Transcript Document

Alternative Accountability Policy:
The Action is at the State Level
What we will cover





Why state government is the critical venue for
progress on alternative accountability
Washington’s Open Doors policy and use of
multiple measures for academic success
Colorado’s Alternative Education Campus
Accountability Framework
Massachusetts’ new Dropout Reengagement
Metric
What can be done in your state for future
alternative accountability policies
Our Panelists
Jenny Caldwell Curtin
Coordinator of High School Graduation Initiatives
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Jessica Knevals
Accountability and Policy Consultant
Colorado Department of Education
Nicole Yohalem
Director
Road Map Project Opportunity Youth Initiative (Washington State)
Nick Mathern
Associate Vice President of Policy and Partnerships
Gateway to College National Network
College
Enrollment as a
High School
Completion and
Reengagement
Strategy
Why State Government?

Funding: State government has the authority to
direct (and is typically the largest source) of local
education funding

Functional: State government is the highest level
of reliably innovative and responsive public policy
Altitude: State education agencies blend broad
and local perspectives
Leverage: State leadership creates momentum


From Cradle to College and Career
November 2014
Opportunity Youth Action Plan
The focus: Build a strong system of
re-engagement pathways
Four goals:
1. Improve SUPPLY
2. Increase COORDINATION
3. Improve QUALITY
4. Increase AWARENESS & ACCESS
• Statewide system of reengagement
• State K-12 funding follows the student
($5,755 annually)
• Encourages partnerships and collaboration
• Performance based & individualized, with
multiple indicators of progress
• Designed as an on-ramp to college/career
pathways
Current Status
• 66 Districts approved, 3 consortiums
• Statewide enrollment:
– 2014-2015: 2,536
– 2013-2014: 2,417
– 2012-2013: 797
(198 credentials earned)
Legislative Evolution
• Building Bridges
Initiative
• 1st WA State Legislation
on dropouts
• Recommendation # 3:
“Create a Dropout
Retrieval System for 16
to 21 Year-Old Youth
who are not Likely to
Return to High School”
HB 1573
(2007 – 2009)
ESSHB 1418
(2010)
• Second attempt passed
• No fiscal note – permissive
• Established “1418 Implementation
Committee” to develop infrastructure:
• Policies and procedures
• Rules and recommendations
• Model contracts and agreements
• Implementation Manual
• 37 Open Doors programs
in the State; 8+ in King
County
• Performance-based
Indicators of Progress
• Case Management
mandated
• 2087 youth enrolled
• Juvenile justice and foster
care, among other
professionals allowed to
submit exception to credit
deficiency requirement
OSPI Open Doors
(2014)
Indicators of
Academic Progress
• Earns high school or college credit
• Passes one or more high school equivalency
tests
• Makes a significant gain in math and/or
reading skills level
• Completes approved college readiness
training
• Completes approved work readiness training
• Completes a work based learning experience
Indicators of
Academic Progress
• Enrolls in college course(s) other than Adult Basic Ed,
high school equivalency certificate, or ESL class
• Transitions from an ESL class to ABE or high school
equivalency coursework
• Transitions from ABE or high school equivalency
certificate coursework to developmental math or
English courses
• Transitions from ABE/high school equivalency
coursework to any college level course
• Enrolls in progressively more difficult math or English
college courses
Open Doors: Strengths
Funding and
Sustainability
 Dedicated funding and accountability provisions for dropout
recovery
 Predictable funding model
Institutional
Incentives
 Districts are incentivized to participate (re-engagement
student test scores, graduation rates reported at the program
and state level but not district-level).
Data, Reporting  Enrollment reporting reflects non-traditional student needs
and
(adjustments to traditional seat-time/count day requirements
Accountability
have been made)
 Legislative mandate to track student K-12, postsecondary and
employment outcomes.
Program Model  Vision goes beyond high school completion, emphasizing
college and career readiness and postsecondary attainment.
 Makes GED option available but does not define earning a
GED alone as successful completion.
 Encourages a range of models and partnerships
 Case management required
Remaining Barriers
Funding and
Sustainability
 Lack of start-up funding.
 10-month funding cycle makes sense for regular K-12 school operation
but leaves year-round programs with a gap in summer funding.
 Barrier funding would help address consistent challenges such as
transportation, food and support for work readiness &internships.
Institutional
Incentives
 Incentives are needed to increase community college participation.
For example, Open Doors students do not count toward college
enrollment targets and are not included the in student achievement
initiative.
 Data collection, sharing, use and reporting across K-12, postsecondary
and other partners are challenging. Linked, user-friendly data systems
are needed.
Data,
Reporting &
Accountability
Program Model 
High school diploma considered an end point (unlike GED), triggering
an end to funding and reducing postsecondary attainment potential.
 Administrative flexibility (e.g., allowing ESDs to award credit) would
facilitate cross-district collaboration and offer economies of scale.
 Intentional utilization of the CTE system should be recommended and
supported.
For more information
Open Doors:
www.k12.wa.us/GATE/SupportingStudents/
StudentRetrieval.aspx
Road Map Project’s Opportunity Youth
initiative:
www.roadmapproject.org/OY
Overview of
Massachusetts’ State
System of High School
Accountability
Jenny Curtin, Coordinator of High
School Graduation Initiatives, MA ESE
Alternative Accountability Forum
November 14, 2014
Equal Accountability for All High Schools
 Intentionally avoided a separate accountability system
for different types of schools
Don’t want to stigmatize or marginalize alternative
schools by having a separate system, that would likely
be seen as “lesser”
The line between alternative schools and other schools
with high numbers of “at risk” students is not always
clear-cut
 Instead focused on creating a fair, appropriate, and
influential accountability system for all high schools
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
17
Accountability Metric Considerations
 What data are available on a statewide basis?
 What metrics are important for all high schools?
 What metrics will promote good practice?
 What metrics have potential unintended
consequences?
 What metrics do not favor or bias a certain type of
community or school?
18
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Brief History of High School Level
Accountability Calculation Changes
 2007 – Added 4-year cohort graduation rate
 2009 – Added 5-year cohort graduation rate
Schools can meet either 4 year grad rate or 5 year grad
rate criteria
 2012 – Added annual dropout rate
 2014 – Included dropout reengagement number for
extra credits points
19
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Why Include Dropout Reengagement?
 Sends a clear message – to all high schools – about the
importance of supporting all students that have not
yet earned a high school diploma, including students
that have previously disengaged from school
 Provides balance to the focus on dropout and
graduation rates that are also part of the state’s
accountability calculations
20
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Dropout Reengagement Metric Details
 High schools can earn 25 extra credit points if the
reengaged two or more dropouts in previous year
 Dropouts may come from any of the four previous
school years
 Students must be reengaged for a length of time, or
graduated
 Credit is given to the high school that reengages the
student, regardless of where the student originally
dropped out
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
21
For more information…
 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education accountability overviews and
guidance:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/accountability
22
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Why Include Dropout Reengagement?
 Sends a clear message – to all high schools – about the
importance of supporting all students that have not
yet earned a high school diploma, including students
that have previously disengaged from school
 Provides balance to the focus on dropout and
graduation rates that are also part of the state’s
accountability calculations
23
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Dropout Reengagement Metric Details
 High schools can earn 25 extra credit points if the
reengaged two or more dropouts in previous year
 Dropouts may come from any of the four previous
school years
 Students must be reengaged for a length of time, or
graduated
 Credit is given to the high school that reengages the
student, regardless of where the student originally
dropped out
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
24
For more information…
 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education accountability overviews and
guidance:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/accountability
25
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Alternative Education
Campuses in Colorado
Jessica M. Knevals, M.P.A.
Principal Consultant, Accountability and Data Analysis
November 14, 2014
Alternative Accountability Policy Forum, San Diego, CA
2002: C.R.S. 22-7-604.5 was constituted establishing the current
definition of Alternative Education Campuses (AECs) that we
largely still use today in Colorado. Originally this law was written to
exclude AECs from the School Accountability Reports (SARs) which
were first created in the 2000-01 school year.
2009: SB 09-163, the Colorado Education Accountability Act,
provided foundation for an aligned accountability system. Through
this Act it was determined that AECs, as well as all other
specialized public schools, were no longer exempt from
accountability.
2011: AECs received their first School Performance Framework
with the four performance indicators: Academic Achievement,
Academic Growth, Student Engagement, and Postsecondary and
Workforce Readiness. Schools were allowed to select optional
measures to include in their performance framework calculations.
2011: The high-risk measure of over-age and under-credited
students was added to state statute to allow for the majority of
AECs with students falling behind academically to be included.
27
History of
AECs in
Colorado
How
Accountability for
Alternative
Education
Campuses (AECs)
in Colorado has
changed over the
past 12 years.
Alternative Education Campuses
As Per C.R.S. 22-7-604.5 an Alternative Education Campus (AEC) in Colorado is defined as a public
school that is:
 Having a specialized mission and serving a special needs or at-risk population;
 Being an autonomous Public School, meaning that the school provides a complete instructional
program that allows students to proceed to the next grade level or to graduate;
 Having an administrator who is not under the supervision of an administrator at another public
school;
 Having a budget separate from any other Public School;
 Having nontraditional methods of instruction delivery; and
 One of the following:
 Serving students who have severe limitations that preclude appropriate administration of the
assessments administered pursuant to §22-7-409, C.R.S.;
 Serving a student population in which more than 95% of the students have either an individual education
program (IEP) pursuant to §22-20-108, C.R.S. or meet the definition of a High-Risk Student; or
 Serving students who attend on a part-time basis and who come from other Public Schools where the
part-time students are counted in the enrollment of the other Public School; except that the results of the
assessments administered pursuant to §22-7-409, C.R.S., of all part-time students and High-Risk Students
shall be used in determining the levels of attainment on the performance indicators for the Public School
for which the student is counted for enrollment purposes.;
28
“High-Risk Student” is a student who has
one or more of the following conditions







29
juvenile delinquent
dropped out of school
expelled from school
history of personal drug or
alcohol use
history of personal street
gang involvement
history of child abuse or
neglect
has a parent or guardian in
prison







family history of domestic
violence
repeated school suspensions
parent or pregnant woman
migrant child
homeless child
history of a serious
psychiatric or behavioral
disorder
is over traditional school age
for his or her grade level and
lacks adequate credit hours
for his or her grade level.
AEC Accountability
Alternative Education Campuses receive a School Performance Framewo rk
annually, similar to traditional schools. The main exceptio n is AECs are
measured on Student Engagement measure, rather than Growth Gaps.
Performance
Indicator
Weight
State-Required Measures
and Metrics
E/MS
HS
Academic
Achievement
20%
15%
1.
Academic
Growth
50%
35%
1.
Student
Engagement
30%
20%
1.
2.
Postsecondary
& Workforce
Readiness
N/A
30%
1.
30
2.
3.
TCAP % of students
proficient in Reading, Math,
Writing, Science
Optional Measures and Metrics
NWEA MAP, Scantron, Acuity, Galileo,
Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT),
Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE),
STAR, and/or Accuplacer
TCAP median growth
NWEA MAP, Scantron, Acuity, Galileo,
percentiles in Reading, Math, Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT),
Writing, and ACCESS (English Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE),
language proficiency)
STAR, ACCESS and/or Accuplacer
Attendance rate
1. Student Re-engagement,
2. Returning students,
Truancy rate
3. Socio-Emotional or Psychological
Adjustment
Completion rate (best of 4, 5, 1. Credit/course completion,
6, or 7 year rate)
2. Workforce Readiness,
Dropout rate
3. Post-Completion Success,
Colorado ACT score (average) 4. Successful transition (for non-degree
granting schools only),
5. Graduation rate
How are AECs
held
Accountable?
In Colorado, there
are 4 tiers of
school plan type
ratings used for
accountability.
AECs receive the
same tiered
ratings as
traditional
schools, however,
the cut-points for
measuring the
data are normed
on the
performance of
AECs, and thus are
lower. The lowest
two ratings have 5
years
to improve.
31
AEC v. Traditional School Accountability
AEC SPF Rating
Traditional
SPF Rating
Performance
Improvement
Priority
Improvement
Turnaround
Total
AEC:
AEC:
Performance Improvement
Plan
Plan
AEC:
Priority
Improvement
Plan
AEC:
Turnaround School
Plan
Closed
Total
0
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
7
25
7
14
22
2
11
13
1 0 21
9 3 44
10 3 73
These data are from the 2011-12SY.
0 0
0 8
Future Considerations and Challenges
 Determining if a school qualified as an
AEC, especially if students meet the highrisk criteria
 Collecting and including optional
measures, so that there is comparability
between schools’ frameworks
 Setting student performance expectations
that are ambitious, yet attainable, and
connected to the expectations for all
schools
 Incorporating accountability expectations
for AEC schools with accountability
expectations for districts with AECs
32
Next Steps for
2015 and
Beyond
How can we
improve and
refine the
Accountability
system for
Alternative
Education
Campuses in
Colorado?
Our Panelists
Jenny Caldwell Curtin
Coordinator of High School Graduation Initiatives
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Jessica Knevals
Accountability and Policy Consultant
Colorado Department of Education
Nicole Yohalem
Director
Road Map Project Opportunity Youth Initiative (Washington State)
Nick Mathern
Associate Vice President of Policy and Partnerships
Gateway to College National Network