This page presently exists as an archive of the results of some of our achievement gap work. When the KDE began its revisions to the assessment and accountability model in the 2009-10 school year, this work was postponed. We will soon begin again as our accountability model is being finalized and we have data to make the necessary comparisons and evaluations.
Many schools in Kentucky have made significant gains in closing achievement gaps in reading and/or math for one or more subpopulations identified in SB 168. This page provides information on how those schools have been identified and common strategies/practices being implemented.
Achievement Gap Data Review Explanation
Beginning in 2004, Achievement Gap teams in KDE reviewed school progress data of Kentucky schools at the elementary, middle and high school levels to identify schools whose data demonstrated a closing of achievement gaps in one or more of the student populations listed in Senate Bill 168 (to include students’ gender, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, African American students, and students with low socio-economic status). The teams used the following criteria each year to identify schools successfully closing achievement gaps:
The school
· sustained evidence indicating whole school improvement for a minimum of six years (increase in academic index);
· made adequate yearly progress and was not currently in school improvement;
· closed the achievement gap in one or more student populations in reading and/or mathematics by at least 10 points;
· met or exceeded state accountability indices for the 2005-06 school year (81.5 for elementary, 75.8 for middle, 74.9 for high); and
· closed the gap in 60% of the content areas for the identified student population.
Based on these criteria, schools were selected for on-site visits to chronicle qualitative data to be shared statewide with schools and districts needing information on how to close gaps. The teams used a rubric created from goals developed by the Partnership for Minority Student Achievement Taskforce. Teams were asked to document a school’s processes/practices, programs, people, policies, and the physical environment that assisted schools in successfully closing achievement gaps.
A Change in the Process
In the 2006-2007 school year changes were made in the implementation of testing for districts and schools resulting in a new way of calculating scores for NCLB. Therefore, it is not possible to make fair comparisons from school years prior to 2006-2007. As a result, there was no Achievement Gap report for 2007-2008.
The data used for the 2008-2009 report is based on comparisons of the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years. As data continue to accrue, the comparison of scores over multiple biennia will be used to make determinations.
Pertinent selection criteria changes (with explanations) for the 2008-09 achievement gap site visits are as follows:
· evidence indicating whole school improvement over a two-year period (increase in academic index)
- presently only have two years of data
· the school made adequate yearly progress and was not currently in school improvement
· the school closed the achievement gap in one or more student populations in reading and/or mathematics by at least 4 points *See note below.
· The school met or exceeded state non-adjusted accountability indices (92.5 for elementary, 86.8 for middle, 78.0 for high) and
· the school closed the gap in 60% of the content areas for the identified student population
Site visits include interviews with the school leadership team utilizing the Achievement Gap Site Visit interview questions, review of Comprehensive School Improvement Plans (CSIP), School-Based Decision Making policies, Kentucky Performance Reports, local assessment data, and observations of classrooms and the school facility. The reports are analyzed to determine individual practices, policies, and strategies contributing to a school’s success in closing the achievement gap as well as to identify commonalities across all of the schools selected for this process.
The purpose of this review process is to build a resource base for other schools to access and/or visit when trying to develop a plan that will close gaps in their school community. The schools that met the initial criteria and are able to provide the qualitative data through the school observations are posted as resources on the KDE Achievement Gap website.
* The Kentucky Department of Education Office of Assessment and Accountability determined the 4 points scale due to the following information. The change in the test design/contractor resulted in a shift of the scaled score range from 325-800 to 0-80. Each point has a greater significance on the new scale. If the change in the scaled score proportional to the original scale was kept, the value would have actually been 1.7 points, which would be rounded to 2 points. However, because the mapping of raw scores to scaled scores is so much tighter and has multiple points mapping to the same value, a more realistic comparison would be 4 points.