Search

The Common Core State Standards, adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia, raise the bar for what students need to learn at each stage of their K-12 education. The goal is to better prepare students for college and careers. The most important thing that education leaders can do to help the Common Core succeed is to support teachers in improving their practice. While not all field leaders are grasping the opportunity presented by the Common Core to transform teaching and learning, three exemplars--Kentucky, Hillsborough County Public Schools in Florida, and Center for Inspired Teaching--are using the new standards to change the daily work of teachers and students. The type of systems change the Common Core requires is no easy task, but it is a critical one. The three case studies shared in this paper illustrate how leaders within the system can take steps to empower their best resource--teachers--to seize the opportunity of the Common Core to greatly improve teaching and learning nationwide.

Since 1991-92, student writing portfolios have been part of Kentucky's high-stakes performance-based assessment. A study of schools with continuously improving or continuously declining writing portfolio scores led to identification of 36 indicators of successful writing programs. These indicators were used to develop a comprehensive needs assessment instrument, to be used in a school self-evaluation involving all stakeholders. This paper describes the pilot test and field test of the instrument, the School Study of Writing Instruction. The pilot test was carried out in a small K-6 school in western Kentucky and was deemed successful due to faculty participation and sense of ownership and the steering committee's customizing of the instrument. The results generated 18 recommendations and 22 proposed revisions. The field test was conducted in 11 primarily rural and small-town schools. The revised instrument involved a process in four steps: interviewing administrators, students, and teachers using questions related to the 36 quality indicators; writing a report profiling the school; rating the school on the indicators; and setting priorities for improvement. Five schools were assigned an external facilitator. Overall, conclusions about the self-study process were positive. Most schools completed the study to a satisfactory point and believed the effort to be worthwhile. The time required was a concern, but facilitator assistance was highly beneficial. The instrument was generally valid and reliable, but may be improved with various adjustments. Appendices contain statistical data tables and a time and task summary. (Contains 30 references.) (SV)

One mandate of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 requires that students develop a writing portfolio. Ultimately, schools must elevate the average performance level of students' portfolios to the benchmark of "proficient." During site visits to 29 schools, 36 indicators were identified that differentiated writing scores and programs in continuously improving and continuously declining schools. The indicators were used to develop a self-study needs assessment instrument called the "School Study of Writing Instruction." Created as a handbook, the instrument enables a school to compare different role groups' perspectives on its writing portfolio program and to use the findings to set priorities and plan program improvements. This report describes the field test of the instrument in 11 schools across Kentucky. Most schools were in rural areas or small towns and served a primarily White population; the schools were otherwise diverse in terms of size, grade level, and Title I eligibility. Of the 10 schools completing the study, 9 found it to be a worthwhile experience that produced some successful outcomes. Steering committee members and principals offered helpful suggestions for improving the handbook. A comparison of schools that were or were not assigned facilitators suggests that facilitator services were highly beneficial. Overall, the instrument was found to be valid and replicable. The potential time investment may temper some faculties' motivation to undertake it, but facilitator assistance could ameliorate this factor. Appendices include parts of the instrument, evaluation materials, and findings for individual schools. (Contains 22 references.) (SV)

In 1995, a 5-year collaborative research and development project began examining conditions and practices in Kentucky schools that are linked most strongly with improvement in a school's writing score on the statewide portfolio assessment. An examination of over 1,200 schools with complete writing portfolio scores for 1992-96 identified 42 schools with consistently improving scores and 18 with consistently declining scores. Site visits were conducted at 29 of these schools (22 with improving scores and 7 with declining scores). Schools selected for site visits included elementary, middle, and high schools; were located primarily in rural areas and small towns; and reflected the state's geographic and socioeconomic makeup as well as the three writing-accountable grade levels (4, 8, and 12). Over 100 teachers, 200 randomly selected students, and 50 administrators were interviewed. Qualitative analyses of the site visit reports yielded 36 indicators that discriminated between improving and declining schools. Statistical analysis revealed that consistently improving schools had significantly higher scores on 35 of 36 indicators. The indicators include measures of administrative support, quality of professional development, family and community involvement, and various instructional strategies. Each of the indicators is described, including narrative guidelines for high, medium, and low scores and examples drawn from site visit reports. The value of students as informants, the benefits of collaborative research, and recommendations for dissemination and replication are discussed. (Contains 13 references.) (SV)

One of the mandates of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 is that students develop a writing portfolio. Ultimately, schools must elevate the average performance level of students' portfolios to the benchmark of "proficient." During site visits to 29 schools, 34 indicators were identified that differentiated writing scores and programs in continuously improving schools from those in continuously declining schools. A self-study needs assessment instrument--the School Study of Writing Instruction--was developed for schools to assess their needs relative to the indicators. The instrument has four operational stages: conducting interviews with teachers, students, and administrators; writing a report framed around the 34 indicators; using the report in a faculty-wide session to rate the school on the indicators; and using the ratings to set priorities and plan actions for improvement of the writing program. This report describes the pilot testing of the instrument in one small Kentucky elementary school and the testing of parts of it by a few other entities. The pilot test assessed the value of the self-study for schools, the level of external facilitator assistance needed by schools, and the validity and reliability of the instrument. The self-study was successful for the pilot-test school, which was attributed to a faculty sense of ownership and to the school's customizing of the instrument. The whole process was completed in 5 weeks. Facilitator assistance was critical but was not needed constantly. Revisions are proposed to minimize threats to the instrument's validity and reliability. Appendices include parts of the instrument and evaluation materials. (Contains 21 references.) (SV)

This report assesses student perceptions of the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA). Individual and focus-group interviews were conducted with approximately 100 students in 6 schools in 3 geographically different school districts across Kentucky. In addition, a brief exit interview was conducted with principals to solicit feedback concerning student interviews and to document to what extent KERA components had been implemented. Sites selected included four rural schools and two urban schools serving junior high and high school students. Student comments indicate that students were knowledgeable and articulate about those aspects of reform that had affected them directly. They also expressed awareness that Kentucky schools and students were below national standards in educational achievement. Students felt KERA might help Kentucky students compete with students from other states for college admission and employment. Though respondents reported increased work associated with KERA such as student writing portfolios, most thought that portfolio work was improving their writing and allowed them to explain their work more thoroughly. For the most part, students enjoyed the additional group work brought about by KERA, noting the importance of improving their communication and interpersonal skills. Students reported that KERA increased stress on teachers and students, including worries that the state might take control of their school if performance was substandard. Implementation of school councils was viewed positively as were extended school services and increasing knowledge of computers and technology. Overall, students thought KERA was having a positive effect on their education. Appendices include site visit letters, student selection instructions, principal survey, and interview protocols. (LP)

The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) of 1990 was adopted after the Kentucky Supreme Court declared the state's system of schools unconstitutional. The purpose of this study was to identify the sources of information about KERA and to describe community attitudes toward KERA in rural Kentucky school districts during the first few months the law was in effect. The data were gathered in six rural Kentucky school districts using structured interviews, conversations, study of documentary sources, and participant observation. Interviews were conducted with 171 people, including superintendents, central office staff, principals, counselors, teachers, classified employees, school board members, and parents and students. Most respondents were enthusiastic about KERA initiatives that were backed up with funding. They expected to implement KERA faithfully, and saw more factors facilitating than hindering reform. Enthusiasm was highest among those who were best informed about KERA and in districts where the leadership was positive about reform. Most school district professionals and school board members believed themselves to be adequately informed about KERA, while most classified employees, parents, and students did not. Problems in the early phases of implementation include continued funding difficulties and cronyism and patronage in some districts. The appendices include KERA timelines, interview protocols, and state-level contacts who advised researchers. (KS)

Although there are many sources of information about "effective schools" programs, those that specifically address the needs of rural areas are often overlooked. This document offers a collection of program descriptions to help educators determine programs and practices that appear to be effective in rural and small schools. Program listed, all of which are located in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia, were selected by staff of the Rural, Small Schools program at the Appalachia Educational Laboratory (AEL), with the assistance of rural education experts in each state. The criteria for selection included general worth, effectiveness, innovation, and evidence that a given program addressed a specific rural need. The selected programs are presented in alphabetical order and marked to indicate two types of programs: (1) "pearls"--good ideas that can be implemented with a minimum of time, effort, or expense, and (2) "stars"--longer, often innovative efforts that have produced some evidence of success. Following these program descriptions is a list of projects rated "excellent, but not particularly innovative." Each entry in this section includes only the program's title, contact people, address, telephone number, and a program descriptor. Finally, a subject index lists all the programs according to descriptors. Index topics with the most entries include: career education, community involvement, curriculum, dropout prevention, enrichment/arts, parent involvement, and special education. The appendix contains information about data collection and sample letters of solicitation. (TES)

In Kentucky, 105 of 178 school districts, or 59%, are classified as rural. State law and administrative regulations presume that most school districts are both rural and isolated. The environment for rural schools in the state is heavily influenced by the fact that the majority of school districts are rural. Each school district must have a written plan for a program of school and community relations and provide a specified amount of school time to be spent on basic skills. Typically, rural students begin the day with a fairly long bus ride, may have parents who are unemployed or underemployed, are more likely to need special education services and less likely to be classified as gifted than urban students, and are likely to have parents who did not graduate from high school or have only a high school education. The rural student is apt to do more poorly in school than urban students and value education less. Rural school districts in Kentucky differ from urban school districts not only in student achievement but also in the adequacy of their funding. When school districts are ranked by quartiles of student density, the lowest two quartiles (i.e., half the districts) are shown to have equally average personal income: approximately five-eighths of the average personal income of the most dense quartile of districts. The highly varying tax rates on properties and the unequal distribution of wealth provide very unequal funding for school districts. In 1989, the supreme court ruled that the entire system of precollegiate education was unconstitutional because of the unequal educational opportunity. There has been a great deal of school consolidation in Kentucky's rural school districts, with virtually all feasible school consolidation having taken place. This document contains statistical data and 14 references. (ALL)

In a demonstration of the Appalachia Educational Laboratory's (AEL's) Community Partnership for School Improvement model, Hart County (Kentucky) community members and school representatives planned and implemented a school improvement project to increase parents' involvement in their children's education. In May 1988, 203 out of 625 questionnaires were completed by randomly selected parents of children in Hart County's six schools. The 30-item questionnaire measured aspects of parent involvement: meeting basic needs, activities at home and school, communications, and involvement in school decision making. Project activities during the 1988-89 school year included a 1-day workshop on parent involvement attended by school staff, 6 school-wide plans, 37 teacher projects aimed at increasing parent involvement, and acquisition of videotapes on parenting for use with parents. A second administration of the questionnaire, completed by 209 of the 625 randomly selected parents at the end of the school year, showed a significant overall increase in parent involvement. The greatest improvement concerned communications by teachers and principals with parents, and involvement by principals of parents in decision making. Scores did not improve in the area of schools helping parents meet their children's basic needs. Although no individual school showed a significant improvement in average total score, 68% of the observed differences in items were in the positive direction. AEL gives three recommendations for building on the success of the 1988-89 project. This report includes nine statistical tables. Appendices contain the instrument used in this study and a revised version for future use. (SV)