June 23, 2016
If
the current picture looks anything like 2010-2014, time’s up.
Last week’s AV#148 presented a highly disturbing
big picture of online charter schools. To help policymakers focus on a few
Colorado online charters that reveal the most damning results, AV#149
summarizes what we saw while the state’s accountability clock was still ticking
– through 2014.[i] (I stay clear of even trying to interpret PARCC
results and other data on school performance during 2014-15 and 15-16. A task for
others!) My hope is that, when the
“clock” starts up again later next week, the state will zero in on such schools
and ask: should they stay open in 2017?
Colorado School Grades – 2010- 2014
|
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
|
Colorado
Virtual Academy (COVA) – elementary*
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
HOPE
Online Learning Academy – elementary
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
HOPE
Online Learning Academy – middle
|
F
|
F
|
D-
|
D
|
F
|
See
Addendum A for a more complete
picture of these schools on Colorado School Grades.
*COVA “broke off its future school management
relationship with K12, Inc.” at the end of 2013-14. Colorado Digital Elementary, still within the
ColoradoEd family, opened in the fall of 2014. [ii]
Both HOPE programs are on year 5 of the
accountability clock.
Those of us involved with the charter school world
since 1993—when Gov. Roy Romer signed the new law—have followed the charter debate
over quantity versus quality for over
two decades. Choice was never an end in
itself, but at times charter advocates—especially in that first decade—often leaned
on the side of patience. Give-them-a-chance.
Start-ups are hard. Major struggles are inevitable. Perhaps, we said then, by year three or four
the school will come together, turn a corner, figure it out, etc.
Some might point to the legislative declaration in
the Charter School Act to say it invited this debate: expand
choice versus improve academic
achievement. Perhaps the split
originated there.
Charter School Act - 22-30.5-102 Legislative declaration
|
academic achievement/quality
|
choice/quantity
|
|
1. (a) It is the obligation of all Coloradans to
provide all children with schools that reflect higher expectations and create condition in all schools where
these conditions can be met;
(b) Education reform is in the best interest of
the state in order to strengthen the performance
of elementary and secondary public school pupils…
2. …part 1 is enacted (a) To improve pupil learning by creating schools with high, rigorous standards for pupil
performance;
|
1. c) Different pupils learn differently and public
school programs should be designed to fit
the needs of individual students and there are educators, citizens and
parents in Colorado who are willing and able to offer innovative program, educational techniques….
2. part 1 is enacted (c) To encourage diverse approaches to learning and
education and the use of different, innovative, research-based, or proven
teaching methods.
|
Both matter.
And yet we cannot escape the obligation—from the very start, there in
that law, 1. (h) “to hold charter schools accountable for performance.” Our job continues to be to find that balance,
to encourage “new and effective methods of educating children that are proven
to be effective….” And when a specific
model does not prove effective, to admit
it. And to act. No need to invite kids to bad schools.
In 2016, with charters as an established part of
the public education system in Colorado, patience—give that school another year
or two—now looks like indifference. Especially
when a school model has been in place for over 10 years. COVA opened in 2003, Hope
Online opened in 2005.
With only eight full-time online charter schools, so some
will say: why worry? But last October
four schools affiliated with ColoradoEd (http://www.coloradoed.org/), including
Colorado Virtual Academy (COVA) and Elevate Academy, enrolled 2,435 students; three
HOPE Online schools enrolled 2,138 students.
GOAL Academy might be the biggest “school” in the state: 4,070 students
enrolled this year. As Kids Count in Colorado 2016 reported,
the number of online students has climbed dramatically (“over 400%”) from 3,332
in 2003 to 18,664 this past year. The
numbers are not small, and the impact huge, for far too many Colorado students.
Colorado’s online charter schools: Just a few schools, but big numbers
(2015-16)
|
School
|
Grades
|
Authorizer (district)
|
# enrolled*
|
|
Colorado Digital Academy - Elementary
|
K-6
|
Byers
|
496
|
|
Colorado Digital Academy - Middle
|
7-8
|
Byers
|
219
|
|
Colorado Virtual Academy (COVA)
|
9-12
|
Byers
|
487
|
|
Elevate Academy
|
K-12
|
Byers
|
1,233
|
|
Guided Online Academic Learning (GOAL) Academy
|
9-12
|
Falcon 49
|
4,070
|
|
Hope Online Learning Elementary
|
K-5
|
Douglas County
|
1,150
|
|
Hope Online Learning Middle
|
6-8
|
Douglas County
|
530
|
|
Hope Online Learning High
|
9-12
|
Douglas County
|
458
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
8,643
|
A
brief history (or what is known as “authorizer shopping”*)
|
|
Year opened
|
Grades EMH**
|
Authorizer – District or Charter School Institute
|
Change in Authorizer or charter contract.
|
Change in structure/status
|
Current structure/ enrollment
|
|
Colorado
Virtual Academy (COVA)***
|
2003
|
E
M
H
|
Originally
–
Adams
12
|
As
of 2013, transferred to Byers.
|
Ended
management by K12, Inc. after 2013-14. Became 3 distinct schools, 2 with new
names.
|
1)
COVA – 9-12
2)
Colorado Digital Academy 7-8
3)
Colorado Digital Academy K-6
|
|
Elevate
Academy***
|
2014
|
MH
|
Byers
|
same
|
7-12
year 1 (2014-15)
K-12
year 2 (2015-16)
|
14-15
- 26
students
15-16
- 1,233 students
|
|
HOPE
Online Learning Academy
|
2005
|
E
M
H
|
Originally
–
Vilas
School District
|
As
of 2008, transferred to Douglas County School District.
|
Became
3 distinct programs in 2013-14.
High
school program sought AEC status.****
Denied
2013. Approved 2014.
|
1)
HOPE Online Learning Academy
9-12
- AEC
2)
HOPE Online LA -Middle
3)
HOPE Online LA - Elementary
|
|
GOAL
Academy
|
2008
|
H
|
Originally
CSI*****
|
As
of 2013, transferred to Falcon 49.[iii]
|
Sought
AEC status after opening.** **
|
AEC
|
|
Colorado
Calvert Academy
|
2010
|
EM
|
CSI*****
|
No
longer a charter school. Renamed Academy Calvert and now part of Academy 20[iv].
|
||
|
Colorado
Provost Academy
|
2010
|
H
|
CSI*****
|
No
longer a charter school. Renamed Mountain View Virtual as a Colorado Digital BOCES High School.
|
||
**E=Elementary M=
Middle H = High School
*** Each of the three COVA/Digital
Academy schools and Elevate Academy is “a member of ColoradoEd’s family of
quality schools” (http://coda.coloradoed.org/about-us/). ColoradoEd appears to be the one constant for these
schools: ColoradoEd’s website states that it offers “one of the most established and experienced full-time, tuition-free
online public charter school programs in Colorado, serving students for over 10 years.” (Bold mine.)
****AEC – Alternative Education Campus. HOPE Online Learning High and GOAL Academy
received AEC status, after they were
created. The state needs to be certain that such changes are made for sound
reasons—and not as an escape from poor results and, therefore, from the
consequences of the Accountability Act.
See Addendum B, from a report
on the low graduation rate of online schools nationally - and in Colorado.
***** At
present, the Charter School Institute does not authorize any online charter
schools.
With the accountability pause ending, the Colorado
Department of Education, the state board, authorizers and charter school
advocates alike need to ask: how are these schools doing? If the bleak story
between 2010 and 2014 is unchanged, isn’t it time to say: you’ve had your
chance. The full-time online approach has
not proved effective. At the very least, for K-5 students. Time’s up.
I focus here on HOPE Online and COVA, where we see consistently poor
ratings on the School Performance Framework, over four years—or five.
HOPE
Online Learning Academy - 2010-14 CDE School Plan Type
Opened in 2003 - authorized by Douglas County School District
|
|
2010
K-12
|
2011
K-12
|
2012
K-12
|
2013
K-12
|
Now 3 schools
|
2014
|
COMMENTS/
QUESTIONS
|
|
HOPE
Online Learning Academy K-12
|
Turnaround
(29.1%)
|
Priority Improvement Plan (33.6%)
|
Priority Improvement Plan (38.3%)
|
Priority Improvement Plan (38.4%)
|
HOPE Online Learning Academy
Elementary
|
Turnaround
YEAR 5
(27.3%)
|
See #1 below, HOPE’s request to reconsider.
|
|
HOPE Online Learning Academy Middle
|
Turnaround
YEAR 5
(36%)
|
See #1 below, HOPE’s request to reconsider.
|
|||||
|
HOPE Online Learning Academy High
|
AEC Performance Plan (43.8%)
|
HOPE avoided being on PI/Turnaround 5 years in a row by becoming an
AEC school. See #2 below.
|
1.
As results
for HOPE’s students in grades K-8 continued to be unsatisfactory, the state saw
no reason to change the rating from Turnaround—in
spite of the request.
2014 – SPF –
Initial/Final Ratings - http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworkresults
(“2014 Overwritten with years
on clock from HOPE (3995), 2014 Denied request to reconsider”)
|
District
|
School
|
Initial
Rating
|
District
Request
|
CDE
Recommendation
|
|
|
Douglas
Cty
|
Hope
Online Learning Academy Elementary
|
Turnaround
|
Priority
Improvement
|
Deny
|
Turnaround
|
|
Douglas
Cty
|
Hope
Online Learning Academy Middle
|
Turnaround
|
Priority
Improvement
|
Deny
|
Turnaround
|
2.
Was HOPE
Online’s restructuring a way to categorize the high school as an Alternative
Education Campus, where the more forgiving standards of AEC schools took it
“off the accountability clock”? (GOAL
Academy also gained AEC status after
opening, but it was always a high school program.) Has HOPE’s high school program earned this
“second life”? NOTE: HOPE Online Learning Academy’s graduation rate in 2014 was
28.8%. The state average that year: 77.3% (Chalkbeat
Colorado).
On what basis do we allow
schools that were set up for K-12, like HOPE and COVA (see below), to break up
into three “schools”? Is it being done
to alter the consequences on the accountability clock?
Are online charters
changing authorizers after several years of poor performance for the right
reasons?
COVA - 2010-14 CDE School Plan Type
Opened in 2005 - Authorized by Adams 12 through 2012-13. Authorized by Byers as of 2013-14,
|
|
2010
K-12
|
2011
K-12
|
2012
K-12
|
2013
K-12
|
2014
Now 3 schools
In Byers
|
2014
|
COMMENTS/
QUESTIONS
|
|
Colorado
Virtual Academy (COVA)
K-12
|
Priority Improvement Plan (41.6%)
|
Priority Improvement Plan (40.9%)
|
Priority Improvement Plan (38.6%)
|
Priority Improvement Plan (40.8%)
|
Colorado Digital Academy – Elementary
(35.5%)
|
Performance Plan
|
See #3 below- As a “new” school, given a Performance Plan.
|
|
Colorado Digital Academy – Middle
(52.2%)
|
Improvement Plan
|
See #4 below – As a “new” school, given an Improvement Plan.
Why?
|
|||||
|
COVA High School
(50.7%)
|
Improvement Plan
|
See #5 below-
As a result, COVA avoided being
on PI 5 years in row.
|
A
new school code and - voila! - we
start all over on the accountability clock.
Really?
Go
to CDE’s SPF reports for 2014 and you see that COVA (K-12), earned 42.7% points
(which would earn a Priority Improvement
rating.) But under FINAL RATINGS at CDE’s website, we find: “2014 Overwritten with rating from COVA H-level” (http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworkresults). Comments bellows raise an obvious question for policymakers and
the Colorado Department of Education: do we have clear and sensible guidelines around
accountability when schools are “recreated” with new school codes?
Statements
below, in bold, from CDE’s School Performance Framework, 2014:
3. “COLORADO
DIGITAL ACADEMY ‐ ELEMENTARY is a New School. BYERS 32J has assigned
this school a Performance Plan type.” https://cedar2.cde.state.co.us/documents/SPF2014/0190%20-%206241%20-%201%20Year.pdf
Question: When schools are granted a
new code, it appears that past performance with many of the same students does
not factor in to their rating. Was
Colorado Digital Academy Elementary truly a “new” school as the 2014-15 school
year began? True, enrollment dropped from 1,342 (COVA, K-6, ’13-’14) to
706. But with a new school code, it opened
with a clean slate—and the highest possible rating. Does this make sense? (http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2014/12/10/2014-state-ratings-by-school/#.V0M7CJErLIU)
The
SPF for Colorado Digital Academy Elementary in 2014 shows:
Academic Achievement – Math and
Writing – DOES NOT MEET
Academic Growth – Math and Writing – DOES NOT MEET
Academic
Growth Gaps - DOES NOT MEET in any category in Reading, Math, and Writing. https://cedar2.cde.state.co.us/documents/SPF2014/0190%20-%201752%20-%201%20Year.pdf
4. “COLORADO
DIGITAL ACADEMY – MIDDLE (6263) in BYERS 32J (0190) is a new school code but
was previously part of an existing school. Historical data for the grades
served under the new school code have been carried over, earning an Improvement Plan rating.”
Question: What “historical data”?
5. “COLORADO
VIRTUAL ACADEMY (COVA) in BYERS 32J has changed grade configurations from K-12
to 9-12. The assigned Improvement Plan
rating is based upon performance of the new grade levels only.” https://cedar2.cde.state.co.us/documents/SPF2014/0190%20-%201752%20-%201%20Year.pdf
Question: OK, a “new” school, but to be placed on an Improvement Plan seems to ignore COVA’s
high school results for the previous three years, 2012-2014: proficiency in
reading, under 62%; in writing, under 42%; in math, under 35%. In 2014 proficiency was below state average in reading (by 10 points), writing (by 14
points) and math (by 21 points) (http://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview). COVA’s
graduation rate in 2014: 30.4%. (http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2015/01/22/find-your-schools-2014-graduation-rate/#.V028GJErLIU)
(Addendum
C offers a closer look at the four ColoradoEd schools now authorized by
Byers 32J, with more questions and concerns.)
“Nearly Half of States Opted to Hit
Accountability Snooze Button” – Education
Week, Aug. 2015
That headline, from a year ago, applied to Colorado
too. No longer.
This has been my wakeup call, as if one were
needed, as the accountability clock starts up again. Yes, most of the information above is dated;
I wanted to comply with the state’s directive on 2015 results.[v] I know it is possible the schools featured here have demonstrated
much improved academic achievement since the end of 2013-14. I hope so.
But the 2010-2014 data tells me we should give online
charter schools like these a careful review.
Do they stay open? The burden of
proof is now on them.
Another View is a
newsletter by Peter Huidekoper Jr.
Comments are welcome. 303-757-1225 - peterhdkpr@gmail.com
Endnotes
1. “The accountability clock (i.e., applies to schools and
districts with a 2014 plan type of Priority Improvement or Turnaround) is
paused for the 2015-16 school year” (http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/district_accountability_handbook2015).
2. “Brian Bissell, head of the COVA board, confirmed the
change Tuesday. It will go into effect during the 2014-2015 school year. COVA
has struggled with poor academic performance in recent years amid questions
about K12’s Inc.’s management of school resources—including teacher
understaffing.” http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/06/13/colorado-online-school-dumps-k12-inc/
3. “Recently, the GOAL Academy Board of Directors
determined that it was time to seek an authorizer which could foster GOAL’s
innovative spirit, support GOAL’s unique model, and contribute to GOAL’s
continued success. Therefore, following a comprehensive search and review
process, the GOAL Board of Directors has determined it appropriate to transfer
GOAL’s charter to Falcon District 49 as D49 is one of the few authorizers in
the nation designated as an ‘innovation district.’” From Press Release by GOAL
Academy, March 6, 2013 - (http://www.goalac.org/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=21273270).
4. “Academy Calvert K-8 Online School transferred to
Academy School District 20 on July 1, 2015 as a district program. Previously
the school was Colorado Calvert Academy State Charter School and was authorized
by the Charter School Institute.” From the school’s 2014 UIP – (https://cedar2.cde.state.co.us/documents/UIP2016/1040-1901.pdf).
5. School Percentile Rank Report, “Informational
Report: Not for State Accountability” (http://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/performance).
Addendum A
Colorado School Grades* – 2010–2014 – Two online charter school programs,
COVA & HOPE
|
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
|
COVA –
elementary
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
# out
of total elem. schools
|
1356/
1447
|
1414/
1467
|
983/998
|
997/1009
|
978/1101
|
|
COVA –
middle
|
F
|
F
|
D
|
D
|
C-
|
|
2010
& 2011 included all K-8
|
1373/1447
|
1430/1467
|
455/491
|
461/503
|
396/505
|
|
COVA –
high
|
D+
|
C-
|
D-
|
D
|
D
|
|
# out
of total high schools
|
298/358
|
292/364
|
310/327
|
310/333
|
316/345
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOPE –
elementary
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
|
1447/1447
|
1465/1467
|
981/998
|
1006/1009
|
999/1101
|
|
HOPE –
middle
|
F
|
F
|
D-
|
D
|
F
|
|
|
1430/1447
|
1405/1467
|
464/491
|
454/503
|
493/505
|
|
HOPE –
high
|
F
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
A-
|
|
|
|
|
313/327
|
319/333
|
6 of 56 alternative schools**
|
*http://www.coloradoschoolgrades.com/ **As of 2014, now evaluated
by different measures as an AEC school.
Addendum B
Online High Schools and Low Graduation Rates
Last month the 2016 version of Building
a Graduation Nation added to concerns for Colorado policymakers when they
look at the outcomes for online schools.
I offer three quotes from that report seem
particularly relevant to our state and our online schools. Nothing to be proud of. (All bold mine)
“Schools offering all instruction
online have greatly increased in recent years. Virtual schools were
disaggregated in NCES data for the first time in 2013-14. The data shows that 87 percent of virtual schools are low-grad-rate
schools with an average graduation rate of 40 percent. States with the
highest percentage of non-graduates coming from virtual schools include Ohio,
Idaho, Pennsylvania and Colorado.”
“We followed the evidence to understand more about low-performing high
schools,” said John
Bridgeland, president & CEO of Civic
Enterprises. “Regardless of the type of school, we must insist upon results and
ensure every student receives a high quality education. We need to get beyond
labels and get all students what they need to succeed.”
“As
the number of low-grad-rate schools grows in some states, it is necessary to take a closer look at when and where these schools
are part of the solution or a wrong turn on the path to 90 percent graduation
rates for all students,” added Jennifer DePaoli, senior education advisor at Civic Enterprises and
the report’s lead author.
Addendum C
Byers 32J School District – authorizer of four online charter schools
Byers is “a small, rural system which is located approximately 50 miles east of
Denver along the I-70 Corridor.” http://www.byers32j.k12.co.us/ourdistrict/
Byers enrolls
4 times as many online students (2,435) as it does in its own K-12 schools
(505).
FACTS:
·
In the October 2015 student count, Byers enrolled
505 students, 283 in its elementary school and 222 in its 7-12 school.
·
This year, 2,435 students enrolled in the four
charter schools authorized by Byers (see p. 2).
·
This year, the K-6 charter school, Colorado Digital
Academy-Elementary, had 496 K-6 students.
Colorado
Digital Academy - Elementary
|
|
½ day K
|
Full day K
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
Total
|
|
2014-15
|
64
|
0
|
82
|
97
|
101
|
105
|
124
|
103
|
706
|
|
2015-16
|
44
|
3
|
50
|
59
|
78
|
77
|
85
|
100
|
496
|
·
Elevate
Academy, the new K-12 program that is part of ColoradoEd, grew
from 26 students in year one to 1,233 students in year two. This included 784 K-6 students.
NOTE: Elevate Academy’s website states it is “a
tuition-free fully accredited online public school for grades 7-12” (http://elevate.coloradoed.org/). That website also speaks of
its curriculum as “designed for students in grades 7-12.” Elevate must have obtained permission to
enroll students in all grades for its
second year, even if it does not claim to serve those grades on its website.
Elevate
Academy – K-12
|
|
Full day K
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
Total
|
|
2014-15
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
8
|
15
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
26
|
|
2015-16
|
107
|
110
|
108
|
120
|
102
|
107
|
130
|
116
|
106
|
95
|
53
|
48
|
31
|
1,233
|
QUESTIONS and CONCERNS:
1.
I imagine Byers, like most small rural districts,
believes strongly in local control. Odd - yes? - to consider that five times as
many of the students enrolled “through Byers” live somewhere else in the state.
2.
Speaking of local
control, does a small district like Byers have the resources to be a
responsible authorizer evaluating the quality of education in online schools
enrolling 2,435 students---who for the most part reside anywhere but in the Byers school district? Especially
for those 1,200 or so K-6 students?
And
most especially, for those 481 K-2
students (325 at Elevate and 156 at Colorado Digital Academy – Elementary),
when the state assessment (PARCC) begins at grade 3?
3. Anyone else wonder, at the very least, about the value of taxpayer dollars going to six- and seven-year olds getting their
public education online, given the results we see at COVA—and HOPE?
4.
Do we have evidence that online education works
well for K-2 students—anywhere in the
country?
On-Line Task
Force Created by HB 14-1382 – and Byers 32J
Legislation
in 2014 revealed that the state was growing concerned about the troubling
results of our online schools. HB 14-1382
created the On-Line Task Force. Its
report included a number of sound recommendations. In light of the Questions and Concerns raised
here, especially about Byers 32J, these recommendations might (still be?) what
is needed for districts authorizing online charter schools.
From the Report of the On-Line Task Force Created by HB
14-1382 –
Submitted to State Board of Education, House Education
Committee, Senate Education Committee (Augenblick, Palaich & Assoc., Dec.
29, 2014) http://www.cde.state.co.us/onlinelearning/otfarchive
“The
Task Force recommends to the General Assembly and the State Board of Education:
1.
That there be created a certification
process for authorizers (Districts, BOCES, and CSI) of multidistrict on-line
schools based on a specific set of quality standards and practices provided by
the On-line Task Force.
2.
To support those quality standards and
practices with a specific set of system and process
elements
provided by the On-line Task Force for the Colorado Department of Education’s
(CDE) review and certification of authorizer’s of multi-district on-line
schools.
3.
That the certification of new
authorizers of multi-district on-line schools begins in August of
2016,
for implementation in the 2017-2018 school year.
4.
That CDE continue the certification of
multi-district on-line schools until implementation of the
certification
of authorizers of multi-district on-line schools begins.
5.
That
multi-district on-line schools and their authorizers who are already certified
by CDE at the
time of implementation of the new system
of certification of authorizers of multi-district on-line schools be required
to meet the new standards and practices, determined through the certification
system, within five years of implementation, and every five years thereafter.
6.
That any current multi-district on-line
school whose authorizer loses certification will continue
to
serve their students through the completion of the school year when their
authorizer’s loss of
certification
occurred, and for no more than one additional school year.”
CDE tells me that legislation the past two years “was
introduced that included the recommendations from the work of the online task
force,” (SB15-201 & SB16-052), but that “in both years, the proposed bill
was postponed indefinitely.”
Unfortunate.
But
we have other ways to hold authorizers and low-performing online charters
accountable.
On
July 1, the clock will be ticking again.
