KSDE outlines KISA 2 accreditation model emphasizing frequent checks, structured literacy and local action plans

Kansas State Department of Education officials outlined the state’s new KISA 2 accreditation model to a legislative committee, describing a shift from infrequent reviews to yearly accountability that centers on instruction, a concise action plan process and supports for districts.

State Board of Education Chair Kathy Hopkins attended the presentation. Dr. Ben Proctor of KSDE’s learning services team said the department began by diagnosing a problem: “we often try to do so many things. We try to do all the good things, and oftentimes, that leads us to not doing anything exceedingly well.” Dr. Proctor said KISA 2 starts from a theory of action that prioritizes a small number of “fundamentals” and supports districts to implement them well.

Dr. Jay Scott, who leads accreditation work at KSDE, described the model’s three evaluation areas: “We look at 3 things. We look at compliance … school improvement … and outcomes.” He said those three areas are measured every year under KISA 2; by contrast, KISA 1 required a review only once every five to six years. KSDE staff and an 18-member Accreditation Review Council (ARC) will review each system annually; ARC will focus on systems that do not meet standards and perform on-site reviews when standards are unmet.

KSDE said the school-improvement component requires districts to develop a short (two- to three-page) quality action plan that emphasizes one or two fundamentals from the state school-improvement model. The fundamentals KSDE lists are structured literacy, standards alignment and clarity, a balanced assessment approach, and quality instruction. KSDE staff said they will check progress every six months through peer conversations and regional staff called KISA Regional Executives, rather than relying on long written reports.

KSDE outlined a phased timeline for evaluations: year 1 (2024–25 in KSDE’s presentation) focuses on compliance checks and on districts submitting quality action plans; year 2 will evaluate implementation of those plans through conversations; and year 3 will evaluate all three areas, including outcomes. KSDE said it delayed using outcome measures for rating in years 1–2 to allow time for implementation, noting that implementation science suggests a three- to five-year window before reliable results can be attributed to new practices.

KSDE named four outcomes it intends to measure once outcome standards are set: graduation rate, postsecondary effectiveness, and English language arts and math state assessment performance. Dr. Scott said KSDE will present draft graduation and postsecondary standards to the State Board in the spring; standards for the new state assessments in ELA and math will follow after cut scores are set later this year.

KSDE also described supports it will provide: a LETRS initiative with roughly 12,000–13,000 teachers already trained or in training, standards-alignment toolkits developed by KSDE program managers, interim assessments for balanced assessment approaches, and exemplar action plans posted on the KSDE accreditation webpage. KSDE officials said they have run 55 school-improvement days across the state so far, trained three facilitators per day, and have received more than 60 action plans submitted by districts.

Legislators asked about measures, equity considerations and whether the model accounts for demographic differences and student mobility. Dr. Proctor and Dr. Scott said KSDE intends the process to include contextual conversations with districts so reviewers understand local demographics and can match supports to needs. They said the model aims to provide supports the department can deliver and to hold both districts and the state accountable in “reciprocal accountability.”

Several legislators expressed concern about outcomes being elevated as the decisive factor for accreditation and said they wanted clearer standards and measures for outcomes. KSDE responded that outcome standards are being drafted and that the department will provide regulations and documentation to the committee. KSDE staff said the department had reallocated staff time and resources to support the more frequent review model and that regional staff would conduct the check-ins.

KSDE officials closed by offering to provide exemplar action plans and the measures used by districts; they said those resources are available on the KSDE accreditation webpage. The committee asked KSDE to provide draft measures and relevant regulations to the committee for review.