1

How do Your State’s Policies Hold up?

Evaluating State Policies for Alternative Accountability and

Student (re)Engagement

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

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

Rating Scale

0 No statute in place and none being proposed currently

1 Statute is being proposed or has recently passed

2 Statute is in place and systems, rules are being developed

3 Statute, and systems or rules are in place

4

State Ratings

State

Definition of Alternative

SchoolsDesignation

ProcessApplicable to

all School Types

Alternative System

Flexibility in Selection of Measures

Focus on Student

Growth Over Time

Targets Based on

DataPeriodic Review TOTAL SCORE

AZ 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 21CA 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 15CO 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 24IA 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 9

MN 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6NC 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 0 17OH 3 0 0 3 0 2 3 3 14SC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4TN 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3TX 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 12WI 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 15

5

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

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

Rating Scale

-1 No, very inconsistent/not at all

+1 Yes, for some schools and districts

+2 Yes, for most or all schools and districts

8

9

CA as an ExamplePolicy Element As Written As Implemented

1. Definition 3 +2

2. Designation 3 +1

3. Open to All School Types

3 +2

4. Alt. Measures 3 -1

5. Flexibility 3 -1

6. Focus on Growth 0 -1

7. Data Based Targets

0 -1

8. Re-evaluate 0 +1

Total 15/24 16/24

10

Total Score Interpretation

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

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

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

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 leadersb. 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

Draft Reengagement Criteria

4. Multiple accountability measures4. E.G. Academic growth measures , rather than standardized test result, as

gauge of progress for alternative students5. Inclusion of more than a four year graduation rate6. 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

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 Analyticsjernst@momentum-sr.org

Nick Mathern Assoc. VP, Policy & Partnership Developmentnmathern@gatewaytocollege.org