the children left behind: accountability for schools serving high risk students jim griffin and jody...
TRANSCRIPT
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 IEPs
B. 95 percent students identified as High-Risk
C. 95 percent that meet either A or B*
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:
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
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
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 33.3
Improvement 19 26.4
Priority Improvement 22 30.6
Turnaround 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
Jim Griffin, President
Colorado League of Charter Schools