Mounting skepticism that a small rural district should
oversee a state-wide online school
Last April the state board of education denied, for the
first time, an application for a multi-district online school. The application came from the small West End School District RE-2 in
Montrose County (four small schools, total enrollment in 2017-18: 317 students). Then in June the state board denied an application
from another small district, Huerfano
RE-1 (three small schools, total enrollment
in 2017-18: 553 students). The questions
and concerns from several state board members suggests we may have turned a
corner. Perhaps Colorado policymakers
have decided to say, based on what we know to date, we must be exceedingly
cautious before adding one more multi-district online school.
In fact,
with 38 multidistrict online schools[i],
some that have operated for over ten years, we now have sufficient data to warrant
another study to assess how well this model is working. (Four years ago HB 14-1382 created the On Line Rask Force. Report 2014 - http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/OTF_Final_Report_010515.pdf. ). In August the board asked the Colorado
Department of Education for an update on the performance and finances of the
state’s multi-district schools. CDE’s presentation
to the board on Sept. 12, “Multi-District Online Schools,”
https://www.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/B4BL6Z4AC310/$file/MDOL%20Presentation%20to%20SBOE.PDF – provides good,
unbiased data. (It showed that of 32 multi-district online schools operating in
Colorado in 2017, 7 were rated on Priority
Improvement, and another 7 had Insufficient
Data to earn a rating.)
Another View is less objective. I take a closer look at 20 of our multidistrict online schools
enrolling over 16,000 students in Addendum
A, and the ratings on the state’s School Performance Framework over four
years. Deeply troubling.
In Addendum B I provide
the most obvious RED
FLAG WARNING: Byers 32J. Here we have a small rural district
(enrollment in its two schools in 2017-18: 549 students), that has (somehow)
been allowed to authorize five multidistrict online charter schools, thus “overseeing”
the education of another 2,300-plus students somewhere in Colorado. These
are 2,300 students, we should note, that the Byers superintendent and the Byers
school board will likely never know – and never see.
Perhaps there is a new consensus that a small rural district
is not well suited to authorize and oversee a “school” serving hundreds of
students who live elsewhere, often across the state. In April and June several state board members
seemed to agree: this model makes little
sense.
Are small rural districts
prepared to take this on?
Listening to the board’s handling of the West End and
Huerfano applications, I thought the majority voted to deny (4-2 for West End
and 5-2 in the case of Huerfano) for two main reasons.
1. “Put
your own house in order first” – Huerfano School District RE-1
The board suggested that a district should be able to show
that its schools are doing well before it takes on the responsibility of
serving several hundred more students (even thousands more - see Byers) who
reside all across the state, in a kind
of school it has never operated before.
On this point, CDE staff provided a gentle reminder in its
memo to the board regarding the application from Huerfano. The memo included the district’s accreditation
and school performance ratings over seven years (my box, below, simply captures
the last three years), and stated:
While the application was found to meet
the criteria as outlined on the review rubric during the two phases of the
review process, there was one outstanding issue. The Department has questions
about the Huerfano RE-1 District seeking to authorize a new online school while
the Gardner Elementary School is in year 3 of Priority Improvement. The district and its other elementary school, Peakview
Elementary, only recently came off of the accountability clock and the district
is in the midst of implementing a rigorous plan to ensure sustainable
improvement. We wonder if it should be the district’s priority to expend all
resources, people, time, money, -into improving the performance of their lowest
performing school.[ii]
Board member Steve Durham noted that in the application the education provider, Summit Education Group, expected to enroll 300 students year one, and eventually to grow to 750 students[iii]
Board member Steve Durham noted that in the application the education provider, Summit Education Group, expected to enroll 300 students year one, and eventually to grow to 750 students[iii]
2014
|
2016
|
2017
|
% points earned
|
|
Gardner School
(P-8)
|
PI
yr 1
|
TRD
yr 2
|
PI
yr 3
|
39.4
|
Peakview School
(P-8)
|
PI
yr 5
|
PI
yr 6
|
IMP
|
49.5
|
John Mall High School
|
P
|
PI
yr 1
|
IMP
|
42.8
|
DISTRICT of
Heurfano RE-1
|
Acr w/ Imp
|
Acr w/ PI
|
Acr w/ Imp
|
44.0
|
P = Performance Imp = Improvement
PI = Priority Improvement TRD = Turnaround
Acr = Accredited
Acr w/ Imp = Accredited with
Improvement
|
||||
(again, I would point out, in a district currently
serving only 550 students). Durham picked
up on CDE’s memo regarding the Huerfano schools recently, or currently, on the
accountability clock. He addressed district
Superintendent Michael Moore:
"…
So I think there is some concern about the ability to manage an
additional entity, for a small district to devote the resources necessary to
provide the proper oversight to a third-party provider…. Given the current
performance ratings of the district it certainly would give the board, it would
certainly give this board member, cause to be really concerned about whether or
not you can do that adequately."[iv]
Board member Val Flores echoed this point.
Huerfano has enough to deal with what you have already
… you’re a small district, all your schools are not maintained at a high level,
and so I feel that you really need to bring up all the other schools that you
have in your district without taking on the responsibility of online schools to
manage.
Flores noted the
three significant grants the district is already managing.
I came to the conclusion that you
have more things on your plate … Would (running
another program) do justice to your students? … I’m thinking about the students
in your district….
Board chair
Angelika Schroeder wanted the superintendent to hear support for him, but concern for this proposal:
We think there needs to be more
success in your district … without your
leadership and with the distraction of another 300-750 student school at this
time … that’s a worry for us. So it’s for that reason that we are not
comfortable.
2. “Stick
to your knitting” - West End School District RE-2
It was late in the application process when the state board,
and perhaps the West End leadership as well, learned rather damning information
about A3 Education, the California company seeking to operate this multi-district
online school. It was revealed that A3 Education had been advertising for four online schools before even one had
been reviewed and certified by the state board.
This was one factor in the board’s denial of the application,
noting “the irregularities in the application on the part of the vendor.” As board member Flores put it:
I’m not
comfortable in voting yes for another online school that doesn’t have a track
record,* and given that the provider has not really, I think, acquainted himself
with our rules… I think we would be
doing our kids a disservice if we were to grant this application, so I will be
a no vote on this.
(*In the application we read:
“Because A3 is a new organization it does not yet have any longitudinal or
comparative data to reference in this application.”[v]
How odd. It boasts that its leaders have been involved in “the founding,
startup, operation, and successful leadership of statewide online schools in
the states of FL, AZ, CO, MI, CA, and international online schools,” and yet cannot
demonstrate that its model has been successful for student achievement and
growth.)
A small district is not accustomed to completing a 62-page draft of a CERTIFICATION OF
MULTI-DISTRICT ONLINE SCHOOL INSTRUCTION GUIDE AND APPLICATION (1/2/18), then a
final 42-page version a month later (2/17/18), to say nothing of producing the 281-page application itself, as well as an
85-page Appendices.[vi] (Phew!) Nor is it accustomed to asking of
these education providers, who operate in a different universe than brick and
mortar schools, the right questions about their results. Nor, it would seem, is it well suited to gauging
the integrity or intent of an out-of-state online operator.
Perhaps the financial benefits—we’ll just say yes to these online folks, they do all the “educating,”
and we can double our enrollment!—are too enticing. (A3 Education’s
proposed preliminary budget assumed 500
students would enroll, bringing in $3.4
million.[vii]) A vulnerable, cash-strapped district sees only
the opportunity—and none of the risks. Superintendent
Mike Epright wrote a two-page letter as part of the application, and included
this rationale for the new school:
The future of
the West End Community is in question with economic hardships coming our way,
and our community is being proactive in finding ways to sustain all areas of
the community. Having this opportunity for our students
will provide an educational avenue to continue to offer quality learning
and keep our brick and mortar building alive with robust education.[viii]
Honest, and revealing. But what is meant by an “opportunity for our students”? (Emphasis mine.) How many West End students would
have attended? More relevant, I fear, is
that the new school would have provided the district a new source of state
funds due to its sudden boost in enrollment.
If so, and if Byers is a case study of where all this leads, let’s hope
the state board continues to say: NO THANKS! NOT INTERESTED!
One added
note: West End and Huerfano are among the 100-plus Colorado districts operating
on a four- day week. I propose that before
any district considers adding an online state-wide program, first be
sure to provide its own students with what still seems best – a five-day school week. Too much to ask?
Addendum A – 20 multidistrict online schools
7 rated on Priority
Improvement in 2017 (7/19 = 37%), and 4 with Insufficient Data –
2 of those with SPF rating
of 35% points earned or below. (2018 SPF ratings - not yet final.)
Five schools authorized by the small district of Byers
in bold. More detail on Byers in Addendum B.
P =
Performance IMP = Improvement PI = Priority Improvement TRD
- Turnaround
2017-18
|
Charter
|
Grades
|
SPF Rating – Year
|
|||||
students enrolled
|
2013
|
2014
|
2016
|
2017 - % pts earned
|
||||
246
|
Achieve Online (Colorado Springs 11)
|
no
|
MH*
|
PI -
year 3
|
*AEC -
IMP
|
AEC –
P
|
AEC –
P
|
69.3
|
1,095
|
AIM Global (Las Animas RE-1)
|
no
|
MH
|
-
|
-
|
P
|
*AEC –
P
|
66.1
|
383
|
Branson School Online
(Branson Reorganized 82)
|
no
|
EMH
|
IMP
|
IMP
|
P
|
IMP
|
49.9
|
537
|
Colorado Connections Academy – Durango
|
no
|
EMH
|
-
|
-
|
P
|
PI – year 1
|
50.4
|
2,357
|
Colorado Connections Academy – Mapleton
|
no
|
EMH
|
IMP
|
IMP
|
PI –
year 1
|
PI – year 2
|
46.1
|
508
|
Colorado
Digital Academy-CODA – Elem. (Byers)
|
yes
|
E
|
-
|
P
|
P
|
Insufficient data
|
35
|
275
|
Colorado
Digital Academy-CODA–Middle (Byers)
|
yes
|
M
|
IMP
|
P
|
Insufficient data
|
60.8
|
|
1,631
|
Colorado Prep Academy
(Colorado Digital BOCES)
|
no
|
EMH
|
P
|
IMP
|
PI – year 1
|
PI – year 2
|
38.9
|
544
|
Colorado
Virtual Academy – COVA (Byers)
|
yes
|
H
|
PI –
year 4
|
IMP
|
P
|
P
|
73.3 -multi-yr
33/60 –
one yr
|
250
|
Destination Career Academy (Julesburg RE-1)
|
no
|
MH
|
PI –
year 4
|
PI -
year 5 |
PI -
year 6 |
IMP
|
46.0
|
770
|
Elevate
Academy (Byers)
|
yes
|
EMH
|
-
|
P
|
PI – year 1
|
PI – year 2
|
37.8
|
3,811
|
GOAL (Guided Online Academic Learning) (Falcon
49)
|
yes
|
H
|
AEC -
IMP
|
AEC
-IMP
|
AEC –
P
|
AEC –
IMP
|
54.6
|
1,034
|
HOPE Online Learning Academy - Elementary** (Douglas Cty)
|
yes
|
E
|
-
|
TRD – year 5
|
PI – year 6
|
PI – year 7
|
39.4
|
555
|
HOPE Online Learning Academy - Middle** (Douglas
Cty)
|
yes
|
M
|
-
|
TRD – year 5
|
PI – year 6
|
PI – year 7
|
40.6
|
548
|
HOPE Online Learning Academy - High** (Douglas
Cty)
|
yes
|
H
|
PI –
Year 4
|
*AEC P
|
AEC –
P
|
AEC –
P
|
66.2
|
119
|
Immersion Schools for Science, Technology, &
the Arts (Las Animas – RE-1)
|
no
|
MH
|
-
|
-
|
P
|
IMP
|
75.0
|
123
|
Monte Vista On-Line Academy
|
no
|
EMH
|
IMP
|
IMP
|
Insufficient data
|
Insufficient data
|
29.2
|
615
|
Pikes Peak Online (Colorado Digital BOCES)
|
no
|
H
|
-
|
-
|
TRD – year 1
|
PI – year 2
|
34.7
|
501
|
TCA College Pathways (Academy 20)
|
yes
|
MH
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
88.1
|
226
|
Valiant
Academy (Byers)
|
yes
|
EMH
|
P
|
P
|
IMP
|
Insufficient data – Low participation
|
|
*This school, along with two other
multi-district schools, did not begin as an Alternative Education Campus (AEC),
but received AEC designation for the first time in this year, and since then has
operated as an AEC.
**Through 2013, HOPE Online was one K-12
school. It then became three different
“schools,” and the rating from the K-12 school was carried over in the 2014
ratings. The elementary and middle
schools were placed on Priority
Improvement or Turnaround - year
5- in 2014, and both schools have remained “on the clock” ever since, Priority Improvement, year 6 in 2016,
and again, Priority Improvement, year
7 in 2017.
Addendum B – RED FLAG WARNING - Byers 32J
Object Lesson: a small rural district
authorizes five multi-district online schools – with woeful results, or with
few test scores to assess performance. (But it’s really good at protesting
ratings!)
Byers is a small rural school
district with only 2 of its own schools, an elementary school and a
junior-senior high school, enrolling a total of 549 students, not unlike
Huerfano (3 schools) - enrolling 553 students
& West End (3 schools) - enrolling 317
students.
Byers also
authorizes five charter multi-district online schools, enrolling 2,323 students.
SPF
2017
rating
|
SPF % points earned
|
From
CDE SPF reports
2010
– 2017[ix]
(Note regular requests to reconsider)
|
Highlights
from the Final 2017 School Performance Framework[x]
|
|
Colorado Digital Academy -
Elementary
|
Insufficient
State Data:
Low
participation
|
35/100
|
2014 New school - approved
request to reconsider;
2017 Approved request to
reconsider
|
Median growth / Rating:
ELA: 30% / Does Not Meet
Math: 34.5% / Does Not Meet
ELA Test Participation rate: 21.4%. Parent excuses: 206.
|
Colorado Digital Academy –
Middle
|
Insufficient
State Data:
Low
participation
|
60.8/
100
|
2014 New school code overwritten with rating from COVA M-level
(1752); 2017 Approved request to
reconsider
|
Achievement: Approaching
Median growth / Rating:
ELA: 35% / Approaching
ELA/Math Test Participation: 41
valid scores out of 202 students. Parent excuses: 160.
Accountability participation rate: 20.3%.
|
Colorado Virtual Academy
(COVA)
|
Performance
(Multi-year report)
**
1-year
report
See
its 2017-18 UIP report.[xi]
|
73.3
**
33/60
|
2010, 2017 Approved request to
reconsider;
2014 Overwritten with rating from COVA H-level;
2016 Denied request to reconsider
|
ELA/Math Test participation: 58 valid scores out of 315 students.
Parent excuses: 82. Accountability participation rate: 25%. Does
Not Meet
SAT–Participation rate: 22.4%
Graduation rate: 46% - 4 yr.[xii]
Graduation rate: 44.8% - 5 yr.
|
Elevate Academy
|
Priority
Improvement - Year 2
|
37.8
|
2014 New school, deferred to district rating;
2017 Approved request to
reconsider
|
Academic Achievement – Does
Not Meet - 7.5/30
Elem. Median growth / Rating:
ELA: 31.5% / Does Not Meet
Math: 25% / Does Not Meet
|
Valiant Academy
|
Insufficient
State Data – Low Participation
|
N.A.
|
2012 New school, 2013 Insufficient state evidence, deferred to
district rating; 2016 Approved request
to reconsider
|
Test participation: 17 valid scores out of 134 students. Parent
excuses: 83. Accountability participation rate: 33%. Does Not Meet
Achievement and growth data: empty. (Under Count: N<16)
|
Transparency
– In Byers, does the board and the community know how these schools are performing?
My one visit to a Byers School
District board meeting (Sept. 17, 2018), where ColoradoEd Board President Brian Bissell gave a brief
update on the online schools, made me wonder how much data board members are
seeing on the performance of the “other” schools that it authorizes. The district releases test results online (See
District Testing Data - http://www.byers32j.k12.co.us/highschool/district-testing-results/),
but these only give board
members and the community results for its own brick and mortar school - Byers
Elementary and Byers Junior/Senior High. If it were to include the students in all the schools Byers authorizes, it would
show the results on state assessments as presented by the Colorado
Department of Education.
For example, CDE reports on
PSAT scores for all of students
Byers’ schools (http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/psatdata)
with N>16. For COVA 21% or fewer of the 9th
and 10th graders took the PSAT, too few for accountability purposes
(see COVA’s Accountability participation rate, previous page.) At Byers Jr./Sr. High most 9th
(39/43) and 10th graders (31/36) took the PSAT, as did most Elevate
Academy 9th (27/35) and 10th graders (22/29). If the information presented above about
Elevate Academy is not worrisome enough, perhaps this is. Let’s hope the Byers’ board takes notice.
PSAT 8/9
|
PSAT 10
|
|
State average
|
902
|
944
|
Byers Jr./Sr. High
|
851
|
886
|
Elevate Academy
|
751
|
813
|
[i]
Latest total from Colorado Department of Education, September 2018.
[ii] FROM:
Renee Martinez, Office of Blended & Online Learning, RE: Application for
Certification of Multi-district Online School DATE: June 4, 2018 https://www.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/AZF4XJ7229B3/$file/SBE%20Memo%20Career%20Academies%20of%20America.pdf
[iii]
From the application: “Career Academies of America expects to serve at least
300 students in grades six through twelve in year 1 and grow to 750 students by
year 5, supported through facilities across Colorado” (page 11). https://www.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/AZF4XN722E44/$file/Career%20Aca.%20of%20Am.%20Cert.%20App_Initial%20(002).pdf
[iv]
These quotes from state board members are from my own transcription of what
they said at the April 11, and then at the June 13, state board meetings. Any errors in inaccurately reflecting what
they said are all mine, and I apologize for any such errors. Listening to the board meetings is available
at http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeboard/meetingarchives-video#2018.
[vi]
Huerfano submitted, if you can imagine, even more paperwork than West End. (How burdensome, one imagines, for all
involved in reviewing this material—including state board members.) Initial application: 88 pages, plus the
Appendices of 150 pages. The resubmission
of the application came to 100 pages, and the resubmitted appendices climbed to
240 pages. https://www.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AZ8SP25EE265
[vii]
Appendix U, p. 280-281 – from Application Appendices https://www.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/AXHVE86F0F9C/$file/West%20End%20Public%20Schools%20RE-2_Application%20For%20Multidistrict%20Certifications_APPENDICES.pdf
[xi]
Among the harshest self-reports you will ever see - http://co-uip-cde.force.com/?dcode=0190&scode=1752.
[xii]
From the 1-year report for COVA. For the Multi-Year Report, graduation figures
are even worse: under 40% for 4-years (AYG-2016 = 35.1%); 5-years (38.2%),
6-years (37.9%), and 7-years (38.7%).
No comments:
Post a Comment