graduation rate and gap). The Kentucky model adds the key components of student longitudinal growth and college/career readiness. The Kentucky model also is very innovative in adding the non-tested areas like art, music, humanities, career studies, practical living and writing through Program Reviews. The Kentucky model is an innovative model that is balanced and more rigorous in expectations than the NCLB model.
The announcement last week by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan that he would entertain requests for waiver if Congress was not able to reauthorize ESEA gave us some sense of urgency. When CCSSO announced the release of the next-generation accountability model this week, we believed it was perfect timing for Kentucky to move forward.
In a nutshell – the following provide the basis for Kentucky moving forward with our waiver request:
* Senate Bill 1 required a new accountability model for 2011-12.
* The KBE has approved (after much feedback and discussion) the next-generation accountability model.
* Kentucky educators overwhelmingly support having one accountability model, rather than having both state accountability and national accountability models. Having two accountability models has been very confusing.
* Moving to the Senate Bill 1 accountability model will focus our work in Kentucky on preparing students for college and careers in addition to current focus of NCLB (proficiency and gaps).
Educators need to know the rules of the game (accountability) prior to the start of the game (beginning of school year).
* The federal NCLB law is clear that states may propose waiver requests. By being early in the process, Kentucky can propose components that make sense in this state, rather than having the U.S. Department of Education establish rigid guidelines.
In March 2010, Kentucky became the first state to adopt the Common Core Standards. The same critics came out then and said our decision was premature and risky. Since that time, 44 states have joined Kentucky in adopting the standards. The same critics have surfaced over the accountability model. They say Kentucky is being premature, and our actions are risky. This week, CCSSO announced that 41 states support the guiding principles upon which the Kentucky model was built.
The eyes of the nation are certainly on Kentucky; however, the topic of interest to me is the goal of increasing the percentage of college/career-ready graduates from 34 percent to 67 percent by 2015. Over the coming weeks, I will be asking our partners and educators across Kentucky to express their support of the next-generation accountability model. It is time for us to present a position of strength. We need to prepare our children for the jobs of the future, and the Kentucky accountability model will do just that.
These activities met with a lot of support from teachers and administrators. The activities also were met with some skepticism. One statement that surprised me was a concern from a legislator that we were premature in our request. So, this blog provides a little background on why we are pushing hard to get a waiver approved before the start of the 2011-12 school year.
In April of 2009, the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) and Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) began working very diligently to implement 2009’s Senate Bill 1. This bill required new standards, new assessments, a new accountability model and support for teachers. The deadline was the 2011-12 school year.
We have met the deadline with standards in English/language arts and mathematics, with science and social studies to come online within the next 12 months. We have met the deadline for assessments and the deadline for the accountability model. Over the past two years, we have provided multiple opportunities for feedback from teachers, principals, superintendents, parents and partners. Our work has been guided by the state assessment and accountability council and the national technical advisory panel. The Kentucky Board of Education has held numerous work sessions to receive and provide guidance on the development of the accountability model.
The next-generation student learning component is ready to go and will be implemented in 2011-12. The next-generation instructional programs and support (Program Reviews) will be implemented in 2011-12, with results from the Program Reviews added to the accountability scores in 2012-13. Next-generation professionals (effective teachers and principals) will be added in 2013-14, dependent on a statewide validity and reliability study.
Parallel to our state work on accountability, CCSSO has been working on Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization and the guiding principles for reauthorization and next-generation accountability models. The Kentucky work informed the CCSSO work and vice-versa. We have been very clear in numerous blogs, Fast Five e-mails, KBE meetings and stakeholder presentations that our first priority was reauthorization of ESEA; however, if ESEA was not authorized, we would move forward with a waiver request to replace NCLB accountability with the Kentucky model.
The Kentucky model is built upon the key components of NCLB (proficiency, graduation rate and gap). The Kentucky model adds the key components of student longitudinal growth and college/career readiness. The Kentucky model also is very innovative in adding the non-tested areas like art, music, humanities, career studies, practical living and writing through Program Reviews. The Kentucky model is an innovative model that is balanced and more rigorous in expectations than the NCLB model.
The announcement last week by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan that he would entertain requests for waiver if Congress was not able to reauthorize ESEA gave us some sense of urgency. When CCSSO announced the release of the next-generation accountability model this week, we believed it was perfect timing for Kentucky to move forward.
In a nutshell – the following provide the basis for Kentucky moving forward with our waiver request:
* Senate Bill 1 required a new accountability model for 2011-12.
* The KBE has approved (after much feedback and discussion) the next-generation accountability model.
* Kentucky educators overwhelmingly support having one accountability model, rather than having both state accountability and national accountability models. Having two accountability models has been very confusing.
* Moving to the Senate Bill 1 accountability model will focus our work in Kentucky on preparing students for college and careers in addition to current focus of NCLB (proficiency and gaps).
Educators need to know the rules of the game (accountability) prior to the start of the game (beginning of school year).
* The federal NCLB law is clear that states may propose waiver requests. By being early in the process, Kentucky can propose components that make sense in this state, rather than having the U.S. Department of Education establish rigid guidelines.
In March 2010, Kentucky became the first state to adopt the Common Core Standards. The same critics came out then and said our decision was premature and risky. Since that time, 44 states have joined Kentucky in adopting the standards. The same critics have surfaced over the accountability model. They say Kentucky is being premature, and our actions are risky. This week, CCSSO announced that 41 states support the guiding principles upon which the Kentucky model was built.
The eyes of the nation are certainly on Kentucky; however, the topic of interest to me is the goal of increasing the percentage of college/career-ready graduates from 34 percent to 67 percent by 2015. Over the coming weeks, I will be asking our partners and educators across Kentucky to express their support of the next-generation accountability model. It is time for us to present a position of strength. We need to prepare our children for the jobs of the future, and the Kentucky accountability model will do just that.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Teacher Evaluation for Growth
It was an exciting week for education in Kentucky. We started the week with a presentation to the Interim Joint Committee on Education. The major focus of the presentation was the work of the Teacher Effectiveness Steering Committee.
I asked this group to develop a teacher effectiveness model that would promote teacher growth, increases in student learning and a holistic approach to defining effective teaching. I met with the committee this morning to discuss the implications and challenges to their work thus far.
One document that the committee utilized to frame our discussion this morning was the National Education Association (NEA) position paper on teacher assessment and evaluation. This document provides several excellent points.
* Current systems of assessing, evaluating and supporting teachers too often fail to improve teacher practice and enhance student growth and learning.
* Current policy discourse about teacher evaluation is mired in a rewards-and punishment framework that aims to measure effectiveness of each teacher, categorize and rank teachers, reward those at the top and fire those at the bottom
* The core purpose of teacher assessment and evaluation should be to strengthen the knowledge, skills, dispositions and classroom practices of professional educators.
These guiding principles were very closely aligned with my original charge to the teacher effectiveness steering committee. I asked that group to develop a growth system that would promote the growth of teachers so they could enhance student growth and learning. Bottom line – I asked them to create conditions for a learning system for all (administrators, teachers and students) rather than a teaching system that focused on checklists and little feedback for growth.
The next steps are to recruit 50 of the 174 school districts to pilot the multiple measures that the teacher effectiveness system might include. These measures include such things as observations, self-assessment, professional development/growth plan, student voice, parent voice, peer feedback and, certainly, student growth. The 2011-12 school year 2011-12 will be a pilot year to gain confidence in the content and face validity of the multiple measures. In 2012-13, we will do a statewide pilot/validation of the system and, hopefully, be ready to implement the system in 2013-14.
We hope to include teacher and principal effectiveness as a measure in the state accountability model. At this time, we are not certain if legislation will be required. It has been our hope from the beginning that we would work collaboratively to build a model of teacher effectiveness that all districts, principals and teachers would want to support and implement. Only time will tell if we are successful in this effort.
Effective teachers and leaders are the most important parts of helping all children succeed. Our children’s future is at stake.
I asked this group to develop a teacher effectiveness model that would promote teacher growth, increases in student learning and a holistic approach to defining effective teaching. I met with the committee this morning to discuss the implications and challenges to their work thus far.
One document that the committee utilized to frame our discussion this morning was the National Education Association (NEA) position paper on teacher assessment and evaluation. This document provides several excellent points.
* Current systems of assessing, evaluating and supporting teachers too often fail to improve teacher practice and enhance student growth and learning.
* Current policy discourse about teacher evaluation is mired in a rewards-and punishment framework that aims to measure effectiveness of each teacher, categorize and rank teachers, reward those at the top and fire those at the bottom
* The core purpose of teacher assessment and evaluation should be to strengthen the knowledge, skills, dispositions and classroom practices of professional educators.
These guiding principles were very closely aligned with my original charge to the teacher effectiveness steering committee. I asked that group to develop a growth system that would promote the growth of teachers so they could enhance student growth and learning. Bottom line – I asked them to create conditions for a learning system for all (administrators, teachers and students) rather than a teaching system that focused on checklists and little feedback for growth.
The next steps are to recruit 50 of the 174 school districts to pilot the multiple measures that the teacher effectiveness system might include. These measures include such things as observations, self-assessment, professional development/growth plan, student voice, parent voice, peer feedback and, certainly, student growth. The 2011-12 school year 2011-12 will be a pilot year to gain confidence in the content and face validity of the multiple measures. In 2012-13, we will do a statewide pilot/validation of the system and, hopefully, be ready to implement the system in 2013-14.
We hope to include teacher and principal effectiveness as a measure in the state accountability model. At this time, we are not certain if legislation will be required. It has been our hope from the beginning that we would work collaboratively to build a model of teacher effectiveness that all districts, principals and teachers would want to support and implement. Only time will tell if we are successful in this effort.
Effective teachers and leaders are the most important parts of helping all children succeed. Our children’s future is at stake.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Listening to Educators
The Kentucky Board of Education received a summary of the results from the Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning (TELL) Kentucky Survey this week. Over 42,000 educators responded to the survey. Kentucky had the largest first-year response rate of any other state utilizing the survey (more than 80 percent).
Board Chair David Karem and several other board members were very clear – “Given the enormous response to the survey, if we do not utilize the data from the survey, then we will make working conditions and morale worse in our schools and districts.”
It is time now to ensure that we not only listen to our educators, but we also enact policies, budgets and actions that will improve the working conditions in our schools. The research is very clear that the working conditions in our schools impact student learning and teacher retention.
The TELL Kentucky survey was developed and implemented by a strong coalition of partner organizations across Kentucky. For a full list of the partners, please go to www.tellkentucky.org. This group did an amazing job of planning and implementing strategies that would ensure strong participation by educators across Kentucky.
The results speak for themselves. The coalition is now hard at work in focusing on how to utilize the results from the survey. The Education Professional Standards Board, Kentucky School Boards Association, Kentucky Association of School Administrators, Kentucky Association of School Superintendents, Kentucky Education Association, Kentucky Association of School Councils and others are hard at working developing training modules and materials for school boards, superintendents, principals, school councils and communities. The Kentucky Department of Education will be working to implement policies and procedures to ensure schools and districts utilize the data to develop improvement plans.
It is our plan to provide the survey every two years and require schools and districts to target improvement areas from the survey results in their school and district improvement plans. We are very confident with the research base that if schools and districts improve working conditions, we will see increases in student learning outcomes, teacher/principal morale and teacher/principal retention rates.
Our educators have told us what they need in the way of support – our job as leaders is to now get busy in providing that support!
Board Chair David Karem and several other board members were very clear – “Given the enormous response to the survey, if we do not utilize the data from the survey, then we will make working conditions and morale worse in our schools and districts.”
It is time now to ensure that we not only listen to our educators, but we also enact policies, budgets and actions that will improve the working conditions in our schools. The research is very clear that the working conditions in our schools impact student learning and teacher retention.
The TELL Kentucky survey was developed and implemented by a strong coalition of partner organizations across Kentucky. For a full list of the partners, please go to www.tellkentucky.org. This group did an amazing job of planning and implementing strategies that would ensure strong participation by educators across Kentucky.
The results speak for themselves. The coalition is now hard at work in focusing on how to utilize the results from the survey. The Education Professional Standards Board, Kentucky School Boards Association, Kentucky Association of School Administrators, Kentucky Association of School Superintendents, Kentucky Education Association, Kentucky Association of School Councils and others are hard at working developing training modules and materials for school boards, superintendents, principals, school councils and communities. The Kentucky Department of Education will be working to implement policies and procedures to ensure schools and districts utilize the data to develop improvement plans.
It is our plan to provide the survey every two years and require schools and districts to target improvement areas from the survey results in their school and district improvement plans. We are very confident with the research base that if schools and districts improve working conditions, we will see increases in student learning outcomes, teacher/principal morale and teacher/principal retention rates.
Our educators have told us what they need in the way of support – our job as leaders is to now get busy in providing that support!
Friday, June 3, 2011
Ships Passing in the Night
During my recent visit to China with the Asia Society and Council of Chief State School Officers, I was impressed with many of the efforts that are being made to improve education in China. However, there was one striking difference between Chinese education and American education reform efforts. I told my fellow delegation members that it seemed we were two ships passing in the night.
Chinese education has long been focused on exam results. Students in China have exams every semester during the nine years of compulsory schooling (ages 6-15). High school entrance exams are very intense. Scores on high school entrance exams can lead to three paths: key schools (better schools), vocational schools or dropouts. The key schools serve to better prepare students for the university exams, and the vocational schools focus on technical skills and jobs.
The Chinese college entrance exam dates back to 900 A.D., when it was used to screen for civil servants. It is expected that there will be five to seven percent of students prepared for university. (This is steadily increasing as the Chinese expand higher education.) About 30 to 40 percent of the high school graduates actually pass the entrance exam; however, space in the universities is limited, so many students go to work, and some go to technical colleges.
Chinese families really focus on the exam preparation of their child. (Chinese families are limited to one child.) Chinese teenagers do not date, spend 25 to 30 percent more time with studies than American teenagers and don’t work outside the home, and the teenagers understand that education is their JOB.
However, the focus in China is slowly changing. As we met with school and government officials, the constant theme of questions was focused on how American schools teach innovation, problem-solving and creativity. WOW! Even in Shanghai (top scorers on the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA), the focus was on providing students with more creativity options – like music and art – and providing students with more opportunities to conduct scientific experiments and solve problems that were of interest to them. It seems the Chinese ship is sailing in a direction away from complete focus on standardized test scores.
Readers recognize where I am headed here. Since 2001, the U.S. has focused heavily on test scores. Not a day goes by that we do not have editorials and national panels talking about the poor job we are doing in the nation due to our poor performance on test scores.
Our ship is sailing toward more focus on test scores. Our ship is sailing toward judging teachers and principals solely on the basis of test scores. Our ship is sailing toward elimination of art and music programs to focus more on getting students prepared for reading and math tests.
These ships do not have to pass in the night. There is a way that they can sail together. We must have some focus on accountability and measurement of student progress; however, we must find ways to assess and measure creativity, problem-solving and innovation. We must provide a more balanced assessment and accountability system.
I truly believe we are headed in that direction with Senate Bill 1 and the accountability model that is being developed in Kentucky. We do not have to make an either/or choice. We need not bow to the tyranny of “or;” we need to embrace the genius of “and.”
Chinese education has long been focused on exam results. Students in China have exams every semester during the nine years of compulsory schooling (ages 6-15). High school entrance exams are very intense. Scores on high school entrance exams can lead to three paths: key schools (better schools), vocational schools or dropouts. The key schools serve to better prepare students for the university exams, and the vocational schools focus on technical skills and jobs.
The Chinese college entrance exam dates back to 900 A.D., when it was used to screen for civil servants. It is expected that there will be five to seven percent of students prepared for university. (This is steadily increasing as the Chinese expand higher education.) About 30 to 40 percent of the high school graduates actually pass the entrance exam; however, space in the universities is limited, so many students go to work, and some go to technical colleges.
Chinese families really focus on the exam preparation of their child. (Chinese families are limited to one child.) Chinese teenagers do not date, spend 25 to 30 percent more time with studies than American teenagers and don’t work outside the home, and the teenagers understand that education is their JOB.
However, the focus in China is slowly changing. As we met with school and government officials, the constant theme of questions was focused on how American schools teach innovation, problem-solving and creativity. WOW! Even in Shanghai (top scorers on the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA), the focus was on providing students with more creativity options – like music and art – and providing students with more opportunities to conduct scientific experiments and solve problems that were of interest to them. It seems the Chinese ship is sailing in a direction away from complete focus on standardized test scores.
Readers recognize where I am headed here. Since 2001, the U.S. has focused heavily on test scores. Not a day goes by that we do not have editorials and national panels talking about the poor job we are doing in the nation due to our poor performance on test scores.
Our ship is sailing toward more focus on test scores. Our ship is sailing toward judging teachers and principals solely on the basis of test scores. Our ship is sailing toward elimination of art and music programs to focus more on getting students prepared for reading and math tests.
These ships do not have to pass in the night. There is a way that they can sail together. We must have some focus on accountability and measurement of student progress; however, we must find ways to assess and measure creativity, problem-solving and innovation. We must provide a more balanced assessment and accountability system.
I truly believe we are headed in that direction with Senate Bill 1 and the accountability model that is being developed in Kentucky. We do not have to make an either/or choice. We need not bow to the tyranny of “or;” we need to embrace the genius of “and.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)