1. The Children Left Behind: Accountability for Schools Serving High Risk Students Jim Griffin and Jody Ernst Colorado League of Charter Schools Kim Knous-Dolan Donnell-Kay Foundation

2. Session Overview Colorado history regarding alternative education campuses (AECs) Colorado AEC landscape Colorado AEC accountability Rethinking AECs and high-risk students as students and schools of statewide interest

3. Colorado History The Problem circa 2000 Legislative solutions o 2002: defined AECs and high-risk and determined alt accountability o 2009: accountability changes o 2010: addition of high-risk factors o 2011: addition of another high-risk factor

4. What is an AEC? Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-7- 604.5(1)(a)(VI)(A), (B), (C), or (1.5). An AEC serves: A. 95 percent students on IEPs B. 95 percent students identified as High-Risk C. 95 percent that meet either A or B*

5. How is High-Risk Defined? Prior dropout Adjudication Expulsion Chronic suspensions Pregnant/parenting Drug/Alcohol abuse Gang involvement or affiliation Adjudicated parent Domestic violence in family Victim of abuse/ neglect Migrant (added 2010) Homeless (added 2010) Severe psychiatric or behavioral disorders (added 2010) Over-aged and under-credited (added 2011) Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-7-604.5, High-Risk students fit into at least one of the following categories:

6. Colorado AECs 72 AECs statewide o 10 serve 100 percent IEP Students o The remainder serve 95-100 percent high- risk, though with various missions o Drop-out recovery o Credit recovery o Pregnant & parenting o Transition o GED

7. Colorado AECs 72 AECs statewide o 19 are charter schools o One is run by a BOCES o One is run by the state o The remainder are run by a school district o Does not include programs within other schools

8. AEC Performance & Accountability

9. 9

10. Colorado Alternative Student Growth, Compared to Traditional High School Students: Math

11. Ideal Components of and Alternative Education Accountability System 1. Multiple measures including local academic, behavioral, mission critical, and qualitative measures of student growth and achievement 2. Weighting of measures focused centrally on growth and readiness for the next 3. Typical measures of achievement (i.e., proficiency rates) provided little weight in the overall rating. 4. All benchmarks and cut-points set by AEC normative data, which are re- evaluated on a periodic basis (e.g., every 2 or 3 years) 5. Flexibility in the system for schools with different missions or student populations to select the measures that show the schools’ success at meeting their mission and serving the population well. 6. Include a site evaluation, include critical friends, to assess the culture and functioning of the school

12. Current Alternative Accountability System in Colorado 1. Student Achievement (15 percent) Requires: Proficiency on statewide assessment Optional: Short-cycle, standardized assessments (e.g., NWEA, Scantron) 2. Student Academic Growth (35 percent) Required: CO Growth Model or Optional: Growth on Short-cycle, standardized assessments 3. Post-Secondary & Workforce Readiness (30 percent) Required: completion rate (inc. GED), drop-out rate, COACT composite score Optional: 4-year grad rate, post-grad employment/enlistment/enrollment, score on workforce readiness assessment

13. Current Alternative Accountability System in Colorado cont., 4. Student Engagement and Satisfaction (15 percent) Required: Truancy rate, attendance rate, Optional: student re-engagement, parent and/or student satisfaction, contiguous enrollment, credit/course completion

14. Ideal Components of and Alternative Education Accountability System 1. Multiple measures including local academic, behavioral, mission critical, and qualitative measures of student growth and achievement 2. Weighting of measures focused centrally on growth and readiness for the next 3. Typical measures of achievement (i.e., proficiency rates) provided little weight in the overall rating. 4. All benchmarks and cut-points set by AEC normative data, which are re- evaluated on a periodic basis (e.g., every 2 or 3 years) 5. Flexibility in the system for schools with different missions or student populations to select the measures that show the schools’ success at meeting their mission and serving the population well. 6. Include a site evaluation, include critical friends, to assess the culture and functioning of the school

15. 2011 AEC Outcomes

16. Advancing Alternative Education In Colorado: A Pilot Concept

17. STUDENTS OFF-TRACK TO GRADUATION Collaborated with Colorado Department of Education on the state alternative accountability framework, making headway towards a fair but rigorous accountability system. Supported the DPS partnership with Jobs for the Future to help DPS in their call for quality schools and build capacity and support to improve existing alternative options. Encouraged experts to give feedback on DPS’ alternative school performance framework. Initiated the concept of a state pilot, with stakeholders, to authorize high quality alternative schools based on student need. It will likely move into legislative arena this fall. Our Mission: To improve public education and drive systemic school reform in Colorado through solid research, creative dialogue and critical thinking. www.DKFoundation.org

18. The Issue: NOT ENOUGH HIGH QUALITY SCHOOL OPTIONS FOR STUDENTS SIGNIFICANTLY OFF-TRACK TO GRADUATION OR STUDENTS WHO HAVE ALREADY DROPPED OUT. BARRIERS EXIST TO CREATING A NETWORK OF QUALITY ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS ACROSS DISTRICTS.

19. Potential Solution STATE PILOT FOR “STUDENTS OF STATE INTEREST” STATE FRAMEWORK FOR UNIQUE OPERATING CONDITIONS CSI AND LOCAL DISTRICTS CAN ISSUE RFP TO ENSURE STUDENTS OFF-TRACK TO GRADUATION AND DROPOUTS HAVE ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS GOAL: PREPARE STUDENTS FOR POST- SECONDARY SUCCESS

20. Pilot Overview Colorado Department of Education (CDE) would issue charter authorizer standards and framework by which a new division of CSI and/or local school districts can issue RFPs to serve students off-track to graduation and recovered dropouts in Colorado. Up to six (three new or three existing) schools could participate in the pilot each year.

21. Pilot Overview Cont’d… RFP will provide clear and specific guidelines and design principles for which students need to be served, including: Funding, Accountability & Partnerships

22. Pilot Overview Cont’d… Incentives included for multi-district applications, including BOCES, blended models, and other strategic partnerships to reach students. Multiple schools could be authorized at one time if there is sufficient evidence this is best for students.

23. Funding Two count dates (CO currently has one funding count date) 125-150% of PPR – either as a weighted funding formula or as a categorical block grant

24. Accountability Appropriate and nuanced accountability systems will apply for providers based on which population the school intends to serve. Districts will receive state accountability ratings for both its AEC and non-AEC schools.

25. Eligible Students Those who have either dropped out from school or who are currently in school but meet the following criteria: 9 th graders who have failed 3 or more of their core courses (“repeat 9 th graders”); 16 and 17 year-olds who are more than 2 years off-track to graduation by age and credit/skill level (“young and far”); and 18+ year olds with less than half of the credits (or skill deficiencies) needed to graduate from high school.

26. Key Questions How do we define “students of state interest,” and where are the largest gaps in the available options?; How do we attract the right people / groups of people to open and operate these schools?; What are the funding needs and incentives that best serve the schools?; and How do we hold schools accountable for performance in a way that reflects the unique nature of their students and mission?

27. Contacts Kim Knous Dolan, Associate Director Donnell-Kay kknousdolan@dkfoundation.org Jim Griffin, President Colorado League of Charter Schools jgriffin@coloradoleague.org