Alternative Accountability Policy: The Action is at the State
Level
Slide 2
What we will cover Why state government is the critical venue
for progress on alternative accountability Washingtons Open Doors
policy and use of multiple measures for academic success Colorados
Alternative Education Campus Accountability Framework Massachusetts
new Dropout Reengagement Metric What can be done in your state for
future alternative accountability policies
Slide 3
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
Slide 4
College Enrollment as a High School Completion and Reengagement
Strategy
Slide 5
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
Slide 6
From Cradle to College and Career November 2014
Slide 7
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
Slide 8
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
Slide 9
Current Status 66 Districts approved, 3 consortiums Statewide
enrollment: 2014-2015: 2,536 2013-2014: 2,417 2012-2013: 797 (198
credentials earned)
Slide 10
Legislative Evolution Building Bridges Initiative 1 st 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) 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 ESSHB 1418 (2010) 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)
Slide 11
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
Slide 12
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
Indicators of Academic Progress
Slide 13
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 and Accountability Enrollment
reporting reflects non-traditional student needs (adjustments to
traditional seat-time/count day requirements 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
Slide 14
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, Reporting
& Accountability Data collection, sharing, use and reporting
across K-12, postsecondary and other partners are challenging.
Linked, user-friendly data systems are needed. 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.
Slide 15
For more information Open Doors:
www.k12.wa.us/GATE/SupportingStudents/ StudentRetrieval.aspx Road
Map Projects Opportunity Youth initiative:
www.roadmapproject.org/OY
Slide 16
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
Slide 17
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary
Education 17 Equal Accountability for All High Schools
Intentionally avoided a separate accountability system for
different types of schools Dont 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
Slide 18
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary
Education 18 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?
Slide 19
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary
Education 19 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
Slide 20
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary
Education 20 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 states accountability calculations
Slide 21
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary
Education 21 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
Slide 22
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary
Education 22 For more information Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education accountability overviews and
guidance: http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/accountability
Slide 23
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary
Education 23 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 states accountability calculations
Slide 24
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary
Education 24 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
Slide 25
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary
Education 25 For more information Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education accountability overviews and
guidance: http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/accountability
Slide 26
Jessica M. Knevals, M.P.A. Principal Consultant, Accountability
and Data Analysis Alternative Education Campuses in Colorado
November 14, 2014 Alternative Accountability Policy Forum, San
Diego, CA
Slide 27
27 How Accountability for Alternative Education Campuses (AECs)
in Colorado has changed over the past 12 years. History of AECs in
Colorado 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.
Slide 28
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.; Alternative Education Campuses
28
Slide 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. High-Risk Student
is a student who has one or more of the following conditions
29
Slide 30
AEC Accountability 30 Alternative Education Campuses receive a
School Performance Framework annually, similar to traditional
schools. The main exception is AECs are measured on Student
Engagement measure, rather than Growth Gaps. Performance Indicator
WeightState-Required Measures and Metrics Optional Measures and
Metrics E/MSHS Academic Achievement 20%15%1.TCAP % of students
proficient in Reading, Math, Writing, Science NWEA MAP, Scantron,
Acuity, Galileo, Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT), Test for Adult
Basic Education (TABE), STAR, and/or Accuplacer Academic Growth
50%35%1.TCAP median growth percentiles in Reading, Math, Writing,
and ACCESS (English language proficiency) NWEA MAP, Scantron,
Acuity, Galileo, Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT), Test for Adult
Basic Education (TABE), STAR, ACCESS and/or Accuplacer Student
Engagement 30%20%1.Attendance rate 2.Truancy rate 1.Student
Re-engagement, 2.Returning students, 3.Socio-Emotional or
Psychological Adjustment Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness
N/A30%1.Completion rate (best of 4, 5, 6, or 7 year rate) 2.Dropout
rate 3.Colorado ACT score (average) 1.Credit/course completion,
2.Workforce Readiness, 3.Post-Completion Success, 4.Successful
transition (for non-degree granting schools only), 5.Graduation
rate
Slide 31
31 AEC v. Traditional School Accountability 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. How are AECs held Accountable? AEC SPF
Rating Traditional SPF Rating AEC: Performance Plan AEC:
Improvement Plan AEC: Priority Improvement Plan AEC: Turnaround
Plan School ClosedTotal Performance 000000 Improvement 710008
Priority Improvement 11721021 Turnaround 714119344 Total
25221310373 These data are from the 2011-12SY.
Slide 32
Determining if a school qualified as an AEC, especially if
students meet the high- risk 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
How can we improve and refine the Accountability system for
Alternative Education Campuses in Colorado? Next Steps for 2015 and
Beyond 32 Future Considerations and Challenges
Slide 33
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