Home | About KSBA | Site Map | Contact Us
|
Student Assessments Assessing Student Achievement in Kentucky There are several measurements of student academic performance with which the local school board should be familiar and should review on a regular basis. These reviews should become a regular part of the annual board calendar that focuses on student achievement. These measurements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Commonwealth Accountability Testing System (CATS) 2. American College Testing (ACT) 3. Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT) 4. Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) 5. Advanced Placement Exams (AP) 6. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) progress 7. Kentucky Work and College Readiness Examinations (beginning in the 2007-2008 school year) 8. End-of-course exams (pilot only in 2007-2008 school year) Additional data will provide board/superintendent teams a big-picture view of the district’s achievement. These include: 1. National Assessment of Educational Progress 2. College performance patterns for all graduating seniors who go on to college (The High School Feedback Report is available from the Council on Postsecondary Education). 3. Teacher-assigned grades 4. State-mandated “School report cards”
REVIEWING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA The board should discuss assessment results openly and honestly. The purpose of these discussions is for the school board and community to know where the district is relative to student achievement and in meeting school, district, state, and national goals. When discussing the assessment data, the board should review the performance of each school compared with past performances. Trend data should be reviewed for at least five years. School performance should be assessed for each year, not just averages of two years (KERA requires that schools/districts be measured based upon biennial progress; however, progress must be reviewed much sooner to ensure that children are making adequate progress). If a school is not improving at an adequate rate, the board is responsible for asking the principal or school council to develop improvement plans that address the issue; these plans should then be presented for the board to review. The purpose of reviewing assessments is NOT to rank the schools. The review is to determine what progress is being made by students within subgroups at each school and to then to determine what adjustments must be made to further improve that progress. However, the board should not shy away from concerns that may be raised by the community about the lack of progress by any school. Further, the board should (through ongoing data review and student progress discussions) already be aware of those schools making inadequate progress; board members should be able to share with concerned community members the plans for addressing that lack of progress. The board should determine that:
Commonwealth Accountability Testing System (CATS) CATS is the student assessment and accountability program for the state of Kentucky. It measures progress toward the curricula standards for students in Kentucky. The goal of CATS is for all students to be proficient in reading, mathematics, science, social studies, writing, arts & humanities, and practical living/vocational studies by 2014. CATS averages the scores of students to determine the success level of each school. The CATS program replaced the former Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) in 1998. The state legislature has determined that the school should be the primary unit for measuring progress, and that the number of successful students within each school should determine the success of the school (as opposed to average performance for all). CATS testing is done annually in grades 4 through 8, and grades 10 through 12. CATS consists of several parts, each of which will be discussed in more detail: 1. A norm-referenced test (CTBS/5) 2. A standards-based test (Kentucky Core Content Test -- KCCT) 3. Writing portfolios 4. Non-academic indicators The Kentucky accountability system requires schools to reach an Accountability Index goal that combines all the subjects and performance levels for two years, plus some non-academic data. Schools have their own goals: those that are farthest from 100 percent proficiency must make the most progress. Schools that miss their goals are denied rewards (which at this time are not funded) and schools that miss by much are subject to intervention. Kentucky’s accountability system also has consequences if a school exceeds the state target for dropouts or misses a school-level target for lowering the percent of students scoring novice. These measures are found in the non-academic indicators, which are released separately by the state education department. The table below shows the components of the CATS system, and how they are weighted when developing the total “number” for determining success of students. The weights are listed as the percentage of the total. Weights include the norm-referenced test (CTBS/5).
CTBS/5This norm-referenced test (a norm-referenced test is one in which a student’s performance is compared to the national group of students tested to establish norms) was included as a part of the state’s CATS test to address concerns of board members, parents, teachers, and administrators that previous state tests did not adequately measure basic skills. CTBS/5 also provides parents a norm-referenced test that allows comparisons to other students across the nation. The CTBS/5 is a multiple-choice test that evaluates students’ academic achievement in reading, language arts and mathematics. The scores are reported in a variety of ways, allowing for comparison with different standardized tests, called the normal curve equivalent; for comparison to the national norm and other states, called the mean national percentile; and with the median national score, the point at which 50 percent of students score above and 50 percent score below. District assessment coordinators can provide boards with more information about these measurements.
Kentucky Core Content Test (KCCT) KCCT is a standards-based test that compares student performance to a predetermined standard. Although reaching a standard is the stated purpose, comparisons to state averages, and comparisons with other schools and districts can be made. However, because KCCT is not administered in other states, comparisons of Kentucky with other states obviously cannot be made. This is the key reason that the CTBS/5 has been incorporated as a part of the CATS testing. The KCCT measures the core content for assessment used by the state department of education. KCCT is comprised of assessments in reading, mathematics, science, social studies, writing portfolios, on-demand writing, arts & humanities, and practical living & vocational studies. It has both open-response items and multiple-choice questions. These are in addition to the multiple-choice items on the CTBS/5.
WRITING PORTFOLIOS Writing portfolios are writing samples students choose from their regular work and have an opportunity to revise and improve. The portfolio consists of a specific number of pieces that demonstrate the ability to do different types of writing, such as personal narratives and literary pieces. Teachers score the portfolios using a scoring guide that defines novice, apprentice, proficient and distinguished work. Some schools are audit each year to be sure that teachers’ decisions closely match the state standards. Though students work on portfolios at any grade level, they submit their writing in grades 4, 7 and 12. The writing portfolio determines 11 percent of a school’s Accountability Index. It measures students’ mastery of the Core Content and is part of the overall CATS system.
NON-ACADEMIC CATS DATA dropout rate More students are remaining in school and graduating than ever before, but too many Kentucky students still are not remaining in school until graduation. In the past, these students could find manufacturing jobs not requiring a high school education. That, however, is no longer the case. Keeping students in school after they reach the age of 16 is one of the most difficult tasks of schools. To have a successful dropout prevention program, a district must first determine why students are dropping out. Usually, the home situation (parental values and/or attitudes), social pressures (friends that have dropped out), and school climate (students feeling welcomed, encouraged, and valued) contribute to students dropping out. One of the purposes of a district discipline code is to reduce the dropout rate. At a minimum, the board should do the following:
To help districts reduce their dropout rate, state funds are available to districts with the highest rates and numbers of dropouts. These districts must complete an application to receive the money.
Attendance The percentage of attendance is calculated by dividing the aggregated days of attendance by the aggregated days of membership. State regulation requires an annual district attendance rate of 94 percent or above. Although schools are said to be the unit of measurement, there is no requirement for individual schools to maintain a standard of attendance. The board should receive attendance reports at the regular meeting that follows the end of a school month, and should receive annual attendance improvement plans.
Retention Rate The retention rate is the percentage of pupils who are retained in a grade. State regulation requires that the retention rate decrease each year until the percentage retained in the district does not exceed 4 percent.
Post-graduation transitions The transition to work, post-secondary education and military rate is defined as the annual percentage of the district’s students who complete a program of studies and enter the workforce, post-secondary training, or military service. State regulation requires that this rate be 75 percent or above.
CATS AND Students with DisabilitiesCATS assesses all students unless they have medical reasons excusing them. Students with disabilities who are being assessed may receive accommodations when taking the tests. While most of these students receive services through special education programs, students meeting the guidelines of Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are also eligible to receive accommodations even though they do not qualify for special education. The student’s Admission and Release Committee decides the accommodations to be provided. Accommodations may include having the questions read to the student, having someone transcribe the student’s spoken language, or having physical accommodations such as large-print type for the visually impaired. Kentucky Work and College Readiness Examinations and “Accelerated Learning” Plans The General Assembly passed Senate Bill 130 in the 2006 General Session which will bring significant change to Kentucky’s system of assessment. The Kentucky Work and College Readiness exams form a continuum of assessment of individual student readiness for high school, college, and work. There also will be new requirements for reports to parents on individual student progress and for accelerated learning plans for students scoring below certain thresholds. Boards of education will play an important role in helping schools prepare for these new challenges. Beginning in the 2007-2008 school year, the assessment program for middle and high school students will be modified to include several diagnostic tools to assess individual student progress. Integrated into the CATS assessment will be:
The state will pay for each child to take the ACT one time. Additional ACT examinations will be the responsibility of the students except in the case of students scoring below the system-wide standard established by the Council for Postsecondary Education for entry into a credit-bearing course at a public postsecondary institution without placement in a remedial course or an entry-level course with supplementary academic support. Students scoring below this threshold who participate in accelerated learning will receive state funding for a second administration of the ACT exam. A student whose scores on the high school readiness examination administered in grade eight indicate a high degree of readiness for high school shall be counseled to enroll in accelerated courses. A student whose scores on the college readiness examination administered in grade ten or the on the ACT in grade eleven indicate a high degree of readiness for college shall be counseled to enroll in accelerated courses, with an emphasis on Advanced Placement classes. Accommodations for students with disabilities will be provided. The WorkKeys assessment of a student’s ability to apply reading, business writing, and mathematics skills in the workplace will paid for by the state for any interested student in grades ten, eleven, and twelve. A student meeting the WorkKeys threshold established by the Cabinet for Workforce Development shall be issued the appropriate Kentucky employability certificate. Individual Student Reports Beginning in the 2007-2008 school year, schools must develop individual student progress reports that include: § An individual student report to parents for each fifth grade student summarizing the student's readiness in reading and mathematics based on the student's fourth grade state assessment results. The school's fifth grade staff shall develop a plan for accelerated learning for any student with identified deficiencies.§ An individual report for each student who takes a high school or college readiness examination that:1. Provides the student's test scores.2. Provides a judgment regarding whether or not a student has met or failed to meet the expectations for each standard assessed.3. Is designed to assist students, parents, and teachers to identify, assess, and remedy academic deficiencies prior to high school graduation.A student's scores on the ACT examination or WorkKeys assessments and the ACT examination shall be recorded on his or her official high school transcript. Accelerated Learning PlansThe board must take a leadership role in working with schools to meet new requirements for intervention strategies with students whose scores on the various diagnostic exams fall below certain thresholds. New requirements for accelerated learning plans for students include: A high school student whose scores on the high school readiness examination administered in grade eight (8), on the college readiness examination administered in grade ten (10), or on the WorkKeys indicate that additional assistance is required in English, reading, or mathematics shall have intervention strategies for accelerated learning incorporated into his or her learning plan.A high school student whose score on the ACT examination in English, reading, or mathematics is below the system-wide standard established by the Council on Postsecondary Education for entry into a credit-bearing course at a public postsecondary institution without placement in a remedial course or an entry-level course with supplementary academic support shall be provided the opportunity to participate in accelerated learning designed to address his or her identified academic deficiencies prior to high school graduation.A high school, in collaboration with its school district, shall develop and implement accelerated learning that:(a) Allows a student's learning plan to be individualized to meet the student's academic needs based on an assessment of test results and consultation among parents, teachers, and the student; and(b) May include changes in a student's class schedule.A student who participates in accelerated learning shall be permitted to take the ACT examination a second time prior to high school graduation at the expense of the Kentucky Department of Education. The cost of any subsequent administrations of the achievement test shall be the responsibility of the student The Kentucky Department of Education, the Council on Postsecondary Education, and public postsecondary institutions will offer support and technical assistance to schools and school districts in the development of accelerated learning.End-of-Course ExaminationsIn the 2006 Session the General Assembly passed HB 197, which directs the Kentucky Department of Education to develop end-of-course exams to measure a student’s knowledge and skills upon completion of a core content area. Initially the examinations will cover Algebra I and II and Geometry and will be piloted in the 2007-2008 school year. The end-of-course exams must align with the standards, content, goals, and academic expectations relevant to the course. Students must demonstrate knowledge, comprehension, application, and higher order cognitive skills. The Department of Education will consult with various assessment advisory groups on the success of the pilot and report to the General Assembly for review prior to statewide implementation of the end-of-course exams and/or development of end-of-course exams in other subject areas. The board will develop policies on how a teacher shall use a student’s score on an end-of-course exam to calculate a student’s final grade. Students’ performance on end-of-course exams may be discussed in a teacher’s formative evaluation, but cannot be used as a criterion for formally evaluating or compensating teachers.
Growth Toward Proficiency in KentuckY The 1990 Kentucky education reform law directed the Kentucky Board of Education to establish a formula for a rewards and sanctions system connected to performance on what is now called the CATS assessment. That law was amended by the 1998 General Assembly to a rewards and consequences system, though later the rewards section of this law was suspended. The state board’s consequences system is based on the following:
Expected Growth LevelsEach school is expected to have an accountability index of 100 or above (minus one standard error of measurement) by 2014. Expected levels of growth are established for each school for each biennium beginning with the 2000-02 biennium and continuing through the 2012-14 biennium. To determine the expected levels of growth for each biennium, the baseline score is subtracted from 100 and divided by seven (the number of biennia for the period from year 2000 to year 2014). The resulting number becomes the expected level of growth for each biennium. For example, a school with a baseline of 30 would have to improve 10 points each biennium to reach 100 by the 2012-14 biennium (100 – 30 = 70 / 7 = 10). This model requires schools starting with low baseline scores to improve more each biennium than schools with higher baseline scores in order to reach scores of 100 for 2012-14 biennium. One standard error of measurement will be subtracted from the score in each biennium. The standard error of measurement will differ for each school, with small schools having a greater standard error of measurement. The error of measurement is the statistical estimate of how much scores would vary, plus or minus, if the test were taken an unlimited number of times. It reflects how reliable a measurement is. The scores of any measurement are not perfectly reliable; students’ scores are invariably affected by error of measurement resulting from a variety of causes (ambiguous test items, conditions of administration, student fatigue, etc). The smaller the error measurement, the more reliable it is. Reliability and validity are not the same. If a test is reliable, consistent results occur each time the test is given. A valid test is one that measures what it is supposed to measure. A valid test is always reliable, but a reliable test is not always valid. For example, suppose that a test that was supposed to measure math concepts actually measured math calculations. If the test was reliable the same results would occur each time that test was given even though the test was not measuring what it was supposed to measure.
Progressing and assistanceA school whose growth accountability index falls below its goal point but still meets or exceeds its assistance point is classified as a progressing school. To determine a progressing classification the assistance line must be drawn. The assistance line is a straight line that started in the 2000-02 biennium at one standard error of measurement below the school’s baseline accountability index to a point that is one standard error of measurement below 80 on the accountability index scale in the 2012-14 biennium. In the following chart, the error of measurement is assumed to be 2. If a school’s 2000-02 biennium score is above 80, the assistance line will be a horizontal line (from 80 to 80).
Reducing of the Percentage of novice StudentsSchools must reduce their percent of novice-scoring students on a schedule that will bring that number to 5 percent or less by 2014. The baseline for the novice reduction criteria was calculated by first obtaining the percentage of novice students in each of the seven content areas (reading, mathematics, science, social studies, arts and humanities, practical living/vocational studies and writing). Each of these percentages was then weighted by the same weights used to calculate an accountability index. Next, five was subtracted from the baseline percentage of novice students and the remainder divided by seven (the number of biennia from 2002 to 2014). Finally, this last figure was subtracted from the baseline value once to determine the novice reduction goal for 2002, twice to determine the novice reduction goal for 2004, three times for 2006, and so on for each of the remaining biennia.
Dropout RatesHigh schools must have a dropout rate less than or equal to 5.3 percent or reduce their dropout percentage by 0.5 percent, but still have a dropout rate less than or equal to 6 percent.
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS IN ASSISTANCESchools falling below the assistance line are classified into three levels:
All three levels of schools are eligible to receive Commonwealth School Improvement Funds. A school is allowed to appeal to the state board a performance judgment that it considers grossly unfair.
Level 1 SchoolsLevel 1 schools are required to conduct a scholastic review (using KDE’s Standards and Indicators for School Improvement) and self-study facilitated by the district’s professional development coordinator with assistance from a state education department review team. The review team:
Level 2 SchoolsLevel 2 schools must receive scholastic reviews facilitated and chaired by a designee of the state education commissioner with assistance from the district’s central office staff. The reviews:
Level 3 SchoolsLevel 3 schools receive education assistance from a highly skilled educator and must have a scholastic audit. The audit team (whose certified members are trained in personnel evaluation):
Further, if a school is classified as a Level 3 school for two consecutive biennia, a student attending the Level 3 school may transfer to a school with an accountability index above its assistance line within the district, or if none are available, to a school with an accountability index above its assistance line outside the district.
Local District AccountabilityState regulation establishes criteria for consequences for school districts under the CATS program. Local districts are held accountable for providing their schools appropriate instructional leadership and instructional support. If a school’s CATS index score places it in Level 3 assistance, it triggers a determination that there is a lack of appropriate leadership and instructional support. If the Level 3 school was not classified as Level 3 in the previous accountability cycle, the district is required to modify its district comprehensive plan by including a specific support plan designed to assist each Level 3 school in improving its academic achievement. If a school is classified as Level 3 in two or more consecutive accountability cycles, the school district is subject to a district audit conducted by a district evaluation team.
QUESTIONS v If the school is the unit of measurement, why aren’t there student performance standards for schools, with removal of the principal and school council? Schools are measured by a formula to determine successful schools. There are no standards for schools in the areas of attendance, retention rate and transition rate outside their inclusion in the formula to determine successful schools. A scholastic audit team may recommend the removal of a principal and/or school council member of a Level 3 school.
Scholastic AuditsA scholastic audit is a comprehensive evaluation of a school to determine what needs to be done for the school to meet its goals. The scholastic audit team consists of:
The teacher, principal and administrator members must not be current or former full-time employees of the district being audited. The scholastic audit team uses the Standards and Indicators for School Improvement to evaluate the school’s learning environment, efficiency and student academic performance. The scholastic audit team makes recommendations for assistance and shares a draft report with school faculty and school council members before it leaves. Within three weeks following the site visit, the team submits a final exit report to KDE, local school board members, superintendent, principal, and school council members. The final report includes:
The principal, in collaboration with other school council members, must notify parents and community members who express an interest in the findings.
American College Test (ACT) The ACT (American College Test), along with the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) are usually referred to as college entrance exams. The ACT is usually taken during a student’s junior year. Most colleges and universities require students who apply for enrollment to take either the ACT or the SAT. Academic scholarships awarded by colleges are based more on a student’s performance on the ACT or the SAT than on any other variable. In Kentucky, most students take the ACT because Kentucky colleges require it, not the SAT. In 2005, 76 percent of Kentucky’s graduating seniors (public schools, private schools, and others) took the ACT. Nationally, 40 percent of the graduating seniors in the United States took the ACT in 2004.The ACT school and district profiles provide a wealth of information. The ACT testing service provides a booklet that profiles the performance of high schools and districts. The profile of the high school is sent automatically to the high school principal. The district profile must be requested for a nominal fee. Information available in the profile includes comparisons of scores over the previous five years for the school, district, Southeastern states, and nation. Performance (scoring) is broken down by sex, race, and type of high school program (college prep, general, business, vocational). The profile also asks the students questions regarding the school and the education that they have received. This inventory, especially if viewed over several graduating classes, provides boards with a wealth of information about how their schools are perceived. When reviewing performance on the ACT, the board should consider scores over a number of years to ascertain whether the district is improving or falling behind. Comparisons to national, state and other comparable districts would be helpful. Boards should also look at the percentage of graduates taking the ACT. As more students take the test, the chances increase that the scores will drop somewhat, due to the larger number of participants representing a wider span of the student population.
PSAT/NMSQT The PSAT/NMSQT (Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test) is co-sponsored by the College Board and the National Merit Scholarship Corporation. It is a standardized test given to college-bound juniors in the fall of the year. The test measures verbal and math reasoning abilities. The content and format emphasize critical reading and math problem-solving skills essential for success in college. As the name implies, National Merit Scholarships are based on this test, with millions of dollars worth of grants given each year. Further, the PSAT provides firsthand practice for the SAT Reasoning Test. Scores are reported on a 20-80 scale. A change was introduced in 1994, which resulted in higher scores for the 1994-95 school year. Several school districts in Kentucky have decided to give this test to students before their junior year, as a way of better determining the individual needs of each student as they come into high school.
SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) The SAT is a three-hour test that measures verbal and mathematical reasoning skills that students have developed over time and skills they need to be successful academically. The SAT is an examination taken by seniors across the nation and used by colleges for scholarships and as an entrance criterion. Although the SAT is given in every state, it is used widely in only 23 states. The ACT is the most widely used in 27 states, including Kentucky. Only about 9 percent of Kentucky’s graduating seniors took the SAT in 2004.
ADVANCED PLACEMENT Advanced Placement (AP) exams are assessments in specific subject areas. Students usually take the AP exam after completing an advanced placement high school class, although enrollment in an advanced placement class is not a prerequisite for taking the exam. Most advanced placement exams consist of a multiple-choice section and a long essay question. Scores range from a low of one to a high of five. Most colleges and universities give college credit to a student receiving a four or a five and several give credit for a score of three. State and national averages of scores are provided to schools, and boards can analyze these scores to see how their district’s students compare. According to the Kentucky Department of Education, more Kentucky public high school students took the AP exams and more scored at higher levels in 2004 than in 2003. Further, the number of exams as divided along ethnic lines show more students of varying backgrounds are taking AP tests, and are posting higher scores. Many schools are conscientiously examining the scores of their student subgroups, and recognizing that Advanced Placement classes (and the expectations for high levels of performance that are inherent in such classes) may be beneficial to more students than was previously thought. Schools and districts may want to give serious consideration to the process that determines whether a student can take an Advanced Placement class. If appropriate, more students should be encouraged to participate as one way to set higher expectations for all students.
Questions Board Members Should Ask about Advanced Placement Classes What advanced placement classes are offered by the high school(s) in our district? What is the enrollment in these classes (compared to other courses)? How many students of different racial and economic backgrounds take AP classes? How many students take the AP exam in each subject area at each high school? How does this number compare to district, state, and national averages? How do students in our district perform on AP tests, compared to state and national averages? What is the five-year trend of enrollment and student performance on the AP compared to college entrance and success?
QUESTIONS v If students in an advanced placement class perform poorly on the advanced placement exam, does that indicate that the teacher is a poor teacher? If students from only one class perform poorly on the exam, that is probably not a reflection of the teacher’s classroom performance. If, however, students over a period of years perform poorly on the exam, it probably does mean that the teacher is not teaching the requirements of the class. If so, the student and/or parent should contact the immediate supervisor of the teacher. v If we discuss advanced placement scores at a board meeting, won’t we be discussing individual teachers? If so, couldn’t that impact teacher morale? If AP scores are discussed, there is a risk of making an indirect connection to a particular teacher. However, that needs to be balanced by the public’s right to know how students are performing in their schools.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is the 2002 federal law that is meant to ensure that all students are achieving at high levels. The goal for NCLB: all students must be proficient in reading, mathematics and science by 2014. Each state defines its own standards and has its own definition of “proficient.” In Kentucky, the same standards and definition of “proficient” are used for both NCLB and for the state accountability system. It requires schools to reach all the following goals:
Missing any objective means that if a school misses adequate yearly progress (AYP) it can be subject to intervention. NCLB defines AYP as the minimum improvement required of each school and district over the course of one year. It is measured at the school and district levels by measuring growth in the percentage of students scoring proficient or above in reading and mathematics. Demonstrated improvement on one "other academic indicator" while testing at least 95 percent of enrolled students and student subpopulations of sufficient size is also measured. In addition, NCLB requires all limited-English speaking students to become proficient in English and attain proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics. It states that all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers by 2005-06; that all students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning; and that all students will graduate from high school.
REQUIRED ASSESSMENT UNDER NCLB NCLB requires that students be tested annually in reading and math in one grade between grades 3 and 8. Attachment 20-1, devised by the Kentucky Association of School Councils, shows the grades and the subject areas that currently are tested for both CATS (Kentucky’s accountability system) and NCLB (federal accountability system). At least 95 percent of students enrolled and at least 95 percent of each major subgroup are required to participate in the assessment. Those subgroups are children from economically disadvantaged families (students receiving free or reduced price lunches), children with disabilities, children with limited English proficiency, and children from each major racial or ethnic group, gender, and migrant status. Assessments for each of the subgroups must be disaggregated and reported, though gender and migrant status are not included in the AYP States must assess, in English, limited English proficient (LEP) students’ achievement in reading/language arts if those students have been in schools in the United States (except Puerto Rico) for three or more consecutive years. LEP students enrolled for less than three years must be assessed in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data on what LEP students know and can do in academic areas. Within each subject area, the state may combine data across grades in a school or school district, or may set different targets for different grade spans. Schools also are held accountable for other academic indicators—for elementary and middle schools that indicator is the CATS performance judgment; for high schools, the indicator is the graduation rate. The other academic indicator is lagged one year and uses data from 2004.
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) Assessments under NCLB are used to determine whether states, school districts and schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP). As stated earlier, NCLB’s definition of adequate yearly progress is based on growth in the percentage of students scoring proficient or above in reading/language arts and math. Increases in proficiency rates must occur for a school or school district to make AYP. Progress in students’ achievement from novice to apprentice is not sufficient to make AYP. However, states and local districts are encouraged to develop systems to recognize low-performing schools that are making such improvement. NCLB requires states to include the graduation rates in their determination of AYP, with graduation rate defined as the percentage of students who graduate from secondary schools with a regular diploma in the standard number of years. The graduation rate goals must increase over the course of the state’s timeline. States and school districts are free to use additional indicators, including other assessment areas, in the definition of AYP. But the only indicators that can be used to determine sanctions under AYP are the required reading and math assessments. The statewide accountability system applies to all public schools and school districts. In determining AYP the state may not include students who were not enrolled in that school for a full academic year. States may calculate AYP for a school using up to three consecutive years of data. However, if a state chooses to average data over two or three years, it must still determine AYP on an annual basis. NCLB TimelineS States provide assessment results to school districts, schools, and teachers in the fall of the next school year. Since 2003, each state, including Kentucky, established starting points in reading and math for measuring the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the state’s proficient level of academic achievement. The state of Kentucky, districts and schools, as well as all subgroups, have identical starting points and identical targets and objectives for AYP. The starting points and targets for math and reading may differ. Starting points were determined by a formula based on enrollment and the percentage of proficient students in each school. As required by NCLB, Kentucky also has established separate measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial improvement for economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency. Each state established intermediate goals that increase in equal increments so that 100 percent of the students score proficient in 2014. The first incremental increase occurred in the 2004-05 school year (based on scores of 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years). Each following incremental increase must occur within three years. For example, if a state had a starting score of 20 percent of students scoring proficient and chose to have the first intermediate goal at 2004-05 and the other intermediate goals every three years, a score of 40 would be required in 2004-05, a score of 60 in 2007-08, a score of 80 in 2010-11 and a score of 100 in 2013-14. In addition to intermediate goals, each state must establish annual measurable objectives that identify for each school year a minimum percentage of students that meet or exceed the proficient level of academic achievement on the state’s academic assessments and ensure that all students meet or exceed the state’s proficient level of academic achievement within the timeline of the intermediate goals. The state’s annual measurable objectives may be the same for more than one year, but must be consistent with the state’s intermediate goals. For example, in the timeline given above, the annual measurable objective for 2005-06 and 2006-07 could be 40, but not lower. A score of 60 would then be required for 2007-08. NCLB also provides a “safe harbor” for districts and schools. A school or school district meets the state’s annual measurable objectives if the percentage of students in a subgroup who were assessed below the state’s proficient achievement level decreased by at least 10 percent. For example, if the percentage of low-income students scoring below proficient was 70 percent and improved to 63 percent, that group would meet the standard if that group also made progress on one or more of the state’s academic indicators (graduation rate) or a school district academic indicator.
NCLB Rewards and sanctionsNCLB’s specific accountability requirements for school improvement and corrective actions apply only to schools and districts receiving Title I funds. Accountability is at the district level as well as the school level. NCLB punishes states that fail to establish systems of standards, assessments, and accountability by permitting, and in some cases requiring, the U.S. Secretary of Education to withhold a portion of federal funds provided for the administration of Title I. If a school district receiving Title I funds fails to make AYP for two consecutive years it must be identified for improvement. A school or district must have two consecutive years of AYP to leave improvement status. Corrective requirements for failing schools become progressively stringent depending on how many consecutive years a school fails to achieve AYP. If a school does not meet AYP for two consecutive years, it is classified as needing improvement and the district must provide public school choice (any student may transfer, not just Title I students) and immediate technical assistance to improve instruction, and must devise a school improvement plan. The school district must set aside 10 percent of the school’s Title I allocation for professional development to address achievement problems that led to the identification for improvement. Activities to help all students meet standards must be research-based. The third year of not making AYP requires public school choice, immediate technical assistance to improve performance, a school improvement plan, plus supplemental educational services for Title I students (supplemental educational services for non-Title I students are not required). The fourth year a school is designated as failing, the district must provide public school choice, a school improvement plan, supplemental educational services and corrective action by the district that includes one or more of the following: replace relevant school staff; implement a new curriculum based on scientifically based research; decrease management authority at the school; appoint an outside expert; extend the school year or school day; and restructure the internal organization of the school. The fifth year a school is designated as failing, the district must provide public school choice, supplemental educational services, and further must prepare an alternative governance plan based on one of the following: reopening the school as a public charter school; replacing all or most of the school staff; contracting with an entity such as a private management company to operate the school; turning the operation over to the state department of education; and any other major restructuring. During the sixth year and any year thereafter that a school is classified as failing, the plan developed in year five must be implemented. Any corrective action and restructuring taken must be consistent with state law. Any state law applied must have been in existence prior to January 8, 2002. States may not pass new laws to avoid compliance with NCLB. Each state must develop its own system of rewards for public schools and districts that make adequate yearly progress. No Child Left Behind authorizes State Academic Achievement Awards to schools that significantly close achievement gaps or exceed AYP standards for two or more consecutive years, as well as awards to teachers in such schools. Local districts may receive rewards if they exceed AYP for two consecutive years. Teacher quality AND NCLBNCLB addresses teacher quality by requiring teachers in Title I programs to be highly qualified and by providing Title II grants to improve teacher quality and to increase the numbers of highly qualified teachers and principals. NCLB requires the Kentucky Department of Education to develop a plan that ensures that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects be highly qualified no later than the 2005-06 school year and local boards are required to develop a plan to ensure all teachers teaching within the school district are highly qualified by the same date. However, the U.S. Department of Education most recently has said states will not be punished for failing to have teachers qualified under this provision by the end of the 2005-06 school year if they can prove they are making a serious effort. To be highly qualified all new teachers must hold at least a bachelor’s degree; the core content subjects are English, reading/language arts, math, science, foreign language, civics and government, economics, the arts, history and geography. Additionally, elementary teachers must demonstrate competency by passing a rigorous state test or have a master’s degree. New middle and high school teachers must have academic majors in each of the subjects taught, pass a rigorous state academic test in each of the subjects taught or have a master’s degree. Experienced teachers must meet the requirements of new teachers or demonstrate competency in all academic subjects they teach based on high, objective, and uniform state standards of evaluation. NCLB also requires local boards to ensure that paraprofessionals hired after January 8, 2002 working in a program supported by Title I funds to have, by the 2005-06 school year:
These requirements don’t apply to paraprofessionals used as foreign language translators or whose job consists solely of parental involvement duties. They also do not apply to paraprofessionals not working in education.
Parental review UNDER NCLBThroughout the school improvement process, the state, local school district and school must communicate with the parents of each child in a failing school. Information provided to parents must be in a language they can understand and be in a uniform format. The information must be provided directly through regular mail, e-mail, the Internet, the media and public agencies. When a school district identifies a school for improvement or subjects a school to corrective action or restructuring, the district must promptly notify the parents of children enrolled in the school. The notice must include an explanation of what the identification means, comparison of the school in terms of academic achievement to the schools served by the district and state, reasons for the identification, an explanation of how parents can become involved in addressing the school’s academic issues, and their options to transfer their child to another school (including information on the school or schools to which the child may transfer). If a school is in its second year of improvement (third year of failing to make AYP) or subject to corrective action or restructuring, parents are to be notified of supplemental educational services available for their child. Notice to parents of the available services must explain how they can obtain the services, a brief description of the services, qualifications of the providers, and the demonstrated effectiveness of the providers. Districts must also publish and disseminate to parents and the public information about any action taken by the district to correct the problem, including opportunities for parental participation. The state must hold school districts accountable and if a district is identified as failing to make AYP the Kentucky Department of Education must notify parents of the reasons for a district’s identification and how they can participate in upgrading the its quality. Each local district identified must, within three months following identification, develop or revise a local educational agency plan, in consultation with parents, school staff, and others. PROGRESS UNDER NCLB According to the state education department, Kentucky has adopted and implemented goals that are shared with those of NCLB, including: high expectations for all students; rigorous student performance standards tied to annual assessments in grades 3-8; multiple assessments tied to the core content measuring what students know and can do, such as applying higher-order thinking skills in reading and mathematics as well as in other subject content areas; school accountability; student and school performance information to parents in the form of school report cards; and, a goal of proficiency in 12 years by the year 2014. Besides having already implemented CATS, Kentucky has already implemented other NCLB requirements, including: rewards and consequences, required school improvement plans, scholastic audits, highly skilled educators assigned to schools in assistance; student data disaggregated by subpopulation; a unified data collection and reporting system.
OTHER STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT MEASURES National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) “The Nation’s Report Card” (NAEP) is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what American students know and can do in various subject areas. It is the only test that measures the same things in the same way for the same students across all states. NAEP was mandated by Congress in 1969. However, not every state participates in NAEP testing. Every two years, NAEP assesses nationally representative samples of students in grades 4 and 8. From that, NAEP estimates “group” performance – that is, it tells educators how students across the country or across a state are doing. Thus, NAEP is an indicator of achievement. The NAEP reading assessment includes nearly equal proportions of open-ended and multiple-choice questions, and questions requiring an extended response of a paragraph of more. The mathematics assessment explores how students interpret mathematical information and develop problem-solving strategies. Open-ended questions are used that feature alternate strategies for arriving at correct solutions. The writing assessment measures writing according to the purpose of the writing: informative, narrative, and persuasive. Some tasks invite students to draw on their own ideas, knowledge, or experience, while other tasks require the use of information contained in the writing prompt. Only first-draft writing is assessed. NAEP has developed “The Nation’s Writing Portfolio” for grades 4 and 8, which evaluates pieces of writing that students have developed and polished over a period of time. District assessment data using NAEP is not available. However, the board should discuss Kentucky’s performance on the NAEP, compared to other states, to get a sense of how Kentucky compares with the rest of the U.S. Additionally, comparisons of Kentucky’s performance on the NAEP, the ACT and CATS should be made to district data.
College Performance Patterns Beginning with the fall of the 1993-1994 school year, Kentucky public and private colleges joined ACT in gathering data regarding college performance patterns of first-year freshmen in Kentucky colleges and universities. The feedback report provides a wealth of information regarding how well the district’s graduates performed in their first semester of college. This information can be found in the High School Feedback Report from the Council on Postsecondary Education.
Teacher-Assigned Grades Properly used, teacher-assigned grades are the most reliable of any assessment. Unfortunately, school officials give very little attention to the assessments of students by teachers. Districts devote very little of their professional growth resources to this area. If a school reports grades by computer, a printout of grades assigned by each teacher, by subject, should be available. The board should request this information for regular review. Of course, all student names and identification information would need to be removed prior to it being shared with the board. School board members should ask the following questions about assignment of grades in each of the schools:
State-Mandated “Report Cards” Each school is required to annually produce a school report card and to provide the information to the parents or guardians of all students in the school. Each district is required to produce a district report card that is to be published in the local newspaper. Information must be provided to the public on the most recent test scores, attendance and dropout rates, teacher certification and experience, and student achievements and awards. District and school report cards are available on the state education department’s Web site. Districts and schools also are required to produce expanded versions of their report cards, copies of which are to be kept in the central office and principal’s office, respectively, for anyone who wants to view them. Some controlling statutes and regulations for this chapter: 703 KAR 4:020; KRS 158.148; KRS 159.051; KRS 158.6445; KRS 160.347; 703 KAR 5:130 (accountability consequences)
ATTACHMENT 20-1 Prepared by the Kentucky Association of School Councils NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) AND KENTUCKY: AN OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
We use one testing system for both legal requirements. In the chart below, ¶ marks tests that will be given in 2004, and « marks testing to be added in 2005 to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind requirements. As part of NCLB, the CTBS sections will include added questions addressing Kentucky Core Content.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
