By Mark Tallman

Under new State Board of Education accreditation requirements all Kansas school districts will be developing action plans that focus on three state outcomes: 

• Academic performance on state tests
• Graduation rate
• Postsecondary success

Over the past two years, I visited over 40 districts and schools that are significantly exceeding expectations on these outcomes or showing other high achievements. I talked to 300 educators, school leaders, parents, and students. I found remarkable agreement on what was driving their success, which offers important ideas for districts as they plan to address these key outcomes.

What are the common traits of high success districts?

Intensity, intentionality, urgency and clear goals

The most common single response was a change in attitude. In district after district, when I asked what was making a difference in results, I heard about a range of policies and programs, but school leaders used terms like “we raised the intensity,” “we have become more intentional in how we operate,” or “there is a greater sense of urgency to improve results.” Most districts also stressed that they had adopted clear, specific goals tied to the state outcomes; like specific targets for academic tests or postsecondary credentials. Tied to these goals are specific action plans – positions, programs and policies – but with clear, measurable goals to show if progress is being made.

Increased and fearless use of data

Virtually every successful district credited better use of data, both in quality and quantity, of not just state assessments and graduation rates but other local assessments, attendance rates, student attitude surveys, participation rates, and other measures of student engagement. In many cases, districts added staff positions or reallocated duties to provide the capacity to analyze and share the data so boards, leaders, and teachers can use it.

Successful districts said their boards spend more time looking at actual results to make decisions. District and building leadership teams make data review part of every meeting. Teachers include data in area, grade level, building, and district meetings to improve instruction and better meet student needs. Some of the most impressive presentations I received were from students talking about how they track their own progress. This included students from elementary age through high school.

There are sometimes concerns about the excessive paperwork and reporting requirements. While the professional educators are in a position to know the best approach, one teacher I interviewed put it this way, “We all have a natural human tendency to assume we are doing a good job. Data forces you to confirm performance based on objective standards, to ask questions and make changes if needed.”

Quick response and expanded options for struggling students

While data is important for long term planning and evaluation, what impressed me most was how successful districts use data to immediately respond to student needs. As soon as assessment, screener, or teacher evaluation indicates a student is not mastering a skill, a response is provided.

Virtually every district uses a variation on the state’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) concept, usually providing a block of time each day for individualized response. To provide more support, many schools have changed how they use staff, so everyone has a share in this response.

Even students who are doing well can benefit because MTSS time can be used for enrichment and acceleration, as well as remediation. While many districts said it is harder to apply the MTSS approach at the high school level where students are usually locked into defined class periods, they are working to create more flexibility.

At the high school level, districts with high and improving graduation rates credit close attention to student progress. They intervene before students get too far behind. These districts closely monitor student progress, talk to the student and families immediately when issues arise, and create multiple ways to help students. Examples include alternative programs outside the main school such as virtual programs or off-site learning centers and giving students paths to recover credits without missing time for other courses.

Care and concern with high expectations

Educators say that many students are facing circumstances that impede learning or affect behavior and they won’t succeed without help. However, they don’t let those circumstances become an excuse. “We want to show them that we care about them, but part of that is believing they can and must meet certain expectations, whether academic, behavioral, or just showing up,” was a common theme.

One example is a district that made sure the focus of their alternative school was graduation. They worked to get students back into regular high school if possible and if not, to graduate meeting comparable standards. “We need to make clear that we are giving students different ways of getting to the goal, but the requirements to meet the goal are the same.”

Successful districts say that social and emotional support and addressing non-academic skills is critical to academic success.

Engaged students are successful students (Same for families and communities)

Another striking thing about these successful districts was how they worked to make connections beyond classroom instruction.

They all had embraced the State Board’s Individual Plan of Study (IPS). Schools work with students and parents to identify possible career interests and select high school courses and experiences that support those interests. They stress that students can and often change their minds. Sometimes that most important result is finding out what you don’t want to do.

Successful districts have almost universally expanded their career technical education programs. They have developed work-based learning opportunities like internships, job shadowing, and work credit. They have established dual college credit options with local technical schools and community colleges and through on-line courses. They have worked to reduce or eliminate tuition and other costs. These steps often were accomplished through formal collaboration with local colleges and technical schools, with local businesses, and school and community foundations.

Districts frequently devoted all or part of a staff position toward these efforts.

They place a high value on offering activities, clubs, and sports. They make sure each student has a chance to participate, and in at least one case, making it a requirement. Students noted that these programs are among the most appreciated aspects of their high school experience. Many districts say they have emphasized giving students a larger voice in the district, through student council and advisory groups. They point out changes they have made with student input.

These successful districts stressed they had worked to improve relationships with parents and families. Improvements ranged from home and porch visits to restructured parent conferences at more convenient times with a greater role for students. 

Most all successful districts could point to expanded early childhood programs at low or no cost to parents, which they believe not only improves student readiness for school but supports parents and assists the workforce.

Leadership and collaboration

In addition to these tangible strategies, successful districts all reported critical intangibles. Most said they had embraced Commissioner Randy Watson and the State Board of Education’s vision and most praised their local school board for setting clear expectations and providing support to meet those expectations without micromanaging the progress.

When I talked to district and building leaders, they universally praised the quality and dedication of their teacher and support staff. In turn, staff almost always praised their leadership; in many cases saying new approaches by these leaders were major factors in higher results. These educators did not say their pay or benefits were better, but they somehow felt more valued, and listened to. At a time of teacher and other staff shortages, these districts say their staff usually stays until retirement, creating an experienced, cohesive team. In short, the type of leadership matters.

Finally, almost every person who spoke said there is, in fact, something different about these high success districts. They are getting better than expected outcomes not by random chance or type of students served, but by a combination of right actions and right attitude. Although these are already high achieving districts, they consistently said they are driven to improve even more. It’s not because the state is telling them to but because they want to.

Why are these three State Board outcomes important?

Research shows the better students do on state reading and math tests, the more likely they are to graduate and go on to postsecondary success. That’s crucial because about 75 percent of

Kansas jobs will require a postsecondary credential. Each additional level of education, from technical certificates through advanced college degrees results in higher employment, earnings, and wealth.

These three outcomes are not new. They have been part of the State Board’s “Kansans Can” vision for nearly a decade. Preparing students academically for postsecondary education and the workforce are among the standards and goals adopted by the Kansas Supreme Court and Legislature. They have been used as arguments in school finance lawsuits.

While educational outcomes for Kansans over age 24 are at an all-time high, workforce needs have risen even higher. Students who fail to graduate high school and earn some kind of postsecondary credential are far more likely to struggle economically. So are their children, because economic status is a major influence in school achievement, contributing to generational poverty in some families.

How are we progressing on these outcomes?

Progress on these outcomes has been closely monitored over the last 10 years. State test results ticked up last year after showing periodic declines between 2015 and 2022. Graduation rates have increased almost every year. In spite of a slight overall dip last year, specific student groups continued to improve graduation rates. Completion of high school and four-year degrees by

Kansas students aged 18 to 24 has increased since 2011. The state’s postsecondary effective rate measures the percentage of a high school graduating class that has completed a postsecondary credential or is enrolled in postsecondary education within two years of graduation. This rate has been rising but saw a slight decline for the 2019 through 2021 classes (the most recent data).

Many reasons have been suggested for variations in progress. School funding fell behind inflation from 2009 to 2017, resulting in deep cuts in staff and programs. Increased state aid from the Legislature after the Gannon decision has allowed many districts to restore and add programs to assist students. However funding was slowly phased in over six years and still hasn’t returned to 2009 levels when adjusted for inflation. The pandemic interrupted student learning and school services and reduced higher education enrollment. Reports show that students are experiencing higher rates of depression, anxiety, and behavior issues. The percentage of students with a disability is at an all-time high.

How did we define those districts that are exceeding expectations?

I used data from KSDE to look at districts in five areas: 

1. Percentage of students scoring at higher levels on state assessments in 2022
2. Change in test performance from 2017 to 2022
3. 2022 graduation rates for all students
4. Change in graduation rates from 2017 to 2022 
5. Five-year average postsecondary effective rate for the classes of 2015 to 2020

Districts were divided into four enrollment groups (over 10,000 students, 1,600 to 10,000 students, 500 to 1,600 and under 500). A predicted result for each district in each of the five outcome areas was determined based on its percentage of low-income and students with disabilities because these students have more challenges. Districts with actual results significantly higher (more than a standard deviation) than predicted were selected. This identified districts that had the best results compared to similar districts.

Forty-three districts significantly exceeded predicted results in at least two of the five areas. I had met with three of those districts the year before. Of the rest, 37 hosted a visit where I met with school leaders and wrote a profile.