Alternative Accountability Policy Forum

2012 A LTER NATI V E ACCOUNTA BILIT Y POLICY FORUM

S U M M A R Y & R E C OM M E N DAT ION S

1

EX ECUTI V E SUMM A RY The School for Integrated Academics and Technologies (SIATech) and the Reaching At-Promise Students Association (RAPSA) hosted the Alternative Accountability Policy Forum in San Diego in November, 2012. Educational leaders from 12 states and Washington, D.C. chose to attend this event which included presenters and practitioners who serve reengaged dropouts and other at-risk students to discuss what accountability policies are most appropriate.

In addition to individual schools, the Policy Forum had representatives from departments of education, charter associations, and a number of nonprofit organizations. Among the high quality presenters were nationally recognized experts Dr. Jody Ernst (Colorado), Matt LaPlante (Utah), Bob Rath (Our Piece of the Pie), and Dr. Russ Rumberger (California Dropout Research Project). The Forum was structured so that each session included an expert presentation, small group discussions by practitioners, and a facilitated discussion among all participants of what policy directions made sense.

BEST PR ACTICES FOR DROPOUT RECOVERY A portion of the Forum focused on best practices for dropout recovery with discussion of ways that state and federal policies can better support programs and schools that serve these students.

Best practices that warrant supportive state and federal policies include: • Open entry / open exit enrollment • Individualized learning pedagogies tailored to student needs and goals • Technology and innovative modalities like blended learning and project-based learning • Competency-based system • Access to and/or partnerships for wrap-around services for students

APPROPRIATE ACCOUNTABILITY METRICS FOR DROPOUT RECOVERY The Forum advocated for appropriate accountability metrics for dropout recovery high schools. Many current accountability metrics are inaccurately skewed due to the unique nuances of dropout recovery high schools (e.g., open entry / open exit enrollment).

Arguments for alternative accountability are not an effort to avoid data but rather arguments for appropriate data that would help schools, staff, and students improve as well as provide accurate evidence of a dropout recovery program’s quality to authorizers, educational agencies, and policymakers.

The components of an appropriate accountability system for dropout recovery would amend existing state and federal policies to include multiple measures of:

•

Academic metrics that focus on individual student growth and learning gains

•

College- and career-readiness metrics

•

Noncognitive (psychosocial) growth metrics

•

Community engagement and responsibility metrics

•

School-level metrics of re-engagement and a previous dropout’s length of stay in the school

•

Graduation rates beyond the 4-year cohort for dropout recovery schools (e.g., give weight to length of stay in the program or combination rates that include sums of graduates, completers, still enrolled, etc.)

•

State reporting systems that accurately accept data from and report data on dropout recovery high schools which are open entry / open exit with competency-based framework

CONCLUSION Federal and state policy support of the best practices and an appropriate accountability system for dropout recovery schools would reduce the existing disincentives to dropout recovery. This effort would improve outcomes for re-engaged students by placing emphases on academic growth, noncognitive growth, community responsibility, and career- and college-readiness. On a school-level, this effort would provide a more transparent accountability system that more accurately measures the quality of dropout recovery high schools to inform internal and external stakeholders.

The consequences of the dropout crisis impact all citizens. The Alliance for Excellent Eduction estimates that if the 1.3 million high school dropouts from the Class of 2010 had earned their diplomas instead of dropping out, the U.S. economy would have seen an additional $337 billion in wages over these students’ lifetimes. The country can expect to lose well over $300 billion in potential earnings next year as well, due to dropouts from the Class of 2011. If this annual pattern is allowed to continue, 13 million students will drop out of school during the next decade at a cost to the nation of more than $3 trillion. We must end disincentives to dropout recovery today!

The full Policy Forum agenda and presentations are available online at: www.siatech.org/policyforum

ÂŽ

A Report of Recommendations from the 2012 Alternative Accountability Policy Forum, sponsored by the Reaching At-Promise Students Association and the School for Integrated Academics and Technologies.

Prepared by: Ernest E. Silva and Linda Leigh

C ONT E NT S

EX ECUTIVE SUMMARY PR EFACE............................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION . . ................................................ 2 I: SHAR ING BEST PR ACTICES. . ........................... 3

Serving the Most Challenging Students: What Works with Dropouts........................................ 3

Participant Recommendations..................................... 4

Accountability for High Risk Students and Graduation Goals for Reengaged Dropouts.......... 6

Participant Recommendations..................................... 7

II: NEXT STEPS............................................................... 12 III: RESOURCES.............................................................. 13 PRESENTER BIOGRAPHIES......................................... 14 ABOUT US....................................................................... 16 SPONSORS....................................................................... 17

PR E FAC E

Matthew LaPlante is a Utah State University professor of journalism and communications and the editor of NoDropouts.org. He is a former war correspondent and an award-winning journalist.

Matthew LaPlante spoke at the 2012 Alternative Accountability Policy Forum about how to effectively communicate the promise, successes, and challenges of dropout recovery. He advocated for increased collaboration, the need to tell one’s story, and the acceptance that success is not always obvious in dropout recovery.

One key message encouraged education leaders to stop talking about what other people, groups, organizations, and schools are doing wrong.

“We all tell ourselves we’re in this for the kids, but then we fight over them like drug dealers fighting over street corners. We see them as roaming pockets of funding instead of students who need to be served,” he said. “If we really care more about students than our own interests, we’ve got to stop trying to undercut other programs and other solutions. And every presentation, every opportunity you have to share your story, should begin this way: ‘This is part of the solution. It is not the solution.’”

LaPlante invigorated Forum attendees by acknowledging something that those engaged in the work of dropout recovery understand: It’s really hard work — and even the most successful programs will have a high rate of student turnover. “We need to own our failures,” he said. “We need to do this in order to communicate our challenges.”

LaPlante emphasized the importance of knowing one’s audience when explaining dropout recovery. By remembering that not everyone understands education, let alone the specific field of dropout recovery, one can overcome a key barrier to communication.

Matthew LaPlante

“When you are in the middle of something, it’s hard to see how people view it from the outside looking in,” he said. “And so often times, we forget that it’s not always obvious. And so the questions people ask seem either ignorant or mean-spirited or unduly skeptical or even cynical. And sometimes they are. But we all have to rise above that.”

1

I N T RODUC T ION

On November 16-17, 2012, the School for Integrated Academics and Technologies (SIATech) and the Reaching At-Promise Schools Association (RAPSA) hosted the Alternative Accountability Policy Forum in San Diego. Education leaders from 12 states and Washington D.C. chose to attend this event which included presenters and practitioners who serve reengaged dropouts and other atrisk students to discuss what accountability policies are most appropriate.

There are a number of ways of describing the students that the attending schools and organizations serve. Some refer to the students as recovered dropouts, highly or most at-risk, opportunity youth, and/or over-aged and under-credited. RAPSA uses the term “atpromise” for these students as a cultural mindset that while the young people may not have historically experienced academic success, they are now back on-track to graduate. Rather than viewing the students as at-risk of failure, they are deemed at-promise of success.

For the most part, the schools at the 2012 Policy Forum served students 16 to 24 years of age who were working toward a high school diploma. Often these students are from very low-income households and have been subject to a variety of “risk” factors – physical abuse, incarceration, homelessness, medical issues, abandonment, substance abuse, and gang involvement. Usually, these students are far below grade level and have missed significant periods of school attendance. They typically come from very mobile families and have attended multiple high schools.

Participants represented both charter and noncharter schools from around the country. In addition to individual schools, the Policy Forum had representatives from the Michigan Department of Education, the California and Colorado charter associations, universities, the California State Assembly Education Committee staff, county offices of education, and a number of nonprofit organizations serving these at promise students. Among the high quality presenters were nationally recognized experts Jody Ernst (Colorado), Matt LaPlante (Utah), Bob Rath (Our Piece of the Pie), and Russ Rumberger (California Dropout Research Project).

There were five general sessions: best educational practices for at-promise students, accountability options, relevant professional development, graduation rate goals, and advocacy strategies for schools and organizations serving at-promise students. The Forum was structured so that each session began with an expert presentation. All participants worked in small group discussions on the key issues from the presentation. Finally an expert facilitator led a whole group discussion to identify consensus on the most appropriate policy directions.

This report is a summary of the key points and recommendations of those sessions. It is intended to continue the conversation about what educational policies are appropriate for serving the most at risk students. Advocacy groups at the National level recognize the nature of the dropout crisis, however neither Federal nor State policies have sufficiently incorporated solutions that stem from practitioners in the field who work to reengage and retain At-Promise students. The findings from the Alternative Accountability Policy Forum capture some of the best thinking from these educational leaders.

2

I : S H A R I NG B E S T PR AC T IC E S

Serving the Most Challenging Students: What Works with Dropouts The Forum kicked off with a session focused on best practices. This was a dynamic presentation followed by a lively discussion among participants of the best practices at their respective schools, programs, and organizations. Lindsay Fondow1 of Shearwater Education Foundation (Missouri) and Bob Rath of Our Piece of the Pie (Connecticut) co-presented “Serving the Most Challenging Students: What Works with Dropouts.” Many of the presented best practices were shared by attendees.

The Shearwater curriculum includes 21 competencies aligned to state standards, and students must demonstrate mastery of them in order to graduate. This competency-based education pedagogy in lieu of traditional seat time minute accounting was approved via waiver by the Missouri State Board of Education.

The school focuses on older students (17-21) and provides opportunities for dual enrollment.

Shearwater collaboratively develops curriculum and uses a learning management system to allow teachers to conduct detailed performance analysis of each student’s learning gains. The program takes a rubric-based approach to grading that measures student progression in each standard by a numeric scale, rather than traditional A – F grading. Shearwater ensures each student understands the explicit learning objectives and provides multiple pathways for demonstrating competency. Shearwater uses technology and anytime, anywhere learning to enable each student to control the pace of their individual lesson, as well as the path of instruction that makes sense for their specific needs.

Like most of the programs represented, Shearwater also provides a range of Dr. Russell Rumberger student support services for its students beyond high school diplomas. These support services include: strengths-based assessment; weekly counseling; college and career counseling; support groups; life skills training; and service referrals for housing, health, mental health and substance abuse issues.

Our Piece of the Pie® is a youth development organization focused on 14-24 year old students in urban settings. In 2009, OPP and Hartford Public Schools launched Opportunity High School, a partnership school for over-aged and under-credited youth. One best practice is the use of blended learning to optimize personalized instruction for each student. In addition to more traditional curriculum, students participate in project-based learning that assists with workforce development (e.g., student understanding of importance of regular attendance, appropriate dress, and the ability to work with others). The multitude of learning options, like online courses, community service, apprenticeships, and independent study, increase the schools’ rigor and relevance. Community and parent engagement are important. The school works to integrate an understanding of the value of learning with the student’s career goals and place in the community. The provision of support services like transportation and counseling help ensure students remain in school. The instructional approach described by Rath included many of the components utilized by other practitioners: extended learning time; mastery-based student progression; and a small school environment.2 A final practice with important policy implications is adequate funding. Rath mentioned three specific examples of state or district funding for dropout recovery and other At-Promise students. Oklahoma provides specific funding for alternative programs serving At-Promise students while Minnesota has developed a weighted student formula to serve reengaged dropouts and other At-Promise students. The Hartford Public Schools in Connecticut have developed a “recuperative weighting” system to increase funding available for some over-age, under-credited youth.

1

Full biographies of presenters can be found in pages 14 and 15.

Bob Rath has recently published a paper outlining some of the best practices utilized by his program and others across the country.

That report is available at: http://bit.ly/XU2NZN 2

3

Participant Recommendations After discussing practices being used across the country and identifying some commonalities, the participants had several recommendations for Federal and State policies to encourage dropout recovery and prevention at the school level.

1. ADOPT POLICIES TO SUPPORT COMPETENCY-BASED INSTRUCTION Open Entry/Open Exit Enrollment: One important practice to reengage students is to allow students to begin instruction as needed to complete high school. Enrollment without regard to the point of time in the school year was a nearly universal practice in successful schools serving At-Promise students. However, open entry/open exit enrollment has ramifications for a variety of federal and state accountability mandates. For most states, the data collection process and reporting assumes all students begin instruction at the same time with a point in time “information day.” There is also an assumption that all students are at the same academic level as other students based on their age or grade. It would be beneficial to compare recovered dropouts by accounting for time out of school and/ or other factors on an individual student basis. States with limited enrollment funding schemes, such as funding only the students present on a single day, discourage the reengagement of students who have dropped out.

Allow alternatives to seat-time instruction and funding: Most of the schools participating in the Forum utilize a “competency-based” system rather than traditional seat time or Carnegie units.3 In a competencybased school, a student moves on by demonstrating competence or mastery rather than by completing a grade level or minutes in a given course. Students who have previously dropped out of school or who are at risk of dropping out need an alternative instructional strategy rather than being saddled with a class or cohort based assumption. Competency-based instruction provides meaningful flexibility for instructional delivery and the demonstration of individual learning gains.

Allow Individualized Learning Pedagogies: While there were a variety of individual learning strategies reflected by the participating schools, there were also common elements discussed by classroom based schools, online schools, and blended learning schools. One of these was the need for individual learning plans for each student. In a competency-based, open entry/open exit environment, schools need to recognize each individual student’s learning needs. At-promise students’ needs vary from remediation to acceleration. A focus on appropriate assessment to formulate an individualized learning plan and to measure student growth on that plan is key. Appropriate assessment in this context is not often available through statewide grade level cohort testing.

Schools that are successful with this approach utilize assessments geared to the curriculum and to a student’s mastery of it at the individual student’s pace.

Individualized learning, like the first two best practices (open entry/open exit and competency based instruction), allows for true mastery of a subject by providing the opportunity for further instruction where a student has not demonstrated competency. A student does not fail, but receives further instruction in areas where they demonstrate weakness. The implications of this approach are broad. For example, in an individual growth model the individual student is praised for progress in learning rather than receiving an abstract normed score on a state level test. A students’ individual progress can be reflected back in smaller increments of learning gains to increase student confidence.

Finally, focus on individual learning growth provides schools serving at promise students with a broader array of metrics than are typically given on a statewide standardized test. The student’s growth can reflect academics as well as attendance, behavior and other attributes necessary for school and career success.

3

The “Carnegie Unit” approach is based on a 1908 strategy for measuring learning by the number of minutes in a classroom.

4

2. USE APPROPRIATE DATA IN ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS In some policy debates, there is an erroneous assumption that alternative accountability means avoidance of data. The Policy Forum participants eagerly desired data–appropriate data–that would help schools, staff, and students improve. As Bob Rath commented, “Data is the flashlight, not the hammer.”

In developing competency-based individual learning programs, participants highlighted the importance of developing baseline data upon enrollment and ongoing assessment at regular intervals (e.g., 90-day intervals). State policies should support schools using assessment to measure student growth and drive instruction.

There was significant discussion of the numerous current levels of state and federal requirements for data that are not entirely accurate or informative. This places undue strain on districts and schools. Many voiced the importance of funding and developing data systems that would be relevant for dropout recovery. Meaningful data systems would be available at the individual student level to improve student performance, inform teaching, and communicate school success to school leaders and other stakeholders.

The federal government and many states have adopted “similar schools” indices that focus on poverty and ethnicity among other factors. While these factors are important, a significant factor that is not included in these indices is whether students have previously dropped out. Federal and state policy should recognize the circumstances of these students and begin to collect data that will help identify promising practices.

3. ENCOUR AGE THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY AND RELEVANT MODALITIES Policy Forum participants provided a range of creative use of modalities that are less common among traditional high schools. The use of technology both in and out of a classroom was widespread. Many of the programs utilized blended learning with students both engaging with a teacher in a classroom and utilizing curriculum online. There is a great deal of research and materials available on the use of blended learning. Other common modalities in use are employment skills training. Some of the schools work directly with Federal and State job skills programs while others have developed their own methods of teaching workplace skills. One policy criticism is that this critical “soft skills” development is not measured in state testing.

Another common modality is project based learning. Some programs offer students the opportunity to combine workplace learning with in class instruction others offer other alternatives to project and performance based learning. There are few State Policies that support these endeavors (Pennsylvania) or that recognize them in lieu of cohort testing approaches.

Dr. Jody Ernst

5

Policy makers need to provide greater flexibility in the use of online tools by schools serving At-Promise students. While some states (Missouri) have begun to recognize the need to provide a reliable funding stream for competency based learning and other nontraditional modalities, many states remain slow to develop funding mechanisms for asynchronous learning models.

4. PROVIDE ACCESS TO A BROAD R ANGE OF STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES Participants attributed program success to the ability to provide a range of support services. Often referred to as “wraparound” services, the concept is that the students in these schools have a number of life issues to overcome in order to be successful in a classroom. Without additional support, school will continue to be a lower priority than survival. Policies should encourage and resource school efforts to provide wraparound services through partnerships and all available means.

5. SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF WELL-TR AINED, SPECIALIZED STAFF The schools participating identified several professional development needs specific to their programs. All staff need to understand how to work with the unique and often intense needs of the population served by the particular school. Training in both curriculum delivery and assessment for an open entry/open exit competency-based model is need. Staff need to be trained in the documentation of support services and interventions required for students. Some staff need to be prepared to serve specific student needs in reading and learning English. Certain staff need a high level of skill in the challenging data systems among the federal, state and individual school requirements. All of these professional development needs are heightened for dropout recovery schools and necessitate additional resources and time.

Accountability for High Risk Students and Graduation Goals for Reengaged Dropouts A range of alternative accountability measures should be used in combination with or as a replacement to traditional accountability systems including graduation rates formulas.

Dr. Jody Ernst explored specific components of alternative accountability programs that she has developed in Colorado and other states. Eligible schools in Colorado, called Alternative Education Campuses (AEC), must include 90% of their students in one or more of eleven categories. These categories include: former dropouts; pregnant and parenting teens; students with chronic behavioral problems; students with substance abuse issues; adjudicated or incarcerated youth; students that have fallen far behind; students with histories of homelessness, abuse, and neglect; recent, late migrants; students with emotional and/or psychological disorders; and the otherwise disenfranchised students. Other states have more narrow lists. This is a broad set of categories. However, Colorado’s AEC students shared many academic characteristics with other states’ At-Promise programs. Fifty five percent qualified as Seniors; 43% were over-age and credit deficient; and AEC students averaged three years behind grade level in math and language arts.

Ernst recommends the following ideal components for an alternative accountability system. There should be multiple measures that include academic, behavioral, and qualitative measures of student growth and achievement. Measures should be weighted so that the student and school can focus on growth and readiness for college, career, or perhaps, reintegration into high school, and inversely, typical measures of achievement should be given less weight. Finally, there should be flexibility for schools with different missions or student populations to select measures that most accurately reflect performance meeting their mission and/or student population.

Using multiple indicators to determine the success of a school requires at least three metrics: academic achievement, academic growth, and post-secondary readiness. Short assessment cycles and local administration provide the flexibility needed to meet student needs.

Readiness measures include graduation rate, workforce readiness, and post-secondary enrollment. For growth measures and readiness indicators, Dr. Ernst explained that weighting should emphasize student learning. In her example, academic growth received a 35% weight while academic achievement received 15%.

6

The Colorado AEC model also emphasizes the use of actual data from the student population served to establish benchmarks for schools. Dr. Ernst recommends using national or statewide data when possible. For example, a relevant metric for dropout recovery schools may be continued enrollment while a relevant metric for college preparation high schools would be college enrollment.

Dr. Ernst’s presentation underscored a critical facet of state and federal accountability debates. Any policies outlining the structure and function of an alternative accountability system must recognize the dual purposes of education accountability: analyzing student-level and school-level performance. It is important that these two sets of metrics provide accurate, reliable, and appropriately informative data.

The second presenter in this section, Dr. Russell Rumberger, has researched and published extensively on the dropout crisis and how graduation goals, rates, and data can be improved. Dr. Rumberger deconstructed the dichotomy of performance accountability and graduation rates. He explained the macroeconomic importance of reengaging dropouts and discussed the limits of current data utilized by State accountability systems. Of particular note was his explanation of the importance of utilizing noncognitive measures of student success in the context of dropouts. Much of his presentation reflected ongoing research and evolving perspectives that will be important in the development of future alternative accountability policy.

Rumberger noted that most existing accountability systems are limited both by what they measure and how they utilize measurement.

Typically systems rely on standardized tests and graduation and/or dropout rates. They are limited by the lack of student performance data upon entering a school; failure to reflect the time a student is in a given school; and do not account for a prior school’s impact on the student. Instead they often hold the new school accountable for the past school’s failure.

His presentation called for expanding the goals and indicators used for reengaged dropouts and other highly at risk students by adding both student academic engagement and progress as well as noncognitive skills. Indicators of academic engagement and progress include: school attendance, grade retention, performance in a given course as an indication that a student is on-track, and the undertaking of rigorous coursework. Metrics for assessing noncognitive skills include: the school’s climate as supportive of learning, the maintenance of discipline so that all students can engage in learning, the social and emotional learning of students, the demonstration of self-regulation by students, maintenance of students’ physical and mental health, and measurements of student motivation, tenacity, trustworthiness, and perseverance.

Participant Recommendations 6. UTILIZE MULTIPLE MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE FOR SCHOOLS SERVING HIGH RISK STUDENTS One common interest of participants was the need for multiple metrics and measurements of student and school success. Many of the schools in attendance serve students who have left traditional high schools and are both far below grade level and not reflected in standardized cohort based assessments. The interest was keen in developing Federal and State policies which promote a variety of measurements reflecting academics; career and college readiness; and psycho-social growth of the students served. Appropriate measurements should also reflect the difference in pedagogies used by the schools serving At-Promise students including project-based assessments.

There were also concerns expressed about the development and selection of metrics for At-Promise students. Among these were that assessments should be both research based and valid for the population served. Many assessments are developed for a grade level cohort without refinement to address the challenges faced by reengaged students. Such challenges include limited time in school, language proficiency, and cultural differences.

A third major interest was recognition that appropriate metrics should evaluate both student outcomes and the school’s impact on the reengaged student. Not all traditional accountability measures recognize the distinctions between school- and student-level needs.

7

7. ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS SHOULD FOCUS ON INDIVIDUAL STUDENT GROWTH Many of the participants recognized a need to measure individual student growth in academic subjects (e.g., math; language).

Individual growth measures focus on each student’s learning gains from the time they enroll and are first assessed for baseline learning to the time of each subsequent assessment. There were different approaches to subsequent assessment ranging from fixed times (i.e., every 90 days) to assessments given at the end of a course, but the commonality was the need to demonstrate whether a student met or exceeded expected learning gains over time.

There were also participants that advocated for policies to recognize not only individual student academic gains over time, but “soft skill” metrics as well. Measures of soft skills given were: increases in attendance, positive participation, and other social behaviors in school and community. These soft skills demonstrate both the effectiveness of the school and a student’s preparation to meaningfully participate in the work place, higher education and other community participation.

8. MEANINGFUL ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS FOR HIGH RISK STUDENTS SHOULD MEASURE CAREER READINESS One common metric that the participants identified as meaningful for accountability was career readiness. There are a range of potential measurements. The practitioners at the Policy Forum specifically identified a range of measurements to demonstrate students were more employable as a result of their high school work. Some examples include: • Industry recognized specific skills certificates (these include those issued by trade unions, OSHA safety certificates, Microsoft

and other technology companies, and those issued by states and professional organizations, e.g., those for California Nursing Assistants);

•

Employer measurements of career readiness – participants recognized that many employers, including McDonalds, have developed their own surveys of career readiness that could be utilized;

•

Soft skills development as measured by courses in time management, anger and stress management, the ability to nurture and be nurtured, and the ability to participate in healthy relationships;

•

Entrepreneurial initiatives undertaken by students;

•

Other Job Readiness or Work Based Learning Competency products (e.g., WorkKeys); and

•

Actual employment, military enlistment, or college enrollment.

Another common issue raised was the need for resources to follow students and identify where they go and what they do after graduation. The At-Promise students are often highly mobile and may have limited connection to their matriculation school’s community. Gathering this data is particularly important for “mission specific” schools – for example those which target job training or students in juvenile justice diversion. Federal and State resources should be made available to allow schools to gather and present data on students’ employment, post secondary enrollment or recidivism.

9. MEANINGFUL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASUREMENTS FOR HIGH RISK STUDENTS SHOULD MEASURE COLLEGE READINESS While participants in the Policy Forum were clear about the need to emphasize career readiness as a metric of student and school success, there remains a strong interest in college readiness as well. The ultimate measure of success is how students do after high school. College attendance and success are important in this regard. Participants identified one college enrollment tracking organization: the National Student Clearinghouse. For a fee, the Clearinghouse provides schools with data about students’ postsecondary enrollment.

8

However, measuring a student’s readiness for college can be more challenging.

Participants identified a number of measures that could be used to measure college readiness. These included the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) writing component, the ACT and SAT themselves, grant and scholarship applications, and off the shelf assessment products (e.g., Accuplacer). Other “readiness” measures are available that may be easier to collect. Participants suggested a student’s completion of the FAFSA application as well as participation in college tours or meetings with recruiters are accessible measures of college readiness.

10. MEANINGFUL ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS FOR HIGH RISK STUDENTS SHOULD INCLUDE A STUDENT’S COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY Another important accountability metric that came from the practitioners is that of a student’s community engagement. A variety of measurements of a student’s increased sense of personal responsibility and opportunity for future success resulting from broader community engagement outside of school were discussed.

Surveys of students’ knowledge of community resources and frequency of accessing resources can provide measures of student engagement and responsibility. Surveys can be used to identify evidence of whether a student has identified networks of support.

Surveys are also tools for determining a student’s participation in positive community organizations.

Family Engagement. One indicator of engagement and responsibility is family engagement. Family engagement can be evaluated both in terms of how the student connects with parents or other family members who serve a supporting or mentoring role. Since these opportunity youth are often over 18 and are parents themselves, family engagement may include the relationship with their own children. Objective ways for measuring parenting responsibility may include the student’s participation in parenting classes, participation in the National Fatherhood Initiative or enrolling their children in pre-kindergarten or other available support programs.

Commitment to Education. Another accountability metric raised by practitioners is the need for recognizing a student’s commitment to education as a result of attending a school. Specific measures for demonstrating improved commitment to education include a student’s improved school attendance, credit acquisition, and behavioral changes as manifested by school behavioral incident reports.

Personal Growth. A student’s knowledge of the availability of community resources and their ability to access support services and resources is another measure of future success. A student’s ability to access personal health resources and to advocate for themselves are also measures of personal growth.

Civic Engagement. Another measure identified for student-community responsibility is civic engagement. Participants identified a number of measures including community service as demonstrated by volunteering to work on community service projects, performing voter registration, involvement in municipal recreation leagues, ability to access community resources, participation in community organizations including religious organizations, service clubs, and ethnic organizations.

Community Improvement. Another way to determine a school’s impact on the broader community is to compare crime statistics of the community around the school. Has the school resulted in a reduction in crime within the community? Has there been a reduction in the recidivism of students with criminal records?

11. MEANINGFUL ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS FOR HIGH RISK STUDENTS SHOULD MEASURE THE SCHOOL’S IMPACT ON REENGAGEMENT Another accountability metric which practitioners discussed was a school’s impact on reengagement of students in a high school program. Schools that focus on dropout recovery recognize that their students begin far below grade level, have histories of limited attendance, have been out of school for some time, and have attended multiple high schools. Evaluating a school’s ability to keep students in school may be as significant as final outcomes. Obvious measures of ongoing student enrollment include student length of stay as measured by monthly attendance or similar measures.

Practitioners offered related metrics that would be important in understanding a school’s capacity to reengage students. One particular area for policy development is school culture or climate. Measurements could include use of student satisfaction surveys and incident data. Disaggregation of incident data relating to student disruption could be measured to determine trends and school

9

climate improvement. This is an area where practitioners specifically identified the need to be very careful with data and make sure that is evaluated on a campus specific level and not used to compare school against school. For example, mission specific schools such as those associated with juvenile justice diversion, could demonstrate improvement over time but not compare favorably with other schools focused on parenting minors. Another policy area which would need careful development is staff attendance and other measures of staff culture and commitment. This area would need further development as new programs and programs with staff new to the At-Promise population may suffer significantly greater turnover than more established programs or programs staffed with more experienced teachers.

12. MEANINGFUL ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS FOR HIGH RISK STUDENTS MUST INCLUDE STUDENT PSYCHO-SOCIAL ASSESSMENTS An area with significant support among the participants is the inclusion of non-cognitive metrics as part of accountability policy for dropout recovery and other At-Promise student populations. To practitioners, an understanding of the students’ resilience and aspirations is on a par with academic gains.

One particular measure that was discussed is the Gallup Student Poll. This annual survey was taken by nearly a half million students in 2012. The survey measures a student’s “hope” or energy for the future which drives attendance, credits and GPA. Gallup asserts that this measurement is a better predictor of college success than GPA, SAT and ACT scores. The measure of “engagement” measures Student’s involvement and enthusiasm about school and is tied to improved test scores. Engagement scores separate high-performing from low-performing schools. “Well Being” is a measurement of how a student thinks about his or her experiences. It is a predictor of future success. One current limitation of the poll is that it does not provide data on an individual student level so a school is not able to demonstrate student growth along these metrics.

There are other psycho-social measurements also available. The Clay Robert’s Search Institute products were discussed as well as the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA) which assesses the relative strength of specific aspects of personal resiliency in children and adolescents. Concerns about potential for cultural biases in psycho-social measurements were expressed. The relevance here is that there are efforts underway to measure these characteristics in a valid and reliable context. Federal and state policies need to recognize that schools which serve At-Promise students need a way of showing transformation of students as learners and as community participants Kris Mallory

10

13. REENGAGED DROPOUTS NEED AN ALTERNATIVE TO NINTH GR ADE COHORTS Educators of reengaged dropouts are very interested in the discussion of what meaningful outcomes ought to be for their schools. The high expectations set for these students may differ from students who have stayed on track. Research shows that the actual graduation rate for reengaged dropouts is in the 18-23% range (Rumberger, Dropping Out: Why Students Drop Out of School and What Can Be Done About It, Harvard University Press, 2011). Federal and state policies assuming that all high schools can raise their graduation rates to above 90% may be meaningless in the dropout recovery context.

Policy Forum participants called for a shift in the mind set of what’s valuable in reengagement. One challenge area may be cultural.

Often the families and students’ friends have not graduated and some may be resistant to an individual’s efforts to change course.

Dropout recovery schools often report students having dropped out of several schools before enrolling in theirs. As one participant put it, “our students may have several more stumbles before the value of formal education clicks.”

Current Federal policy has encouraged states to focus on the dropout crisis and to standardize graduation rate formulas by creating four year cohorts of students based on the year they enter ninth grade. Already recognizing that this four year cohort excludes many students in alternative programs or who fail required classes or cannot pass exit exams, some states have begun implementing five or six year cohorts. But some participants argued that even a six year cohort cannot capture a student who has dropped out for two or more years. Federal and state policy needs to recognize the need for a long term graduation horizon and reward schools that help at promise students gain lifetime skills. Comparisons of traditional high school graduation rates with dropout recovery and other high risk student populations is a policy that must change.

14. ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS FOR REENGAGED DROPOUTS AND OTHER HIGH RISK STUDENTS SHOULD INCLUDE COMPLETIONS OTHER THAN DIPLOMAS One policy change that could incentivize dropout recovery is to expand acceptable completions in graduation goals for schools serving reengaged students. Several suggestions were made with significant support.

The State of Colorado uses a “completion rate” rather than depend exclusively on the diploma rate. Participants suggested Federal and State policies add to diploma completion other metrics to value the specific goals of reengaged students. One is the General Education Development (GED) test. A second was “content mastery”. The suggestion was that an Individualized Learning Program similar to an IEP be developed for every student and that the school be measured on each student’s success in meeting those goals.

15. CONTINUED ENROLLMENT SHOULD BE ADDED TO COHORT CALCULATIONS FOR REENGAGED DROPOUTS Once a student exceeds the timeline of their 4, 5 or 6 year cohort, some states no longer include continued high school enrollment within the denominator of the cohort calculation. Another recommended policy change was to include continuing enrollment as a positive outcome. That way, students who are outside of their “Ninth Grade Cohort” but remaining in school would provide a positive outcome for that school.

11

II: N E X T ST EPS

The Alternative Accountability Policy Forum encourages future initiatives to promote State and National policy development especially for dropout recovery. This will expand and improve educational services to the millions of young men and women who abandon public education every year. Here are five straight forward steps that can be taken today.

1.

Circulate these recommendations with organizations that you work with and policy makers that seek your input.

2.

Join RAPSA. The more schools and education leaders that band together on these alternative accountability issues,

the greater impact that we can have influencing the development of federal and state accountability policy.

3.

Invite policy makers to visit your school. Nothing helps motivate policy makers more than meeting with At-Promise

students and staff. Invite legislators, departments of education, your governor, your congress members, and local employers.

4.

Encourage your state legislature to adopt a “Dropout Recovery Week� resolution. California has done this for a

couple of years and it brings a great focus to schools serving At-Promise students. (See: www.siatech.org) 5.

Get to know your local education reporters and share your stories. Using Matt LaPlante’s advice to tell the truth,

invite reporters to graduations or other events. These people get dozens of invites, but the opportunity to talk

with students who have overcome significant challenges and tragedies make your events different. Please protect the

confidentiality of minors, but you will likely find students over 18 willing to talk about their success.

Share your activities with us at info@siatech.org or info@rapsa.org.

12

I I I : R E S OU RC E S

Alliance for Excellent Education, Education and the Economy: Boosting State and National Economies by Improving High School Graduation Rates, March 2011. Available at: http://www.all4ed.org/publication_material/EconStates Bridgeland, John M. and Jessica A. Milano, Economic Value of Opportunity Youth, Civic Enterprises, January 2012. Available at: http://www.civicenterprises.net/MediaLibrary/Docs/econ_value_opportunity_youth.pdf Dawson, Linda; Kris Mallory, Khristel, Johnson. A Focus On Individual Student Growth. Leadership, pp 22 – 26, Association of California School Administrators, January/February 2011.

Ernst, Jody L. and Jennifer J. Turnbull, Alternative Growth Goals for Students Attending Alternative Education Campuses, Colorado League of Charter Schools, Ernst, Jody L., Are Alternative Growth Goals Warranted for Colorado’s Alternative Education Campuses and Students?,Colorado League of Charter Schools, 2009. Available at: http://www.siatech.org/about/PDF/Colorado_GrowthAmongAECStudents.pdf Reyna, Ryan, State Policies to Reengage Dropouts, National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices, July 2011. Available at: http://www.siatech.org/about/PDF/NGA_REENGAGEDROPOUTS.pdf Rath, Bob, Katherine Rock, and Ashley Laferriere. Helping Over-Age, Under-Credited Youth Succeed, Our Piece of the Pie, July 2012. Available at: http://www.opp.org/docs/Helping%20Over-Age%20Under-Credited%20Youth%20Succeed%20-%20OPP,%20 July%202012.pdf Silva, Ernie, An “At-Promise” Graduation Rate Cohort, Connected By 25, Youth Transition Funders Group, July 2012. Available at: http://cby25.blogspot.com/2012/07/an-at-promise-graduation-rate-cohort.html#more

13

PR E S E N T E R B IO G R A PH I E S

Rick Clark

Federal Program and Policy Liaison

Richard Clark represents SIATech and other organizations in Washington D.C. He previously worked with Common Cause and as staff to the House Education and Labor Committee. He also served as Chairman/CEO of the National Coalition, which successfully campaigned for self government for the District of Columbia.

Dr. Jody Ernst

Colorado League of Charter Schools

Dr. Ernst is a prominent researcher on appropriate accountability measures for nontraditional schools and students. Dr. Ernst works with the Colorado League of Charter Schools and has written and lectured about accountability systems in a variety of states and is recognized as one of nation’s leading experts on alternative accountability.

Diane Fairchild

Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction, SIATech

Diane began working at SIATech in 2001. She oversees the Special Education, Online Learning, and Curriculum & Instruction programs for SIATech and MYcroSchool’s 19 campuses. She is passionate about ALL students receiving maximum services in the “least restrictive environment.” Diane is a firm believer that a highly-qualified and well-prepared instructional team can make a lasting difference on students at-risk of dropping out.

Lindsay Fondow

MSW, Data and Program Quality Manager, Shearwater High School

Lindsay Fondow is the Data and Program Quality Manager for Shearwater High School, a Missouri approved, Saint Louis University sponsored public charter school. Shearwater is committed to providing disconnected youth with a high-quality high school education option. The school is specifically designed to serve youth in the City of St. Louis who dropped out of school or whose life situations make an on-time graduation unlikely.

Eileen Holmes Director, RAPSA

Eileen has worked for over 11 years in the educational field and has been the creative mind behind the Reaching At-Promise Students national conferences and leadership institutes as well as the Reaching At-Promise Students Association (RAPSA). She has developed a team of experts who have worked diligently in creating RAPSA. This association is for all educators who work with at-promise students as well as businesses and community members who wish to influence positive changes for education.

14

Matt D. LaPlante

Journalism and Communications Professor, Utah State University

Matt LaPlante is a Utah State University journalism and communications professor and the editor of NoDropouts.Org. He is a former war correspondent with a journalist’s penchant for accuracy and metaphor. Matt is an award-winning journalist who provide valuable information on how to use the media to advocate for your school and students.

Kris Mallory

Chief Instructional Officer, SIATech

Kris joined SIATech in 2002 and is the Chief Instructional Officer in the Teaching & Learning division. She is responsible for oversight in the areas of educational services, learning support, measurement and accountability, and student services. Kris brings over 30 years of experience as a teacher, coach, advisor, and Teacher on Special Assignment at five urban high schools, as well as an assistant principal of a large suburban high school and principal of a continuation high school.

Gregory V. Moser Attorney, Procopio

Gregory V. Moser is a partner at Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch. Mr. Moser represents charter schools and school districts throughout California. Schools rely on Mr. Moser for advice on charter development, renewal, incorporation, Proposition 39, and other matters. Clients include King/Chavez Schools of Excellence, Celerity Educational Group, SIATech, and the California Charter Schools Association Joint Powers Authority.

Bob Rath President and CEO, Our Piece of the Pie

Bob Rath is the President and CEO of Our Piece of the Pie®, based in Hartford, Connecticut. Our Piece of the Pie (OPP) is a youth development organization intently focused on helping urban youth 14–24 become successful adults. His success includes Opportunity High School—a partnership school for over-aged and under-credited youth—launched in August 2009 by Hartford Public Schools and OPP. In July 2012, Mr. Rath and his organization published “Helping Over-Age, Under-Credited Youth Succeed.”

Dr. Russell W. Rumberger

Director, California Dropout Research Project, University of California, Santa Barbara Dr. Rumburger is Professor of Education at the University of California Santa Barbara, Director of the California Dropout Research Project, and author of “Dropping Out,” an important analysis of the dropout crisis published by Harvard University Press. He is recognized for multiple studies on what can be done about the dropout crisis.

15

A B OU T U S

速

SIATech is a nonprofit network of accredited charter high schools focused on getting low-income students back in school and back on-track to graduation. It has been a leader in dropout recovery since 1998.

RAPSA improves the lives of at-promise students by providing relevant and current professional development opportunities for all educators. RAPSA is a nonprofit organization.

16

S P ON S OR S

charterschoolcapital.org

sscal.com

procopio.com stutzartiano.com

NoDropouts.org nodropouts.org renlearn.com

17

PA R T IC I PAT I NG ORG A N I Z AT ION S

• Academy for Urban Solutions

• PPEP TEC High School

• Alliance for Excellent Education

• Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch

• Buckeye Community Hope Foundation

• RAPSA

• California Dropout Research Project

• River Springs Charter

• California Charter School Association

• Riverside County Office of Education

• Colorado League of Charter Schools

• Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps

• Gateway to College National Network

• San Diego Job Corps

• Goal Academy

• See Forever Foundation and Maya Angelou Schools

• Gordon Bernell Charter School

• Shearwater Education Foundation

• John Muir Charter School

• SIATech

• Learn 4Life

• South Carolina Whitmore School

• MYcroSchool

• Success Schools

• Michigan Department of Education

• TW Goble Group

• New Education for the Workplace

• Utah State University

• Orange County Dept of Education

• Vista Unified School District

• Our Piece of the Pie • Pinellas Florida School Board

18