By Mark Tallman

Under a new school accreditation process taking effect in 2024-2025, Kansas districts are asked to focus on three specific outcomes: improving reading and math skills as measured by state assessments, raising graduation rates, and getting more students to earn a credential beyond high school. 

These outcomes are important to both students and the state (and nation). Students who do better on state tests are more likely to graduate and have postsecondary success; almost all jobs now require at least a high school diploma; most jobs will also require an industry certification, technical certificate or academic degree; and each step in education on average means higher earnings and lower poverty rates. A more educated population is a more prosperous population. 

I have explored districts that are performing exceptionally well on these measures and how they have succeeded. Data was collected from the Kansas State Department of Education on assessments, graduation rates, and postsecondary success for each public school district and the five state accredited private school systems. Since outside factors like family poverty and student disabilities impact results, I looked for districts that were performing substantially better than expected considering their percentage of high need students as well as district size. 

From the 2022 data I identified about 40 districts performing significantly better than expected in at least two of five areas:  

• Percentage of students meeting benchmarks on reading and math tests in 2022 
• Change in the percentage meeting those benchmarks between 2017 and 2022 
• 2022 high school graduation rate 
• Change in graduation rate from 2017 to 2022 
• Average postsecondary effective rate between 2016 and 2020 percentage (Graduating on time and either earning a postsecondary credential or enrolled in a postsecondary program two years after graduation.) 

Last school year I visited most of those districts and talked with nearly 300 teachers, administrators, students, parents, school board members, and community leaders. I determined what they were doing to get those results and shared that information in publications and presentations. The key determination was that all high achieving systems were following common strategies based on a commitment to improve outcomes. 

Evaluating Districts Using Current Data 

I have updated my analysis of district performance using more recently available data. I also added the change in postsecondary success as an additional measurement.  

Using a statistical formula, I identified districts that were significantly outperforming expectations based on student population in at least two of the six areas I evaluated. 

The process identified 56 school districts and one private system. In my initial evaluation two years ago I identified 40 systems. About one third of the previously identified districts remained on the list. The updated list identifies new districts that can be explored to learn what they are doing to achieve higher results.

Following are some key observations from evaluating districts: 

Most students attend relatively large districts, but most districts are relatively small. Out of about 500,000 Kansas students, attendance is as follows: 

• 180,000 attend just seven districts and one private system with more than 10,000 students 
• 200,000 attend 52 districts and 2 private systems with 1,600 to 10,000 students 
• 80,000 attend 95 districts and 2 private systems with 500 to 1,600 students 
• Remaining 38,000 attend 132 districts with fewer than 500 students  

(Non-state accredited private schools, including home schools, are not required to report enrollment or performance data.) 

A majority of Kansas students are either from low-income families or have a disability. Because this study looks at changes over time, it uses an average of free and reduced-price lunch for eligible students plus students with disabilities over several years. The 2015 to 2024 average for the state was 63.1 percent. In 2024, 49.1 percent of students were low-income, and 17 percent had an Individual Education Plan for a disability. However, there is a wide range in every district size category, from less than 30 percent to virtually every student being low-income, having a disability, or both.  

The largest districts (over 10,000) group includes both high poverty urban districts and low-poverty suburban districts and had the lowest percentage of high need students (57.2 percent). As enrollment declines by group, the percentage of high need students increases. The districts with fewer than 500 students had an average of 68.6 percent high need.  

Having more high need students usually results in lower current outcomes, but there are exceptions. Districts with a high percentage of low-income students plus students with disabilities typically have lower tests results, graduation rates and, postsecondary success. This correlation was the strongest among the largest districts in all three outcomes. It was nearly as strong for districts in the 1,600 to 10,000 range for tests scores, and moderately strong for all other enrollment groups for test scores and postsecondary effective rates. The negative relationship was much weaker for graduation rates for groups below 10,000. But in each case, some districts get better outcomes than expected. 

Change in results over five to seven years is much less correlated with high need students. Unlike the results looking at a current year or average, the relationship between high need students and change in results over time is generally much weaker. In some cases, districts with more high need students were improving more, or declining less, than districts with fewer. This suggests that while student characteristics usually have a big impact on where a district starts regarding outcomes, every district has a more equal chance to improve. 

Private systems perform about average on these outcomes considering their student populations. While accredited private schools generally have higher outcomes than the state average, they also have a lower percentage of high need students than most public schools and can set academic requirements for students that public schools can’t. Private systems generally performed close to predicted outcomes. (Two of the five private systems do not have high schools and do not have graduation or postsecondary success rates.) 

Kansas schools have shown mixed progress on outcomes. In each of the three main outcomes, schools are showing positive results as well as areas where more work is needed.  

Assessments

The current Kansas assessment system places students in one of four levels in reading and math: Level 1 is considered “limited” and only about 25 percent of students go on to postsecondary success; Level 2 is “basic” and about 50 percent of students go on the postsecondary success; and Levels 3 and 4 are “effective” and “excellent” and about 75 percent of students go on the postsecondary success. 

Since Kansas adopted the current assessment system in 2015, the percentage of students in the upper levels was dropping until 2018, which many school leaders blamed in part on funding falling behind inflation for eight years 2009 to 2017. Test scores stabilized when increased state funding began in 2018 and 2019 but dropped from 2022 following the pandemic. (No tests were given in 2020 when in-person school was cancelled in March.) Over the past two years, the percentage of students at higher levels has increased slightly but remains about four percentage points below 2017 levels. 

Graduation

The statewide graduation rate has been rising since the current formula was adopted by all states in 2010. It was 86.9 percent in 2017 and continued to increase to 89.3 percent in 2022. It dropped back slightly to 88.1 percent in 2023, but ticked back up to 89.5 percent in 2024, the highest level ever. 

Postsecondary

The postsecondary success rate is usually reported as a five-year average to help smooth out annual variations, especially among small districts. The first published rate for 2011 to 2015 was 44 percent, which means an average of 44 percent of the senior classes in those years graduated high school and either completed a postsecondary credential or were in a program after two years. That average rose to 51 percent for the classes from 2016 to 2021, as more students were graduating, earning credentials while still in high school, and enrolling and staying in college. 

However, with a two-year delay to report each class’s success rate and using an average of the previous five years, the rate is only now beginning to show the impact of the pandemic in 2020 through 2022. The latest postsecondary effective rate for 2018-2022 dropped to 49.5 percent. But the single year rate for the class of 2022 was 8.7 percent lower than the class of 2018. That’s not surprising when compared to 8.7 percent drop in total fall enrollment for technical and community colleges and public universities under the Kansas State Board of Regent between 2019 and 2022, and a 9.1 percent drop in enrollment by the 18-19 age group. As a result, the average rate is likely to continue to fall until higher education enrollment recovers. 

High Performing Districts Demonstrate that Progress is Possible 

Test scores, graduation rates, and postsecondary success rates are significantly higher than expected for the districts identified with the new data. The first set of 40 districts identified were nearly unanimous in what they believed helped them succeed. This included increased intensity of effort for improvement, effective use of data, and individualized efforts to support students not meeting outcomes. They also pointed to greater efforts to support and engage students and families along with strong leadership and collaborative staff. The new group could offer additional lessons after two more years of experience. 

Outcomes Comparison Study 2024  

To determine the districts that exceeded expectations, actual performance was compared to a predicted result calculated for each, based on its percentage of high need students in its enrollment group. A standard deviation for each outcome in each enrollment group was determined. Systems with results more than one standard deviation higher than predicted were identified. Any system that exceeded the standard deviation in more than one of the six outcome areas was tagged as significantly outperforming expectations. 

 

	State	>10,000	1,600-10,000	500-1,600	<500
Students	504,041	180,528	204,761	81,460	37,292
Public Districts	286	7	52	95	132
Private Systems	5	1	2	2	0
Average Free/Reduced Eligible plus Students with Disabilities, 2015 to 2024	63.1%	57.2%	59.1%	63.2%	68.6%
State Assessments: 2024 Percent of Students At Benchmark
% at Level 2+	67.0%	66.8%	68.1%	70.5%	70.9%
Correlation with High Need		-0.979	-0.869	-0.669	-0.531
Standard Deviation Actual to Predicted		2.4%	5.3%	5.8%	7.6%
% at Level 3+	32.6%	35.4%	32.5%	31.3%	31.9%
Correlation with High Need		-0.976	-0.870	-0.654	-0.465
Standard Deviation Actual to Predicted		2.8%	5.1%	6.5%	8.5%
Average L2+ and L3+ SD		3.3%	5.2%	6.2%	8.1%
Systems > St. Dev. higher than predicted		3	8	14	18
State Assessments: Change in Percent At Benchmark from 2017-2024
% Change at 2+	-3.9%	-4.1%	-5.15	-3.6%	-1.0%
Correlation with High Need		+0.065	-0.349	-0.179	-0.160
Standard Deviation Actual to Predicted		2.9%	4.4%	5.9%	8.3%
% Change at 3+	-4.2%	-4.8%	-5.54%	-0.04	-2.8%
Correlation with High Need		+0.716	-0.195	+0.036	-0.168
Standard Deviation Actual to Predicted		2.3%	4.9%	6.5%	6.7%
Average L2+ and L3+ SD		2.6%	4.6%	6.2%	7.5%
Systems > St. Dev. higher than predicted		1	9	14	7
Graduation Rate: 2024 (Adjusted 4-Year Cohort)
Rate	89.5%	88.9%	89.5%	91.1%	92.6%
Correlation with High Need		-0.949	-0.239	-0.288	-0.096
Standard Deviation Actual to Predicted		2.2%	7.9%	7.0%	7.2%
Systems > St. Dev. higher than predicted		2	1	5	20
Graduation Rate: Change 2017 to 2024
Change	2.6	3.7%	0.9%	1.5%	2.0%
Correlation with High Need		+0.752	+0.030	-0.151	+0.082
Standard Deviation Actual to Predicted		2.3%	9.9%	8.2%	9.8%
Systems > St. Dev. higher than predicted		1	2	11	15
Postsecondary Effective Rate: Five Year Average Rate 2018-2022
Rate	49.0%	50.3%	50.3%	51.7%	51.2%
Correlation with High Need		-0.982	-0.672	-0.601	-0.445
Standard Deviation Actual to Predicted		3.7%	8.2%	7.7%	10.0%
Systems > St. Dev. higher than predicted		1	7	15	14
Postsecondary Effective Rate: Change in Annual Rate, 2018 to 2022
Change	-8.7%	-12.3%	-9.3%	-4.5%	-3.3%
Correlation with High Need		+0.399	+0.317	-0.063	+0.060
Standard Deviation Actual to Predicted		3.9%	7.0%	11.5%	18.2%
Systems > St. Dev. higher than predicted		1	12	16	21