REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE
Innovative Learning Pilot
Program
2022
Authorizing Legislation: RCW 28A.300.810
Rebecca Wallace
Assistant Superintendent of
Secondary Education and Pathway Preparation
Prepared by:
• Liz Quayle, Manager, Mastery-based Learning
• Rhett Nelson, Director, Learning Options
rhett.nelson@k12.wa.us | 360-819-6204
Page | 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Implementing the Pilot Legislation ........................................................................................................................... 5
Participants in the Pilot .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Data Collection ................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Program Interviews ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Description of the Pilot Programs ............................................................................................................................. 7
Comparison Models ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
CEDARS Reporting and Transcripts .......................................................................................................................... 9
Required Reporting Topics ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Efficiency .......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Cost .................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Additional and Targeted Resources .................................................................................................................. 12
Impacts of Different Funding Models .............................................................................................................. 12
Staffing ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Impacts of These Programs on Students ............................................................................................................. 17
State Standards & Attendance ........................................................................................................................... 17
Success Rates ............................................................................................................................................................. 18
Internships .................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Equity ............................................................................................................................................................................ 19
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Ongoing Questions ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Concerns ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 22
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................... 23
References ............................................................................................................................................................................ 24
Laws and Rules ............................................................................................................................................................... 24
Data Resources .............................................................................................................................................................. 24
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix A: Innovation Learning Pilot Approvals ............................................................................................ 25
Appendix B: Sample Report Card Data ................................................................................................................. 26
Page | 3
Appendix C: Program Models .................................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix D: Survey to the Pilots ............................................................................................................................ 28
Survey Questions to the Innovative Learning Pilot Programs ................................................................ 28
Responses to the Innovative Learning Pilot Survey June/July 2022 ..................................................... 29
Appendix E: Sample Forms ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Methow Valley Exhibition Rubric Form ............................................................................................................ 40
Gibson Ek Competency Achievement Chart .................................................................................................. 41
Legal Notice ......................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Page | 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2020 Legislature approved an innovative learning pilot program. This program is intended to
explore options to break away from traditional credits and course requirements and to provide new
and more equitable access to learning options that prepare students for post-high school
pathways. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), in collaboration with the State
Board of Education (SBE), must report to the Legislature regarding the efficiency, cost, and impacts
of the funding model or models used under the pilot program.
The research indicated that costs of the programs had many similarities to traditional education
models. Some costs needs were highlighted, many of which are experienced in other educational
models. These include addressing needs of specific populations such as students who arrive off-
track for graduating, providing smaller class sizes, coordination and management of off-campus
activities, and covering additional costs of running one or more unique programs in a small district.
OSPI reviewed school report card data on state assessments, attendance, and graduation rates.
While performance on these varied between pilots, analysis suggests that these were even with or
improved from programs serving similar populations of students. The pilot also identified
challenges to reporting data points that are used by OSPI to recognize and disaggregate student
performance, growth toward graduation, and the accountability measure of 9th grade on-track.
Long term impact is unknown.
A few risks were identified about reporting and instructional time that is off-campus and
unsupervised by district staff. These risks are similar to those found in Alternative Learning
Experiences (ALE), cooperative worksite learning, and instruction provided under contract. OSPI
believes these can be best addressed through rule making, identifying when these settings would
qualify as a regular classroom, establishing minimum expectations and clarifying responsibilities.
Page | 5
INTRODUCTION
The 2020 Legislature approved a pilot for innovation in learning, which allowed participants to
break away from traditional credits and course requirements, exploring new and more equitable
access to learning options that prepare students for post-high school pathways, including careers,
higher education, and civic engagement. This legislation directed the Office of Superintendent of
Public Instruction (OSPI) to oversee this pilot and report on its efficiency, cost, and impact.
In providing this pilot opportunity, the Legislature, OSPI, and State Board of Education (SBE)
explored innovation in education and funding models to support it. In a digital era where a one-
size-fits-all model no longer applies to students’ career paths, this model encourages career
exploration, draws on students’ interests and goals, and provides skills in the work and college
environment that will best serve our future citizens.
Seven schools are actively participating in the pilot. In addition to reviews of existing data,
members of the OSPI Learning Options department and mastery-based learning staff from SBE met
regularly with members of the Innovative Learning Pilot programs through the 2021–22 school
year. This allowed for learning about their practices, with a focus on evaluating efficiency, cost, and
impact.
The programs all practice a similar model of instruction that includes classroom instruction plus
off-campus learning experiences described as job shadowing and internships. A key element of this
is student-led development of learning plans focusing on interests, internships, project-based
learning, critical thinking, and post high school goals. Teachers work with the students’ plans to
meet competencies and state standards, providing personalized onsite learning using various
instructional methods. According to reports from the pilots, the students are more engaged in their
learning.
Implementing the Pilot Legislation
Beginning in the 2020–2021 school year, schools who had received a waiver of the credit-based
graduation requirements from the SBE, were encouraged to apply for the innovative learning pilot
program as described in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 28A.300.810 and Senate Bill (SB) 6521
(2020).
The state defined “mastery-based learning” in House Bill (HB) 1599 (2019) as an educational
program where:
• Students advance upon demonstrated mastery of content
• Competencies include explicit, measurable, transferable learning objectives that empower
students
• Assessments are meaningful and a positive learning experience for students
• Students receive rapid, differentiated support based on their individual learning needs
Page | 6
• Learning outcomes focus on competencies that include application and creation of
knowledge along with the development of important skills and outlooks
In order to participate, the school district must have applied for and received a waiver (Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 180-18-055) from the credit unit graduation requirements as granted
by SBE for the 2019–20 school year. The purpose of the waiver is to implement a local restructuring
plan to enhance the educational program for high school students by waiving one or more of the
requirements of WAC Chapter 180-51. Eligible programs applied and completed the attestation
and participation for the innovative learning pilot program, and seven that used mastery-based
learning models as defined above were approved.
OSPI, together with SBE staff, collaborated to meet with these programs regularly throughout
2021–22 for the purpose of evaluating practices, activities, policies; to develop and adopt rules for
the effective and efficient implementation of these programs; and to clarify reporting practices for
full-time equivalent students in an approved mastery-based learning programs for general
apportionment funding.
As authorized by the Legislature in HB 1599 and SB 5429, Washington had a Mastery-based
Learning Work Group, staffed by the SBE, from 2019–2021. Additional background information
about mastery-based learning can be found on the Mastery-based Learning Work Group webpage,
particularly the 2020 and 2021 Reports.
Participants in the Pilot
Approved pilots participated in monthly information-finding meetings with OSPI and SBE staff
throughout the 2021–22 school year. A detailed list of the participating pilots is available in
Appendix A.
These pilots are:
• Swiftwater Learning Center, Cle Elum-Roslyn School District
• Highline Big Picture School, Highline School District
• Gibson Ek High School, Issaquah School District
• Chelan School of Innovation, Lake Chelan School District
• Independent Learning Center, Methow Valley School District
• Quincy Innovation Academy, Quincy School District
• Selah Academy Big Picture Learning, Selah School District
Data Collection
For this report, OSPI used data from the Comprehensive Education Data and Research System
(CEDARS) related to student enrollment and school report card data for progress/accountability
Page | 7
metrics the state collects for all schools. In addition to these, OSPI conducted regular interviews
with the pilot leadership.
Program Interviews
From April 2021 through June 2022, representatives from OSPI and SBE met with representatives
from the innovative learning programs selected to participate in this pilot. Representatives from
five of the programs completed a survey (see the survey) in June 2022.
The purpose of these meetings was to learn more from the pilot sites about their programs and
how the basic education was provided, identify challenges or conflicts in meeting state education
and reporting regulations, and provide information relevant to the report of the pilot.
Monthly attendance at the meetings was not required, although most participated each month.
Topics addressed at these meetings included:
• Learning plan and standards
• Project-based learning
• Objective measures
• Special populations
• Internship
• Career and Technical Education (CTE) & dual credit options
• Graduation pathways
• Transfers & transcripts
• Staffing
• Successes & challenges
• Recommendations
Description of the Pilot Programs
The schools that participated in the pilot all utilized a specific and proprietary model called Big
Picture Learning. Big Picture Learning is one of several mastery-based educational models that
have applied for and have received a credit waiver from SBE.
Pilots use an interest-driven learning model, which includes a mix of classroom instruction, project-
based learning, and other strategies guided by the teacher and individual learning plan. These are
connected to and supported by job shadow and internship experiences. The learning from these
experiences is related back to the classroom learning and is shared with peers in the learning
environment.
Page | 8
Competencies focus on blending state learning standards in core subjects with real-life application.
Teachers and students work together to create a learning plan that includes expectations toward
content mastery, personal qualities toward self-directed learning, and application to career goals.
For students who require differentiated supports in the area of special education, programs
incorporate the application of specific learning goals from the student’s special education
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) to the student’s overall educational plan. For students who need
more direct instruction, this is provided either by program special education teachers or staff or
through the local comprehensive school.
There are some similarities between these pilot Big Picture competencies and the skills established
in the Profile of a Graduate recommendations created by the Mastery-based Learning Work Group.
These competencies are key skills identified primarily by Big Picture schools to recognize that the
student is prepared to graduate and be successful in their next stages of college, career, and life.
The work of the state Mastery-based Learning Work Group’s Profile of a Graduate is reflected in
the Five Learning Goals, or Competencies, in the pilots’ learning plans.
Figure 1: Comparison of Pilot Competencies and the skills of the Profile of a Graduate
Big Picture Five Learning Goals /
Competencies
Washington State Profile of a Graduate
Personal Qualities
Master Life Skills/Self-agency; Sustains Wellness
Quantitative Reasoning
Cultivates Personal Growth & Knowledge
Social Reasoning
Embraces Differences/Diversity
Communication
Communicates Effectively
Empirical Reasoning
Solves Problems
Source: SBE Profile of a Graduate
What is unique about the design of participating schools:
1. Most schools do not track student progress through individual credits.
2. Student progress is based on students meeting competencies, identified by the school, which
together are equivalent to the 24-credit framework per the SBE waiver.
3. Student schedule is not primarily based on individual courses.
4. Regular significant off-campus learning takes place through internships, job shadow, and other
career exploration-related activities.
Comparison Models
Pilots operate on a model that blends full-day classroom time with off-site internships or job
shadow opportunities. Much of the learning takes place through onsite project-based or place-
Page | 9
based learning, which is integrated with an internship experience taking place offsite half of a day
to two days per week. This is different from the general in-person model, which requires daily full-
day onsite attendance; a more structured Career and Technical Education (CTE) worksite learning
(WSL) model where worksite learning occurs at a qualified worksite outside the classroom in
fulfillment of a student’s career and educational plan, while applying skills and knowledge obtained
in a qualifying class; or from Alternative Learning Experiences (ALEs), where some or all of the
learning take place away from campus. Find a chart of comparison models in Appendix C.
Unlike ALEs regulated by WAC 392-550, the student learning plans used in the pilots are student-
developed, teacher-reviewed for meeting state requirements, and are project-based, not course-
based. ALEs require written student learning plans (WSLPs) that are developed by the certificated
teacher, are course- and credit-based (for high school), and identified as either site-based, remote
(offsite, but not online), or online.
Unlike CTE WSL, internships in the pilots are generally not arranged by a CTE-endorsed teacher
certificated in WSL; they are not monitored using the same process; and the student is generally
not paid.
CEDARS Reporting and Transcripts
All courses must be entered into the district student information system to report to the CEDARS
system. In an in-person school, student schedules are developed per content-based course and
assigned to teachers with corresponding endorsements. These courses are graded and linked to a
transcript.
For project-based learning in the pilots, a single project may represent several content areas and
may be facilitated by multiple teachers. The pilots use a narrative-based transcript with a
translation document that explains how credits may be transferred to an in-person school.
The difference between this model and a traditional individual course model makes CEDARS course
reporting more challenging for these pilots, with many reporting few courses or using vague titles
such as “advisory.” As a result, OSPI could not effectively compare student course participation,
credit attempt/attainment, or grades as indicators of student progress. If these models continue to
expand, there would be value in identifying and establishing how to best capture student
performance and progress in such programs.
Page | 10
REQUIRED REPORTING TOPICS
According to SB 6621(2020) (5), by December 1, 2022, OSPI, in collaboration with SBE, must report
to the legislature regarding the efficiency, cost, and impacts of the funding model or models used
under the pilot program.
Efficiency
Students in the pilots focus on their interests while teachers work with them to build a learning
plan that meets the student’s individual needs, setting clear goals to achieve all areas of the
competencies. This is measured through a combination of results, including increased graduation
rates, post-high school career application, minimal staffing and curriculum expense, and systems
that are well-organized and competent.
This allows the student to build their academic strengths without the distraction of other students,
while giving them space to develop knowledge and skills for collaboration on joint projects. This
also provides students with the opportunity to access instruction when they need it, and to either
move more quickly or more slowly as best fits their learning mode.
For teachers, they are able to focus their attention on students when the individual student or small
group needs it, providing the right resources at the right time, limiting the additional time often
spent in other schools on classroom management.
Cost
School districts are funded primarily through reported student full-time-equivalent (FTE). This
funding is designed to support adequate staffing for the number of students, as well as materials,
supplies, and operatic costs (MSOC). While these rates are designed with student to staff ratios in
mind, schools are funded at the district level, not the school level. The district makes decisions to
direct these funds to schools and programs how they believe will best meet their goals and
priorities. As a result, actual staffing and how these funds are used varies both from district to
district and school to school. While this flexibility is useful for school districts, it also makes it
challenging to make any definitive comparisons on costs. This project was able to identify some
specific costs the pilots highlighted.
Based on the pilot conversations, some specific costs that were recognized as impacts to these
programs that were identified include:
• Small class sizes: The districts prioritized small class sizes in many of these settings. This comes
at a cost and may have pulled funding from other activities, services, materials, or staffing.
Several pilots identified district prioritizing these small class sizes for their program. Values they
found in small class sizes include:
o Improved ability to develop relationships between the teacher and the students.
o Addressing individualized learning needs for students who are often not working with
common curriculum.
Page | 11
• Student populations:
o Almost all programs’ enrollments reflected higher percentages of students with
disabilities. While the presence of a disability does not always indicate a specific
higher cost, it often involves recognizing an increased need, and therefore cost, for
accommodations and services.
o Many of the pilots reported serving high percentages of students who struggled in
more regular settings. These programs had some unique costs and time allocations
addressing the causes of these struggles, and the impacts these struggles have had.
For example, Selah Big Picture identified a need to reengage students and develop
executive skills. To address these needs, they devoted additional resources to social
and emotional learning that were not as intentional or targeted in the other schools.
o There is no requirement that a district allocate their resources to increase services
for students who are struggling or off-track for graduation.
• Coordination of the off-campus internship and job shadowing: With all students
participating in these off-campus activities, staff time was required to maintain relationships
with these outside organizations, develop and coordinate agreements, visit locations, and
ongoing communications. Most pilots described these activities as the responsibility of the
teacher. Teachers often maintained these during the time when students were scheduled at
these off-site locations and the teacher had fewer or no students in the classroom. One pilot
had designated staffing to help support coordination activities.
• Small program costs: All the pilots were an option in their district, meaning that the districts
were all running traditional high school programs in addition to the pilot. While larger districts
had enough students to provide these options without impact, smaller districts often did not.
There were impacts to having similar qualified and endorsed staff spread between both
settings, which limited varieties of academic offerings. Additional resources may benefit these
smaller districts and programs.
• Transportation: The pilots addressed transportation differently, often depending on when the
student would participate in their internships. Programs in which students participated in an all-
day internship would expect the student to get to the location independently. Some students
may have access to public transportation either locally or through school provided bus passes,
while some programs reported that they provided staff drivers in school vehicles to transport
the students to the internship location.
These identified costs are not exclusive to the pilots. As mentioned above, school districts have a
lot of flexibility in how they locally allocate state apportionment. This ideally allows them to better
meet the unique needs of their community and provide targeted resources and supports as they
choose. There are no mandated priorities, and while this does allow these local decisions, there is
also no requirement they use equity as a lens in their decision-making.
Page | 12
The pilot legislation allowed all programs to be funded at the prototypical school funding rate for
the duration of the pilot, meaning that the state is paying the same per-student FTE as they would
for a student in the traditional in-person school. The pilot project found this was appropriate and
allowed them to maintain adequate staff to support the students in all their learning settings. OSPI
did not recognize any efficiencies that would reduce the amount of staffing or MSOC needed to
serve students while maintaining the level of connection and oversite with the off-campus facility
and mentor. In order to continue this level of funding following the pilot, OSPI recommends the
creation of some additional regulations to maintain high expectations and reduce risk when the
school is treating these off-campus activities as regular instructional time.
Districts receive additional funding for providing services for student with disabilities as defined in
the student Individualized Education Program (IEP). These additional funds are allocated per
student, based the district’s basic education allocation rate times a multiplier of 1.0075 for students
with disabilities who participate in a basic education classroom at least 80% of the time and a
multiplier of 0.9950 for all other students with disabilities. These formula funds are capped at 13.5%
of a district’s basic education population. Additional Special Education safety net funding is
provided to districts that can demonstrate financial need due to high-cost individual students.
Additional and Targeted Resources
Schools and teachers often seek additional resources to support their priorities and projects. Pilots
reported accessing additional revenue sources including applying for and using Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) grants, and Learning Assistance Program (LAP)
funding, while one pilot reported using an ALE model to support lower teacher-student ratios. Two
pilots reported a district commitment to supporting the model and its lower teacher-student ratio.
Impacts of Different Funding Models
These are the primary questions OSPI wanted to answer regarding funding for the significant hours
these students are involved in off-campus internships:
1. Do these hours meet the definition of instructional time?
Based on the definition of instructional hours in RCW 28A.150.205, these off-campus instructional
hours appear to align with the concept that these are “hours students are provided the opportunity
to engage in educational activity planned by and under the direction of school district staff”
2. If these are instructional hours, what funding model do these align to?
State regulations provide different funding models instructional hours based on different criteria
and accountability requirements. The primary ones investigated for these pilots were the in-person
seat-time model (prototypical), ALE, and cooperative work-site learning.
Prototypical In-Person Seat Time Model
Prototypical funding recognizes students’ on-campus instructional time through the school
calendar, student schedule, and regular attendance. For pilots, a majority of the instructional time is
on-campus, classroom- and attendance-based, and aligned to the expectation of a traditionally-
funded setting. However, for pilots, a significant and regular amount of instructional time (between
Page | 13
10%-40% of the weekly time) was scheduled off-campus attending internship and job shadowing
activities, which may not meet the expectations of the in-person model and creates confusion with
other off-campus funding models.
• Benefits of this funding model:
o The funding model is consistent with the traditional education, so there is no financial
difference, additional regulations, or stigma.
• Barriers of this funding model:
o Differing funding and regulations from other offsite learning models
o Inconsistent or possibly inadequate regulations to ensure accountability to student
safety and appropriate settings for students in their offsite learning activity.
o Inconsistent or possibly inadequate regulations to ensure that this off-campus
instruction time is connected to the expectations of K-12 learning standards.
• To make this funding model work:
o Establish criteria to recognize these instructional hours as in-person settings similar to a
regular classroom.
o Set consistent accountability parameters to ensure the safety and appropriateness of
the settings for students, and the connection to K-12 instruction and student learning.
Alternative Learning Experience (ALE) Courses
The ALE funding model applies when some or the instruction for a course is independent of the
regular classroom. This is the primary funding model for students learning off-campus, not directly
supervised by school staff. ALE is funded at a fixed rate, calculated based on the estimated
statewide annual average allocation per full-time equivalent student in grade 9 through grade 12 in
general education. This is the same formula that creates the Running Start Rate. Depending on the
district, this may be higher or lower than the prototypical funding rate.
Of the nine district programs that qualified for the pilot, the three largest district programs would
receive an average reduction of $533 per full time equivalent (FTE) funding by moving to an ALE
rate, and the six smaller programs would receive an average of $549 in increased funding per FTE.
• Benefits of this funding model:
o Establishes consistent accountability to instruction, planning, and evaluation of student
learning when students are offsite and not directly supervised by their teacher.
• Barriers to this funding model:
o ALE is a course-level funding model, and these internships are not independent courses,
nor do they neatly fit into an individual course.
Page | 14
o Programs believe these regulations do not align with or adequately support their model,
as the pilots’ structure includes onsite time and an internship offsite activity that does
not correspond with either ALE or CTE course requirements.
o Anecdotal information that the different funding amount creates a stigma or financial
incentive of one model over another rather than a student-centered decision.
• To make this funding model work:
o To address the issue related to a “course,” there could be a new ALE course type
developed and established in RCW to recognize these unique settings.
o OSPI does not recommend this as a funding model for these settings at this time.
▪ This would not address the funding difference and that could incentivize some
districts to increase or decrease the amount of time devoted to these internships
based on financial decisions.
▪ Modifying the ALE funding model in legislation would create significant impacts
to existing ALE apportionment.
▪ This also would not be able to address the perceived stigma, nor the
documentation of ALE accountability requirements. This is an ongoing challenge
that OSPI continues to investigate.
Work-based Learning (WBL) and Worksite Learning (WSL)
Courses receive vocational funding per course, based on student enrollment. Cooperative worksite
learning which most resembles this model is funded at half the rate of prototypical funding with
two hours of worksite learning recognized as one hour of instructional time. A state auditor’s office
audit highlighted that this appears to be most closely aligned with the internship component of
these schools. However, based on interviews with these programs, the programs believe these
experiences from these internships are more integrated into the instructional program than a
traditional cooperative worksite learning experience.
• Benefits of this funding model:
o CTE cooperative worksite requirements ensure that CTE and Labor and Industries
standards are met when students are on a worksite. These practices help to ensure
accountability to a safe and appropriate setting for students.
• Barriers of this funding model:
o The purpose of these settings is described differently than the purpose of cooperative
worksite learning.
o The CTE regulations particularly connecting the student to a qualifying CTE course of
study, and a certificated CTE teacher create barriers to qualifying as cooperative
worksite learning.
Page | 15
o The funding for cooperative worksite learning does not recognize that the teachers do
not have a reduced workload.
o Requirements include an endorsed CTE teacher with specific worksite learning
credentials, 360 logged hours per 180-hour course, background checks, contract
approvals, and pre-WSL preparatory courses.
• To make this funding model work:
o OSPI does not recommend this as a funding model for these programs.
▪ Without meeting the criteria of CTE, these programs would be unable to comply
with the funding model. These pilots acknowledge that these are not work
environments and provide more academic support and connection than is
expected in a WSL setting.
▪ Additionally, the funding for WSL would significantly impact these programs’
ability to provide the staffing and support to students and ensure that these
internships are recognized as academic learning settings.
Staffing
Pilots have specific and varied requirements for their instructional staff. Due to the nature of the
model, pilots have stated that they seek teachers who are more flexible in instructional methods
and have multiple endorsements. Pilots work to keep all teacher-student ratios low to best meet
the needs of individual students. With a higher-than-average enrollment of students with
disabilities, teachers with special education endorsements are needed. In one program, the special
education teacher is shared with the local school’s kindergarten and all the district’s alternative
programs; in another program, the Special Education director oversees the IEPs and 504 plans.
Counselors and Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)/mental health specialists are also often shared with
other campuses.
• Qualifications of “Advisors” and their responsibilities:
o “Advisor” is the term these programs use for their certificated teachers and internship
supervisors. Advisors are often endorsed in multiple subject areas or paired with another
teacher with complementary endorsements. Advisors work with the student to develop their
learning plan and verify that state standards are being met.
• Teacher qualifications:
o According to the Education and Research Data Center (ERDC) reporting for the 2019–20
school year, teachers in the pilots have a minimum average of 10 years’ experience, with
some programs averaging 20 years’ experience.
o In seeking teachers for these programs, the pilots identified qualifications that best meet
the culture of their programs.
Page | 16
▪ They often recruit teachers from alternative programs who are able to develop
relationship with students and think creatively with the students in developing their
learning goals.
▪ According to one administrator, when hiring, “It’s more about mind-set – growth &
open, renaissance people. They want them to be adult learners, vulnerable, people
who understand childhood adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and are trauma
informed. Teachers must be calm, and able to work with kids when they’re riled up.
They provide lots of SEL support.”
▪ Another program director added, “Teachers must have the ability to have authentic
relationships with students, really listen to the students’ interests, life experiences,
and provide high expectations.”
• Challenges:
o Sufficient program funding to hire needed staff for all student services, including internship
coordination, enrollment reporting, and instruction.
o Piecing together part-time staff to meet endorsement expectations and still provide a
consistent and solid program
o Some programs have as few as one or two teachers who must cover all subject areas.
o Lack of access to counseling and mental health staff
o Certification wish list for programs lacking certain endorsements among their teachers:
▪ CTE endorsements – especially for worksite learning
▪ Math-endorsed teachers
▪ Teachers with multiple endorsements for providing project-based learning when
paired teaching is not available
▪ Special education endorsements
▪ Additional endorsement options that recognize the model of instruction rather than
limited to content area expertise.
• Teacher-student ratios:
o Pilots reported a range of 12 to 18 students per certificated teacher, with one smaller
program reporting up to 33 students per certificated staff member. School report card data
showed that while most of these pilots showed smaller class sizes than other high schools
in their district, these numbers reflect a similar variance to other schools in the state.
o Programs with lower ratios may also include staff with specialized certifications, including
principals, part-time counselors, specialists, and teachers providing special education
services.
Page | 17
• Special education staffing:
o Each of the programs interviewed stated that the special education teacher or director
overseeing the student IEPs and 504 plans is shared with other district schools or programs.
• Funding to implement lower ratios:
o Programs reported using grants, and other funding sources to support lower teacher-
student ratios, including districts that choose to allocate additional resources to these
programs.
• Internship coordinators:
o One pilot reported that a support staff member arranges internships, then passes the
follow-up to the certificated teacher-advisor. In all other pilots, the certificated teacher
provides the additional time and effort in arranging for and following up with the
employer/mentor for the internship in addition to their on-campus instructional
responsibilities.
o Multiple programs reported having good connections in the community, an application and
interview process for prospective mentors, and regular communication with the mentor or
jobsite.
Impacts of These Programs on Students
The pilots are choice programs where students and families self-select to enroll. For this report,
OSPI examined the impacts of these programs on school accountability measures— including
attendance rates, graduation rates, and state test scores—compared with the prototypical school.
In addition, the pilots report increased student engagement in learning, acquisition of life and
career skills, and improved connections between content knowledge and real-world applications.
State Standards & Attendance
SBE has approved the credit waiver for these schools. The waiver requires assurance that these
schools are addressing the expectations of the state graduation requirements and college
admission requirements through these models.
In addition, districts are required to report annually on a set of indicators designed to demonstrate
that the students are meeting the purpose of the diploma to be ready for success in postsecondary
education, gainful employment, and citizenship, and are equipped with the skills to be a lifelong
learner. The focus on competencies allows for a personalized path toward each goal, incorporating
various content standards in the process, and flexibility in time to complete instruction. By
developing higher level competencies (which may encompass multiple standards) based on the
existing state learning standards and implementing this model broadly, the state can continue to
support interdisciplinary opportunities that improve student engagement and success and connect
students to post-high school careers.
Page | 18
Students in these programs participate in on-campus learning including project-based learning and
specific instruction for content areas. As part of students’ instructional hour schedules, they also
participate in regular and significant offsite learning through coordinated internships and other
similar activities. These offsite settings are coordinated by the district, are part of the student’s
schedule, and attendance is tracked and supervised by an assigned “mentor” at the site.
Success Rates
Where data was obtained, student performance was as good or better than average for the
populations these pilots were serving but this difference varied based on the specific population
being served.
The increased success rate of students who participate in these programs, compared to
neighboring prototypical schools, is demonstrated in Appendix B through the Washington State
Report Card for selected schools in Highline School District. This sample data, unavailable for the
smaller programs due to size, show that students in the Highline Big Picture School had 97.7%
attendance, compared to 68.9% district-wide; more than 90% graduated in 4 years, compared to
83% as the district average; and state testing scores were 7–21% higher than the district averages.
According to the Washington State Report Card for 2021–22, an average of 17.63% of the pilots’
student population have IEPs, compared to an average of 13.16% for their districts. The state
average for students with disabilities is 14.5%. The pilots reported greater student engagement and
student-led goal setting than in prototypical models, resulting in a higher graduation rate for this
population. Due to low enrollment figures, only one district showed this data on the state report
card. For 2020–21, Gibson Ek High School showed a graduation rate for students with disabilities at
76.9% with 15.4% continuing, compared to a state average of 63.9% graduating and 21.5%
continuing.
Due to the nature of being a non-credit program, 9th grade on-track data is not available.
According to the pilots, High School and Beyond Plans (HSBPs) showed a connection to post-high
school plans that include work-related goals stemming from the students’ internships.
Programs described how students enrolled in pilots have a greater voice in their learning and focus
on real-world application through the student-led learning plan. Each student works with their
advising teacher to develop a learning plan designed to address the required competencies, state
standards, potential internships, and their personal goals.
Internships
By participating in internships, programs described how students are able to gain skills and
characteristics that will apply after graduation, including practical work skills and communication
skills with adults. Students are able to see and experience a variety of work settings and are able to
make connections between content knowledge and real-world opportunities. Through this process,
students are able to make decisions for continued self-directed learning and long-term goals.
For students who are not able to continue throughout high school in one pilot program, there may
be a challenge in translating and transferring their experiences to a credit-based transcript. Pilots
Page | 19
shared their documentation practices and “crosswalks” to translate and recommend credits to the
incoming school, per WAC 180-18-055.
Equity
The pilots have reported an enrollment diversity of race and poverty levels that reflects the rest of
their district, according to their district enrollment demographics. One of the districts that is seeing
greater enrollment among student from higher income families noted this disproportionality and is
looking at strategies to achieve a more equitable enrollment, consistent with the district
populations.
One exception is in the area of special education, where many of the pilots report a higher
percentage of students requiring IEP and 504-plan services. Of the seven active pilots in the
interviews, the Washington State Report Card shows an average of 6.6% higher enrollment of
students with disabilities and 11.5% higher enrollment of students with 504 plans (not including the
one district that did not report 504 plan enrollment) than their district averages.
Pilots report minimal support for students who need mental health and/or SEL. Additional
counselors are not available, and space size and/or pandemic requirements limits large group
social activities. These limitations and barriers are often reported by staff in other choice programs,
such as ALE, as well.
Page | 20
RECOMMENDATIONS
To continue providing and supporting these and other related innovative programs, this report
recommends the following:
• Reporting Student Performance and Progress: Identify and establish how to best capture
student performance and progress in these new models. This may include updates to
CEDARS reporting options, reporting guidance, or other strategies determined by OSPI.
• Teacher Qualifications: The Professional Educator Standards Board is exploring additional
endorsements or structures that recognize teacher expertise in additional instructional
contexts such as teaching through project-based learning, blended content learning, and
supervision of offsite internship experiences.
• Supervision in Assigned Off-Campus Settings: Determine responsibilities and processes
for supervision by the school and teacher when a student is at an off-campus instructional
setting. Define or standardize what must be in place for the school to address risks and
remain accountable to the student learning and student safety.
• Funding Model: Recognize and fund these off-campus instruction components as in-
person prototypical instructional time. This will be supported by OSPI developing rules,
similar to WAC 392-121-188, articulating the expectations and responsibilities of the school
district and the organization where the student is placed. OSPI and the State Auditor’s
Office identified these models as including instruction outside of the regular classroom, and
possibly not eligible for state apportionment without compliance to ALE regulations or
Cooperative Worksite Learning regulations. Through this pilot, OSPI staff recognizes that
these activities meet the definition of instructional hours, but do not quite fit into either
category of ALE or worksite learning.
• Regulations: In addition to many of the existing contracted instruction regulations, which
focus on the compliance to state and federal education laws, OSPI recommends regulations
to mitigate some risks that were identified in the pilot These regulations will need to be in
place by August 2023 in preparation for the 2023–24 school year. This includes:
o Clarify how these settings meet the definition for a regular classroom and are not an
ALE or worksite learning setting.
o Establish minimum criteria of the agreement between the district and the
organization.
o Clarify district and organization responsibility for a safe and appropriate
instructional setting.
o Clarify the responsibilities of the assigned certificated teacher when the instructional
activities are provided by a contractor and not directly supervised by the teacher.
This would support the supervision section above.
Page | 21
• Career and Technical Education Enhancement: The pilots clearly stated that these jobsite
activities are exploration and learning settings, not work settings. This instructional time
would not be eligible for the Career and Technical Education enhancement allowed in
worksite learning unless it also complies the requirements of worksite learning. The
apportionment would also be limited to the parameters of worksite learning and the
district’s CTE program approval.
• Transportation: No revision to existing transportation to funding regulations is
recommended. Transportation time would not be included as instructional time. This aligns
with existing regulations in Running Start and traditional learning settings.
Ongoing Questions
• Inconsistent data: Pilots were able to identify data for student achievement and equity.
There were challenges to reporting information into CEDARS, as this system is based upon
credit reporting for individual subjects. Course level data provides the state information on
which subjects students are receiving instruction in, who is responsible for the instruction
(and their qualifications), and course outcomes. This data gap reduces the ability for OSPI
and other data users to see relevant information about the school and students. There is a
need to identify and establish how to best capture student performance and progress in
these new models. This may include updates to CEDARS reporting options, reporting
guidance, or other strategies determined by OSPI.
• No consistent guidance on teacher or school responsibilities for offsite activities: The pilots
were clear about teacher and district responsibilities for student safety and learning content
connections for the internships. There is a need for consistent guidance or regulation to
reduce risk for school districts and their students, as is in place for other offsite learning in
ALE and worksite learning.
• No limit to offsite activities: There is no state limit on the amount of instructional time
devoted to internships. Pilots reported that students were spending 5-40% of their school
week in these internship settings. As mentioned earlier in this report, internships are not
traditional teacher-led instructional settings, although the activities do align to state
learning standards and school competencies. The time in these settings may have a direct
impact on the student’s academic choices, and ability to complete academic goals or
coursework.
• Need for a long-term funding solution: Participation in the pilot allowed districts to claim
full apportionment even when they did not align with the expectations of the in-person
seat-time model. Without adjustments to apportionment regulations, these programs will
continue to find themselves at a financial disadvantage or at risk for audit findings.
Page | 22
CONCLUSIONS
Benefits
The innovative learning pilot programs have shown through multiple student examples—through
data and anecdotal stories—that they meet the needs of their students, providing engagement and
opportunities to explore content area, careers, and interests through learning and field experiences.
Teachers and staff who are drawn to these programs often have industry or field experience,
multiple years of teaching, and/or experience in various types of alternative programs. They are
focused on student-led learning and can provide resources to connect multiple content areas.
As a leading example, pilots may influence local prototypical schools to expand work-based
learning opportunities and create more mastery-based and project-based learning opportunities
for groups of students that incorporate multiple content areas, critical thinking, and student-led
learning.
Concerns
This pilot began in response to funding concerns raised by these programs because they did not fit
into the existing structures and models, including the prototypical school, alternative learning
experience, or career-technical education. Due to comparatively low student enrollment numbers
and lack of comparative data due to COVID-19 disruptions, there is an inability to fully see what the
students are doing, and how they are progressing, as shown in CEDARS, and equity implications
associated with existing reporting systems.
There were also concerns about consistency in student learning regarding the equivalency of the
diploma of a student in one of these programs versus that of a student who went through a more
traditional course and credit-based program. While some of the pilots have been able to clearly
translate their competencies to credits, much of the student learning activities do not make clear or
consistent connections with graduation credits or content area standards across all programs. This
is especially the case where content requirements are split over the student’s years of enrollment
through themes and are not split out into sequential year-defined credits. Each program has its
approach to tracking and documenting how students meet the learning standards and
requirements.
Next Steps
Through interviews, surveys, and onsite visits, this work was meant to accomplish several goals,
including a review of areas that may not meet state expectations or have increased barriers in the
areas of data; consistency vs prototypical or ALE model programs; teacher qualifications; funding;
accountability for state standards; and student safety.
While pilots were already actively considering the primary noted areas, there would be a benefit for
OSPI and SBE to collaborate in developing state level guidance and accountability systems to
better address the unique needs of these programs as determined through this pilot.
Page | 23
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
State Board of Education:
• Alissa Muller, Director of the Mastery-based Learning Collaborative
• Seema Bahl, Senior Policy Analyst
• Randy Spaulding, Executive Director
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction:
• Rhett Nelson, Director, Learning Options
• Liz Quayle, Mastery-based Learning Program Manager
• Samantha L. Sanders, Director, Career & Technical Education
• Kim Reykdal, Director, Graduation and Pathway Preparation
• Cindi Rockholt, Assistant Superintendent, Educator Growth & Development
Innovative Learning Pilot Program Representatives:
• Sarah Houseberg, Director, Swiftwater Learning Center, Cle Elum-Roslyn SD
• Jeff Petty, Principal, Highline Big Picture School, Highline SD
• Julia Bamba, Principal, Gibson Ek High School, Issaquah SD
• Erik Peterson, Director, Chelan School of Innovation, Lake Chelan SD
• Sara Mounsey, Principal, Independent Learning Center, Methow Valley SD
• Kathleen Brown, Principal, Quincy Innovation Academy, Quincy SD
• Joe Coscarat, Principal, Selah Academy Big Picture Learning, Selah SD
Page | 24
REFERENCES
Laws and Rules
• INNOVATIVE LEARNING PILOT PROGRAM
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 3, 2020
• Senate Bill 6521
• Chapter 353, Laws of 2020
• 66th Legislature
• 2020 Regular Session
• RCW 28A.300.810 Innovative Learning Pilot Program
• WAC 180-18-055 Alternative high school graduation requirements.
• WAC 180-51-051 Procedure for granting students mastery-based credit.
• WAC 392-121-182 Alternative learning experience requirements [for state funding].
Data Resources
• Washington State Report Card
• Education Research & Data Center (ERDC)
• High school graduate outcomes
• Innovative Learning Pilot Programs: interviews and survey
Page | 25
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Innovation Learning Pilot Approvals
Fourteen programs were approved for the Innovative Learning Pilot Program. Of these 14, seven
chose to participate actively in the monthly information-finding meetings with OSPI and SBE staff.
Active participation in these meetings was optional. Surveys were sent to the participants of these
meetings.
Figure 2: Participating pilot participation
Mtgs
Survey
District
School
active
Yes
Cle Elum-Roslyn
Swiftwater Learning Center
active
No
Highline
Big Picture High School
active
Yes
Issaquah
Gibson Ek High School
active
Yes
Lake Chelan
Chelan School of Innovation
active
Yes
Methow Valley
Independent Learning Center
active
Yes
Quincy
Quincy Innovation Academy
active
No
Selah
Selah Academy BPL
Source: OSPI Innovative Learning Program Pilot Minutes
Page | 27
Appendix C: Program Models
Figure 3: Program model comparisons
Pilots
On-site schools with
CTE programs
ALE
Attendance
requirements
3-5 days onsite + 1/2-2
days offsite internship
Daily onsite attendance
Weekly direct personal
contact: no onsite
attendance required by
the state, may be
required by the local
program
CTE: Vocational
funding, CTE
credit
Limited CTE staffing.
CTE credit must be
separately defined
from the pilot’s non-
credit bearing
competencies.
Coordinated at the
district level; available
to all students; funding
per student enrolled in
course(s); oversight by
CTE-certificated
teacher
Vocationally enhanced
funding for CTE
courses is not available;
limited CTE staffing
Graduation
Pathways
Limited access to Dual
Credit, CTE, Bridge to
College courses;
Advanced Placement
(AP)/International
Baccalaureate (IB)
Fewer barriers to
delivering each
pathway
Limited access to Dual
Credit, CTE, Bridge to
College courses;
Advanced Placement
(AP)/International
Baccalaureate (IB)
Documentation
(not including
attendance)
Student-led Learning
Plan; 2-3 interim
exhibitions per year
Detailed forms for WSL;
hours log for credits;
Teacher-developed
WSLP, monthly
progress review
Community
connections
Integral to internships,
project resources,
community service
Community service
requirements (some)
Community-based
instructors (some),
project resources
Sources: Pilot interviews, 9/2021-6/2022; pilot documentation samples, 4/2022; WBL WAC 392-
121-124, Worksite Learning Manual; ALE WACs 392-121-182, 392-550, Guide to Offering
Alternative Learning Experiences; 2021–22 Enrollment Reporting Handbook.
Page | 28
Appendix D: Survey to the Pilots
Survey Questions to the Innovative Learning Pilot Programs
We have appreciated the time you have given for participating in the Innovative Learning Pilot
Program Conversations this year. We have learned a lot about your programs, and hope that they
have provided insight from other programs for you as well.
In accordance with our timeline for reporting to the Legislature, we will be compiling our notes
from this survey, and from the conversations, to complete our draft. We will be sending that draft
to you in the fall, accompanied by invitations for individual videoconference meetings to review
and discuss your program’s information.
We understand that not all of these questions may pertain directly to your program; please answer
as many as you can. We are providing a Word version for your draft. You are welcome to either
submit your answers via the Alchemer survey link, or by sending the doc or pdf back to us
(liz.quayle@k12.wa.us).
The survey will be open through Friday, July 15. If you are emailing a doc or pdf, please send it by
July 15. Thank you again for your time!
1. What are successes that you have had through mastery-based learning this past school year?
2. What have been non-pandemic-related challenges this year for your program or for your
students?
3. What are highlights or structures in your program that you haven’t previously shared that we
can include in our report to the legislature?
4. How do you communicate the curriculum available to students and adoption processes to the
district, board, and community?
5. What drives your curricular choices and who makes the decisions?
6. In considering your practices this year, what are some changes you might make to the
internship process next year in:
a. Staff oversight,
b. Amount of time in the week students are away from campus,
c. How internship learning is connected to the on-site learning,
d. Impact on students’ ability to access other course opportunities at the school or at other
locations (Skill Center, Running Start, local High School)?
7. What would be the impact to your program if there were restrictions on time allowed for
students to be off campus for internships?
8. What would be the impact to your program if there were a different funding calculation for
your school due to the off-campus time?
Page | 29
9. If the funding difference was not a factor, what do you see as barriers to using an ALE
framework for your program? (Link to ALE WAC & Guide)
10. What data do you use to inform the public and the district/board about the progress of the
school and its students?
11. How is equity demonstrated in your data?
12. What are key tips and suggestions that you would like to pass along to future mastery-based
learning programs?
13. How has been part of the Innovative Learning Pilot affected your program development?
14. What are some specific resources or needs that we can address in the continued pilot meetings
through next year?
15. How can we as state agencies (OSPI, SBE) support your program or other innovative programs?
Responses to the Innovative Learning Pilot Survey
June/July 2022
Q – Quincy Innovation Academy, Quincy
CH – Chelan School of Innovation, Lake Chelan
CER – Swiftwater Learning Center, Cle Elem-Roslyn
MV – Independent Learning Center, Methow Valley
IS – Gibson Ek High School, Issaquah
1. What are successes that you have had through mastery-based learning this past school
year?
Q - We have refined our competency-based evidence method by building upon a portfolio. We
have also expanded our community engagement since being shut down by the pandemic.
CH - Students are less stressed, as traditional assessment practices often measure compliance
rather than growth and learning. Students are able to work at their own pace.
CER - Students are excited to come to school. We have high engagement and students are actively
participating in the development of their learning.
MV - Students have achieved competency growth through interest-based exploration in the form
of projects, internships, and real-world experiences.
-We have engaged students who were otherwise disengaged in the traditional program, several of
whom were on a path to dropping out or not graduating on time. Others who were simply
uninspired and found inspiration through our program.
-Students have been exposed to post high school options they would not have known about or
considered without our internship program. Those opportunities have motivated students to
change post high school plans.
Page | 30
-We have strengthened connections with community assets, including organizations, businesses,
and individuals which enriches our program as well as adding value to those assets.
IS - Ability to meet students where they are; engage them through relevant and interest-based
learning; and help them demonstrate growth in academic and personal skills. Additionally, having
students be able to engage in learning through project-based learning helps them to enjoy their
learning and find ways to deepen their learning while also connecting their learning to the
competencies, identifying ways they can grow as a learner.
Compare this to more traditional settings where students are told the skills they are being taught
and then given specific assignments that are supposed to help students learn, practice and
develop. However, if a student is not ready for this learning or these skills then they are unable to
demonstrate the mastery or growth that is important to them personally.
2. What have been non-pandemic-related challenges this year for your program or for your
students?
Q - Teachers and staffing to really do the necessary community outreach and professional
development.
CH - Finding a solution for P.E. time in a district with limited facilities. Managing online/credit
retrieval students.
CER - There are still students who think we are a credit retrieval program and have a hard time
getting on board. Students have a hard time really thinking about what it is that they want to learn
because they have never been part of the process. We are also still navigating around how to
communicate mastery to other schools if a student moves out of district. We also struggle with
transportation, having our own school vehicle would be ideal so we could transport students to
internships.
MV - We have seen a significant increase in need for mental health support.
-Our limited physical space has limited our ability to host larger group activities.
-The culture war issues within the community have impacted our students.
IS - This is probably somewhat related to the pandemic in many ways, but something that we have
to focus on no matter what the cause. We have seen a drop in the ability of students to socialize
with one another and follow some simple expectations in a school setting.
3. What are highlights or structures in your program that you haven’t previously shared that
we can include in our report to the Legislature?
Q - Making sure that all this work is communicated to all stakeholders, including higher education
and business leaders.
CH - Our students participate in frequent community service projects with organizations in our
community, such as Thrive Chelan Valley, the U.S. Forest Service, and Historic Downtown Chelan
Association.
Page | 31
CER - One of our students is a youth school board rep for the Cle Elum Roslyn School District. This
year she presented alongside our superintendent at the WASA Small Schools conference, and it
was amazing to hear her insight on the education system. School leaders from across the state
were shocked that an “alternative” student was capable of presenting at that level and were even
more shocked that it was her idea to attend and present at the conference.
MV - A few highlights from this year included the addition of small group projects aimed to
promote positive changes in our community. These projects were unique to our program because
they were student led, arising from a need identified by students, with adult support in
implementing aspects of Design Thinking for problem solving.
Some brief descriptions of these projects follow:
Advocating for needs of teens
This small group conducted several listening sessions with teens in the community to learn more
about the unmet teens in the community. They met with teens from the ILC and Liberty Bell as well.
The result of their learning was a realization that they needed to better inform the community
about the desire for a recreational space for teens to gather. They produced a pamphlet with their
findings to inform the community.
They also attended a community meeting regarding a proposed new pool facility to share their
findings and advocate for a teen center component to be included. Their work continues to provide
a teen perspective to adult community organizers in discussions around improving opportunities.
Combating social isolation
This small group recognized that following the pandemic, social isolation was an issue. They
brainstormed specific demographic groups who might have been significantly impacted. Youth
recognized that they had been particularly isolated from their grandparents throughout the
pandemic. Thus, they chose to reach out to elders in the community to find out if social isolation is
an issue for them. They invited a few experts in the field: the executive director for Methow At
Home (nonprofit organization empowering elders to age in place) and a person associated with
Jamie's Place (local elder care home). After interviewing these experts, they asked for ideas of how
to have a positive impact on the problem of social isolation. Both of the experts stated that elders
want connection, to be seen and heard, and to tell their stories.
The group of students landed on the idea of creating a podcast that recorded interviews with
elders. This, coupled with portraits that artists would paint of the elders during the interviews.
The group ended up interviewing six people and recording the interviews. A local podcaster came
into the school and taught the students to edit and produce the podcasts. They edited the hour
and a half long recordings. The students created an intro and outro to the podcast. After listening
to many different podcasts, they created a script, edited it, and added it to the end of each
episode. They then published the podcasts on YouTube and the Methow At Home and Jamie's
Place websites. The Methow Valley Newspaper also produced a piece on the student's project.
Page | 32
The culminating event was a tea with the elders. Here, the students and elders reflected on the
experience. Both students and elders were significantly impacted by the project. Both groups felt a
huge amount of gratitude for the experience. Students presented the portraits to the elders. One
pair, an elder and a student, went on to record another podcast together, with the elder
interviewing the teen about contemporary issues faced by teens.
IS – N/A
4. How do you communicate the curriculum available to students and adoption processes to
the district, board, and community?
Q - We do a yearly board work session, and students and parents through quarterly exhibitions and
school activities. We also can post updates, on our website.
CH - Students are made aware of curriculum options at the beginning of the school year during
Advisory and on an ongoing basis as they work with their Advisors to develop their Learning Plans.
CER - We are very transparent about our program. In the early stages we worked side by side with
the district and school board to determine what was the best option for our school. Once we had
board approval, our next step was sharing with the community. We hit the pavement and
introduced ourselves and our students to businesses to create partnerships and spread the word
about Big Picture Learning.
MV - Instead of a traditional curriculum, we use Big Picture Learning design principals to guide
teaching and learning. These have been adopted by our school board, are included on our website,
and are regularly reported to the community through our district’s quarterly publication, Methow
Pride.
IS - We communicate in several ways including our website, short videos, extensive student/family
handbook that covers more than just behavior expectations and regulations, School Improvement
Plan and meeting with the school board, data and program details as they relate to our school
board’s end monitoring, ongoing bulletins to family and community.
5. What drives your curricular choices and who makes the decisions?
Q – These are local building recommendations, and then our directors, and then board and
superintendent final decision.
CH - Student needs and interests, as well as high-priority goals listed on our school improvement
plan. Staff and administration make the decisions. Students also have a voice in some of the
curriculum they select.
CER - Students, everything we do is based on the students’ wants and needs.
MV - We use competencies to guide the adult led learning in our school. Other learning is initiated
by students based upon their interest, often (but not always) supported by internships.
Page | 33
IS - Our competencies are the foundation to the learning that happens in our program. How
students demonstrate these skills and grow in these areas can vary depending on the personalized
needs of these students. Students engage in the following ways to demonstrate evidence of
learning and growth over 4 years in the areas of academic learning, personal characteristics,
community engagement, and social emotional learning. Experiences for learning and growth
happen in advisory, independent projects, collaborative projects, internships, math courses, design
labs, outside of school experiences, travel and field trips, core foundation workshops.
6. In considering your practices this year, what are some changes you might make to the
internship process next year in:
a. Staff oversight,
Q - We want all staff involved and have one person solely assigned for community outreach.
CH - Considering an online login system to track student attendance at internships. We also may
implement a regular check-in system with mentors to discuss student learning targets and
Workplace Competencies.
CER - N/A
MV - We have modified our weekly schedule to ensure that staff have flexibility to visit students
regularly at internships. Our weekly staff meetings will provide opportunities to review the
scheduled visits for the week and support Advisors in leaving the school to visit students.
IS - The management and supervision of students who are on campus while also engaging with
students off campus can be a challenge. While zoom meetings have made this more manageable,
we need our staff to be checking in with mentors monthly and doing site visits monthly.
Additionally, we are continuing to look at how to best track and manage attendance to streamline
the process and make check ins and goal setting meaningful for students.
b. Amount of time in the week students are away from campus,
Q - 5-8 hrs.
CH - Considering switching to a Tuesday/Thursday internship model.
CER - Our goal is to get more students out into internships. Our goal is 2 days per week at
internships (T& Th). Now that Covid restricts have let up, our community is more willing.
MV - This amount of time is driven by individual internship schedules. Our students have minimum
amounts of time they’re expected to be at internship over the course of the year, but how this time
is scheduled is very much driven by the availability of mentors.
IS - We have loved the option this last year of having students engaging in internships remotely
and/or off campus with time for them to focus on independent learning needs and projects related
to those internships. For some internship sites, hosting a student for 6 hours could be
overwhelming, but hosting a student for 3-4 hours and then giving them time to work on projects
off site has been very positive for some of our students and mentors. Having the flexibility to meet
Page | 34
the needs of the students is of high importance. While 6 hours at an internship site might be
beneficial for some students, others may only be able to stay engaged for 2-3 and having options
to support that student is important. For example, does that student start their morning at school,
go to their work site and then end the day at home for independent work on math or an internship
project. Or maybe some students spend the day at home until 3:00 and then go to a theater from
3:00-9:00. So many incredible options are out there when schools are given the flexibility with time,
place, and work that is relevant and important to each student.
c. How internship learning is connected to the on-site learning
Q - Students, mentors, build projects around student interest but also work with their advisor to
support their competencies in the internship experiences.
CH - Developing a rubric to go along with the Workplace Learning Competencies.
CER - The goals of the internships are written into the student learning plan
MV - This connection is best supported when Advisors have regular communication with the
student and mentor at internship visits. Increasing the amount of time and frequency of visits
will increase the connection between in and out of school learning.
IS - Students develop and refine their learning plans each year and each learning cycle. These
plans include personal visions and goals. Advisors work with students to connect them to
internships that support their vision and goals. As a student’s vision and goals change, so do
their internship experiences. 9
th
grade students spend time in and LTI kickstart that lasts about
6 weeks on Tuesdays and Thursdays before starting an internship. Students also work on career
and interest surveys periodically throughout the year, they update their resumes, they engage
in college and career planning as well as family partnership and engagement in the program.
Students also may work on internship projects during independent learning time on campus.
For example, a student may be working on a prototype for their internship and may be able to
use the 3D printers while at school or use the design computers.
d. Impact on students’ ability to access other course opportunities at the school or at
other locations (Skill Center, Running Start, local High School)?
Q - We can access thorough other districts a skill center and run start. Our local high school only
accepts our students if there is space available. In all program’s transportation is an issue-a student
could be traveling 2-3 hours per day.
CH - Our students are eligible to take courses or participate in clubs and sports at Chelan High
School.
CER - We have been able to schedule internships around those courses.
MV - We follow a “one student at a time” philosophy. Thus, students post high school plans and
individual interests are the top priority when making decisions regarding programming. If a
student’s post high school plan is best supported by Running Start classes, CTE classes, or classes
Page | 35
at the comprehensive high school, we ensure those options are available. The same is true for
internships.
IS - 11
th
and 12
th
graders can take running start courses up to 10 credits per quarter although we
recommend that they take 5-6 credits per quarter. Students can access WANIC although the time
for this program during the year is 3 hours daily and can be too much for most students in addition
to working on graduation requirements for Gibson Ek. Students can only access athletics, cheer,
drill, and drama at the comprehensive high schools. We do not have access to a skills center.
Students can meet competencies through outside activities as well such as music experiences,
horseback riding, coding courses or certificates, world language.
7. What would be the impact to your program if there were restrictions on time allowed for
students to be off campus for internships?
Q - We would be limited to an already limited number of opportunities.
CH - Limiting students’ ability to participate in real-world learning would be detrimental to student
motivation and engagement.
CER - Internships are very powerful learning experiences and students often come to programs like
ours because they are interested in the internship piece. This would likely be detrimental to BPL.
MV - It would impact our ability to truly serve one student at a time. Some students thrive when
able to deeply engage in an internship for a full two days, others are more successful when
attending for one partial day. Limiting opportunities would limit the exposure, and therefore the
learning, which is generally most impactful for our students.
IS - Not being locked into mandated hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays allows advisors and staff to
work with students and families to develop a plan that gets the best experience for our students
based on what they need at that time. For example, if a student has the opportunity to work at
Children’s hospital in the prosthetics lab in the mornings on Tuesdays and Thursdays then we want
to make that happen. If they had to be on campus and miss that opportunity, then internship
programs cannot reach full potential.
Weekly oversight and check ins with students are important, but these meetings can often happen
at the internship sites with the mentors and advisors rather than on campus.
Based on some answers above, we can make decisions and adjustments based on students’ needs
at the time and as we focus on growth and development, having the ability to make changes for
students throughout the year supports their growth and learning.
8. What would be the impact to your program if there were a different funding calculation
for your school due to the off-campus time?
Q - We are a small school, and our budget is very limited so we would lose staffing.
CH - I’m not sure how to answer this, as I don’t know what a different funding calculation would
look like.
Page | 36
CER - If we received less money, it would be problematic because there are still students who do
not always have an internship and stay on campus during this time. We also have to account for
staffing to monitor internships.
MV - It would be very challenging to calculate. As stated before, we do not have a “one size fits all”
program, in which all students are in internships for the same amount of time or same number of
weeks. Students conduct interviews and job shadows, both of which are often off campus. For
some students, the interview and job shadow process take months and means they’re off campus a
few times weekly for an hour or two. Sometimes an internship opportunity lasts for a month and
some last for a year. Determining how to track that funding would be very challenging. Also, the
adult work included in setting up internships, tracking the learning, collaborating with mentors, and
visiting students is significant. This is time consuming and needs to be funded.
IS - Our goal is to get full basic ed funding for programs such as the current ALE and work-based
learning calculations do not provide adequate funding for a program such as ours. Many schools
such as ours have increased need for social emotional support, mental health support, and higher
numbers of students with IEP’s and 504s. Our district for example, prioritizes funding for
supporting these needs through lower staff to student ratio and counseling support. With lower
amounts of funding coming to us per student, enhanced program funding for our model has to
come from outside grants.
9. If the funding difference was not a factor, what do you see as barriers to using an ALE
framework for your program? (Link to ALE WAC & Guide)
Q - This is the only thing that would be needed to make sure the plans follow the WAC.
CH - ALE student learning plans and all the paperwork and reporting would be a burden on staff
and administration, who already do a great deal of work in facilitating Learning Plans, Internships
and Exhibitions.
CER - This is what a lot of schools are currently using, and it works just fine as long as you guys are
okay with it.
MV - The ALE framework is intended to be used for schools who are not having direct contact with
students five days a week. It is useful for drop-in programs and online programs. Our program is
distinctly different in that we are fully relational – students are at our school five days a week,
engaged in deep learning that is strongly connected to their peers and adults in the school.
IS - Honestly, I’d have to take more time to look through each of these in detail and discuss further.
Some initial responses in the time needed for paperwork and tracking when we already have
reliable systems set up that may not meet the expectations of these frameworks. I have heard that
the amount of time focused on documentation can take away from the important work of face-to-
face time with students.
10. What data do you use to inform the public and the district/board about the progress of
the school and its students?
Page | 37
Q - Graduation rates, assessment data, attendance, healthy youth, and student self-report.
CH - CEE data, Healthy Youth Survey, School Climate surveys.
CER - Mastery Transcript, MAP scores, SBAC data, parent/student feedback, monthly reviews, and
School Improvement Plan.
MV - Qualitative data from exhibitions, enrollment data, attendance data, IEP data, F/R lunch
qualification data, post high school pathways
IS - Graduation rates, test scores, student on track data, attendance, competency attainment,
college acceptance, student engagement surveys, student interviews and presentations during
various times of the year.
11. How is equity demonstrated in your data?
Q - By disaggregated the data into subgroups like grade levels, ethnicity, qualifying programs
(bilingual, special services, etc.)
CH - The Big Picture model of personalized learning and differentiation is built on equity. Data is
disaggregated according to race and marginalized populations.
CER - Everything is based on the individual needs of our students.
MV - As our enrollment increases, so has our numbers of students accessing F/R lunch and IEPs
increased.
IS - We look at middle school data for our students to show increased engagement and success in
our program, special education data, student data on discipline, graduation, and on track by race.
12. What are key tips and suggestions that you would like to pass along to future mastery-
based learning programs?
Q - Make sure you involve right from the planning stages all stakeholders including your
comprehensive high schools, your higher education programs, and your skills centers.
CH - There is a great mastery-based transcript used by Gibson Ek.
CER - You really have to learn your standards and the kids really need to know them. Everyone
needs to be able to communicate how the evidence connects to mastery of the standards.
MV - Engage students in the planning, assessment, and communication about the program.
Bringing students and families in on the planning and development process will increase
community buy-in and encourage collaborative leadership.
IS - Take time to develop strong and consistent language that is accessible for students and
managed by staff. Create ownership opportunities so students have a voice in their learning and
can connect their learning to the competencies and their growth over time. Shift staff and student
mindset that learning happens over 4 years rather than many courses that only last 1 semester or 1
year. Give students the opportunity to build on their strengths and challenges from year to year
Page | 38
rather than learning stopping at the end of the year and then new staff having to take time to learn
new students and their strengths and challenges again asking students to often start
demonstrating their skills and learning all over again.
Enjoy the personalization, engage with people who know the student well such as parents,
mentors, and peers, and hold students to high expectations asking them to demonstrate growth
from where they are over time.
13. How has been part of the Innovative Learning Pilot affected your program development?
Q - We have been able to hear from others to build upon our strengths and barriers.
CH - As this has been a fact-finding year, not much.
CER - Connecting with other programs like ours is always nice.
MV - Meeting with different partners from OSPI and SBE has helped to clarify confusion around
some issues. I have appreciated the regular opportunity to reflect on our program’s development
and hear from partners in the work.
IS - It’s always nice to hear how other schools are approaching their programs and implementing
practices. The flexibility for our schedule on Tuesdays and Thursdays in incredible. I have seen an
increase in staff ability to support their students individually, have un-interrupted time with
students to support, challenge, and celebrate their learning weekly, and we have created time for
collaborative staff planning time.
14. What are some specific resources or needs that we can address in the continued pilot
meetings through next year?
Q - It would be nice to have regional or small school meetings as our struggles are not the same as
other parts of the state, or larger schools. Having the meetings at a school rather than virtual would
be nice as well. Maybe a longer meeting on a school site.
CH – no answer
CER - Please include the coaches from BPL.
MV - Continued discussion about graduation pathways and CTE funding.
Shared ideas about other meaningful types of data we can collect to tell our stories.
IS - Look at more innovative and flexible options that could be explored for innovative schools. For
example, we took the opportunity with this pilot to adjust our schedule, but are there other options
that we’re not exploring and testing? Would love to take a deep dive on this. Or are we already so
innovative that we’ve maxed out!
15. How can we as state agencies (OSPI, SBE) support your program or other innovative
programs?
Page | 39
Q - Making sure when we have our meetings all stakeholders are at the table including business
leaders and higher education.
CH - Continue to learn more about these schools in order to effectively support them, and consider
adjusting systems and practices of reporting accordingly.
CER - Come visit our programs!
MV - By continuing to remain curious about how our programs impact students and families. I
recognize how incredibly fortunate we are to have the support of OSPI and SBE to innovate. This
does not appear to be the same experience of colleagues in other states. I feel so proud to be a
part of Washington State, where our educational leaders continue striving to think broadly about
how schools can better serve students.
IS - Communicate out with others that our programs are not experiments or alternatives to
learning. Programs such as ours are providing rigorous and powerful learning experiences for all
types of learners. Help others to see that learners in our programs are being accepted to highly
competitive colleges and our students are being successful in post-secondary experiences.
Appendix E: Sample Forms
Methow Valley Exhibition Rubric Form
Page | 41
Gibson Ek Competency Achievement Chart
LEGAL NOTICE
Please make sure permission has been received to use all elements of this publication (images, charts,
text, etc.) that are not created by OSPI staff, grantees, or contractors. This permission should be
displayed as an attribution statement in the manner specified by the copyright holder. It should be
made clear that the element is one of the “except where otherwise noted” exceptions to the OSPI open
license. For additional information, please visit the OSPI Interactive Copyright and Licensing Guide.
OSPI provides equal access to all programs and services without discrimination based on sex, race,
creed, religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual
orientation including gender expression or identity, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical
disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. Questions
and complaints of alleged discrimination should be directed to the Equity and Civil Rights Director at
360-725-6162 or P.O. Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200.
Download this material in PDF at OSPI Reports to the Legislature webpage. This material is available
in alternative format upon request. Contact the Resource Center at 888-595-3276, TTY 360-664-
3631. Please refer to this document number for quicker service: 23-0003.
Except where otherwise noted, this work by the Washington Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License. All logos and trademarks are property of their respective
owners. Sections used under fair use doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107) are marked.
Chris Reykdal | State Superintendent
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Old Capitol Building | P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
