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: – : 2,536 – : 2,417 – : 797 (198 credentials earned)

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)

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

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

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

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.

For more information Open Doors: StudentRetrieval.aspx Road Map Project’s Opportunity Youth initiative:

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

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 17 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 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?

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

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 state’s accountability calculations

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

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 22 For more information…  Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education accountability overviews and guidance:

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 state’s accountability calculations

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

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 25 For more information…  Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education accountability overviews and guidance:

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

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 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 school year. 2009: SB , 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.

As Per C.R.S 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 § , C.R.S.;  Serving a student population in which more than 95% of the students have either an individual education program (IEP) pursuant to § , 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 § , 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

 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

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

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 Improvement Priority Improvement Turnaround Total These data are from the SY.

 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

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