Alternative School Accountability Examples from Colorado, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Center for American Progress

Alternative School Accountability

Examples from Colorado, Washington state and New York City

Why we do this work

“Like many students, school for me has been a mixed bag…I seriously thought I would never graduate, and I considered dropping out countless times. The Curtis was a game changer for me. My experiences have taught me how to be confident, how to overcome great obstacles step by step, and how to ask for help. I will use these skills for the resto of my life.”

Center for American Progress | Alternative School Accountability

• -Grace Marotta,

Curtis-Tufts Alternative High School graduate, 2019

Agenda

• Overview of federal policy for alternative school

accountability (Laura)

• Alternative school accountability examples from the field:
• Colorado
• Washington
• New York City
• Moderated questions
• Questions from the audience

Center for American Progress | Alternative School Accountability

60-minute session Please hold your questions until the end

Context for alternative school accountability

• Who do alternative schools typically serve?
• How do ESSA requirements account for the context of

students in alternative schools?

• What does federal law allow regarding alternative school

accountability?

Center for American Progress | Alternative School Accountability

Do the students not “fit” into the system or does the system not fit the students? –Laura Jimenez

Overview on Alternative Education Campuses in Colorado

Jessica Knevals-Watson, MPA June 2019

6

Today’s Objectives

Alternative Education Campuses in Colorado

Ø What is an Alternative Education Campus

(AEC) in Colorado?

Ø How does Colorado define a “high-risk”

student?

Ø What is the history of alternative education

in Colorado?

Ø How does Colorado measure accountability

for Alternative Education Campuses (AECs)?

Ø AEC accountability in Colorado under ESSA.

7

AEC Policy in Colorado

§ In Colorado, schools that serve primarily high-risk students are

called “Alternative Education Campuses”, or AECs for short

§ As of the 2018-19SY, Colorado had 93 AECs, which served just

• ver 20,000 students and represented 5% of schools in Colorado

§ AECs are outlined in C.R.S. 22-7-604.5 as schools:

§ (I) “Having a specialized mission and serving a special needs or at-

risk population”,

§ (V) “Having nontraditional methods of instruction delivery”, § (VI) (A) “Serving students who have severe limitations…”, and § (VI)(B) “Serving a student population in which more than 90% of the

students have an individualized education program…or meet the definition of a high-risk student”.

Alternative Education Campuses in Colorado

8

“High-Risk Student” is a student who has one or more of the following conditions:

*Added in 2010 **Added in 2011 ***Added/Modified in 2016

§

juvenile delinquent

§

dropped out of school

§

habitually truant: 4 absences in one month or 10 absences in one year***

§

expelled from school

§

history of personal drug or alcohol use

§

history of personal street gang involvement

§

history of child abuse or neglect or ward of the court***

§

has a parent or guardian in prison

§

has an IEP

§

family history of domestic violence

§

repeated school suspensions

§

parent or pregnant woman

§

migrant child*

§

homeless child

§

foster child***

§

history of mental or behavioral health issue or experienced significant trauma***

§

is over traditional school age for his or her grade level and lacks adequate credit hours for his or her grade level (high school students only)**

Enrollment Trends at Colorado AECs

Alternative Education Campuses (AECs) currently make up 2% of the total student enrollment) in Colorado. AEC schools enroll higher populations of highly at risk students.

Source: 2018 October Count

65% 13% 61% 18% 46% 10% 41% 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Students of Color Students with Disabilities Free/Reduced Lunch English Learners AECs Statewide (N Students = 20,091) Non-AECs Statewide (N Students = 853,076)

Nearly two-thirds

• f AECs in

Colorado are district-run schools. A small number

• f AECs in

Colorado are

• nline schools;

these are evenly split between charters and district-run schools.

Types of AECs in Colorado

Non-online/ Non-charter (N Schools = 65) 71% Online/ Non- charter (N Schools = 2) 2% Non-online/ Charter (N Schools = 18) 20% Online/ Charter (N Schools = 6) 7%

History of AECs in Colorado

2002

• C.R.S. 22-7-

604.5

• Established

definition of AECs

2008

• CO Coalition of

Alt Ed Campuses commissioned to establish basic framework for alt. ed.

2009

• SB 09-163, CO

Education Accountability Act

• Determined

AECs no longer exempt from accountability

2010

• School

Performance Framework (SPF) for AECs includes Academic Achievement, Academic Growth, Student Engagement, and Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness

2011

• AECs allowed to

include optional measures in School Performance Framework

2015

• HB15-1350
• Created AEC

accountability work group to refine and update the current AEC accountability system

2016

• HB16-1429

(based on work group recs)

• Modifies

minimum % of high-risk students and certain “high-risk indicators”

13

Alternative Accountability in Colorado

School and District Performance Frameworks & AEC School Performance Framework

Achieve- ment 15% Growth 35% Student Engage- ment 20% Post- secondary & Work- force Readiness 30%

Alternative Education Campuses

Achievement 40% Growth 60%

Elementary and Middle Schools

Achievement 30% Growth 40% Post- secondary & Workforce Readiness 30%

High Schools and Districts

AEC Accountability: Flexibility with Optional Measures

15

Alternative Education Campuses receive a School Performance Framework annually, similar to traditional schools. The main exception is AECs are measured on Student Engagement measure and are allowed to submit local measures to include in their performance framework.

Performance Indicator Weight State-Required Measures and Metrics Optional Measures and Metrics

E/MS HS

Academic Achievement

20% 15% CMAS/PARCC mean scale score Reading, Math, Writing, Science, PSAT mean scale score NWEA MAP, Scantron, Acuity, Galileo, Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT), Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE), STAR, and/or Accuplacer

Academic Growth

50% 35% CMAS/PARCC median growth percentiles in Reading, Math, Writing, PSAT to SAT growth NWEA MAP, Scantron, Acuity, Galileo, Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT), Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE), ACCESS, STAR, and/or Accuplacer

Student Engagement

30% 20% Attendance rate, Truancy rate Student Re-engagement, Returning students rate, Socio-Emotional or Psychological Adjustment

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness

N/A 30% Completion rate (best of 4, 5, 6,

• r 7 year rate)

Dropout rate Colorado SAT mean scale score EBRW and Math Credit/course completion, Workforce Readiness, Post-Completion Success Successful transition (for non-degree granting schools only) Graduation rate

AEC: Performance (N Schools = 31) 34% AEC: Improvement (N Schools = 39) 43% AEC: Priority Improvement (N Schools = 13) 14% AEC: Turnaround (N Schools = 8) 9%

Performance of AECs in Colorado

2018 AECs by School Plan Type

17

Federal Accountability in Colorado

AECs identified for support and improvement under ESSA*

18

78% of AECs in Colorado are identified for support and improvement under ESSA 56% for Comprehensive Support and Improvement - Low Graduation 20% for Targeted Support and Improvement 2% for Comprehensive Support and Improvement - Lowest 5 Percent

2 19 52 73

*Including 3 schools on hold

Measures by Mission reframing Career and College ready under ESSA

Comprehensive secondary schools and comprehensive low graduation rates in the Washington School Improvement Framework

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

Chris Reykdal, State Superintendent

June 2019 | 20

Vision:

All students prepared for post-secondary pathways, careers, and civic engagement.

Mission:

Transform K–12 education to a system that is centered on closing opportunity gaps and is characterized by high expectations for all students and educators. We achieve this by developing equity-based policies and supports that empower educators, families, and communities.

Values:

• Ensuring Equity
• Collaboration and Service
• Achieving Excellence through Continuous Improvement
• Focus on the Whole Child

June 2019 | 21

Each student, family, and community possesses strengths and cultural knowledge that benefit their peers, educators, and schools. Ensuring educational equity:

• Goes beyond equality; it requires education leaders to examine the ways current

policies and practices result in disparate outcomes for our students of color, students living in poverty, students receiving special education and English Learner services, students who identify as LGBTQ+, and highly mobile student populations.

• Requires education leaders to develop an understanding of historical contexts; engage

students, families, and community representatives as partners in decision-making; and actively dismantle systemic barriers, replacing them with policies and practices that ensure all students have access to the instruction and support they need to succeed in

• ur schools.

Equity Statement

June 2019 | 22

System & School Improvement

Study

Data & Implementation Team

Support

K-12 System Supports Team

Serve

School Improvement Team

Elevate

Policy for System and School Improvement

June 2019 | 23

Improvement Mindset

23

Everyone is in the business

• f continuous

improvement.

Schools are identified for support to improve student learning— they are not identified as failing.

Different needs require different supports. Change takes time.

The arc of progress: Honor what works + explore

• pportunities to innovate

June 2019 | 24

What ESSA Required..

1) Need to DIFFERENTIATE schools annually § Based on indicators § Weight the indicators § Include differentiating schools where any subgroup is consistently underperforming 2) Need to IDENTIFY schools for comprehensive support (at least once every 3 years) § Lowest performing 5% § High schools with grad rate <67% § Other? 3) Need to identify schools for targeted support

June 2019 | 25

Grade Span Academic Indicators School Quality or Student Success Indicators Elementary Proficiency on statewide assessments in ELA and Math Academic growth as measured by Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) English Learner Progress Chronic Absenteeism Middle High Proficiency on statewide assessments on ELA and Math Graduation Rate English Learner Progress Chronic Absenteeism 9th Graders on Track Advanced Course- Taking (dual credit)

Where we ended up…

2 5

June 2019 | 26

38% of Washington’s schools identified for support

June 2019 | 27

School Improvement Data

June 2019 | 28

Questions to inform the process

• What structures can we put in place to ensure alternative schools are

appropriately held accountable?

• What measures can we consider that accurately reflect the quality of

alternative settings?

• How can we use alternative accountability as a driver for continuous

improvement?

June 2019 | 29

Who attends these schools?

Disproportionately they are…

• Students in poverty
• Students who are overage and under credit
• Students who experience homelessness
• Students with mental illness (anxiety and depression)
• Students with disabilities
• Students involved in the Juvenile Justice system
• Students with high adverse childhood experiences (ACES)
• Students and families that don’t find success in traditional education

June 2019 | 30

6/18/19

30

June 2019 | 31

Measures by Mission

• How does the mission of the school align to the current

measures?

• What other measures might adequately address instruction

type, environment and student population of the school?

• What supports could be offered to meet the unique needs of the

school?

• Use measures by mission to inform us if the students served are

becoming career and college ready.

June 2019 | 32

The work ahead

• School types-
• clarifying definitions
• Policy and procedure review-
• Implications from definitions work
• Attribution, when all students choice into a school when should the

school be responsible for the outcomes

• Incentivizing district participation in alternatives by disaggregating

Graduation rates balanced with holding all school accountable

• Stakeholder engagement

June 2019 | 33

Considerations for Future Model

Looking for metrics that make sense

• Growth
• Mobility Rates
• One year Graduation Rate
• Extended Graduation Rate
• Level of Credit Deficiency –at enrollment and as progress monitoring
• Retention Rates
• Barrier Assessments and Mitigations
• Perceptual Data on School Engagement and Meaningful Learning

A Blueprint for Alternative Accountability

Michael Rothman, Eskolta School Research and Design

35

Eskolta School Research & Design

A professional development NYC-based nonprofit.

Eskolta’s Work

Engage teams of educators for sustained improvement in schools through a structured process to surface and support excellence. Support districts to change policies and practices to empower continuous improvement and better serve over- age and under-credited youth. Document analysis and learnings and shares reflections with districts, schools and networks to improve practice. In schools In school systems In the field

# # ? ?

36

These slides share preliminary analysis in order to raise some provocative questions to push thinking. One set of data represents all students who entered NYC high schools in 2011 as reported in published study. Additional analysis used data for 2017-18 accountability for all students in NYC high schools (cohorts of ~70,000).

Equitable accountability for alternative HS: An investigation…

? # # # #

37

The Outcomes? Easily Missed

59,386 students 6,871 stay in traditional HS 1,860 transfer to alternative HS

13.2% graduate 88.7% graduate 29.9% graduate by 2011 by 2014

Not 2+ years behind by age 17 2+ years behind 8,731 students

Source: Blueprint for Accountability Systems for Alternative High Schools

We analyzed the 2007 cohort of NYC high school students.

The Starting Point? Notably Behind.

38

In the cohort studied at time

• f enrollment:

77.7% were chronically

absent.

55.4% are already in third

• r later year of high school.

39

Comparison: For students who enroll because

predicted outcomes are weak, against what benchmark will outcomes be compared?

Attribution: For students who transfer from struggles,

which school is responsible when?

Cohort: For students who arrive at a school from

various paths, who are counted at the same time?

Calculation: For students for whom traditional

learning paths have failed, how do we calculate success?

We need a more appropriate bar, not a lower one.

Comparison to Similar Students

40

Alternative high schools seek students who have struggled in the past, but traditional indicators are not disaggregated.

Comparing All Students Traditional HS 79.8% Alternative HS 50.9% Students Who Are OAUC before Age 18 Traditional HS 50.0% Alternative HS 43.9%

Gap in median rates drops from 29.1 points to 6.1.

Students with Low Attendance (<85%) before 10th Grade Traditional HS 40.6% Alternative HS 42.3%

Gap in median rates disappears.

Graduation Rates Graduation Rates Graduation Rates

Attribution of Transfer

41

Traditionally, students who transfer are removed from the sending school cohort. Should accountability be for all students who have attended the school?

Transfers Count Only in Destination School Traditional HS 79.8% Alternative HS 50.9% Transfers Included for Sending School Traditional HS 65.2% Alternative HS 47.4%

Gap in median rates drops from 29.1 points to 17.8.

Graduation Rates Graduation Rates

Cohort Groups

42

Different cohorts may make sense for different types of schools.

Group that Entered 9th Grade 6 Yrs. Ago Traditional HS 50.0% Group that Entered This School 4 Yrs. Ago Alternative HS 42.1% Group that Exited This School This Year Alternative HS 48.0%

Graduation Rates for OAUC Students

Rates are similar. Cohorts by entry or exit are more tangible for schools serving students from multiple 9th-grade classes. Cohort by 9th-grade year is logical for traditional high schools.

Psychology of Learning

43

Aside from elegant mathematics, what effect are all our judgments having on alternative high school students? § “Stereotype threat” research suggests negative effects on students who have repeatedly failed § Testing is not a “neutral event.” Every assessment of an adolescent is a reminder that they are being judged. § Interrupted schooling is itself an indicator of struggles that may not be evident in other data § Continuing to collect the same data in the same way in “second chance” schools may be squandering that chance.

Calculation

44

How can we rethink our mathematics to be cognizant of our students mindsets? § Standardized scoring systems applied to locally-designed assessments (instead of standardized assessments with locally-designed curriculum) can reshape climate § Performance-based assessments (instead of standardized exams) can convey a different message about how students are being assessed

Rethinking Accountability

45

A few questions to ask ourselves when holding alternative high schools

• accountable. What if we…?

Comparison: …disaggregate results for OAUC by age 17 and low attendance by grade 10? Attribution: …hold schools responsible for transfers

and determine ways to share responsibility?

Cohort: …group students in ways that make sense for

the receiving school, such as by entry or exit?

Calculation: …carefully consider how our methods of

designing & administering assessments have a psychological impact on students?

Moderated Questions

Balance fairness and rigor How do you set a high enough bar for student outcomes that also accounts for their credit accumulation progress, attendance, etc.? Authentic measurement How do you measure authentically, rather than adapt traditional accountability indicators? Meaningful interventions What interventions are you finding effective at improving

• utcomes?

Center for American Progress | Alternative School Accountability

Audience Questions

Center for American Progress | Alternative School Accountability

Thank You

Laura Jimenez (moderator) Director of Standards and Accountability, Center for American Progress ljimenez@americanprogress.org Jessica Watson Accountability and Policy Manager, Colorado Department of Education Watson_J@cde.state.co.us Laurie Shannon Program Supervisor: Graduation, Reengagement, and School Improvement laurie.shannon@k12.wa.us Michael Rothman Executive Director, Eskolta School Research and Design mrothman@eskolta.org

Center for American Progress | Alternative School Accountability