2018 Accountability Update

1. 2018 Accountability Update Kentucky Department of Education Robin Kinney, Associate Commissioner Office of Finance and Operations Rhonda Sims, Associate Commissioner Office of Assessment and Accountability KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

2. Transition Period—Moving from Old to New Accountability Model • 2017-2018 is the first year of transition period to a new accountability model. • Fall 2018 reporting meets requirements in federal (ESSA, 2015) and state (Senate Bill 1, 2017) lawand complies with KY’s approved consolidated plan. • For 2017-2018, schools will be identified as Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI), Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI), or Other (not CSI/TSI). KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

3. Accountability Indicators for 2018 KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

4. Indicators – Elementary and Middle Schools Note: Growth calculation was multiplied by 100 to standardize the school level indicators.

5. Indicators – High Schools

6. Kentucky’s Accountability Standard Setting Developing a Profile of School Performance KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

7. Accountability Standard Setting Process Federal law requires Kentucky to identify schools for CSI and TSI in fall 2018 (based on 2017-2018 data) On August 22, a standard setting committee used a formal process to generate threshold cutscores for CSI The standard setting committee recommended cutscores to Interim Commissioner Lewis Interim Commissioner Lewis reviewed and made his recommendation to the Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) for adoption After KBE approval, cutscores applied by the Office of Assessment and Accountability to generate accountability reporting for fall 2018

8. Participants of Standard Setting Representative leaders from across the state

9. Identify at least 5% Title I schools identified for CSI, by school levels (33 elementary, 12 middle and 5 high schools) Kentucky law (SB 1, 2017) requires identification of non-Title I schools performing below the CSI cutscores Use the indicators, weight ranges and process approved by Kentucky Board of Education in 703 KAR 5:270 Include data for the KBE-approved measures available in 2017-2018 Develop a “profile method” because SB1 does not allow an overall score that could be used to rank schools Apply the CSI cutscores to identify TSI schools No set amount of schools required for TSI; TSI identification is any school with at least one student group of sufficient size performing below the CSI cut scores (determining CSI therefore automatically determines TSI) Standards will be reset next year for 5-star system, and CSI/TSI when additional indicators are available Parameters on Standard Setting

10. Software Tool - Example

11. Standard Setting Recommendations and the Identification of CSI KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

12. CSI EntranceCriteria Defined in SB 1, 2017 and ESSA, 2015 Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

13. Final Cutscores for Bottom 5% *Cutscores are in the metric of each Indicator (e.g., Proficiency)

14. Identification of CSI CSI I-Bottom 5% • Identification is a conjunctive model • School must perform below the cut score on each indicator • School may perform below cut on one or two indicators and not be identified as CSI CSI II-Graduation Rate • Automatic if 4-year graduation rate is below 80% • One additional school was identified Total six (6) high schools for CSI I and CSI II KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

15. Examples of Elementary School Performance and CSI Identification Must fall below the cutscore on all three indicators to be CSI. KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

16. Examples of High School Performance and CSI Identification KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

17. Identification of TSI KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

18. TSI Entrance Criteria KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

19. Identification of TSI • TSI reports the performance of student groups • Kentucky must include the federally required student groups:  African American, Hispanic, Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaska Native, White, two or more races/ethnicity, free/reduced-price meal eligible, students with disabilities, English Learners • Schools are accountable for each group of sufficient size (minimum N of 10 by content area and grade) • The performance of each group (>10) is compared to the CSI cutscore on each indicator for which the school has available data • Based on available data, the performance of a student group of sufficient size is compared to one, two or all three indicators (Elementary/Middle: Proficiency, Separate Academic, Growth and High: Proficiency, Transition Readiness, Graduation Rate) • After 3 years of TSI status, a school is identified for CSI III KDE:OAA:9/17/2018

20. CSI/TSI Identified School Turnaround and Budget Impact What Happens after a School is Identified CSI/TSI

21. Schools Identified as CSI 703 KAR 5:280 • District has 30 days to declare intent to utilize department or other entity for audit and turnaround • School audit shall be scheduled within 45 days of identification as CSI • District audit shall also be scheduled within 45 days of a district school identified as CSI • Within 30 days of receipt of audit findings the turnaround team shall develop turnaround plan • Turnaround team must present plan to LEA within 30 days of being onsite • LEA shall approve plan and submit it to the Commissioner of Education for approval

22. CSI Exit Criteria • A school identified as CSI shall exit status when: • It no longer meets criteria for identification; • It demonstrates continued progress on the data that was the basis for identification; and/or • If multiple criteria triggered identification, then shall exit when all relevant criteria are met.

23. Federal Funding Title 1, Part A • FFY 2017 $231,387,663; 7% earmarked for school improvement ($16.2M) • Administration (5%) $800K • District (95%) $15.4M • ER Staff - salary and operating • Novice Reduction - salary and operating • 3 Hub Schools • East Carter High School • Pulaski High School • Franklin-Simpson High School

24. State Funding Commonwealth School Improvement Fund $1.3M Annually - Eliminated by HB 200 (2018) • Additional budget request to support implementation of SB 1 school improvement - $500K annually - not included in HB 200 (2018)

25. Audit • Districts with CSI identified schools required to conduct an audit pursuant to KRS 160.346(5) • $8-$15K per KDE audit depending on district size. • Permits non-Department turnaround audit teams

26. Process to Receive Available Federal Funds • Title I grant funds are awarded to districts as part of a competitive process • Districts file request for application with KDE • Application contains school “Turnaround Plan” designed to improve student learning and performance with evidence-based interventions

27. School Turnaround Team • Current Model – 3 Member Educational Recovery (ER) Team • Leadership, Literacy, Numeracy • It would require 93 additional ER staff to replicate the present model in all CSI identified schools

28. Other Considerations • Additional KDE Interventions: • If the district is determined to have a significant number of schools per formula in 703 KAR 5:280: • KDE Audit of the district, onsite assistance by KDE, direct KDE support for CSI school, review of district resource allocation • More Rigorous Intervention: • Schools that fail to exit CSI status within 3 years and schools that fail to make annual improvement for 2 consecutive years shall be subject to KDE intervention • TSI Responsibilities • The district working with school personnel and parents shall revise the school improvement plan which is subject to approval by the local board of education