1. How do Your State’s Policies Hold up? Evaluating State Policies for Alternative Accountability and Student (re)Engagement 1

2. 1. A clear and tight definition of which schools qualify as alternative, limited to only those that are most exceptional; 2. A specific process for how schools apply to become alternative schools, including roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders involved in the process; 3. A policy that allows all school types to qualify, using the same application process; 4. A call for a separate accountability system the includes the use of alternative outcome measures and Policy Elements Supporting Effective Alternative Accountability 2

3. 5. Allows for schools to select measures that match the mission of the school, 6. Has a focus on the individual growth of students, and 7. Specifies the use of data from comparable students and school for setting benchmarks and targets for success; and 8. Requires the system to reviewed periodically. Policy Elements Supporting Effective Alternative Accountability 3

4. Rating Scale 0No statute in place and none being proposed currently 1Statute is being proposed or has recently passed 2Statute is in place and systems, rules are being developed 3Statute, and systems or rules are in place 4

5. State Ratings State Definition of Alternative Schools Designation Process Applicable to all School Types Alternative System Flexibility in Selection of Measures Focus on Student Growth Over Time Targets Based on Data Periodic Review TOTAL SCORE AZ 33330333 21 CA 33333000 15 CO 33333333 24 IA 33300000 9 MN 33000000 6 NC 33333200 17 OH 30030233 14 SC 22000000 4 TN 30000000 3 TX 33330000 12 WI 33333000 15 5

6. 1. Implementing regulations that include a complete and tight definition of eligibility for alternative accountability, and a clear review process to ensure consistency across application; 2. State system as implemented results in seamless allocation of responsibility among school, district/authorizer, and SEA at relevant spots within the system; 3. In practice, charter schools have a clear path to apply for and obtain designation as a school that is eligible for alternative accountability; 4. Regulations are established that clearly identify allowable alternative measures and metrics for AECs; Evidence of Implementation with Fidelity 6

7. 5. Regulations proscribe a measurement selection process that involves schools and districts/authorizers working together to reach consensus on measures and metrics the school is to be held accountable for; 6. The implemented framework of accountability includes a weighting structure that emphasizes individual student growth (broadly defined); 7. Cut-points for meeting criteria for accreditation or renewal are based on data that shows that the established cut-points are attainable by a least a fraction of AECs within the state and/or nation; and 8. Consistent application of state functions to regulate and ensure rigorous and consistent implementation of both the process for designating eligible schools and the alternative accountability system. Evidence of Implementation with Fidelity 7

8. Rating Scale No, very inconsistent/not at all +1Yes, for some schools and districts +2 Yes, for most or all schools and districts 8

9. CA as an Example 9 Policy ElementAs WrittenAs Implemented 1. Definition3+2 2. Designation3+1 3. Open to All School Types 3+2 4. Alt. Measures3 5. Flexibility3 6. Focus on Growth0 7. Data Based Targets 0 8. Re-evaluate0+1 Total15/2416/24

10. Total Score Interpretation 10 Highly Effective Alternative Accountability Policies and Systems in Place 19—24 Moderately Effective Alternative Accountability Policies and Systems in Place 12-18 Minimally Effective Alternative Accountability Policies and Systems in Place 7-11 Ineffective Alternative Accountability Policies or Systems in Place 1-6

11. Reengagement Policy Students must be in school in order to benefit from good accountability policy.

12. Evaluating Reengagement Policy What are indicators of state policy for addressing reengagement that result in success for alternative education? What criteria should be in place for successful policy?

13. 13 Draft Reengagement Criteria 1.Districts maintain responsibility to serve all students under the age of 21 to complete a high school diploma or equivalent secondary credential a.Explicit political support for re-engagement from key state leaders b.Language calls for multiple robust pathways to high school diploma beyond GED prep and/or credit recovery c.Maximizes opportunities for all students to attain high school diploma 2.State funding support for implementation a.Equitable funding options b.Sustainability of funding 3.Inclusion of case management or comparable individualized student support services

14. 14 Draft Reengagement Criteria 4.Multiple accountability measures 4.E.G. Academic growth measures, rather than standardized test result, as gauge of progress for alternative students 5.Inclusion of more than a four year graduation rate 6.Inclusion of measures of academic growth and holistic measures of alternative students’ progress to graduation (attendance, social- emotional, college readiness) 5.Feasibility of implementation (if new) a.In practice b.In financial costs 6.Effectiveness of policy or implementation (if existing) a.Is there any assessment or evaluation of policy in effect b.Options for assessing effectiveness

15. Reengagement Policy: Strategies and Advocacy Which states are exemplars, leading efforts to encourage reengagement? Which states have recently passed legislation which creates policy or program openings? Which states are good candidates for advocacy?

16. Contact Us Jody Ernst, Ph.D. Vice President, Research and Policy Analytics jernst@momentum-sr.org Nick Mathern Assoc. VP, Policy & Partnership Development nmathern@gatewaytocollege.org nmathern@gatewaytocollege.org 16