JLARC Study of Alternative Learning Experience Programs Preliminary Report September 14, 2005 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee Robert Krell,

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


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


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


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


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


Location and Size of Parent/Partner Programs in Washington

Report p. 9

Student FTEs

Legend


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


JLAR Staff Contact:

Robert Krell, JLARC Staff

[email protected]

360-786-5182

Documents

JLARC Study of Alternative Learning Experience Programs Preliminary Report September 14, 2005 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee Robert Krell,