Teaching and Learning Reform: Curriculum, the Kentucky Department of Education, & The Educational Professional Standards Board

For explanatory purposes, the 1990 Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) is generally divided into three major clusters of initiatives: finance, curriculum, and governance. As explained elsewhere in this volume, the systemic complexity of KERA makes any divisions of its initiatives, artificial, and ultimately, insufficient, in describing the decade-old scope of Kentucky’s radical education reforms (Rinehart & Lindle, 1997; Steffy, 1993). For the purposes of this retrospective review of research, this chapter was designed to focus on the very heart of KERA’s purpose, the improvement of teaching and learning. For that reason, this chapter addresses a teaching-learning-oriented KERA initiative, curriculum, and the development and reorganization of two state agencies primarily involved in teaching and learning, the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) and the Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB)

School Based Decision Making

The 1989 Task Force on Education Reform adopted 12 systemic principles used in drafting the 1990 Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA). One of the principles formed the basis for School Based Decision Making (SBDM). It stated: School accountability and school-based authority are two intertwined parts of the same proposition (Foster, 1999; Task Force on Education Reform, 1989, p. 2). In other words, once the Task Force selected schools as the unit for the commonwealth\u27s new accountability and assessment system, the General Assembly agreed that schools should have statutory authority to plan and make policy addressing achievement of accountability goals. The legislation mandating SBDM in conjunction with KERA\u27s other systemic features was enacted in 1990 and codified as KRS § 160.345

Hasn\u27t Anyone Else Done This Right? A Field Note on the Political Realities and Perceptions in Modifying Kentucky\u27s High Stakes Accountability System

This paper is a case study of Kentucky\u27s attempt to fix not only failing schools but a failing public school system. It reports on the policy making and implementation conundrums of the debate over Kentucky\u27s high stakes accountability system. As a political policy analysis, the study relies on documents, media reports, and interviews with key players to expand understanding of the issues. The paper reports primary and secondary focus group and interview data from a variety of professional educators and parents. The combined frameworks of political culture and authentic policy perspectives are useful for depicting the story of Kentucky\u27s debate over accountability and assessment. Political culture emerges as a defining influence on Kentucky\u27s educational accountability debate. What becomes of assessment and accountability in Kentucky remains to be seen, but it is apparent that fixing failing schools has enormous political overtones. However, the power of professional culture must not be underestimated in this equation. An appendix contains the statement of principles from the Kentucky Task Force on Education Reform

A Rhetorical Legacy for Leadership: Humor .

This article treats humor as one of the rhetorical arts which educational leaders must possess to facilitate problem solving among teachers, students, and parents

Accountability Policy at the Street Level in Kentucky: Teachers and Administrators Debate the Fairness of Continuous Improvement versus Relative Standing

While scholars of educational accountability policy will not be surprised at the power of local implementers in modifying accountability efforts, Kentucky\u27s street-level debate splits two constituencies in defining a fair system. Advocates for the education of all children including the poor and minorities support the continuous improvement model, while elite advocates support recognition of relative standing of schools. This paper includes data from teachers and administrators in four schools identified as eligible for state assistance under Kentucky\u27s testing and accountability system. Of particular interest are the perceptions of accountability held by teachers and administrators in one school that had received rewards over two biennial periods prior to the current accountability designation. Across all four schools, teachers found the concept of continuous improvement unrealistic. Yet, many teachers accepted the apparent inevitability of emerging accountability requirements on their profession

Research in Brief: Shared Decision Making Enhances Instructional Leadership

A study of three middle school principals about their instructional leadership activities before and after the establishment of shared decision making revealed an enhancement of leadership. The nature of the middle school teacher\u27s role demands participative leadership and communication and decision making revolved around instructional issues

Content Validity of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium\u27s (ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders: To What Extent Do ISLLC Skill Indicators Describe School Leaders\u27 Instructional Leadership Work?

Most validity studies of ISLLC standards and indicators rely heavily on focus groups and perceptual surveys. This study included self-report and observational data on principals’ use of time. A content analysis tested ISLLC’s descriptions of instructional leadership with a related set of Kentucky’s Standards and Indicators for School Improvement (SISI) as well as across the observational job analyses of two sets of principals: (a) five elementary and secondary principals in a typical rural district and (b) five matched for school characteristics from high performing schools on Kentucky’s assessment system. Results reinforce early studies revealing the intense and fragmented nature of principals’ work, but results question whether ISLLC provides sufficient guidance for principals’ instructional leadership performance as compared to Kentucky’s SISI. ISLLC seems to offer better descriptions of legal and ethical standards as well as guidance on building community internally and externally to the school; however, ISLLC is silent about principals’ interactions with students

Schools on Probation in the States of Maryland and Kentucky. Technical Report. Volumes I-IV

This study on accountability designs for underperforming schools focuses on probation as a tool for policy. Findings are based on the analysis of state performance data, the reading of approximately 100 school improvement plans, and the study of 11 focal schools in Maryland and Kentucky. Test-score data from Maryland show that probation is associated with an initial reversal of decline in the worst performing schools that fades out in subsequent years. Teachers in the 11 schools fundamentally do not buy into the accountability system. Low job commitment diminishes the threat of low-performance penalties. Many teachers were skeptical about the goals, felt unfairly judged by the system, and did not judge themselves according to the standards of the system. The accountability system also does not provide meaningful tools for self-evaluation. To a large degree, mild pressures and directives molded the teachers\u27 responses to probation, with the principal being the system\u27s conduit. The result was that probation, by itself, did not trigger much self-directed action on the part of the great majority of teachers. The four volumes and appendix contain the following parts: (1) analytical framework and study design; (2) the accountability systems of Maryland and Kentucky; (3) probation and performance motivation; (4) organization responses to probation; (5) planning for school improvement; (6) probation and instructional change; (7) summary of findings and discussion; (8) case studies; (9) the politics of accountability for school improvement in Kentucky and Maryland; (10) case study research guide; and (11) interview protocols. (RT