The Children Left Behind: Accountability for Schools Serving High Risk StudentsJim Griffin and Jody ErnstColorado League of Charter Schools

Kim Knous-DolanDonnell-Kay Foundation

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

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

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 IEPsB. 95 percent students identified as High-

RiskC. 95 percent that meet either A or B*

How is High-Risk Defined?

Prior dropoutAdjudicationExpulsionChronic suspensionsPregnant/parentingDrug/Alcohol abuseGang involvement or

affiliation Adjudicated

parent

Domestic violence in family

Victim of abuse/ neglectMigrant (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:

Colorado AECs

•72 AECs statewideo 10 serve 100 percent IEP Studentso The remainder serve 95-100 percent

high-risk, though with various missionso Drop-out recoveryo Credit recoveryo Pregnant & parentingo Transitiono GED

Colorado AECs•72 AECs statewideo 19 are charter schoolso One is run by a BOCESo One is run by the stateo The remainder are run by a school

districto Does not include programs within other

schools

AEC Performance & Accountability

9

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

7th 8th 9th 10th0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2007 Median SGP, Math, by School Type and Grade

High-Risk AEC Traditional School

7th 8th 9th 10th0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 Median SGP, Math, by School Type and Grade

High-Risk AEC Traditional School

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

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

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

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

2011 AEC Outcomes

Plan Type/Rating Freq %Performance 24 33.3Improvement 19 26.4Priority Improvement 22 30.6Turnaround 7 9.7

Total 72

Advancing Alternative Education In Colorado: A Pilot Concept

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Eligible Students Those who have either dropped out from school or

who are currently in school but meet the following criteria:

•9th graders who have failed 3 or more of their core courses (“repeat 9th 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.

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?

Contacts

Kim Knous Dolan, Associate Director Donnell-Kay

kknousdolan@dkfoundation.org

Jim Griffin, PresidentColorado League of Charter Schools

jgriffin@coloradoleague.org