Requiring each school district to establish an at-risk student accountability plan and to show academic improvement in certain student subgroups and students identified as eligible for at-risk programs, prohibiting the state board of education from revising the curriculum standards in English language arts and mathematics until 75% of all students achieve proficiency and requiring school districts to comply with all state laws and rules and regulations to maintain accreditation.
If enacted, this legislation will significantly impact how school districts manage and report on the academic progress of at-risk students. It requires a systematic approach to tracking academic achievement over a four-year period and prohibits school districts from revising improvement goals for student subgroups unless they meet established thresholds. Failure to meet these goals will carry implications for funding from the at-risk education fund, which will be adjusted based on performance metrics defined by the state board of education.
House Bill 2650 mandates that each school district in Kansas submit an annual at-risk student accountability plan to the state board of education. The aim is to enhance academic outcomes for students who are deemed at-risk through longitudinal assessments and targeted educational programs. The bill specifies that school districts must set quantitative academic improvement goals, with a target for 75% of all students to achieve proficiency in English language arts and mathematics by 2030. It reinforces the need for evidence-based instruction to support these at-risk students and ensures that educational funds are allocated effectively.
Debate surrounding HB2650 may arise around its emphasis on performance metrics and potential consequences for schools that fail to meet designated goals. Critics may argue that the high-stakes nature of the accountability measures could lead to undue pressure on educators and administrators, potentially jeopardizing the quality of education and support for students. Additionally, there may be concerns regarding the feasibility of achieving such ambitious academic targets for all student subgroups, particularly in areas with existing socioeconomic challenges.