Date post: | 12-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | maurice-jenkins |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 1 times |
JLARC Study ofAlternative Learning Experience
Programs
Preliminary Report
September 14, 2005
Joint Legislative Audit and Review CommitteeRobert Krell, JLARC Staff
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 2
Introduction K-12 programs primarily distinguished by
off-campus instruction• 272 programs statewide – 19,400 FTE students• Different program sub-types
• Online/digital programs – focus of Interim Report• Parent/Partner programs – focus of this Report
Study mandate from 2004 Supp. Budget Major focus: adequacy of program rules
Regulatory landscape has changed New legislation . . . and new program rules
Joint effort with State Auditor’s Office
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 3
Summary of Main Points Old rules were inadequate – new rules are a
significant improvement• Still some areas of concern
Lack of centralized oversight has been a problem – additional changes are warranted
Religion-based instructional materials likely being used in some programs
• Inconsistent with state constitutional provisions
• Existing policy addresses, but not being publicized
Unclear if full-funding warranted – but more information is needed
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 4
ALE Programs – An Overview Creation of administrative rule – not statute
• Fiscal rules – part of broader series of rules on how to apportion Basic Ed funding
• Establish conditions that districts must meet to receive funding for students not present in classroom – thus, off-campus instruction
• Intended to provide districts flexibility to serve diverse student population
272 programs – 19,400 FTE students• Just under $80 million in Basic Ed funding
Report pp. 2-3
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 5
Alternative Learning Experience Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Students
by Program Type
Parent/Partner46%
Other45%
Digital/Online
9%
Report p. 3
19,407 Total FTE Students
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 6
What Are Parent/Partner Programs? Provide varying types & levels of services to those
who wish to provide some of their children’s education in the home• Most instruction takes place in the home• Parents provide major portion of instruction• School personnel often responsible for developing learning
plan, monitoring progress and assessing performance But retain ultimate responsibility for entire instruction program
– this is what distinguishes these programs from home-schooling
101 programs – 9,016 FTE students• Just under $37 million in Basic Ed funding
Report p. 4
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 7
Location and Size of Parent/Partner Programs in Washington
Report p. 9
Student FTEs
Legend
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 8
Parent/Partner Programs – cont.
Questions/concerns first raised by representatives of home-school organizations – initially directed to SAO• Related to program quality, funding & spending
Washington unusual in providing this type of programming - only two states offer programs that are at all similar
No standard program type – lots of variation
Report pp. 5-6, 11-12
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 9
Six Issue Areas
General Regulatory Framework
Quality Assurance Requirements
Program Oversight and Accountability
Use of Religious Materials/Curriculum
Program Funding and Spending
Issues of Concern to Home-Schooling Interests
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 10
General Regulatory Framework Programs not statutory – limits direct
legislative control & oversight
OSPI doesn’t view their proper role as extending to active oversight
Establishing programs in statute would allow for more legislative input
Recommendation 1• Legislature should consider establishing ALE
programs in statute
Report p. 17
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 11
Quality Assurance Requirements Old rules were lacking - new rules are a
significant improvement Biggest change: much more involvement on the
part of certificated staff• Student progress now to be “supervised, monitored,
assessed and evaluated” by certificated staff • Also will have “primary responsibility and
accountability” for a student’s learning plan Other changes relate to curriculum and
strengthening student assessment requirements
Report pp. 19-22
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 12
Quality Assurance - Two Concerns Student/teacher contact requirements
• Weekly contact still required, but minimum time requirements eliminated
Recommendation 2• The Legislature should consider whether minimum contact
time requirements should be re-imposed Curriculum not required to address state or district
learning goals Recommendation 3
• The Legislature should consider whether curriculum provided through ALE programs should be required to address state/district learning goals
Report pp. 19-22
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 13
Program Oversight & Accountability Little centralized control or oversight New rules will help substantially – districts
will have to:• Adopt and annually review policies for each program• Designate a specific official responsible for
approving and monitoring programs, and reporting annually to local board
• Evaluate programs By themselves, new rules may not be enough
• SAO found significant level of non-compliance
Report pp. 23-25
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 14
Oversight & Accountability – cont. Additional requirements warranted Recommendation 4:
• OSPI should amend its rules to require districts that claim funding to submit an annual assurance that they are in compliance with all ALE rules
To be based on self-assessment instrument developed by OSPI
Recommendation 5:• OSPI should develop program implementation
guidelines Should include templates for recording and
reporting key program information
Report pp. 26-27
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 15
Religious Curriculum & Materials
Some programs allow religion-based instructional materials to support learning plan activities
• Inconsistent with state constitutional provisions 1998 OSPI memorandum addressed issue
• Districts must assume responsibility for instructional content of off-campus learning activities in order to claim funding
• Materials used don’t have to be designed for public classroom use, but must not be of a nature that would preclude their use in a public school classroom
Report pp. 29-32
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 16
Religious Materials – cont.
Policy outlined in memorandum satisfactorily addresses issue – but has not been well-publicized
• Many programs are unaware of it
Recommendation 6• OSPI should incorporate its existing policy
on instructional materials into its new program implementation guidelines – and remind districts of their obligations
Report pp. 31-32
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 17
Program Funding and Spending Funding – what should the appropriate funding
level be? • No solid rationale for funding at full Basic Education
level Based on old contact time requirements
• Other states fund at different levels Alaska: 80 percent California: 70 to 100 percent
• Insufficient data on what programs cost Recommendation 7
• OSPI should require districts to report ALE program spending information for 2 years
Report pp. 33-37
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 18
Program Funding & Spending – cont. Spending Issues
• Minimum spending requirement eliminated• SAO found program funds had been spent on such
items as: Private horse riding lessons Gym memberships Ski lift tickets, rentals, lessons Private music lessons
(Not necessarily inappropriate, but presumably not widely available to all district students)
• Use of “parent accounts” for expenses (average of $475 per student per year, up to $1600)
Report pp. 34-36
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 19
Program Funding & Spending – cont. At least one other state (Alaska) has
imposed spending restrictions Recommendation 8
• Legislature should consider whether spending requirements or restrictions should be placed on ALE programs, including:
Overall minimum program spending requirements Maximum limits on parent accounts Restrictions on types of expenditures Limits on amount of funds that can be used on non-
core academic areas
Report pp. 36-37
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 20
Issues of Concern to Home-Schooling Organizations
Two main issues• Permitting part-time enrollment
• Requiring programs to provide accurate information on legal status of enrolled students
Both issues appear to have been satisfactorily addressed in OSPI’s rule revisions
Report pp. 39-41
9/14/05 ALE Programs Preliminary Report 21
JLAR Staff Contact:
Robert Krell, JLARC Staff
360-786-5182