2/10/2008 Page 1

Kentucky’s
Consolidated State Application
Revised Accountability Workbook
for State Grants under Title IX, Part C, Section 9302 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (Public Law 107-110)

ORIGINALLY APPROVED by USDOE on June 10, 2003

FIRST REVISION
Amended per Conference Call with USDOE on September 15, 2003 -- Critical Elements 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.2,
3.2a, 3.2b, 3.2c, 4.1, 5.4, 5.5, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1 and 10.2

(Amended Information Originally Submitted October 20, 2003; Re-submitted December 5, 2003, per
November 19, 2003, Conference Call with USDOE; and Resubmitted January 9, 2004, per email from
USDOE)

SECOND REVISION
Amended per Letter to USDOE on March 26, 2004, outlining proposed revisions; April 16, 2004 Phone Call
with USDOE requesting clarification; May 6, 2004, E-mail Response to USDOE clarifying two points and
May 18, 2004, Conference Call with USDOE -- Critical Elements 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2a,
4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.5, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 9.1 and 10.2

(Amended Information Submitted May 26, 2004, and Resubmitted June 15, 2004, to add flexibility on
participation rate offered in May 20, 2004, letter from USDOE)

THIRD REVISION
Amended per Letters to USDOE on February 18, 2005, and June 15, 2005, outlining the proposed revisions
and per the July 15, 2005, Phone Call from USDOE indicating to revise the workbook and submit it for
official approval -- Critical Elements 3.2, 3.2a, 3.2b, 7.2 and 10.1

FOURTH REVISION
Amended per Letter to USDOE on March 23, 2006, outlining the proposed revisions and per the June 21,
2006, Email from USDOE indicating to revise the workbook and submit it for official approval -- Critical
Elements 1.5, 3.2a, 3.2b, 10.1 and Attachment SD 3

Report from the Kentucky Department of Education

to
U. S. Department of Education
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Washington, D.C. 20202
2/10/2008 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Kentucky’s Plan for Complying with Assessment and Accountability Requirements
of the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001”

NCLB Workbook Completion and Transmittal Instructions

Part I: Summary of Implementation Status

Part II. State Responses and Activities

Appendix A – NCLB Requirements for State Report Card

Kentucky Supporting Documents

SD 1. Events Leading to the Kentucky Education Reform Act
SD 3. Testing in Reading/language arts and Mathematics at Grades 3-8
SD 4. Policy Issues in the Implementation of the Added Accountability Components
SD 5. NAEP Participation Requirements and Implications
SD 7. School/District/State Report Cards

Attachments
A: Kentucky Revised Statute & Kentucky Administrative Regulations
KRS 158.645 - KRS 158.6455
703 KAR 5:001 – Assessment and accountability definitions
703 KAR 5:020 – The formula for determining school accountability
703 KAR 5:040 – Statewide assessment and accountability program, relating accountability to A1 schools
and A2-A6 programs (Under revision; scheduled for final approval by the Kentucky
Board of Education on June 3, 2004)
703 KAR 5:050 – Statewide Assessment and Accountability Program; school building appeal of
performance judgments
703 KAR 5:070 – Procedures for the inclusion of special populations in the state-required assessment and
accountability programs
703 KAR 5:080 – Administration Code for Kentucky's Educational Assessment
703 KAR 5:120 – Assistance for schools; guidelines for scholastic audit
703 KAR 5:130 – School district accountability
703 KAR 5:140 – Requirements for school and district report cards
703 KAR 5:160 – Commonwealth Accountability Testing System administration procedures
SB 168 - Regular Session of the Kentucky General Assembly – 2002 (Codified as KRS 158.649)

B: Commonwealth Accountability Testing System Spring 2002 Technical Manual

C: Accuracy of School Classification Study

2/10/2008 Page 3

Instructions for Completing Consolidated State Application

Accountability Workbook
By January 31, 2003, States must complete and submit to the Department this Consolidated
State Application Accountability Workbook. We understand that some of the critical elements
for the key principles may still be under consideration and may not yet be final State policy by
the January 31 due date. States that do not have final approval for some of these elements or
that have not finalized a decision on these elements by January 31 should, when completing
the Workbook, indicate the status of each element which is not yet official State policy and
provide the anticipated date by which the proposed policy will become effective. In each of
these cases, States must include a timeline of steps to complete to ensure that such elements
are in place by May 1, 2003, and implemented during the 2002-2003 school year. By no later
than May 1, 2003, States must submit to the Department final information for all sections of the
Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook.

Transmittal Instructions
To expedite the receipt of this Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, please
send your submission via the Internet as a .doc file, pdf file, rtf or .txt file or provide the URL for
the site where your submission is posted on the Internet. Send electronic submissions to
[email protected].

A State that submits only a paper submission should mail the submission by express courier to:

Celia Sims
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave., SW
Room 3W300
Washington, D.C. 20202-6400
(202) 401-0113
2/10/2008 Page 4

PART I: Summary of Required Elements for State Accountability Systems

Instructions

The following chart is an overview of States' implementation of the critical elements required for approval
of their State accountability systems. States must provide detailed implementation information for each of
these elements in Part II of this Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook.

For each of the elements listed in the following chart, States should indicate the current implementation
status in their State using the following legend:

F: State has a final policy, approved by all the required entities in the State (e.g., State Board of
Education, State Legislature), for implementing this element in its accountability system.

P: State has a proposed policy for implementing this element in its accountability system, but must still
receive approval by required entities in the State (e.g., State Board of Education, State
Legislature).

W: State is still working on formulating a policy to implement this element in its accountability system.
2/10/2008 Page 5

Summary of Implementation Status for Required Elements of

State Accountability Systems
Status State Accountability System Element
Principle 1: All Schools
F
1.1 Accountability system includes all schools and districts in the state.

F 1.2 Accountability system holds all schools to the same criteria.

F 1.3 Accountability system incorporates the academic achievement standards.

F 1.4 Accountability system provides information in a timely manner.

F 1.5 Accountability system includes report cards.

F 1.6 Accountability system includes rewards and sanctions.

Principle 2: All Students

F
2.1 The accountability system includes all students

F 2.2 The accountability system has a consistent definition of full academic year.

F 2.3 The accountability system properly includes mobile students.

Principle 3: Method of AYP Determinations

F
3.1 Accountability system expects all student subgroups, public schools, and LEAs to reach
proficiency by 2013-14.

F 3.2 Accountability system has a method for determining whether student subgroups, public
schools, and LEAs made adequate yearly progress.

F 3.2a Accountability system establishes a starting point.

F 3.2b Accountability system establishes statewide annual measurable objectives.

F 3.2c Accountability system establishes intermediate goals.

Principle 4: Annual Decisions

F
4.1 The accountability system determines annually the progress of schools and districts.

STATUS Legend:
F – Final state policy
P – Proposed policy, awaiting State approval
W – Working to formulate policy
2/10/2008 Page 6

Principle 5: Subgroup Accountability

F 5.1 The accountability system includes all the required student subgroups.

F 5.2 The accountability system holds schools and LEAs accountable for the progress of student
subgroups.

F 5.3 The accountability system includes students with disabilities.

F 5.4 The accountability system includes limited English proficient students.

F 5.5 The State has determined the minimum number of students sufficient to yield statistically
reliable information for each purpose for which disaggregated data are used.

F 5.6 The State has strategies to protect the privacy of individual students in reporting
achievement results and in determining whether schools and LEAs are making adequate
yearly progress on the basis of disaggregated subgroups.

Principle 6: Based on Academic Assessments

F 6.1 Accountability system is based primarily on academic assessments.

Principle 7: Additional Indicators

F 7.1 Accountability system includes graduation rate for high schools.

F 7.2 Accountability system includes an additional academic indicator for elementary and middle
schools.

F 7.3 Additional indicators are valid and reliable.

Principle 8: Separate Decisions for Reading/language arts and Mathematics

F
8.1 Accountability system holds students, schools and districts separately accountable for
reading/language arts and mathematics.

Principle 9: System Validity and Reliability

F
9.1 Accountability system produces reliable decisions.

F 9.2 Accountability system produces valid decisions.

F 9.3 State has a plan for addressing changes in assessment and student population.

Principle 10: Participation Rate

F
10.1 Accountability system has a means for calculating the rate of participation in the statewide
assessment.

F 10.2 Accountability system has a means for applying the 95% assessment criteria to student
subgroups and small schools.
STATUS Legend:
F – Final policy / P – Proposed Policy, awaiting State approval / W– Working to formulate policy
2/10/2008 Page 7

PART II: State Response and Activities for Meeting State Accountability
System Requirements

INSTRUCTIONS

In Part II of this Workbook, States are to provide detailed information for each of the critical
elements required for State accountability systems. States should answer the questions asked
about each of the critical elements in the State's accountability system. States that do not have
final approval for any of these elements or that have not finalized a decision on these elements
by January 31, 2003, should, when completing this section of the Workbook, indicate the status
of each element that is not yet official State policy and provide the anticipated date by which
the proposed policy will become effective. In each of these cases, States must include a
timeline of steps to complete to ensure that such elements are in place by May 1, 2003, and
implemented during the 2002-2003 school year. By no later than May 1, 2003, States must
submit to the Department final information for all sections of the Consolidated State Application
Accountability Workbook.
2/10/2008 Page 8

PRINCIPLE 1. A single statewide Accountability System applied to all public schools

and LEAs.
EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS
1.1 How does the State Every public school and LEA is A public school or LEA is not
Accountability System required to make adequate required to make adequate
include every public school yearly progress and is included yearly progress and is not
and LEA in the State? in the State Accountability included in the State
System. Accountability System.

State has a definition of “public State policy systematically

school” and “LEA” for AYP excludes certain public schools
accountability purposes. and/or LEAs.
• The State Accountability
System produces AYP
decisions for all public
schools, including public
schools with variant grade
configurations (e.g., K-12),
public schools that serve
special populations (e.g.,
alternative public schools,
juvenile institutions, state
public schools for the blind)
and public charter schools. It
also holds accountable
public schools with no grades
assessed (e.g., K-2).

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Many of the conflicting legal and policy issues identified between the more comprehensive Kentucky
education reform and those of the Federal reform effort are resolved by implementing a matrix approach
(i.e., a two dimensional model – one dimension meeting federal requirements and one meeting state
requirements) for determining Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The Federal dimension is met by
applying a strict interpretation of the language of “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” Federally defined
20th percentile starting points in reading and mathematics are calculated separately at the elementary,
middle, and high school levels, and applied in a conjunctive manner to each school and district as
required by Federal statute. (Reference Figure 1)  

The following describes the state dimension referenced in Figure 1. Every Kentucky public school and
LEA is required to make adequate yearly progress and is included in the state accountability system.
Kentuckians have high expectations when it comes to the education of young people in public schools.
We expect high-quality teaching, high academic standards and top-notch student performance. We want
evidence that high-quality teaching and learning are taking place in every school.

The goal for every school in the state is Proficiency as defined by the Kentucky Board of Education. The
goal of Proficiency translates into a school accountability index value of 100. More specifically, the goal
for the state is for each school to achieve an accountability index of at least 100 by 2014. In Kentucky’s
accountability system, intermediate targets that will eventually take a school to the goal of 100 are set
starting in 2002. We generate assessment reports to schools annually and identify and provide
assistance annually to schools and districts that fall below expected intermediate goals. Assistance
includes a review process and targets specific support based on the results of these reviews.
2/10/2008 Page 9

The state accountability system produces AYP decisions for all public schools, including public schools
with variant grade configurations (e.g., K-12). Kentucky’s A-1 schools (K-12 schools serving the general
population) are held responsible for the performance of students they refer to A2-A6 programs (programs 
serving special populations). Data from the A2-A6 programs is tracked back to the “sending” schools, 
except in certain cases specified in a revision underway by the Kentucky Board of Education to 703 KAR 
5:040, Statewide assessment and accountability program, relating accountability to A1 schools and A2­
A6 programs, which is under consideration for final approval at the June 2­3, 2004, Kentucky Board of 
Education meeting.  Those cases are as follows:  students who have been placed in an alternative 
instructional setting by authorities outside the public school system (e.g., the court system) and who have 
not already been enrolled in a Kentucky public school or district for a full academic year.  If the regulation 
receives final approval, the Kentucky Department of Education and the Kentucky Board of Education will 
assume accountability for this population.  The system also holds accountable public schools with no
grades assessed (e.g., K-2) through established feeder relationships. Every child is part of Kentucky’s
assessment and accountability system.

(For information about district accountability, reference 3.2.)

In 1989 the Kentucky Supreme Court deemed the entire system of public elementary and secondary
education in Kentucky unconstitutional. The Court directed the Kentucky General Assembly to create
and enact into law a new system of education that was both constitutional and based upon efficiency,
adequacy and equity. The result was House Bill 940, the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), which
was enacted to provide an “adequate education for all students” as mandated by the courts. One of the
most comprehensive statewide restructuring efforts ever attempted in the United States, KERA called for
systemic change in finance, governance, curriculum and assessment and required the establishment of
learning goals and identified procedures for defining and assessing every school’s progress toward
meeting the new goals.

On April 11, 1990, Governor Wallace Wilkinson signed House Bill 940, and the Kentucky Education
Reform Act took effect on July 13 of that year. With KERA, the General Assembly established the
framework for a major revision of Kentucky's education system. KERA required the establishment of
learning goals, provided a procedure by which those goals would be defined and assessed, and created a
series of rewards and assistance associated with the performance of schools on those assessments.

(See Kentucky Supporting Document 1 on page 56 for a history of the events and decisions that led to
passage of the Kentucky Education Reform Act.)

Through a two-year period of public input and review, Kentucky developed six broad learning goals that
encompassed 75 specific academic expectations . The Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) approved
these in December 1991. Concerns arose about the measurability of learner goals 3 and 4 (see Table 1-
1). These concerns led to the reduction of the “assessed” academic expectations to 57 in number. These
were presented to the Kentucky Board of Education in early May 1994. Since that time, they have been
known as Kentucky’s academic expectations. In 1992 the Kentucky Instructional Results Information
System (KIRIS) was implemented to measure progress toward the learning goals, with a focus on the
expectations reflected in the first two goals and the noncognitive aspects outlined in goals 3, 4 and 6.
2/10/2008 Page 10

Table 1-1
Kentucky Learning Goals

Goal 1: Students will be able to use basic communication and mathematics skills.

Goal 2: Students will be able to apply core concepts and principles.

Goal 3: Students will become self-sufficient.

Goal 4: Students will become responsible group members.

Goal 5: Students will be able to think and solve problems.

Goal 6: Students will connect and integrate knowledge.

Based on eight years of experience, the 1998 Kentucky General Assembly refined Kentucky’s
assessment and accountability system to produce a more valid and reliable assessment system. House
Bill 53 provided the framework for the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System, or CATS. This
legislation directed the Kentucky Board of Education to build on the earlier system to improve
assessment and accountability in Kentucky’s public schools.

Kentucky developed this new assessment and accountability through a broad and collaborative process
involving educators and citizens. Kentucky designed CATS to accurately and reliably measure public
school progress in educating students and to provide a way to inform parents, guardians and other
Kentuckians about each public school’s effectiveness from year to year. As was KIRIS, CATS has
become a nationally recognized, successful assessment and accountability system with a proven track
record.

The National Technical Advisory Panel for Assessment and Accountability (NTAPAA), a nationally
respected group of six testing experts, has monitored both the design and implementation of this
program to ensure reliable and valid decisions about school accountability. NTAPAA is an advisory
committee constituted in statute. Current members are:
• Dr. James Catterall (NTAPAA Chairman), Professor, Graduate School of Education and Information
Studies, UCLA
• Dr. Suzanne Lane, Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Pittsburgh
• Dr. Robert Linn, Professor, School of Education, University of Colorado at Boulder; President,
American Educational Research Association
• Dr. David Miller, Chairman, Educational Psychology Department, University of Florida
• Dr. John Poggio, (NTAPAA Vice Chairman), Professor, Department of Educational Psychology
Research, School of Education, University of Kansas
• Dr. Andy Porter, Professor, Vanderbilt University; Immediate Past President, American Educational
Research Association
2/10/2008 Page 11

Thousands of educators and citizens participated in a broad and collaborative process to develop CATS.
The new system, first administered in the spring of 1999, included changes that improved the reliability
and validity of the test, reduced testing time and made the system fairer and easier to understand.
Those changes include but are not limited to:
• Distributing the test components for the high school from primarily the junior year to
across three grade levels;
• Reducing the contents of the required student writing portfolio in each accountability
year;
• Limiting student answers on the open-response questions to the space provided on one
8.5 x 11 sheet of paper;
• Including multiple-choice questions on the Kentucky Core Content Tests and weighting
them 33% of the score, and weighting the open response at 67% of the Kentucky Core
Content Test component of CATS;
• Giving schools incremental credit for Novice and Apprentice growth in reading/language
arts, mathematics, science and social studies;
• Reducing the testing window from 3 weeks to 2 weeks.

House Bill 53 shaped Kentucky’s assessment and accountability system through several provisions that
outline general features of a system of testing and school accountability, leaving many details of
implementation to various committees that were enacted by the bill. For example, the School
Curriculum, Assessment and Accountability Council (SCAAC) was created by House Bill 53 to study,
review and make recommendations concerning Kentucky's system of setting academic standards,
assessing learning, holding schools accountable for learning, and assisting schools to improve their
performance. The council advises the Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) and the Legislative Research
Commission (LRC) on issues related to the development and communication of the Academic
Expectations and Core Content for Assessment, and the development and implementation of the
statewide assessment and accountability program, including the distribution of rewards and imposition of
sanctions. SCAAC is composed of 17 voting members appointed by the Governor. The membership
represents parents, teachers, school district superintendents and assessment coordinators, school
principals, business leaders and university professors. The appointments are made to assure broad
geographical representation and representation of elementary, middle, and secondary school levels, as
well as equal representation of the two sexes to the extent possible, and to assure that appointments
reflect the minority racial composition of the state.

House Bill 53 also required the Legislative Research Commission to appoint the National Technical
Advisory Panel on Assessment and Accountability (NTAPAA), which must be composed of no fewer than
three professionals with a variety of expertise in education testing and measurement. The panel advises
LRC, with approval of the director of the commission, the Kentucky Board of Education and the
Department of Education.

See the website link in Attachment A (page 55) for the full text of regulations and relevant statutes. See 
Kentucky Supporting Document 1 on page 56 for an expanded history of Kentucky education reform.
2/10/2008 Page 12

Figure 1: Federal and State School/District Matrix Accountability Model

MAKE AYP DID NOT MAKE AYP

NCLB: Rewards State: Rewards
MEET GOAL State: Rewards

NCLB: Sanctions
MEET GOAL AND DID NOT NCLB: Rewards
MEET DROPOUT OR NOVICE
REDUCTION NCLB: Sanctions
State: Sanctions State: Sanctions
NCLB: Rewards State: Rewards
PROGRESSING State: Rewards

NCLB: Sanctions
PROGRESSING AND DID NOT NCLB: Rewards
MEET DROPOUT OR NOVICE
REDUCTION OR SCHOOL DECLINE NCLB: Sanctions
State: Sanctions State: Sanctions
NCLB: Rewards
ASSISTANCE LEVEL 1
NCLB: Sanctions
State: Sanctions State: Sanctions
NCLB: Rewards
ASSISTANCE LEVEL 2
NCLB: Sanctions
State: Sanctions State: Sanctions
NCLB: Rewards
ASSISTANCE LEVEL 3
NCLB: Sanctions
State: Sanctions State: Sanctions

Each cell represents a condition that can exist along both the state and federal dimensions (e.g., a school might meet AYP requirements on the federal
dimension) and might be in Assistance level 1 in the state dimension. The descriptors above the diagonal within each cell are intended to illustrate positive
consequences for school performance. The descriptors below the diagonals are intended to illustrate that sanctions result.
2/10/2008 Page 13

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS
1.2 How are all public schools All public schools and LEAs are Some public schools and LEAs
and LEAs held to the same systematically judged on the are systematically judged on the
criteria when making an AYP basis of the same criteria when basis of alternate criteria when
determination? making an AYP determination. making an AYP determination.

If applicable, the AYP definition

is integrated into the State
Accountability System.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The Federal dimension is met by applying a strict interpretation of the language of “No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001.” Federally defined 20th percentile starting points in reading and mathematics are calculated
separately at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, and applied in a conjunctive manner to
each school and district as required by Federal statute. (Reference Figure 1)

The state dimension meets this requirement. The General Assembly and the Kentucky Board of
Education have created an assessment and accountability system that systematically judges all public
schools and districts on the basis of the same criteria when making AYP determinations. Kentucky has
set the same high goals for all students, schools and districts. Kentucky expects realistic and specific
gains by all schools and student subpopulations.

Kentucky expects each school to reach proficiency (100 on Kentucky’s accountability index) by 2014.
This expectation requires schools to make consistent growth from individual school baselines established
in 2000 to the goal of 100 in 2014. Intermediate targets define how much progress a school must make
to be on track toward meeting the goal. Schools that fail to meet those targets receive sanctions and
appropriate interventions. Sanctions remain in place for two years. (Reference 703 KAR 5:020 and 4.1.)
 2/10/2008 Page 14

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS
1.3 Does the State have, at a State has defined three levels of Standards do not meet the
minimum, a definition of student achievement: basic, legislated requirements.
basic, proficient and proficient and advanced.1
advanced student
achievement levels in Student achievement levels of
reading/language arts and proficient and advanced
mathematics? determine how well students are
mastering the materials in the
State’s academic content
standards; and the basic level of
achievement provides complete
information about the progress of
lower-achieving students toward
mastering the proficient and
advanced levels.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky meets this standard by measuring the quality of student work against four performance levels.
The levels, from lowest to highest, are Novice, Apprentice, Proficient and Distinguished (NAPD).
Although redefined in June of 2001 and applied to assessment data beginning with the Spring of 1999,
these performance levels have been in place since 1992. The first two levels of performance in
reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies are now subdivided into three levels
(Novice non-performance, Novice medium, Novice high, Apprentice low, Apprentice medium and
Apprentice high) to better represent student performance.

Kentucky law states that all schools shall expect “a high level of achievement of all students.” That high
level, as defined through a standards-setting process designed by the respected testing experts of the
National Technical Advisory Panel for Assessment and Accountability (NTAPAA) and overseen by the
Kentucky Board of Education, is the Proficient level.

Kentucky educators have two important resources for planning instruction and determining how well
students master the materials. Kentucky’s Student Performance Standards clearly define Novice,
Apprentice, Proficient and Distinguished work at each grade level and content area included in the
annual state assessments. Kentucky’s Core Content for Assessment identifies content Kentuckians have
determined essential for all students to know. (The Kentucky Core Content for Assessment and NAPD
performance descriptions are available on the Kentucky Department of Education’s Web site,
www.kentuckyschools.org.)

Kentucky’s student performance standards were set through a highly inclusive process involving more
than 1,600 teachers, review by approximately 3,000 citizens and a final review and approval by the
Kentucky Board of Education. The entire standards-setting process (see CATS 2002 Interpretative
Guide) was designed and overseen by NTAPAA and Kentucky’s School Curriculum, Assessment and
Accountability Council, a 17-member body of teachers, school administrators, business leaders, parents
and other public education advocates.

1
System of State achievement standards will be reviewed by the Standards and Assessments Peer Review. The
Accountability Peer Review will determine that achievement levels are used in determining AYP.
2/10/2008 Page 15

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS
1.4 How does the State provide State provides decisions about Timeline does not provide
accountability and adequate adequate yearly progress in time sufficient time for LEAs to fulfill
yearly progress decisions for LEAs to implement the their responsibilities before the
and information in a timely required provisions before the beginning of the next academic
manner? beginning of the next academic year.
year.

State allows enough time to

notify parents about public
school choice or supplemental
educational service options, time
for parents to make an informed
decision, and time to implement
public school choice and
supplemental educational
services.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

At its December 2004 meeting, the Kentucky Board of Education approved the following policy in order to 
provide accountability and adequate yearly progress (AYP) decisions and information in a timely manner:

 For Spring 2004, preliminary AYP decisions based on the reading and mathematics multiple 
choice portions of the test will be issued to schools and districts by August 2, 2004, followed by 
final AYP results based on the total reading and mathematics tests (both multiple choice and 
open­response) in early October.  If preliminary AYP decisions result in NCLB consequences at 
the school or district level, NCLB consequences will be applied to schools/districts and options or 
services selected by parents will continue to be supported through the end of the current school 
year even if final data indicates the school did make AYP and sanctions should not have been 
applied.  If preliminary AYP decisions indicate the school/district made AYP, but final data 
indicates the school/district did not make AYP, then appropriate NCLB sanctions will be applied 
immediately.
 For Spring 2005 and beyond, the current testing window will be moved back one week into the 
school year, with the current number of test forms and the test design maintained.  The testing 
window will be condensed into a single two­week window for all schools/districts and would start 
no earlier than April 1.  Final AYP decisions in reading and mathematics will then be issued to 
schools by the August 2 deadline, as long as negotiations with Kentucky's assessment contractor 
are successful in accomplishing the earlier return of reading and mathematics assessment 
results within the funds allocated for the state assessment contract.  
2/10/2008 Page 16

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS
1.5 Does the State The State Report Card includes The State Report Card does not
Accountability System all the required data elements include all the required data
produce an annual State [see Appendix A for the list of elements.
Report Card? required data elements].
The State Report Card is not
The State Report Card is available to the public.
available to the public at the
beginning of the academic year.

The State Report Card is

accessible in languages of major
populations in the State, to the
extent possible.

Assessment results and other

academic indicators (including
graduation rates) are reported by
student subgroups

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The majority of data elements comprising Kentucky's state report card are posted on the Kentucky 
Department of Education's website each October as the Annual Kentucky Performance Report.  This 
report has been expanded to include additional information required by NCLB.

The Annual Kentucky Performance Report includes this information:

• Information in the aggregate, on student achievement at each performance level on the state
academic assessments (disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant
status, English proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged).
• Information that provides a comparison between the actual achievement levels of each group of
students and the State’s annual measurable objectives for each such group of students on each
of the academic assessments required.
• The percentage of students not tested (disaggregated by the same categories); by Kentucky
regulation and practice this percentage approaches zero, since the alternate portfolio program
extends accountability to nearly all students exempted from the regular assessment.
• The most recent two-year trend in student achievement in each subject area for each grade
level.
• Aggregate information on any other indicators used by the State to determine the adequate
yearly progress of students in achieving State academic achievement standards.
• Information on the performance of local educational agencies in the State regarding making
adequate yearly progress, including the number and names of each school identified for school
improvement.
• Beginning with the Adequate Yearly Progress reporting for 2005-06, a report on all tested
students (accountable and non-accountable) at each performance level on the state academic
assessments (disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English
proficiency and status as economically disadvantaged) will be generated. Kentucky notes that
information on all students tested has always been available to schools and districts in electronic
form; however, now a specific report will be produced as part of the Kentucky Performance
Report. This element was approved by the Kentucky Board of Education at its April 2006
meeting.
2/10/2008 Page 17

To comply with NCLB, Kentucky will be adding data to the Annual Performance Report as it becomes
available to produce a state report card that meets the federal requirements.

• Graduation rates for secondary school students. While Kentucky currently reports dropout rates in
the Kentucky Performance Report, graduation rates will also be provided as soon as it is technically
possible. Kentucky cannot currently disaggregate graduation or dropout data beyond gender and
ethnicity. This data will be incorporated as soon as Kentucky’s student data system has the capacity
to generate the required data elements. The state hopes that the tracking system will be
implemented at the end of the 2004­05 school year; thus, since the requirement is to track students
across time for four years, the first application of tracking a cohort through graduation would be the
end of the 2007­08 school year. Kentucky had previously hoped to upgrade the capacity of the
student data system for this purpose by the end of 2003-2004. However, technical issues plus
cost/budget shortages have delayed this implementation and may still impact the date of
implementation.

Until this data capacity can be developed, the Kentucky Department of Education will rely on an
application of the following graduation rate definition: the quotient of the number of current year
grade 12 completers (standard diploma within four years, including students with disabilities
whose IEPs stipulate they will need more than four years to obtain a standard diploma), divided
by the number of current year grade 12 completers (includes standard diplomas plus certificates
of completion), plus the number of current year grade 12 dropouts, plus the number of dropouts
from the current 12th grade that dropped out as 11th graders, plus the number of dropouts from
the current 12th grade class that dropped out as 10th graders, plus the number of dropouts from
the current 12th grade class that dropped out as 9th graders.

A recent event in Kentucky related to the graduation rate definition found above was the passage
of House Bill 178 by the 2004 regular session of the Kentucky General Assembly. House Bill 178
requires that students who transfer to a secondary GED program, or receive a GED by October 1
of the year after they drop out of school not be counted as dropouts.

The intent of House Bill 178 was to define a single definition of dropout that could be applied to
both the Federal and state dimensions of accountability, and that would bring Kentucky into full
compliance with the definition of dropout as published by the United States Department of
Education's National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). The Kentucky Board of
Education at its April 2004 meeting aligned its policy with House Bill 178 directing Kentucky
Department of Education to fully implement the NCES definition/guidelines for dropout and
create criteria for a state-approved secondary GED program.

As to how those students completing a secondary GED program or who receive a GED by
October 1 of the year after they drop out of school will be reflected in the graduation rate formula
described above, the students will be reflected in the denominator of the formula as completers.
They will not be reflected in the numerator since they do not receive a standard diploma within
four years.

The point must be made that this issue does not impact this version of Kentucky's accountability
workbook that addresses provisions that are to apply to the 2004 spring test data. The first
impact would occur on the 2005 spring test data, and since Kentucky lags its nonacademic data
by one year, the actual application of this matter would not occur until the 2006 Adequate Yearly
Progress Reports.

• The professional qualifications of teachers in the state, the percentage of such teachers teaching with
emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes in the state not taught by highly
qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty
schools (schools in the top quartile of poverty and the bottom quartile of poverty in the state). Data is
collected identifying regularly certified teachers and teachers with emergency certification as well as
teachers in and out of field. By law, the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) is
the state agency responsible for teacher professional standards,
2/10/2008 Page 18

certification and licensing. The EPSB is collaborating with the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE)
and the Kentucky Board of Education on state activities under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) related to
"highly qualified teachers." Kentucky is moving toward meeting the data requirements through equipping
its statewide data system with the capacity to generate the required elements. However, technical issues
plus cost/budget shortages have delayed this implementation and may still impact the date of
implementation. In the interim, the data is being gathered by the EPSB through having districts post their
data to a secure website. School districts are in the process of posting their data; approximately 75% of
districts have posted their data and two reminders have gone out to the remaining 25%, with a deadline of
May 31 for the submission of data. KDE will establish a link to the highly qualified teacher data once the
data is complete on EPSB's secure website (no later than mid to late summer 2004). Kentucky's state
report card will be comprised of the Kentucky Performance Report and the link to the highly qualified
teacher data.

Kentucky’s state report card will parallel the school and district report cards, which the Kentucky Department of
Education issues annually and posts on its Web site. The current requirements for Kentucky’s report card system
are specified in Kentucky Administrative Regulation 703 KAR 5:140 and an incorporated document.

(See Kentucky Supporting Document 7 on page 63 for details.)

School/district reports posted to the Kentucky Department of Education Website will indicate AYP status for each
subpopulation meeting the minimum number of students requirement.
 2/10/2008 Page 19

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS
1.6 How does the State State uses one or more types of State does not implement
Accountability System rewards and sanctions, where rewards or sanctions for public
include rewards and the criteria are: schools and LEAs based on
sanctions for public schools adequate yearly progress.
and LEAs?2 • Set by the State;
• Based on adequate yearly
progress decisions; and,
• Applied uniformly across
public schools and LEAs.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Figure 2: State Dimension - Rewards and Sanctions

KENTUCKY
ACCOUNTABILITY
SYSTEM

Federal and state rewards and sanctions are integrated as illustrated previously in Figure 1. Regulations
on which the Kentucky Board of Education took final action in December 2003 give the Kentucky
Department of Education and Kentucky Board of Education authority to reward schools/districts making
adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years in both reading and mathematics. Figure 2 above
illustrates how rewards and sanctions are applied through the state dimension.

2
The state must provide rewards and sanctions for all public schools and LEAs for making adequate yearly
progress, except that the State is not required to hold schools and LEAs not receiving Title I funds to the
requirements of section 1116 of NCLB [§200.12(b)(40)].
2/10/2008 Page 20

PRINCIPLE 2. All students are included in the State Accountability System.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS
2.1 How does the State All students in the State are Public school students exist in
Accountability System included in the State the State for whom the State
include all students in the Accountability System. Accountability System makes no
State? provision.
The definitions of “public school”
and “LEA” account for all
students enrolled in the public
school district, regardless of
program or type of public school.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The Kentucky Board of Education gave final approval to 703 KAR 5:001, Assessment and Accountability 
Definitions, at its December 2003 meeting and then made additional amendments to this regulation at its 
February 2004 meeting due to comments received through the public hearing process.  The definitions in 
703 KAR 5:001 apply to all students.  This regulation defines "full academic year" for a school and a 
district and specifies which students are included in AYP calculations.

Students with Disabilities and LEP students may participate in state assessments using accommodations
routinely used in the normal delivery of instruction, or without accommodations. For LEP students, these
accommodations must be included in an educational services plan approved by the principal. For
Students with Disabilities, instructional accommodations must be documented in the Individual
Educational Plan (IEP). These data are included in accountability index calculations. For that small
group of Students with Disabilities whose disability is so severe that with all possible accommodations
the student cannot participate in the regular curriculum (less than 1%), Kentucky has an Alternate
Portfolio derived from an agreed upon subset of Kentucky’s Academic Expectations, and the data
generated is included in accountability calculations such that each participating student has the same
impact on the accountability index calculation as do all other students.

The website link for the full text of this regulation and the document incorporated by reference is included 
in Attachment A, page 55. For related discussion, reference discussion of Full Academic Year, 2.2.
2/10/2008 Page 21

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS
2.2 How does the State define The State has a definition of “full LEAs have varying definitions of
“full academic year” for academic year” for determining “full academic year.”
identifying students in AYP which students are to be included
decisions? in decisions about AYP. The State’s definition excludes
students who must transfer from
The definition of full academic one district to another as they
year is consistent and applied advance to the next grade.
statewide.
The definition of full academic
year is not applied consistently.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

The Kentucky Board of Education gave final approval of 703 KAR 5:001, Assessment and Accountability 
Definitions at its December 2003 meeting and made further amendments to the regulation at its February 
2004 meeting due to comments received through the public hearing process.  This regulation contains 
the following definitions for "full academic year":
 "Full academic year for a district" means a district is accountable for any student who is enrolled 
in the district any one­hundred (100) instructional days from the district's first instructional day of 
the school year through the first day of the testing window for the appropriate accountability level 
established by the district.
 "Full academic year for a school" means a school is accountable for any student who is enrolled 
in the school any one­hundred (100) instructional days from the first instructional day of the 
school year through the first day of the testing window.

The Kentucky Department of Education received "transitional authority" from the U.S. Secretary of 
Education that these definitions not apply to the 2003 Spring assessment.

The Kentucky Department of Education will begin to implement these definitions on assessment answer
documents administered in the Spring of 2004.
2/10/2008 Page 22

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING STATUTORY NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS
2.3 How does the State State holds public schools State definition requires students
Accountability System accountable for students who to attend the same public school
determine which students were enrolled at the same public for more than a full academic
have attended the same school for a full academic year. year to be included in public
public school and/or LEA for school accountability.
a full academic year? State holds LEAs accountable for
students who transfer during the State definition requires students
full academic year from one to attend school in the same
public school within the district to district for more than a full
another public school within the academic year to be included in
district. district accountability.

State holds public schools

accountable for students who
have not attended the same
public school for a full academic
year.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Until Kentucky’s student data system can be adequately developed to meet this need, a data collection
form will be distributed to each District assessment coordinator on which they will be able to indicate
which students were not enrolled in the same school or district for a full academic year. This will be
coded by district staff on each student's answer document.
 2/10/2008 Page 23

PRINCIPLE 3. State definition of AYP is based on expectations for growth in student

achievement that is continuous and substantial, such that all students are proficient in
reading/language arts and mathematics no later than 2013-2014.
EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
3.1 How does the State’s The State has a timeline for State definition does not require
definition of adequate yearly ensuring that all students will all students to achieve
progress require all students meet or exceed the State’s proficiency by 2013-2014.
to be proficient in proficient level of academic
reading/language arts and achievement in reading/language State extends the timeline past
mathematics by the 2013- arts3 and mathematics, not later the 2013-2014 academic year.
2014 academic year? than 2013-2014.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

At its August 2003 meeting, the Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) approved defining proficient for 
NCLB purposes to mean the same as proficient as it is applied in the Commonwealth Accountability 
Testing System (CATS).  Also approved at the August 2003 meeting was a plan to use CATS data to 
compute federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for schools and districts based on NCLB criteria in 
reading and mathematics, in addition to holding schools accountable every two years for growth 
expectations as reflected in Kentucky's school growth charts.  

Both the definition of proficient and the plan to use CATS data to compute AYP for schools and districts 
based on NCLB criteria in reading and mathematics were incorporated into regulation by the KBE with 
final approval occurring at the December 2003 meeting.

Reference 1.1 and 1.6.

Reference the website link for statutes and regulations in Attachment A on page 55 for a detailed legal 
and regulatory description of the state dimension.

If the state has separate assessments to cover its language arts standards (e.g., reading and writing), the State
34

must create a method to include scores from all the relevant assessments.
2/10/2008 Page 24

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
3.2 How does the State For a public school and LEA to State uses different method for
Accountability System make adequate yearly progress, calculating how public schools
determine whether each each student subgroup must and LEAs make AYP.
student subgroup, public meet or exceed the State annual
school and LEA makes measurable objectives, each
AYP? student subgroup must have at
least a 95% participation rate in
the statewide assessments, and
the school must meet the State’s
requirement for other academic
indicators.

However, if in any particular year

the student subgroup does not
meet those annual measurable
objectives, the public school or
LEA may be considered to have
made AYP, if the percentage of
students in that group who did
not meet or exceed the proficient
level of academic achievement
on the State assessments for that
year decreased by 10% of that
percentage from the preceding
public school year; that group
made progress on one or more of
the State’s academic indicators;
and that group had at least 95%
participation rate on the
statewide assessment.
2/10/2008 Page 25

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

In December 2003, the Kentucky Board of Education finalized revisions to 703 KAR 5:130, School
district accountability and 703 KAR 5:020, The formula for determining school accountability. Section 8
of 703 KAR 5:130 is devoted to district accountability requirements for meeting the provisions of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and Sections 10, 11 and 12 of 703 KAR 5:020 specify the school
accountability requirements for meeting NCLB provisions. The requirement for subpopulations of
sufficient size to meet annual measurable objectives in reading and mathematics or meet the conditions
of safe harbor is included in both of these regulations.

For AYP determinations, any Kentucky school/district in which a subpopulation does not score at or
above the annual measurable objective, the school as a whole, or the district will be considered to have
failed in meeting AYP in the specific content area unless the “safe harbor” provisions apply.
Subpopulations identified in Kentucky include: White, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Other,
Economically Deprived, LEP and Students with Disabilities. As finalized in regulation at the February 
2004 Kentucky Board of Education meeting, each subpopulation must have at least 10 students in a 
subpopulation in each grade in which NCLB assessments are administered and at least 60 students in 
the subpopulation in these grades combined or the subpopulation constitutes at least fifteen percent 
(15%) of the students in these grades combined.  Kentucky will apply a 99% confidence interval around
each percent proficient in order to establish with appropriate confidence that the point in question is
statistically different than the annual measurable objective.

At its February 2004 meeting, the Kentucky Board of Education finalized the policy for "safe harbor" in
regulation, (703 KAR 5:001, Assessment and Accountability Definitions), stating that if a school or district
does not meet the reading or mathematics annual measurable objectives (AMO), the school or district is
considered to have met the annual measurable objective in reading or mathematics if the school or
district reduces its percent of total students or subpopulation(s), (whichever group(s) did not meet the
reading or mathematics annual measurable objective), scoring below proficient by 10%; and students in
the same population or subpopulation(s) demonstrate improvement or obtain a 100 or higher on the prior
year academic index. Since disaggregation of data for graduation rate and accountability indices cannot
yet occur due to technical issues and cost/budget shortages affecting upgrading the capacity of the
student data system for this purpose, Kentucky will use the academic index for safe harbor purposes in
the interim. It is hoped that the tracking system will be implemented by the end of the 2004­05 school
year; however, technical issues and budget shortages could further delay the date of implementation.

At the October 2003 Kentucky Board of Education meeting, the Board approved clarification of its
decisions on graduation rate and additional academic indicator. These clarifications were incorporated
into state regulations on which final action was taken in December 2003. The clarification on graduation
rate is summarized below:

Graduation rate data used for this purpose will be “lagged” one year in order to assist in meeting
NCLB required reporting timelines.

“NCLB growth on the graduation rate” means: a graduation rate that is equal to or greater than
the corresponding annual goal; or, a graduation rate that exceeds that of the prior year.
2/10/2008 Page 26

Year                    Graduation Rate Goal (The goal estimates the tracking of a cohort
                            of students over a four­year period; Example—freshman class of 
                            1998­99 tracked over 1998­1999, 1999­2000, 2000­2001 and 2001­ 
                            2002.)

2002                    71.00
2003   73.25
2004   75.50
2005   77.75
2006   80.00
2007   82.25
2008   84.50
2009   86.75
2010   89.00
2011   91.25
2012   93.50
2013   95.75
2014   98.00

As to the additional academic indicator, the Kentucky Board of Education did approve regulatory
amendments in December 2003 to designate the full accountability index, lagged by one year in order to
meet NCLB required reporting timelines, as the additional academic indicator for the elementary and
middle school levels. NCLB requires states to use graduation rate for the additional academic indicator
at the high school level. However, subsequent action by the Board occurred in June 2005 to change the
additional academic indicator at the elementary and middle school levels to a fairer measure for schools
and districts that continues to focus on all seven content areas tested in Kentucky. The Board amended
its regulatory language to make the CATS biennial classification and the CATS mid-point classification,
whichever is the most current classification, serve as the criteria for meeting the additional academic
indicator. Thus, schools classified as any category of Progressing or Meets Goal would be considered as
meeting the requirement for the additional academic indicator. Data would still be lagged by one year in
order to meet NCLB required reporting timelines. For example, in 2005, the 2004 CATS biennial
classification would be applied and in 2006, the 2005 CATS mid-point classification would be used. The
Board also approved regulatory language to allow the opportunity to recognize growth in addition to
school classification for schools in the Assistance category. Schools in the Assistance category must
demonstrate growth in the accountability index at or above the statewide average for the specific grade-
level configuration to be designated as meeting the additional academic indicator requirement. This
additional caveat was proposed by the Local Superintendents Advisory Council, a statutorily created
group that reviews and provides advice on every regulation change considered by the Board.

The specific regulatory language approved on June 9, 2005, to make the changes described above to the
additional academic indicator for the elementary and middle school levels was:

o 703 KAR 5:001, Section 1, (11) (b), (12) (b), and (13) (b); 703 KAR 5:020, Section 10, (5)
(b); and 703 KAR 5:130, Section 8, (5) (b). “A school classification of any category of
Progressing or Meets Goal in the CATS biennial or midpoint classification, whichever
occurred more recently, at the elementary and middle school levels; or for a school in the
Assistance category which demonstrates growth in the accountability index at or above
the state average for the specific grade-level configuration.

o 703 KAR 5:020, Section 10, (2) (b) and 703 KAR 5:130, Section 8, (2) (b). “School
classification criteria as described in subsection (5) (b) of this Section;”
2/10/2008 Page 27
2/10/2008 Page 28

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
3.2a What is the State’s starting Using data from the 2001-2002 The State Accountability System
point for calculating Adequate school year, the State uses a different method for
Yearly Progress? established separate starting calculating the starting point (or
points in reading/language arts baseline data).
and mathematics for measuring
the percentage of students
meeting or exceeding the State’s
proficient level of academic
achievement.

Each starting point is based, at a

minimum, on the higher of the
following percentages of students
at the proficient level: (1) the
percentage in the State of
proficient students in the lowest-
achieving student subgroup; or,
(2) the percentage of proficient
students in a public school at the
20th percentile of the State’s total
enrollment among all schools
ranked by the percentage of
students at the proficient level.

A State may use these

procedures to establish separate
starting points by grade span;
however, the starting point must
be the same for all like schools
(e.g., one same starting point for
all elementary schools, one same
starting point for all middle
schools…).

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

At its August 2003 meeting, the Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) adopted a motion to establish
starting points for determining federal AYP using Spring 2002 Commonwealth Accountability Testing
System (CATS) data in reading and mathematics. The KBE also approved a motion to define percent
proficient and above for purposes of making federal school and district AYP annual decisions in reading
and mathematics to mean the same as percent proficient and above as applied in the CATS. These
decisions were formalized into administrative regulations that were given final approval by the KBE at its
December 2003 meeting.

A detailed description of the procedures for calculating starting points and annual measurable objectives
applicable to the state dimension can be accessed through the website link cited for regulations in
Attachment A on page 55.

The Board's adopted starting points and annual measurable objectives that result are summarized in
Table 1 below.
 2/10/2008 Page 29

Table 1: NCLB Starting Points - % at or Above Proficient and Measurable Annual Objectives
Elementary          Middle High Primary – 08 Primary – 12 7-12
Year Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math
2001-02 47.27 22.45 45.60 16.49 19.26 19.76 46.44 19.47 37.38 19.57 32.43 18.13
2002-03 47.27 22.45 45.60 16.49 19.26 19.76 46.44 19.47 37.38 19.57 32.43 18.13
2003-04 47.27 22.45 45.60 16.49 19.26 19.76 46.44 19.47 37.38 19.57 32.43 18.13
2004-05 53.86 32.14 52.40 26.93 29.35 29.79 53.14 29.54 45.21 29.62 40.88 28.36
2005-06 53.86 32.14 52.40 26.93 29.35 29.79 53.14 29.54 45.21 29.62 40.88 28.36
2006-07 53.86 32.14 52.40 26.93 29.35 29.79 53.14 29.54 45.21 29.62 40.88 28.36
2007-08 60.45 41.84 59.20 37.37 39.45 39.82 59.83 39.6 53.04 39.68 49.32 38.60
2008-09 67.04 51.53 66.00 47.81 49.54 49.85 66.53 49.67 60.86 49.73 57.77 48.83
2009-10 73.64 61.23 72.80 58.25 59.63 59.88 73.22 59.74 68.69 59.79 66.22 59.07
2010-11 80.23 70.92 79.60 68.68 69.72 69.91 79.92 69.8 76.52 69.84 74.66 69.30
2011-12 86.82 80.61 86.40 79.12 79.82 79.94 86.61 79.87 84.35 79.89 83.11 79.53
2012-13 93.41 90.31 93.20 89.56 89.91 89.97 93.31 89.93 92.17 89.95 91.55 89.77
2013-14 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

In the spring of 2006, Kentucky administered the Augmented Norm Referenced Test (NRT) in grades where the
Kentucky Core Content Test (KCCT) was not previously administered to meet the NCLB requirements of annual
testing in reading and mathematics at grades 3-8. The Augmented NRT was a one-year solution to meeting the
grades 3-8 testing requirement for 2006, and beginning in spring 2007 Kentucky will assess reading and
mathematics in grades 3-8 with a new KCCT in all required grades. Because of this transition, Kentucky will
invoke the flexibility offered by the Wellstone Amendment for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations for
2006.

Kentucky’s previous accountability plan included averaging data from two or three years preceding the current
year to make AYP determinations if the school or student subpopulations of sufficient size did not meet their AMOs
for reading and mathematics using current year data for calculations. However, with implementation of the
Augmented NRT in the spring of 2006, there will only be one year of data available in those grades. Without data
from previous years for the augmented grades, the existing KCCT grades will continue to be used for
accountability purposes to calculate AYP. AYP for 2006 will be calculated by averaging two years of data from the
existing KCCT grades in reading and mathematics for all schools and districts and subpopulations of sufficient size
for the two years combined. The confidence interval will also be based on the same set of data as the AMO.
While the Augmented NRT data will not be included in AYP determinations for 2006, the results will still be
reported with other assessment results for 2006. This approach was approved by the Kentucky Board of Education
at its April 2006 meeting and it will be incorporated into 702 KAR 5:020 at the Board's August meeting.
 2/10/2008 Page 30

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
3.2b What are the State’s annual State has annual measurable The State Accountability System
measurable objectives for objectives that are consistent uses another method for
determining adequate yearly with a state’s intermediate goals calculating annual measurable
progress? and that identify for each year a objectives.
minimum percentage of students
who must meet or exceed the The State Accountability System
proficient level of academic does not include annual
achievement on the State’s measurable objectives.
academic assessments.

The State’s annual measurable

objectives ensure that all
students meet or exceed the
State’s proficient level of
academic achievement within the
timeline.

The State’s annual measurable

objectives are the same
throughout the State for each
public school, each LEA, and
each subgroup of students.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky has established separate reading and mathematics intermediate goals or annual measurable
objectives for elementary, middle, and high school grades that begin with two plateau periods of three
years each, including the 2002 baseline year, where the annual measurable objective remains the same.
The first increase in intermediate goals will take place In the 2004-2005 school year, the second increase 
in the 2007­2008 school year and then annually thereafter. (Reference Table 1, page 28) This model 
allows schools some time to understand and adjust to the new federal requirements. 

The intermediate goals for elementary, middle and high school reading and mathematics will be applied to 
each school building, as well as to each subgroup at the school building level to determine AYP status. 
When calculating the results statewide, for school districts, and for school buildings that span multiple 
levels, as well as for subgroups within them, the intermediate goal will be an average of the elementary, 
middle and high school intermediate goals for reading and mathematics respectively.

In the spring of 2006, Kentucky administered the Augmented Norm Referenced Test (NRT) in grades
where the Kentucky Core Content Test (KCCT) was not previously administered to meet the NCLB
requirements of annual testing in reading and mathematics at grades 3-8. The Augmented NRT was a
one-year solution to meeting the grades 3-8 testing requirement for 2006, and beginning in spring 2007
Kentucky will assess reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 with a new KCCT in all required grades.
Because of this transition, Kentucky will invoke the flexibility offered by the Wellstone Amendment for
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations for 2006.
2/10/2008 Page 31

Kentucky’s previous accountability plan included averaging data from two or three years preceding the current
year to make AYP determinations if the school or student subpopulations of sufficient size did not meet their AMOs
for reading and mathematics using current year data for calculations. However, with implementation of the
Augmented NRT in the spring of 2006, there will only be one year of data available in those grades. Without data
from previous years for the augmented grades, the existing KCCT grades will continue to be used for
accountability purposes to calculate AYP. AYP for 2006 will be calculated by averaging two years of data from the
existing KCCT grades in reading and mathematics for all schools and districts and subpopulations of sufficient size
for the two years combined. The confidence interval will also be based on the same set of data as the AMO.
While the Augmented NRT data will not be included in AYP determinations for 2006, the results will still be
reported with other assessment results for 2006. This approach was approved by the Kentucky Board of Education
at its April 2006 meeting and it will be incorporated into 702 KAR 5:020 at the Board's August meeting.
2/10/2008 Page 32

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
3.2c What are the State’s State has established The State uses another method
intermediate goals for intermediate goals that increase for calculating intermediate
determining adequate yearly in equal increments over the goals.
progress? period covered by the State
timeline. The State does not include
intermediate goals in its definition
• The first incremental of adequate yearly progress.
increase takes effect not
later than the 2004-2005
academic year.
• Each following incremental
increase occurs within three
years.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Reference 3.2b and Table 1.

 2/10/2008 Page 33

PRINCIPLE 4. State makes annual decisions about the achievement of all public schools
and LEAs.
EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
4.1 How does the State AYP decisions for each public AYP decisions for public schools
Accountability System school and LEA are made and LEAs are not made annually.
make an annual annually.4
determination of whether
each public school and LEA
in the State made AYP?

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

At its August 2003 meeting, the Kentucky Board of Education adopted a plan to use Commonwealth 
Accountability Testing System (CATS) data to compute federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for all 
schools and districts based on No Child Left Behind criteria in reading and mathematics, in addition to 
holding schools accountable every two years for growth expectations as reflected in Kentucky's growth 
charts.  This policy was applied immediately to 2002­2003 CATS data and was incorporated into 
administrative regulations, which received final approval at the December 2003 Kentucky Board of 
Education meeting, for implementation in subsequent years.

A detailed description of how the state dimension addresses this need can be accessed through the 
website link for regulations cited in Attachment A on page 55. 

District accountability is addressed in 3.2.

4
Decisions may be based upon several years of data and data may be averaged across grades within a public
school [§1111(b)(2)(J)].
2/10/2008 Page 34

PRINCIPLE 5. All public schools and LEAs are held accountable for the achievement of
individual subgroups.
EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
5.1 How does the definition of Identifies subgroups for defining State does not disaggregate data
adequate yearly progress adequate yearly progress: by each required student
include all the required economically disadvantaged, subgroup.
student subgroups? major racial and ethnic groups,
students with disabilities, and
students with limited English
proficiency.

Provides definition and data

source of subgroups for adequate
yearly progress.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Public schools and districts will be accountable for the performance of student subpopulations as
required by the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” so long as the subgroup meets the minimum group
size requirement specified in this document. (See 3.2 for the minimum group size set by the Kentucky 
Board of Education.)

Within the state dimension, Kentucky also addresses this requirement (Reference website for accessing
regulations found in Attachment A on page 55). Kentucky requires, as stipulated in 703 KAR 5:070 and its
incorporated document, the assessment of and accountability for all students, including those
subpopulations sometimes omitted from accountability systems, e.g., transient students, students with
disabilities, students with severe disabilities and limited English proficient students.

Reference Senate Bill 168 (website is cited in Attachment A on page 55 for accessing Senate Bill 168, 
which is codified as KRS 158.649). 
2/10/2008 Page 35

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
5.1 How are public schools Public schools and LEAs are held State does not include student
and LEAs held accountable for student subgroup subgroups in its State
accountable for the achievement: economically Accountability System.
progress of student disadvantaged, major ethnic and
subgroups in the racial groups, students with
determination of adequate disabilities, and limited English
yearly progress? proficient students.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Reference 5.1.
2/10/2008 Page 36

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
5.2 How are students with All students with disabilities The State Accountability System
disabilities included in the participate in statewide or State policy excludes students
State’s definition of assessments: general with disabilities from participating
adequate yearly progress? assessments with or without in the statewide assessments.
accommodations or an alternate
assessment based on grade level State cannot demonstrate that
standards for the grade in which alternate assessments measure
students are enrolled. grade-level standards for the
grade in which students are
State demonstrates that students enrolled.
with disabilities are fully included
in the State Accountability
System.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky meets this standard. All students in the state are included in the State Accountability System
(see 2.1 above).

For students who qualify, Kentucky’s assessment program offers accommodations in assessments. The
accommodations must be stipulated in the student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) or 504 and must
have been used with the student for instruction throughout the school year. For example, if a student’s
IEP allows a scribe during regular instruction, the student will be allowed to have a scribe for the
statewide assessment. For details, reference 703 KAR 5:070, Inclusion of All Students. (See website
cited in Attachment A for accessing regulations on page 55)

Students who cannot participate in the regular assessment, even with accommodations, are required to
submit an alternate portfolio. Alternate portfolios are collections of work produced by students with
severe disabilities (i.e., the less than 1 percent of the total student population for whom traditional
assessments would be an inappropriate measure). Kentucky’s alternate portfolio was designed and
developed by teachers and parents of the target student population. It is derived from an agreed-upon
set of Kentucky’s academic expectations and is focused on communications and quantitative as well as
other academic skills.

Alternate portfolios provide a valid and reliable means of assessing the instruction provided to these
students. The rubric for assessing the work collected in the alternate portfolios is designed to reflect
research-based, effective-practice instructional strategies. This assessment provides school
accountability information that can be used to facilitate improvements in classroom instructional
practices. Data from all student assessments, including alternate portfolios, are included in school
accountability calculations. In this way, each student participating in assessment has the same impact on
the school’s accountability index.

Students who qualify for this form of assessment usually have profound cognitive disabilities, and the
alternate portfolio is the only way they can participate in the assessment and accountability system. With
few exceptions, all students in Kentucky must participate in the regular assessment or the alternate
portfolio. Fewer than 1% of students qualify each year for exemption from testing (usually a medical
exemption verified by a physician).

The disaggregation of this data and use of it in making AYP decisions will include only students eligible
for services under IDEA.
2/10/2008 Page 37

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
5.3 How are students with All LEP students participate in LEP students are not fully
limited English proficiency statewide assessments: general included in the State
included in the State’s assessments with or without Accountability System.
definition of adequate accommodations or a native
yearly progress? language version of the general
assessment based on grade level
standards.

State demonstrates that LEP

students are fully included in the
State Accountability System.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky has incorporated into the Kentucky Board of Education's finalized regulation, 703 KAR 5:070, 
Procedures for the inclusion of special populations in the state­required assessment and accountability 
programs, the additional flexibility provisions offered to states in the February 23, 2004, letter from U. S. 
Secretary of Education Rod Paige.  The Board included these provisions in its finalized regulation in 
order that they will apply to the Spring 2004 assessment administration.  These provisions will better 
meet the instructional needs of LEP students.

Specific language added to 703 KAR 5:070 to implement these flexibility provisions reads as follows:

“For purposes of calculating a school or district’s academic indices and for determining adequate yearly 
progress in the federal dimension of the state’s accountability program, schools and districts shall for two 
years maintain in the subgroup of students with limited English proficiency students who have attained 
English proficiency based on a state­approved English language proficiency assessment in conjunction 
with professional judgment.  However, when determining whether the subgroup of students with limited 
English proficiency meets the state­defined minimum group size, these students who have attained 
English proficiency shall not be required to be counted as students with limited English proficiency.”

“Each school shall assess all students with limited English proficiency enrolled on the first day of the 
testing window in all parts of the state­required assessments and their scores shall be included in 
accountability calculations consistent with state law, unless the students are in their first year of 
enrollment in a United States school.  

Students with limited English proficiency in the first year of enrollment in a United States school shall be 
required to take an English language proficiency assessment and if the student enrolls in a grade in 
which a state­required mathematics test is administered, the NCLB­required mathematics assessment 
with accommodations or modifications or both as appropriate.
2/10/2008 Page 38
2/10/2008 Page 39

All students with limited English proficiency enrolled on the first day of the testing window shall be 
included in calculations of the school and district’s participation rate.  A student with limited English 
proficiency in the first year of enrollment in a United States school shall be included in the school and 
district’s participation rate based on the student’s participation in the NCLB­required mathematics 
assessment, if the student is enrolled in a grade where a NCLB­required mathematics assessment is 
administered.  For students with limited English proficiency who are enrolled for the first year in a U.S. 
school and are not in a grade in which there is a NCLB­required mathematics test, their participation shall 
be based on taking an English language proficiency assessment (or the NCLB­required reading 
assessment if the school or district chooses to administer it).

Students with limited English proficiency in their first year of enrollment in a U.S. school shall not be 
required to participate in the state­required reading, science, social studies, practical living/vocational 
studies, arts and humanities, or writing on­demand assessments.  For these students, these 
assessments shall be optional at the discretion of the school and district.  

For the purposes of calculating a school’s academic indices in the state dimension and for determining 
adequate yearly progress, each school shall be held accountable based on an aggregated average of the 
academic performance of the elementary, middle, or high school students who have been enrolled in the 
school for a full academic year in the accountability grades; and each district shall be held accountable 
based on an aggregated average of the academic performance of the elementary, middle, or high school 
students who have been enrolled in the district for a full academic year in the accountability grades. 
These accountability requirements shall also apply to limited English proficient subpopulations of 
sufficient size, except for students with limited English proficiency who are in their first year of enrollment 
in a U.S. school.

For students with limited English proficiency who are in their first year of enrollment in a U.S. school and 
have been enrolled for a full academic year as defined in 703 KAR 5:001, a school and district may 
choose to include results from the NCLB­required mathematics assessment (and, if given, the state­
required reading, science, social studies, arts and humanities, practical living/vocational studies, and 
writing on demand assessments) in accountability calculations for both the school’s academic indices in 
the state dimension and for determining adequate yearly progress.  If this option is exercised, the 
decision shall be consistent across all content areas for the student.

For students who have been identified with limited English proficiency, it may be necessary to permit 
instructionally consistent accommodations or modifications, or both for the assessment administration. 
Any accommodations or modifications or both shall be based on an assessment of English language 
proficiency, consistent with the normal on­going delivery of instructional services, and stated in the 
student’s Program Services Plan." 

(Note:  The use of the terms "accommodations" and "modifications" do not imply any change in 
content or achievement standards used to assess students with disabilities or students with 
limited English proficiency.  In general the word "accommodations" refers to providing such 
services as reading or scribing consistent with the delivery of instructional services.  The word 
"modifications" refers to providing assessment and large print, Braille, on computer, or on 
audiotape.  None of these conditions change the content of the assessment to which the student 
is exposed, or standards against which the assessments are scored.)  
 2/10/2008 Page 40

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
5.4 What is the State’s State defines the number of State does not define the required
definition of the minimum students required in a subgroup number of students in a subgroup
number of students in a for reporting and accountability for reporting and accountability
subgroup required for purposes, and applies this purposes.
reporting purposes? For definition consistently across the
accountability purposes? State. 5 Definition is not applied
consistently across the State.
Definition of subgroup will result
in data that are statistically Definition does not result in data
reliable. that are statistically reliable.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky has a policy that meets this standard. Kentucky requires each reported subpopulation to be
based on at least 10 students at each grade/content area tested within a school or district. Taking into
consideration the requirements of the Family Education Rights to Privacy Act (FERPA), this minimum n-
count would permit the public disclosure of all data on which calculations are based (except when all
students in a given subpopulation score at the same performance level). Kentucky policy and Senate Bill
168 are based on the assumption that the release of data on groups smaller than 10 might disclose the
performance of an individual student. While not rigidly specified in statistical methodology, these
minimums conform to generally accepted statistical standards. This criterion is reasonable considering
FERPA requirements, the public’s need to examine subpopulation performance, and research/statistical
requirements. The Kentucky Board of Education is gravely concerned that if Kentucky raised the
minimum n-count beyond that necessitated by FERPA and by statistical considerations, an unintended
result would be the exclusion of specific subpopulations from the accountability system. Kentucky has
high expectations for all students.

At the October 2003 meeting, due to advice from NTAPAA, SCAAC, LSAC and the review of procedures 
approved in other states, the Kentucky Board of Education clarified its "n" count criteria for calculating 
participation rate to designate that there be 10 students per grade and 60 students per school in grades 
where NCLB assessments are required.  This is intended to address problems anticipated when students 
cannot be tested for reasons beyond the control of the school or student.  This new criteria for calculating 
participation rate was given final approval in December 2003 as part of the state regulation amendment 
process.

With regard to accountability calculations, each subpopulation must have at least 10 students in a 
subpopulation in each grade in which NCLB assessments are administered and 60 students in the 
subpopulation in these grades combined or the subpopulation constitutes at least fifteen percent (15%) of 
the students in these grades combined.  Thus, the sufficient "n" count size for both accountability and 
participation rate is consistent at 10/60.  The Kentucky Board of Education finalized the "n" count for 
accountability calculations in regulation at its February 2004 meeting.  

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
5.5 How does the State Definition does not reveal Definition reveals personally
Accountability System personally identifiable identifiable information.
protect the privacy of information.6
students when reporting
results and when
determining AYP?

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

5
The minimum number is not required to be the same for reporting and accountability.
 2/10/2008 Page 41

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky meets this standard. Kentucky has a policy to protect the privacy of individual students in
reporting achievement results and determining AYP. Kentucky requires each subpopulation on which
reporting or accountability calculations are to be based to include at least 10 students at each grade
tested within a school or district. Taking into consideration requirements of the Family Education Rights
to Privacy Act (FERPA), this minimum n-count would permit the public disclosure of all data on which
calculations are based (except when all students in a given subpopulation score at the same
performance level). Kentucky policy and SB168 are based on the assumption that the release of data on
groups smaller than 10 might disclose the performance of an individual student. While not rigidly
specified in statistical methodology, these minimums conform to generally accepted statistical standard
and seem reasonable considering FERPA requirements, the public need to examine subpopulation
performance, and research/statistical requirements.

6
The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibits an LEA that receives Federal funds from
releasing, without the prior written consent of a student’s parents, any personally identifiable information contained
in a student’s education record.
 2/10/2008 Page 42

PRINCIPLE 6. State definition of AYP is based primarily on the State’s academic

assessments.
EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
6.1 How is the State’s Formula for AYP shows that Formula for AYP shows that
definition of adequate decisions are based primarily on decisions are based primarily on
yearly progress based assessments.7 non-academic indicators or
primarily on academic indicators other than the State
assessments? Plan clearly identifies which assessments.
assessments are included in
accountability.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky meets this standard by basing its definition of AYP on academic assessments. The state’s
accountability index is based primarily on academic assessments to determine progress. Once an
academic index has been calculated for each content area test administered within a school, the school’s
accountability index for a particular year can then be determined. The weights used to calculate a
school’s accountability index vary slightly depending upon whether the school is an elementary, middle or
high school.

7
State Assessment System will be reviewed by the Standards and Assessments Peer Review Team.
 2/10/2008 Page 43

PRINCIPLE 7. STATE DEFINITION OF AYP INCLUDES GRADUATION RATES FOR PUBLIC

HIGH SCHOOLS AND AN ADDITIONAL INDICATOR SELECTED BY THE STATE FOR
PUBLIC MIDDLE AND PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SUCH AS ATTENDANCE
RATES).
EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
7.1 What is the State State definition of graduation rate: State definition of public high
definition for the public school graduation rate does not
high school graduation • Calculates the percentage of meet these criteria.
rate? students, measured from the
beginning of the school year,
who graduate from public high
school with a regular diploma
(not including a GED or any
other diploma not fully aligned
with the state’s academic
standards) in the standard
number of years; or,

• Uses another more accurate

definition that has been
approved by the Secretary;
and

• Must avoid counting a

dropout as a transfer.

Graduation rate is included (in the

aggregate) for AYP, and
disaggregated (as necessary) for
use when applying the exception
clause8 to make AYP.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

8
See USC 6311(b)(2)(I)(i), and 34 C.F.R. 200.20(b)
2/10/2008 Page 44

The Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) approved in August 2003 to include graduation rate at the high 
school level as part of the calculation for meeting federal AYP.  Graduation rate will be applied to the 
federal dimension beginning with the 2003 school year.  Kentucky's definition of graduation rate will count 
only students completing high school in four or less years and students with disabilities whose IEPs
stipulate they will need more than four years to obtain a standard diploma as graduates.  Certificates of 
completion will not be counted as graduates, but will be included in the denominator of the calculation. 
Students taking more than four years to graduate will also be counted as completers in the denominator.  

Graduation rate will actually mean the quotient of:  the number of current year grade 12 completers 
(standard diploma within four years, including students with disabilities whose IEPs stipulate they will
need more than four years to obtain a standard diploma), divided by the number of current year grade 12 
completers (includes standard diplomas plus certificates of completion), plus the number of current year 
grade 12 dropouts, plus the number of dropouts from the current 12th grade that dropped out as 11th 
graders, plus the number of dropouts from the current 12th grade class that dropped out as 10th graders, 
plus the number of dropouts from the current 12th grade class that dropped out as 9th graders.  

If a school feels that the calculated graduation rate is in error or unjust, the school may appeal through an 
established appeals process (703 KAR 5:050).

A recent event in Kentucky related to the graduation rate definition found above was the passage of
House Bill 178 by the 2004 regular session of the Kentucky General Assembly. House Bill 179 requires
that students who transfer to a secondary GED program, or receive a GED by October 1 of the year after
they drop out of school not be counted as dropouts.

The intent of House Bill 178 was to define a single definition of dropout that could be applied to both the
Federal and state dimensions of accountability, and that would bring Kentucky into full compliance with
the definition of dropout as published by the United States Department of Education's National Center for
Educational Statistics (NCES). The Kentucky Board of Education at its April 2004 meeting aligned its
policy with House Bill 178 directing Kentucky Department of Education to fully implement the NCES
definition/guidelines for dropout and create criteria for a state-approved secondary GED program.

As to how those students completing a secondary GED program or who receive a GED by October 1 of
the year after they drop out of school will be reflected in the graduation rate formula described above, the
students will be reflected in the denominator of the formula as completers. They will not be reflected in
the numerator since they do not receive a standard diploma within four years.

The point must be made that this issue does not impact this version of Kentucky's accountability
workbook that addresses provisions that are to apply to the 2004 spring test data. The first impact would
occur on the 2005 spring test data, and since Kentucky lags its nonacademic data by one year, the actual
application of this matter would not occur until the 2006 Adequate Yearly Progress Reports.
 2/10/2008 Page 45

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
7.2 What is the State’s State defines the additional State has not defined an
additional academic academic indicators, e.g., additional academic indicator for
indicator for public additional State or locally elementary and middle schools.
elementary schools for the administered assessments not
definition of AYP? For included in the State assessment
public middle schools for system, grade-to-grade retention
the definition of AYP? rates or attendance rates.9

An additional academic indicator

is included (in the aggregate) for
AYP, and disaggregated (as
necessary) for use when applying
the exception clause to make
AYP.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

At its June 2005 meeting, the Kentucky Board of Education changed its additional academic indicator at
the elementary and middle school levels from the full accountability index to the CATS biennial
classification and the CATS mid-point classification, whichever is the most currently available
classification. Thus, schools classified as any category of Progressing or Meets Goal would be
considered as meeting the requirement for the additional academic indicator. Data would still be lagged
by one year in order to meet NCLB required reporting timelines. For example, in 2005, the 2004 CATS
biennial classification would be applied and in 2006, the 2005 CATS mid-point classification would be
used. The Board also approved regulatory language to allow the opportunity to recognize growth in
addition to school classification for schools in the Assistance category. Schools in the Assistance
category must demonstrate growth in the accountability index at or above the statewide average for the
specific grade-level configuration to be designated as meeting the additional academic indicator
requirement. This additional caveat was proposed by the Local Superintendents Advisory Council, a
statutorily created group that reviews and provides advice on every regulation change considered by the
Board.

The specific regulatory language approved on June 9, 2005, to make the changes described above to the
additional academic indicator for the elementary and middle school levels was:

o 703 KAR 5:001, Section 1, (11) (b), (12) (b), and (13) (b); 703 KAR 5:020, Section 10, (5)
(b); and 703 KAR 5:130, Section 8, (5) (b). “A school classification of any category of
Progressing or Meets Goal in the CATS biennial or midpoint classification, whichever
occurred more recently, at the elementary and middle school levels; or for a school in the
Assistance category which demonstrates growth in the accountability index at or above
the state average for the specific grade-level configuration.

o 703 KAR 5:020, Section 10, (2) (b) and 703 KAR 5:130, Section 8, (2) (b). “School
classification criteria as described in subsection (5) (b) of this Section;”

9
NCLB only lists these indicators as examples.
2/10/2008 Page 46

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
7.3 Are the State’s academic State has defined academic State has an academic indicator
indicators valid and indicators that are valid and that is not valid and reliable.
reliable? reliable.
State has an academic indicator
State has defined academic that is not consistent with
indicators that are consistent with nationally recognized standards.
nationally recognized standards, if
any. State has an academic indicator
that is not consistent within grade
levels.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky meets the requirement for valid and reliable academic indicators. Kentucky’s assessment and
accountability system is nationally recognized as being both valid and reliable. The 1998 amendments to
the Kentucky Education Reform Act (House Bill 53) were based on two complete reviews by national
panels of technical experts and a wide range of public input including a task force appointed by the
governor. The 1998 amendments provided for a variety of advisory processes including a panel of
nationally recognized experts. These panels designed the 1998 revisions and the revisions went through
a thorough public review procedure culminating in regulations governing the new system established by
the Kentucky Board of Education. As established in statute and department policy, a series of technical
reports and research/validity studies are ongoing and an institutionalized component of the
Commonwealth Accountability Testing System (CATS). The National Technical Advisory Panel on
Assessment and Accountability (NTAPAA), an advisory committee constituted in statute, is made up of
nationally recognized testing experts (reference 1.1). Kentucky’s academic content standards were
established within the context of the nationally recognized content standards and have been nationally
recognized in Education Week’s “Quality Counts” report.

The Commonwealth Accountability Testing System Spring 2002 Technical Manual (available on the
Kentucky Department of Education website at:
http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Testing+and+Reporting+/CA
TS/Accountability+System/2002+Technical+Report.htm?SUBMIT=Search
provides extensive documentation of the reliability and validity of the state’s academic indicators. This
document was produced by CTB/McGraw-Hill and NTAPAA.

Reference “Kentucky Nonacademic Data” for more detailed documentation on collection procedures.
 2/10/2008 Page 47

PRINCIPLE 8. AYP is based on reading/language arts and mathematics achievement

objectives.
EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
8.1 Does the state measure State AYP determination for State AYP determination for
achievement in student subgroups, public student subgroups, public
reading/language arts and schools and LEAs separately schools and LEAs averages or
mathematics separately for measures reading/language arts combines achievement across
determining AYP? and mathematics. 10 reading/language arts and
mathematics.
AYP is a separate calculation for
reading/language arts and
mathematics for each group,
public school, and LEA.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

At its August 2003 meeting, the Kentucky Board of Education agreed to define proficient for No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) purposes to mean the same as proficient as applied in the Commonwealth
Accountability Testing System (CATS). Additionally, the board adopted a plan to use CATS data to
compute federal AYP for schools and districts in reading and mathematics based on NCLB criteria, in
addition to holding schools accountable every two years for growth expectations as reflected in
Kentucky's school growth charts. Federal AYP goals for reading and mathematics were set through 2014
at the elementary, middle and high school levels that apply to the school, district and its subpopulations.

10
If the state has more than one assessment to cover its language arts standards, the State must create a method
for including scores from all the relevant assessments.
2/10/2008 Page 48

PRINCIPLE 9. State Accountability System is statistically valid and reliable.

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
9.1 How do AYP State has defined a method for State does not have an
determinations meet the determining an acceptable level acceptable method for
State’s standard for of reliability (decision determining reliability (decision
acceptable reliability? consistency) for AYP decisions. consistency) of accountability
decisions, e.g., it reports only
State provides evidence that reliability coefficients for its
decision consistency is (1) within assessments.
the range deemed acceptable to
the State, and (2) meets State has parameters for
professional standards and acceptable reliability; however,
practice. the actual reliability (decision
consistency) falls outside those
State publicly reports the estimate parameters.
of decision consistency, and
incorporates it appropriately into State’s evidence regarding
accountability decisions. accountability reliability (decision
consistency) is not updated.
State updates analysis and
reporting of decision consistency
at appropriate intervals.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Applying this standard to the Federal dimension is difficult because only one year's data collected under
real operational conditions exists. Simulations would imply that decision consistency will not be as
satisfactory as that obtained on the state dimension.

Applying this requirement to the state dimension, Kentucky exceeds this standard. For example, a
school classification (or decision consistency) study is performed by one of the Kentucky Department of
Education’s contractors each year. More specifically, at the end of every Commonwealth Accountability
Testing System (CATS) accountability cycle, Kentucky’s public schools are placed in one of three
classifications (Meeting Goal, Progressing, Assistance) defined by each school’s School Growth Chart
and based on its end-of-cycle Kentucky Core Content Tests (KCCT), norm-referenced tests (NRT) and
nonacademic indices. While this array of data provides a very stable base for making classification
decisions, because no measurement system is perfect, it is important to specifically document this
accuracy. The CATS school classification accuracy is important to educators, policy makers, (including
the School Curriculum, Assessment and Accountability Council, or SCAAC), technical reviewers
(including the National Technical Advisory Panel on Assessment and Accountability, or NTAPAA), and
other special interest groups.

A school classification accuracy study was conducted in a series of analyses specifically developed for
Kentucky by HumRRO and approved by NTAPAA that combines (1) Generalizability Theory analyses of
KCCT and NRT data, (2) formulas for the additional variance estimates, and (3) a Bayesian approach to
estimating the school classification accuracy. The final product of this study was an estimate for each
school of the probability that its “true” (but unknowable) classification is the same as the classification it
actually obtained. The original study for the end of the 2002 Accountability Cycle was based upon two
years of data (i.e., 2001 and 2002 combined). The results are presented in the following table.

Kentucky can quantify the accuracy of its accountability system in detail.

2/10/2008 Page 49

School Classification Results Based Upon Two Years of Data

Expected True Assigned Category Before Novice

and Drop Criteria Applied
Category Meets Goal Progressing Assistance
Meets Goal 68.4% 1.7% 0.0%
Progressing 31.0% 84.6% 13.4%
Assistance 0.6% 13.7% 86.6%
Col. Total 100% 100% 100%
N 567 491 87
77% of schools are expected to be accurately classified given the
baseline SEM adjustment.

One byproduct of the school classification study is the standard errors of measurement (SEM) produced
in the generalizability part of the study. These are the same standard errors used to adjust the Goal Line
and the Assistance Line in the Long-Term Accountability Model. Standard error values for three school
levels (elementary, middle and high school), based upon and two years of data for various school sizes
generally range from .5 for larger schools up to 3.0 for smaller sized schools.
2/10/2008 Page 50

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
9.2 What is the State's process State has established a process State does not have a system for
for making valid AYP for public schools and LEAs to handling appeals of accountability
determinations? appeal an accountability decision. decisions.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky has a process for making valid AYP determinations. KRS 158.6455 requires the Kentucky
Board of Education to promulgate administrative regulations to establish a process whereby a school
shall be allowed to appeal a performance judgment considered to be grossly unfair. The pertinent
administrative regulation establishes the procedures for an appeal of a performance judgment consistent
with KRS 158.6455. These procedures include:
• Recognition of due process consistent with KRS Chapter 13B that stipulates the right to a hearing
and use of an independent hearing officer.
• Provision for schools with a 45-day window to review data and circumstances related to potential
appeal.
• Provision giving the Kentucky Board of Education the authority upon appeal to change a school’s
performance judgment if the Board deems evidence and circumstances warrant such change.
 2/10/2008 Page 51

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
9.3 How has the State planned State has a plan to maintain State’s transition plan interrupts
for incorporating into its continuity in AYP decisions annual determination of AYP.
definition of AYP necessary for validity through
anticipated changes in planned assessment changes, State does not have a plan for
assessments? and other changes necessary to handling changes: e.g., to its
comply fully with NCLB.11 assessment system, or the
addition of new public schools.
State has a plan for including new
public schools in the State
Accountability System.

State has a plan for periodically

reviewing its State Accountability
System, so that unforeseen
changes can be quickly
addressed.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky meets this standard. When the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System was created in
1998, the General Assembly established a process for periodically reviewing and maintaining the system.
The General Assembly charged the Kentucky Board of Education to take a leadership role in this
process. The legislature left many details of implementation to various committees:

The National Technical Advisory Panel on Assessment and Accountability (NTAPAA, reference 1.1)
monitors both the design and implementation of this program to ensure reliable and valid decisions about
school accountability. NTAPAA reports regularly to the Kentucky General Assembly and the Kentucky
Board of Education.

The School Curriculum, Assessment and Accountability Council (SCAAC, reference 1.1) reviews
and makes recommendations concerning Kentucky's system of setting academic standards, assessing
learning, holding schools accountable for learning, and assisting schools to improve their performance.
The council advises the board and the state’s Legislative Research Commission (LRC) on issues related
to the development and implementation of the statewide assessment and accountability program,
including the distribution of rewards and imposition of sanctions.

The Office of Education Accountability (OEA), a branch of the Governor’s Office, has a “watchdog”
role. OEA investigates, studies, monitors and evaluates all aspects of the public K-12, vocational-
technical and higher education systems. OEA’s broad responsibilities include (and go beyond) the
accuracy of reports, equity in funding, allegations of wrongdoing, the validity of the state assessment
program, and the effectiveness of the state’s teacher certification program. OEA reports to the Kentucky
Board of Education, LRC and the Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee of the
Kentucky General Assembly.

11
Several events may occur which necessitate such a plan. For example, (1) the State may need to include
additional assessments in grades 3-8 by 2005-2006; (2) the State may revise content and/or academic
achievement standards; (3) the State may need to recalculate the starting point with the addition of new
assessments; or (4) the State may need to incorporate the graduation rate or other indicators into its State
Accountability System. These events may require new calculations of validity and reliability.
2/10/2008 Page 52

The Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee (EAARS) is a subcommittee

of the Kentucky General Assembly that hears scheduled reports from the Kentucky Board of Education,
OEA and NTAPAA and reviews implementation of the state’s assessment and accountability system.

The Kentucky Board of Education consulted with OEA, EAARS, SCAAC and NTAPAA concerning:
• Strategies to develop the additional reading/language arts and mathematics assessments
needed to meet assessment requirements in grades 3 through 8;
• Strategies to extrapolate reading/language arts and mathematics performance cutpoints from the
grades 4/5 and grades 7/8 empirical standards; and
• Strategies to incorporate new assessments into accountability procedures.

Kentucky is committed to maintaining effective partnerships with these groups and others to ensure the
state’s compliance with No Child Left Behind.

Website for accessing the full text of regulations and relevant statutes is included in Attachment A on 
page 55.
2/10/2008 Page 53

PRINCIPLE 10. In order for a public school or LEA to make AYP, the State ensures that it
assessed at least 95% of the students enrolled in each subgroup.
EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF
CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
10.1 What is the State's method State has a procedure to The state does not have a
for calculating participation determine the number of absent procedure for determining the
rates in the State or untested students (by subgroup rate of students participating in
assessments for use in and aggregate). statewide assessments.
AYP determinations?
State has a procedure to Public schools and LEAs are not
determine the denominator (total held accountable for testing at
enrollment) for the 95% least 95% of their students.
calculation (by subgroup and
aggregate).

Public schools and LEAs are held

accountable for reaching the 95%
assessed goal.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky will require a list of students not tested along with necessary demographic data to be submitted
at the beginning of the testing window. Kentucky will include all students in this calculation.

On the state dimension, Kentucky meets this standard. Each year, Kentucky has more than 99%
participation in the statewide assessment program. Kentucky checks the roster of students assessed
against the roster of students enrolled to calculate the rate of participation.

Kentucky schedules a two-week testing window (expanded for 2003 to four weeks) that allows adequate
time for make-up exams to be administered. Kentucky’s participation rate is so high because schools
must test all students enrolled in the school on the first day of the testing window, regardless of how long
a student has attended the school. Students who are not tested and have not received an exemption
from testing are assigned the lowest performance category (i.e., Novice Non-performance). Such
students will be considered not tested in calculating the “95% participation rate.” This serves as a
disincentive to excluding students from participation in state assessments. The percent absent or
untested, as well as total enrollment, can be calculated and reported by subgroup and the aggregate.

At the October 2003 meeting, due to advice from NTAPAA, SCAAC, LSAC and the review of procedures 
approved in other states, the Kentucky Board of Education clarified its "n" count criteria for calculating 
participation rate to designate that there be 10 students per grade and 60 students per school in grades 
where NCLB assessments are required.  This is intended to address problems anticipated when students 
cannot be tested for reasons beyond the control of the school or student.  This new criteria for calculating 
participation rate was given final approval in December 2003 as part of the state regulation amendment 
process.

Due to the change in procedure for calculating Adequate Yearly Progress for spring 2006 scores, 
explained in 3.2a and 3.2b, the same methodology relative to averaging must be applied to participation 
rate for consistency.  Kentucky’s previous accountability plan computed participation rate for the current
year or as an average of the most recent two or three years preceding the current year if the school or
student subpopulations of sufficient size did not meet the 95% participation rate using current year data
for calculations. However, participation rate will now be computed as an average of the most recent two
years for all schools and districts and subpopulations of sufficient size for the two years combined. This
change will be incorporated into 703 KAR 5:020, The formula for determining school accountability at the
August 2006 meeting of the Kentucky Board of Education.
2/10/2008 Page 54

EXAMPLES FOR EXAMPLES OF

CRITICAL ELEMENT MEETING REQUIREMENTS NOT MEETING
REQUIREMENTS
10.2 What is the State’s policy State has a policy that State does not have a procedure
for determining when the implements the regulation for making this determination.
95% assessed requirement regarding the use of 95%
should be applied? allowance when the group is
statistically significant according
to State rules.

STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS

Kentucky has a policy for determining when the 95% assessed requirement should be applied. Reference
703 KAR 5:001, 703 KAR 5:020 and 703 KAR 5:160 that can be accessed through the link found on page
55.

Reference discussion of minimum group size.

06/9/2003 DATA Page 55

Appendix A
Required Data Elements for State Report Card
1111(h)(1)(C)

1. Information, in the aggregate, on student achievement at each proficiency level on the state academic assessments
(disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and status as economically
disadvantaged, except that such disaggregation shall not be required in a case in which the number of students in a category
is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an
individual student).

2. Information that provides a comparison between the actual achievement levels of each student subgroup and the State’s
annual measurable objectives for each such group of students on each of the academic assessments.

3. The percentage of students not tested (disaggregated by the student subgroups), except that such disaggregation shall not
be required in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or
the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student.

4. The most recent two-year trend in student achievement in each subject area, and for each grade level, for the required
assessments.

5. Aggregate information on any other indicators used by the state to determine the adequate yearly progress of students in
achieving state academic achievement standards disaggregated by student subgroups.

6. Graduation rates for secondary school students disaggregated by student subgroups.

7. Information on the performance of local educational agencies in the state regarding making adequate yearly progress,
including the number and names of each school identified for school improvement under section 1116.

8. The professional qualifications of teachers in the state, the percentage of such teachers teaching with emergency or
provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes in the state not taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and
disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools (which for this purpose means schools in the top quartile of
poverty and the bottom quartile of poverty in the state.

Kentucky Supporting Documents – The documents listed below are found on pages 56 – 64.
SD 1. Events Leading to the Kentucky Education Reform Act
06/9/2003 DATA Page 56
SD 3. Testing in Reading/language arts and Mathematics at Grades 3-8
SD 4. Policy Issues in the Implementation of the Added Accountability Components
SD 5. NAEP Participation Requirements and Implications
SD 7. School/District/State Report Cards

Attachments – These attachments are located at the websites provided below.

A: Kentucky Revised Statutes & Kentucky Administrative Regulations

KRS 158.645 - KRS 158.6455 (The Kentucky Revised Statutes can be found at
http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/158-00/CHAPTER.HTM )

All of the administrative regulations listed below can be found at

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/TITLE703.HTM

703 KAR 5:001 – Assessment and accountability definitions

703 KAR 5:020 – The formula for determining school accountability
703 KAR 5:040 – Statewide assessment and accountability program, relating accountability to A1
schools and A2-A6 programs
703 KAR 5:050 – Statewide Assessment and Accountability Program; school building appeal of
performance judgments
703 KAR 5:070 – Procedures for the inclusion of special populations in the state-required
assessment and accountability programs
703 KAR 5:080 – Administration Code for Kentucky's Educational Assessment
703 KAR 5:120 – Assistance for schools; guidelines for scholastic audit
703 KAR 5:130 – School district accountability
703 KAR 5:140 – Requirements for school and district report cards
703 KAR 5:160 – Commonwealth Accountability Testing System administration procedures

SB 168 - Regular Session of the Kentucky General Assembly – 2002 (Codified as KRS 158.649) –
(KRS 158.649 can be found at http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/158-00/CHAPTER.HTM

B: Commonwealth Accountability Testing System Spring 2002 Technical Manual – The 2002 Technical
Manual can be found at:
http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Testing+and+Reporting+/CATS/Accountabilit
y+System/2002+Technical+Report.htm?SUBMIT=Search

C: Accuracy of School Classification study – The study can be accessed at:

http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Testing+and+Reporting+/CATS/Accountability+Syste
m/School+Classification+Accuracy.htm?SUBMIT=Search
06/9/2003 DATA Page 57
Kentucky Supporting Document (SD) 1
Events Leading to the Kentucky Education Reform Act

• November 1985 – The Council for Better Education, a nonprofit corporation formed by 66 school
districts, seven boards of education and 22 public school students, sued the state of Kentucky for
not providing an efficient system of education.

• October 1988 – Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Ray Corns found for the plaintiffs.

• February 1989 – Governor Wallace Wilkinson issued an executive order creating a twelve-
member Council on School Performance Standards and directed the council to determine what all
students should know and be able to do and how learning should be assessed.

• June 1989 – The Kentucky Supreme Court directed the General Assembly to recreate and
reestablish a “new, efficient system of common schools” that complied with the Kentucky
Constitution. The Court defined an efficient system of common schools as an organization that
provides a “free and adequate education to all students throughout the state regardless of
geographical location or local fiscal resources.”

• September 1989 – The Council on School Performance Standards produced the report Preparing
Kentucky Youth for the Next Century: What Students Should Know and Be Able To Do and How
Learning Should Be Assessed and presented it to the Curriculum Committee of the Legislative
Task Force charged with creating Kentucky’s new system. In the report, the Council
recommended six broad learning goals for all students, with particular emphasis on what students
should be able to do. The Council also recommended that the state launch a major effort to
assess student performance beyond what can be measured by paper-and-pencil tests. The
Council also recommended that the state initiate long-range development efforts that support
implementation of the new learning goals.

• In 1990, the Council’s recommendations were incorporated into House Bill 940, the Kentucky
Education Reform Act, as a first step in redefining the school curriculum and providing what the
courts required as an adequate education for all students.
 06/9/2003 DATA Page 58

SD 3
Testing in Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics at Grades 3-8:
In summary, at a special meeting on May 23, 2002, the National Technical Advisory Panel on
Assessment and Accountability (NTAPAA) considered five possible models for meeting the NCLB
requirement for testing in reading/language arts and mathematics at grades 3-8. The panel continued
this discussion at its regularly scheduled June and September meetings. The Kentucky Board of
Education reviewed this issue at its regularly scheduled meetings in June, August and October of 2002.
NTAPAA prefers the use of an Augmented Norm-Referenced Test (NRT) to supplement Kentucky’s
standards-based assessment, and the Kentucky Board of Education supports this approach.

Kentucky Core Content Test and Augmented NRT Model

• The augmented CTBS would be administered in reading/language arts at grades 3, 5, 6 and 8, and in
mathematics in grades 3, 4, 6 and 7 for 2005-06 only. The Kentucky Core Content Tests (KCCT)
Reading/language arts Assessment would continue to be administered in grades 4 and 7, and the KCCT
Mathematics Assessment in grades 5 and 8. Kentucky is working with a new testing vendor, Measured
Progress, to produce a Kentucky Core Content Test at all required grades to be administered beginning
in the spring of 2007.

• The CTBS would be augmented with KCCT-like and grade-appropriate open-response items to assure
appropriate coverage of both the Kentucky core content and student performance standards. Depending
on the content alignment of the NRT to Kentucky’s Core Content for Assessment, it may be necessary to
augment the NRT with a small number of multiple-choice items to facilitate year-to-year equating
designs. A contractor could score these open-response items, but strategies to involve Kentucky
teachers in the scoring will be developed and implemented.

• Kentucky would review the core content for assessment standards to build grade-specific
reading/language arts and mathematics assessments designed to more closely support the desired
curriculum at each grade level. The grade-specific Program of Studies will provide the specific guidance
in applying the grade 4 reading/language arts core content for assessment to grades 3 and 5; the grade
7 reading/language arts core content for assessment to grades 6 and 8; the grade 5 mathematics core
content for assessment to grades 3 and 4; and the grade 8 mathematics core content for assessment to
grades 6 and 7.

• Although the Kentucky Core Content for Assessment is intended to be generalized to the elementary and
middle school levels as well as the high school level, it is derived from the Kentucky Program of Studies,
which is grade-specific. The Kentucky Program of Studies will be used in conjunction with the Kentucky
Core Content for Assessment to produce grades 3-8 grade-specific reading/language arts and
mathematics content standards.

• To ensure that our standards are regularly updated, meet the requirements of the standards and
assessment peer review guidance and to develop more interpretable achievement level cut scores,
Kentucky will revise its standard setting process for the Augmented NRT that was used in 2005-06 to
meet the annual testing requirements for reading and mathematics. The revised standard setting process
consists of two phases:

In Phase One, performance level descriptions for the four performance levels - Novice, Apprentice,
Proficient, and Distinguished (NAPD) - are drafted, and the cut scores for new grade levels are
interpolated from existing cut scores. The Kentucky Department of Education and its contractor will work
 06/9/2003 DATA Page 59
in collaboration to develop preliminary NAPD performance level descriptions, use field-test data to
interpolate and extrapolate cut scores in the new grade levels, and select an interpolation/extrapolation
procedure.

•In Phase Two, committees of Kentucky educators will convene to study the cut scores in each grade level
using a modification of the Bookmark Standard Setting Procedure. Committees of Kentucky educators will
work to validate the preliminary cut scores on the operational test scale. These educators will recommend
changes to the cut scores, if needed, and will write final NAPD performance level descriptions. In summary,
the process will be as follows:

Standard Setting Steps

Phase One:

Step 1: Develop preliminary performance level descriptions.

Step 2: Choose and approve an interpolation procedure.

Phase Two:

Step 3: Place interpolated cut scores onto the operational test scale.

Step 4: Kentucky educators review the cut scores using the Bookmark Procedure.

Step 5: Smooth cut scores, as needed.

Step 6: Update performance level descriptions.

Step 7: Finalize and accept cut scores and performance level descriptions.

This approach was approved by the Kentucky Board of Education at its April 2006 meeting.

Implementation Plan – Kentucky Core Content Test and Augmented NRT

The following implementation plan complies with the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” requirements to
assess reading/language arts and mathematics in grades 3-8 by school year 2005-2006 while continuing
current assessments and expansions in such a way that instruction can be strengthened and all students
can be provided the opportunity to reach proficiency.
06/9/2003 DATA Page 60

Table 2 ILLUSTRATION -- NCLB Compliant Assessment Model

TABLE 6: ILLUSTRATION - ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FULLY IMPLEMENTED BY 2005-2006

Augmented Writing Alternate

Grade NRT - CTBS/5 Standards-Based - KCCT Portfolio Portfolio
Practical
Social Arts & Living/Vocational
Reading Math Reading Math Science Studies Writing Humanities Studies
End of
Primary
(grade 3) x x
4 x x x x x x
5 x x x x x
6 x x
7 x x x x x
8 x x x x x x
9 x* x*
10 x x
11 x x x x
12 x x x
* Augmentation not required

Because Kentucky began a school accountability process in 1990 with major revisions resulting from
actions of the 1998 Kentucky General Assembly, and because the system has many of the same
objectives as NCLB, the following timelines start with the 1998-1999 school year.

School Years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000:

• Revised the Kentucky Core Content for Assessment.
• Implemented the new Kentucky Core Content Test.
• Set baselines and biennial goals for all schools, including the content areas of reading/language
arts and mathematics based on a biennial calculation.
• Included an NRT component in the school accountability process.

School Year 2000-2001:

• 5th Grade Reading/language arts – Administered second pilot of the reading/language arts
component of the 4th grade Kentucky Core Content Test to address School Year 1999-2000 Pilot 1
logistical concerns.
• Established student performance standards appropriate to the new Kentucky Core Content Test.

School Year 2001-2002:

• 5th Grade Reading/language arts -- Expanded pilot of the reading/language arts component of the
4th grade Kentucky Core Content Test at the 5th grade to include a larger sample of students. (This
program will be discontinued and replaced by the use of augmented CTBS/5 assessments.)

School Year 2002-2003:

• LEP Assessment -- Implemented requirements for administering English proficiency assessments
to LEP students.
06/9/2003 DATA Page 61

School Year 2003-2004

• Reviewed content of KCCT item pool to determine usability of current items in NRT augmentation.
• Develop multiple-choice items needed for year-to-year equating and open-response items needed
to sufficiently cover standards (content and performance standards).
• Develop additional Items beyond those normally needed for KCCT test development to augment
NRT.

Content Alignment Analyses: Several content analyses of the current assessments are critical. The
context for the content studies will be the Kentucky Core Content for Assessment and an additional
dimension classifying items by cognitive complexity. The purpose will not be to alter or change the
content structure but to provide a context for understanding and using the relationships between the two
assessments. While there would be no intent to modify the NRT content for purposes of producing
CTBS/5 normative data, it would be necessary to augment the content of the NRT at grades where it is
being used to meet the requirements of NCLB. It would also be necessary to place the additional items
on the scale such that they can be used in reporting. Strategies to equate this augmented scale from
year to year would need to be agreed upon.

School Year 2004-2005

• Develop needed items for augmentation of NRT.
• Field test NRT augmentation items.
• Design augmented NRT Form(s) – single/multiple forms.
• Consider scaling and equating issues related to the augmentation of the NRT.

School Year 2005-2006

• Only administration of augmented NRT Form(s).
• Teacher focus groups establish instructional descriptors of
Novice/Apprentice/Proficient/Distinguished performance levels in reading/language arts at grades
3, 5, 6 and 8, and in mathematics in grades 4, 5, 6 and 7.
• Full Implementation of Assessment and Reporting Requirements of the “No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001”.

School Year 2006-2007

• Work with Measured Progress to produce a KCCT in all required grade levels.
• Administer the KCCT in all required grade levels in the spring of 2007.
06/9/2003 DATA Page 62
SD 4
Policy Issues in the Implementation of Added Accountability Components

LONGITUDINAL COMPONENT POSSIBILITIES:

• Determine the expected percent of Proficient/Distinguished students at grades 4-8 in

reading/language arts and mathematics based on the performance of the same cohort of students
in previous grades.
• If a school is in rewards (meets goal or progressing) based on the current model, add to the
financial rewards if the school produces more than expected Proficient/Distinguished students.
• If a school is in rewards based on the current model, redirect some or all of the rewards to
identified instructional needs if the school produces less than expected Proficient/Distinguished
students.
• If a school is in an assistance category, adjust instructional interventions to meet identified needs.

SUBPOPULATION GAP REDUCTION POSSIBILITIES:

• Determine if school is at or above school/subpopulation-specific Assistance and/or Meets Goal

points.
• If a school is in rewards (meets goal or progressing) based on the current model and meets or
exceeds school/subpopulation Assistance/Meets Goal points, add to the financial rewards if the
school meets gap-reduction objectives.
• If a school is in rewards based on the current model, redirect some or all of the rewards to
identified instructional needs of a particular subpopulation if the school fails to meet or exceed
school/subpopulation Assistance/Meets Goal points.
• If a school is in an assistance category, adjust instructional interventions to meet identified needs
of specific subpopulation(s).

School Year 2002-2003 & School Year 2003-2004

• Review current district accountability model for consistency with NCLB accountability
expectations.
• Develop alternatives to incorporate policies that adjust the distribution of rewards and appropriate
targeted assistance based on:
o Longitudinal data in reading/language arts and mathematics from grades 3 through 8;
o Magnitude of gaps in performance in reading/language arts and mathematics from grades 3
through 8 and in grades 10 through 12 between –
 Racial/ethnic groups (minority/majority subpopulation differences);
 Limited English Proficient and Non-Limited English Proficient students;
 Students with disabilities and students without disabilities (Students with disabilities
may not include “504” students. Kentucky has traditionally included both groups of
students eligible for services available under the Individuals with Disabilities Act and
Section 504 …); and
 Students eligible for free and reduced lunch and those not eligible for such services.
• Analyze and evaluate data modeling alternatives related to the above policy options.
• Review data and implications of data on policy options with legally identified advisory processes
and by the public at large.
• Select the options to be incorporated into Kentucky’s accountability model needed to become fully
compliant with the requirements of “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.”
• Present Kentucky Board of Education with policy options.
06/9/2003 DATA Page 63
• Kentucky Board of Education review and approval.
06/9/2003 DATA Page 64
SD 5
NAEP Participation Requirements and Implications

Beginning with the 2002-2003 school year, local education agencies (LEAs) will have to participate in the
administration of the state NAEP assessments of reading/language arts and mathematics if selected as
part of the state sample. These are expected to be limited to grades 4 and 8 although there does seem
to be authority to administer some state assessments at the 12 th grade pending availability of funds. It
is not specified that a state would have to participate in such 12th grade assessments.
‘‘(2) the State will, beginning in school year 2002–2003, participate in biennial State academic assessments of 4th and 8th grade reading/language arts and
mathematics under the National Assessment of Educational Progress carried out under section 411(b)(2) of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994 if the
Secretary pays the costs of administering such assessments; …
‘(F) an assurance that the local educational agency will participate, if selected, in the State National Assessment of Educational Progress in 4th and 8th grade
reading/language arts and mathematics carried out under section 411(b)(2) of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994; – (NCLB 2001: Section 1111(c)))

‘‘(F) an assurance that the local educational agency will participate, if selected, in the State National Assessment of Educational Progress in 4th and 8th grade
reading/language arts and mathematics carried out under section 411(b)(2) of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994; – (NCLB 2001: Section 1112(b))(1))

‘‘(d) PARTICIPATION.—
‘‘(1) VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION.—Participation in any assessment authorized under this section shall be voluntary for students, schools, and local educational
agencies.
‘‘(2) STUDENT PARTICIPATION.—Parents of children selected to participate in any assessment authorized under this section shall be informed before the
administration of any authorized assessment, that their child may be excused from participation for any reason, is not required to finish any authorized assessment,
and is not required to answer any test question.
‘‘(3) STATE PARTICIPATION.—
‘‘(A) VOLUNTARY.—Participation in assessments authorized under this section, other than reading/language arts and mathematics in grades 4 and 8, shall be
voluntary.
‘‘(B) AGREEMENT.—For reading/language arts and mathematics assessments in grades 4 and 8, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with any State
carrying out an assessment for the State under this section. Each such agreement shall contain provisions designed to ensure that the State will participate in the
assessment. – (NCLB 2001: Section 602 - AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL EDUCATION STATISTICS ACT OF 1994)

While it is clearly stated in federal statute that states will not be rewarded or punished based on state
NAEP, NAEP data will be a component considered in the validation of the results of state assessments
(both at a single point in time and changes over time). Both the educational community and the public at
large will use NAEP in this way. It will be most important to understand the relationships between the
NAEP curriculum frameworks and Kentucky’s Core Content for Assessment. NAEP will become a more
visible assessment component at the national and state levels. There are also sets of NAEP-released
items and instructional support that might be applicable to Kentucky’s efforts when this relationship is
more fully understood.
06/9/2003 DATA Page 65
SD 7
School/District/State Report Cards

Expanded School Report Card

Basic School Report Card with disaggregated data available
printed and mailed home; from school on request.
also available on Kentucky
Department of Education
(KDE) Web site.

District Report Card Kentucky Performance Report

published in newspaper with and
largest local circulation; Kentucky Evaluators Edition
also (sources of disaggregated data)
available on KDE Web site available on Web site

Figure 3 Kentucky School/District Report Card and Related Data

A state report card paralleling the school and district report cards will be produced. Figure 16 diagrams
the relationships among the major sources of publicly available data at the school/district/regional/state
levels. The current requirements for Kentucky’s report card system are specified in Kentucky
Administrative Regulation 703 KAR 5:140 and an incorporated document.

The Basic School Report Card is a four-page document containing the essential data elements identified
by parent groups and other focus groups. It is delivered to each parent in paper format in January.
Parent focus groups were clear in their recommendation that this basic report card should be brief and
to-the-point. The Basic Report Card’s purpose is to provide an overview of the school and to encourage
further interaction between parents and the school. Figure 16 emphasizes the interrelationship between
the basic and expanded report cards and how both draw heavily from the assessment and Kentucky
Department of Education financial reports, which are also public documents. The Kentucky Performance
Report refers to a summary of school, district, regional and state data that is distributed to schools and
districts 150 days after the beginning of each annual test administration and is typically available to the
public two to three weeks later.

The Expanded School Report Card’s purpose is to provide the detailed data or information (e.g.,
disaggregated student performance data) parents and community residents need to be effectively
involved in the improvement of schools. The Expanded School Card must be available for parent or
public review at the same time the Basic School Report Card is available.

The District Report Card aggregates data from the Basic School Report Card and draws information from
publicly available assessment reports. This District Report Card must be published in the newspaper of
largest circulation within the district in February.
06/9/2003 DATA Page 66
Additional Report Card Items Required by “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001”:
• Information, in the aggregate, on student achievement at each proficiency level on the state
academic assessments, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status,
English proficiency and status as economically disadvantaged. All information is available in the
Kentucky Performance Report by mid-fall each year.
• Information that provides a comparison between the actual achievement levels of each group of
students and the state’s annual measurable objectives for each such group of students on each of
the academic assessments required. This information is summarized on the Kentucky
Performance Report.
• The percentage of students not tested (disaggregated by the same categories). By Kentucky
regulation and practice, this percentage approaches zero, since the alternate portfolio program
extends accountability to nearly all students exempted from regular assessment.
• The most recent two-year trend in student achievement in each subject area for each grade level.
This information is available in the Kentucky Performance Report.
• Aggregate information on any other indicators used by the state to determine the adequate yearly
progress of students in achieving state academic achievement standards. This information is
available in the Kentucky Performance Report and on the Kentucky Department of Education Web
site.
• Graduation rates for secondary school students. While Kentucky now reports dropout rates in the
Kentucky Performance Report, graduation rates as defined by NCES will also be provided.
• Information on the performance of local education agencies in the state regarding making
adequate yearly progress, including the number and names of each school identified for school
improvement. This information is available in the Kentucky Performance Report and on the
Kentucky Department of Education Web site.
• The professional qualifications of teachers in the state, the percentage of such teachers teaching
with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes in the state not taught by
highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-
poverty schools which means schools in the top quartile of poverty and the bottom quartile of
poverty in the state. Kentucky collects data identifying regularly certified teachers and teachers
with emergency certification as well as teachers in and out of field. Presuming that “highly
qualified educators” will be limited to regularly certified staff in field, these numbers should be
available from the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board.

Using the data available from the resources mentioned above, the Kentucky Department of Education
will provide an acceptable state report card meeting NCLB requirements. School/district reports posted
to the Kentucky Department of Education Website will indicate AYP status for each subpopulation
meeting the minimum number of students requirement.