Idaho Educational Policy Review

Report Authors

• McAllister Hall, Research Associate
• Gabe Osterhout, Research Associate
• Vanessa Crossgrove Fry, Interim Research Director

This report was prepared by Idaho Policy Institute at Boise State University and commissioned by yes. every kid.

Recommended citation: Hall, M., Osterhout, G., Fry, V. (2020). Idaho Educational Policy Review. Idaho Policy Institute. Boise, ID: Boise State University.

Download a printable pdf of this report

Executive Summary

Kestrel West and yes. every kid. partnered with Idaho Policy Institute (IPI) to better understand the implementation of state and local-level education policies in school districts across the state of Idaho. IPI reviewed district policy handbooks and conducted surveys with superintendents and teachers in the state to answer research questions spanning several topics including class sizes, open enrollment, and alternative schools.

Key Findings

Out of School Learning

Only about half of all districts have an out of school learning policy. These policies are similar, stating that the program must be approved and students may only count so many credits toward graduation. Survey data revealed that despite similar policies, the structure of these programs varies across districts. One charter and one traditional public school district require students to participate in internships to graduate suggesting that with proper planning and community involvement, these types of programs could be possible for all students.

Class Sizes

Most policies list the same class size goals and limitations. When asked if their district class sizes impact policy creation, one-third of respondents indicated that they do, one-third indicated that they do not, and the last third indicated that it depends on the policy. Teachers indicated that class sizes do impact their instructional practices, mostly because their classes are too large.

Open Enrollment

Analysis of policies revealed that most schools have similar open enrollment rules and regulations and only five districts have opted out of the statewide program. Students commonly transfer to different districts for better academic programs or because their caregiver works for the district or in district boundaries. Students are most likely to be denied open enrollment if they have poor behavior records or if the school is trying to maintain student-teacher ratios. Participation numbers are mostly unknown, but survey data suggests that most districts with the program are enrolling anywhere between 1–10 and 50 or more out of district students each year.

Success

Policies and survey data indicate that districts and charters across the state measure success in traditional ways such as grade progression, graduation rates, and standardized test scores. Some schools have implemented mastery-based grading, but the change is not included in written policy.

Overall, most districts implement programs similarly. In the case of statewide open enrollment or identifying students at risk of dropping out, this is very positive. When considering policies involving measuring student success or calculating instructional time, there is room for growth and creativity.

Overview

Kestrel West and yes. every kid. partnered with Idaho Policy Institute (IPI) to better understand the implementation of state and local-level education policies in districts across the state of Idaho. Kestrel West provided IPI with research questions regarding the following policies and programs:

1. Micro-schools
2. Alternative schools/at-risk definitions
3. Open enrollment
4. Red tape reduction
5. Learn everywhere

Questions regarding general policies and programs were also provided (appendix a). The responses to these questions are sorted down further into 14 research areas in this report. The report aims to describe the current programs, policies, and processes associated with the research areas in great detail without drawing specific conclusions.

Methodology

IPI answered the research questions by reviewing district-level policies and conducting stakeholder surveys. Districts include traditional public school (TPS) districts and charter school districts (which often only include one charter school). District policies were found and downloaded from each district’s website. Two TPS districts and 24 charter school districts did not have policies available to download. Once downloaded, the IPI team read through each district’s policies for answers to the research questions.

IPI distributed two surveys, one for superintendents and one for teachers. Each survey was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Boise State University. Superintendent contact information was collected from district websites. Contact information was not found for superintendents at seven TPS districts and six charter districts. Teacher contact information is often unavailable publicly. To reach teachers, the superintendent survey included a question requesting their assistance in distributing the teacher survey. Eight superintendents agreed to participate.

The superintendent survey was open for 18 days in early September and received 28 responses from superintendents in every region (Appendix B) of the state. The teacher survey was also open for 18 days in September and received 48 fully completed responses and 11 partially completed responses. Both surveys provide valuable insight to the research but are considered anecdotal rather than representative of superintendent and teacher experiences across the state.

Return to the beginning of the report

Out of School Learning

Sixty-three districts have out of school learning policies in place. Each of these policies referred to out of school learning programs as “work programs,” “work-based learning,” or “work release.” In the survey, 16 superintendents broadened these titles, describing out of school learning experiences as work-based learning, apprenticeships, internships, work training, work study, and senior project credits.

Work release is referenced in only three policies, all of which were clear that students obtaining work release must have extenuating circumstances requiring them to leave the school to work. Work release policies do not allow students to receive credits for work time. All other policies imply that students receive credit for their work but only 11 are specific about the amount of credits students can earn. Examples of credit specifications include students may only count six work credits toward graduation, students may only earn one work credit per semester, students may earn one credit for every 90 hours of work, and work credits are only counted as elective credit.

Enrollment

The survey provided insight on the enrollment process for these programs. Eleven respondents said that students can request to enroll in out of school learning experiences, four said teachers recommend students to participate in these experiences, seven said counselors recommended them, and one school indicated that students apply to participate in the experiences.

Most policies (51) require the work program to be approved and supervised by the school but only six discussed whether the school or the student were responsible for initiating the process. Four district policies described having a qualified facilitator on staff to assist students. Two policies assign all responsibilities associated with out of school learning experiences to the students. When asked how students are connected to out of school learning activities, 15 superintendents responded, of which nine selected more than one option. Eleven indicated counselors as responsible for connecting students with the learning experiences, eight indicated teachers, seven said students were responsible, two indicated administrators, and one said local businesses connected with students.

Structure

Specific details on the structure of these programs are mostly omitted from policies. Ten district policies state that a concurrent on-campus class for students to receive instruction facilitating student transitions from high school to the workforce and/or higher education is required. One charter school requires students to participate in out of school learning to graduate. These experiences are called apprenticeships and have to be completed outside of school hours by students in grades 10–12. A school staff member is available to assist students in connecting with apprenticeships, but students are also encouraged to take responsibility to build relationships with potential employers. A TPS superintendent in the survey also indicated their schools require students to participate in out of school learning experiences. Every senior in their district is required to complete 30 hours of an internship at a job site to graduate.

Two policies specifically state that students are responsible for their own transportation to their work program. Aside from these two policies, no policies communicated costs associated with this program. Two superintendents indicated that there is sometimes a fee associated with their work programs and 13 indicated that there were no fees associated.

Return to the beginning of the report

Credit Alternatives

Based on the observed policies, three alternative credit options are available to students across the state: correspondence courses, online courses, and receiving credit by examination.

Correspondence Courses

Correspondence courses are not provided by the school and must be taken from institutions approved by the State Department of Education. Most correspondence course policies restrict the opportunity to students who have extraordinary circumstances and students with educational needs beyond what the school offers. Specifically, ten policies view correspondence courses as a valid way to offer students a variety of learning experiences. Out of the 76 districts with correspondence course policies, 57% restrict the amount of correspondence credits students may earn toward graduation to eight credits or less.

Online Courses

Online course policies encapsulate all courses taken online, not just those that are funded by the advanced opportunities program. Much like correspondence courses, online course policies include limitations for participation. Of the 59 district online course policies, 16 require student evaluations to determine if they possess the needed maturity level to complete online coursework. Eighteen districts only allow students to enroll in online courses if the course is not already offered at that school. Compared to correspondence course policies, only two districts restrict the amount of online credits students may earn toward graduation.

Examination Credits

Earning credit by examination is the only listed method students may use to earn credit without first taking any version of the course. Only 22 districts have credit by examination policies. Seventeen of these districts require the examination to prove proficiency be approved and administered by the school. Most districts (77.2%) limit the amount of credits students may earn through examination. These policies allow students to earn no more than half of their credits required for graduation by examination. The specifics of the examinations are mostly omitted from district policies though a few list some rules that might be present in other schools but not included in the written policy. For example, students must pass the exam with at least a 75% to earn credit, students are responsible for paying any associated fees, students earn a pass/fail for the course rather than a letter grade, and students may use an examination to challenge a failing grade in the previously taken course. The responses of five superintendents confirm this option is available to students. However, out of 26 responses, only six superintendents confirm their districts allow students to earn credit by any alternative method.

Return to the beginning of the report

Class Sizes

Approximately 80 TPS districts have adopted class size policies. Three of these policies task the administration with achieving reasonable class sizes but do not specify numerical limits; one “deems it unwise to establish any specific class size at the elementary or secondary levels.” Among the policies that specify class size goals or overload limits (often included as a clause under the open enrollment policy), an overwhelming majority of districts follow the state standard for student-teacher ratios (Table 1).

In thirty-three alternative school policies, the class size limit is 18 students with an average daily class load. One district policy has a higher limit of 25 with an average daily class load. Six policies establish limits of 12-16 students per class.

One district set elementary grade-level caps, limiting enrollment to 80 students per grade for grades K-6. Grade-level caps were more common for junior and senior high schools. The grade level caps for junior high in five policies range from 55-140 students. Four policies limited high school grade-level enrollment, ranging from 65-140 students.

In the survey, superintendents (24 TPS, 8 charter) and teachers (45 total) provided insight on the impact of district class sizes. Respondents include a mix of superintendents who work in districts with an average class size of 1–10 students (1), 11–20 students (12), 21–25 students (11), and 26–35 students (8). When asked if district class sizes impact policies, 11 superintendents indicated they did, 10 that they did not, and 11 that it depends on the policy. Six superintendents provided detailed information regarding the policies impacted by district class sizes in an open-ended response survey question (Table 2)

A surveyed superintendent from a district with an average class size of 1–10 students and 14 total students enrolled in the district overall detailed the benefits and challenges of small class sizes. Benefits include a small student-teacher ratio enabling teachers to spend more time with individual students and ensuring that students are mastering skills, challenged, and moving forward. The only challenge reported was a struggle to obtain the necessary resources to provide students with all materials and supplies, as well as a diverse curriculum.

Teacher perception of class size impact is less divided. Out of 50 responses, 97.8% of teachers indicated the size of their class impacts their instructional choices. Of the forty teachers that further described why their class sizes were impactful, 70% indicated their classes are too big.

Return to the beginning of the report

Alternative Schools

Fifty-five policies exist addressing students at risk of dropping out of school. Table 3 outlines the most common definitions; 32 district policies use Definition 1 and 22 use Definition 2. One district policy establishes a task force to develop criteria for identifying at-risk students and a system for staff members to use to refer students to the task force.

Support programs for these at-risk students are described in 57 policies. Most districts (32) have adopted a policy requiring the district to design a plan to retain students in school. The plan is the responsibility of a designated at-risk coordinator or the superintendent. The plan must emphasize a comprehensive team approach that may include school staff, community service providers, and parents. The plan also must include objectives meeting the student’s individual needs. Additionally, the plan should use community resources available to serve at-risk students, provide for parent involvement, and provide for review of individual profiles for at-risk students.

At-Risk Programs

Twenty policies describe a district alternative program for at-risk students rather than a separate school. These programs are required to meet or exceed the state’s minimum academic standards and provide additional instruction in personal and career counseling, physical fitness/personal health, career and technical education, personal finance, parenting, and childcare.

Alternative high schools are discussed in 39 policies. Alternative high schools must be conducted during the school year, conducted off-site or scheduled at a time when school is not in session. In the survey, 9 superintendents (8 TPS, 1 charter) indicated their district has an alternative school for at-risk students. These respondents were then asked to select any of the criteria required to enroll in the alternative schools (Table 4). An “other” option was included; however, no respondents specified other criteria that could qualify a student for an alternative school.

Four superintendents indicated students who do not meet the criteria have attempted to enroll in alternative schools. One of these superintendents allows such students to enroll, two do not allow it, and one responded “maybe.”

Return to the beginning of the report

Mastery and Success

The most common success metric found across policies are graduation requirements. Most TPS districts (105) have policies requiring credits, placement exams, standardized tests, a senior project, and a civics exam. Idaho state law requires 29 core and 17 elective credits, for a total of 46 credits. Twenty-nine districts only require the state credit minimum to graduate. Other districts expect anywhere from 47 to 64 credits, though the most common requirements are 48 credits (22), 52 credits (13), and 50 credits (10).

The state also requires students take a college entrance exam, complete a district-level senior project, and pass a civics exam. The civics test requirement is mentioned in 63 policies and senior project requirements are found in 96 graduation policies.

College Entrance Exams

Ninety-one policies outline which college entrance exams are acceptable. Fifty-six districts allow students to take the SAT, ACT, or COMPASS, and 24 districts only accept the SAT or ACT. Seven policies allow the ACCUPLACER as an acceptable exam. Four district policies state students must take an “approved college entrance or placement examination” but do not specify which are acceptable. None of the policies require any minimum score required on these tests, simply the requirement to complete the exam. However, 73 districts require students to take and pass the Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) to graduate.

Other Measures of Success

The superintendent survey aimed to understand how districts measure success beyond graduation requirements. Seventeen superintendents responded to an open-ended question regarding measuring success (Table 5) and most (15) listed multiple methods. Many identify district success with student success measures, but a few also emphasized the importance of financial and teacher success.

Teachers were asked how their districts currently measure student success and all responded with either or both assessment scores and course grades. When asked how they would prefer to measure student success, eight teachers were satisfied with their district’s current methods, five would prefer to use growth as a measure, five would prefer to switch to mastery-based grading, and three would like to see their districts use aptitude as a measure of student success.

Mastery-Based Grading

Mastery-based grading is not mentioned in any written policies, but evidence exists of schools around the state implementing the practice. Out of 27 superintendents on the survey, five TPS and four charters have schools in their district using mastery-based grading to measure success. Fifteen of the surveyed teachers worked in a school with mastery-based grading, including one who expressed difficulty with the system because it does not align with statewide grading systems. Surveyed administrators report a mostly neutral or positive reception to mastery-based grading from parents and students. Three respondents report mastery-based grading does not align well with the state instructional time rules. Six superintendents indicated that a school or schools in their district are members of the IMEN network and each of them perceives the IMEN network as supportive and functional.

Return to the beginning of the report

Open Enrollment

Among 105 observed TPS district open enrollment policies, almost all districts (95) opt-in to the state’s enrollment options program without limitations. Five districts have an open enrollment policy but actively discourage or limit the acceptance of non-resident students. One opts out of interdistrict open enrollment only in elementary and junior high schools. Four districts opt out of interdistrict open enrollment but allow resident students to participate in intradistrict enrollment.

Ninety-nine open enrollment policies detail the application and admission process. The standard language notes the application must be submitted annually. Superintendents are authorized to establish a procedure for determining which students are chosen when classroom space is limited, notifying parents of the action taken on the application, factors which may cause an application to be denied, and the process for removing a student from a transfer school.

Denial of Open Enrollment Application

Ninety-six policies specify the conditions under which an open enrolled student would be denied admission. Most TPS district policies (75) enable the district to deny an open enrollment request when it would cause the district to exceed specified or historical student-teacher ratios. Forty-eight of these policies also authorize the superintendent to deny an open enrollment request when it would negatively impact the efficient use of district resources.

Separately, 21 districts deny requests to prevent the overcapacity of any program, class, grade level, or building. Other reasons for denial include protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its existing students, its educational processes, and preserving student-teacher ratios. Three of these policies also authorize the superintendent to deny an open enrollment request when it would negatively impact the efficient use of district resources.

Ninety-eight districts provide criteria for open enrollment ineligibility or grounds for revoking admission. Most policies (88) automatically disqualify suspended or expelled students from open enrollment. A few districts expand this category to include students who have dropped out, are in jeopardy of suspension or expulsion, or are under disciplinary proceedings. Fifty-six districts reserve the right to remove a transfer student based on unacceptable behaviors or false or misleading information on their open enrollment application. A student who applies and is accepted into a district but fails to attend is ineligible to apply for enrollment again in 46 districts. In 44 districts, revoked admission is appealable to the superintendent and board. Survey data from 26 superintendents aligns with policy rules for denying open enrollment (Table 6).

Court-Ordered Students and Students Experiencing Homelessness

Thirty-seven TPS district policies address open enrollment for court-ordered students and students experiencing homelessness. The most common type of policy does not establish preconditions for such students. These districts (23) receive and admit non-resident students who are placed by court order under provisions of the Idaho Juvenile Corrections or Child Protective Acts and reside in licensed homes, agencies, and institutions. This language typically also states that homeless children may attend a school in the district when it is determined to be in the best interest of the child. Thirteen policies enable the board to prescribe non-discriminatory preconditions or standards of admission for court-ordered students when necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its existing students and/or to protect its educational process. One district allows homeless children and youth in transition to “remain at their schools of origin, unless that is against the parent or youth’s wishes.”

Transportation for Open Enrollment Students

All open enrollment policies that address transportation (100) mandate that the parent or guardian is responsible for transporting the student to and from school or an appropriate bus stop. Some districts allow the superintendent to designate a bus stop for open enrolled students, require that space is available on a bus, or require parents to apply for the use of a specific bus stop.

Extracurricular Activities for Open Enrollment Students

Extracurricular activities are addressed in 92 TPS open enrollment policies. Some policies (36) state that students are not guaranteed eligibility for participation upon transfer. Other policies (54) recommend that an applying student review the rules of the Idaho High School Activities Association (IHSAA). These policies acknowledge that “certain school transfers could lead to a student being ineligible to play at the varsity level for one year.” One district addresses this rule by requiring students attending a high school outside of his or her attendance area are ineligible to participate in athletics or activities for 365 days.

In 40 districts, open enrolled students reapplying for enrollment are treated as if they reside in the school’s attendance area except in certain circumstances. These districts also enable the superintendent to expedite the enrollment process. Twelve districts offer similar opportunities for open enrolled students to reapply for enrollment.

Participation in Open Enrollment

Details on the participation in the statewide open enrollment policy are mostly unknown. Districts are required to submit open enrollment reports to state agencies, but these are not easily accessible to the public. In the survey, 24 superintendents gave participation estimates (Table 7). There is no apparent correlation between district size or location and the number of students using the open enrollment program. For example, a district with 765 students indicated that 50 or more students openly enroll each year while a district with 1200 students indicated that only 1–10 students openly enroll each year.

These 24 superintendents, along with 14 teachers, provided information on why students in their district choose to openly enroll; respondents were asked to select the three most common reasons (Table 8).

If class size is limited, 68 policies allow the superintendent to give priority to certain students based on their reason for enrolling. This criteria prioritizes students who have a parent employed by the district (60), were previously enrolled at the requested school during the prior year (55), have a sibling enrolled at the requested school (51), reside in the attendance area of another district school (46), have a unique situation or extraordinary circumstances (44), or reside in the district and seek enrollment in another district school under the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act or Every Student Succeeds Act (39).

Return to the beginning of the report

Instructional Time

Minimum instructional hours for each grade level, as mandated by Idaho Code § 33-512, are 450 for Kindergarten, 810 for grades 1–3, 900 for grades 4–8, and 990 for grades 9–12, with a maximum of 22 hours allowed for in-service teacher activities. All observed policies (72) implement these minimum requirements and no district requires more than the minimum. Charter schools have similar policies. However, one charter school requires only 900 hours for grades 9–12. The state requirement allows for local school boards to reduce the time requirement by 11 hours for grade 12 students. Three TPS districts have this option and require only 979 instructional hours for high school seniors. Thirteen policies allow the district to use student online learning hours in average daily attendance calculations regardless of where the distance learning is completed.

Covid-19 Related Adjustments

Of the 26 surveyed superintendents who responded to a question about instructional time during COVID-19, 25 superintendents (19 TPS, 6 charter) work in districts with a protocol addressing calculating instructional time for online or hybrid learning (Table 9).

At least two districts suspended their written instructional hour policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic. One policy, modified in April 2020, is suspended for the “duration” of the outbreak. The second policy is suspended until at least December 31, 2020. In addition to calculating instructional time differently, 14 (56%) superintendents from all but one region (Region 6) also reported that COVID-19 adjustment led to an increased use of IDLA courses.

Instructional Interruptions

In addition to calculating instructional time, IPI asked teachers in the survey how many students are consistently pulled out of instruction time for school-supported reasons throughout the school year. The answers range from 1-50 students and the number of students varied evenly across grade-level teachers. Teachers were then asked to select how often those students are pulled out. Forty-eight teachers responded to the question and ten respondents selected multiple options to indicate the frequency of the pull-out (Table 10).

* This column represents the teachers that answered the question regarding student pull-out but did not indicate which grade level they taught

Return to the beginning of the report

Other Research Areas

Curriculum

No curriculum policies reviewed use the exact language of “Idaho Content Standards” when describing the curriculum selection process. Out of the 91 existing curriculum policies, 50 communicate that the district curriculum aligns with state statutes and rules from the State Board of Education. An additional 26 policies contain language regarding aligning district curriculum with state standards. As well as aligning with state level statutes, standards, and rules, most district curriculum policies (61.5%) necessitate curriculum to align with district level standards, philosophies, and goals.

Grade Organization

The elimination of grade levels is not evident in district policies across the state. In the policies of the few districts with multiple grades being taught in the same room, the importance of students being assigned to a grade level is emphasized. Other policies from larger districts (54) indicated the importance of students being grouped with peers similar in age and maturity rather than by academic performance.

Testing

Although Idaho still uses typical ESSA testing, 67 districts have policies describing alternate methods for students to demonstrate proficiency if they fail to reach proficiency on the ISAT. Each policy requires students to reach proficiency in a combination of academic achievements including district writing and math assessments, end of course assessments, the ACT, the ASVAB, PLATO testing courses, core class GPA, student portfolios, or senior projects.

College/University Admission

Table 11 contains the requirements for admission to Idaho’s public colleges and universities (as of May 2020.)

Teacher Accountability

In the survey, teachers were asked how their schools held them accountable and how they would prefer to be held accountable. Forty-five teachers answered these questions and 42 indicated they are held accountable by more than one method (Table 12). An “other” option was available for respondents, but all respondents selected from the options already provided.

Data Storage

Twenty-seven superintendents disclosed their district student data management systems and twelve listed more than one system (Table 13).

Advanced Opportunities

Only one district has a policy limiting participation in Advanced Opportunities (AO) courses. The policy requires students have a 3.0 GPA or higher to enroll in AO courses. Last year, IPI conducted both a survey and in-depth interviews with district AO specialists across the state. IPI also received AO funding use data from across the state. Review of the data revealed that students take advantage of AO funding across the state regardless of district size, rurality, and region. In a survey of 133 district representatives, 109 respondents said AO courses are recommended to students by school counselors, 90 said teachers recommend students to courses, 89 said students learn about AO by word-of-mouth, and 86 said students learn about AO course opportunities from course catalogs. Interviews confirmed students are well counseled in AO opportunities. Interviewees reported that students may be discouraged from taking AO courses if they have poor academic performance (often measured by GPA) but ultimately it is the student’s choice to enroll.

Eight of the teachers surveyed for this project teach AO courses. These eight teachers believe students enroll in the AO courses to prepare for a future career, prepare for college, and experience a more challenging learning environment.

Return to the beginning of the report

Conclusion

This report aims to answer questions regarding the implementation of education policy across Idaho. The review of district policy documents was found to be most valuable in answering questions about the open enrollment process and class sizes. However, the existence of written policies, regardless of detail level, provide an idea of how many districts are aware of their ability to implement a policy and the capacity for expansion of the policy. Details from the content of these written policies assist in understanding how policies can be expanded to include more students within a district.

Data from the surveys helped to support data found in written policies and provide context for what is happening in practice. Survey data also helped to gain perspective on what is and is not working with the implementation of policies. Response rates were low possibly due to the climate surrounding starting school this fall. Future research would benefit from conducting interviews with superintendents and teachers in addition to surveys.

Overall, most districts implement programs and policies similarly. In the case of statewide open enrollment or defining students at-risk of dropping out, this is positive. When considering policies involving measuring student success or calculating instructional time, there is room for growth and creativity.

Return to the beginning of the report

Appendices

Appendix A

Research Questions

Microschools

• What are the impacts of smaller learning environments on educational decision-making?
• How are sizes of schools/classes/districts determined?
• What Idaho-specific data exist showing impacts of smaller units?

Mastery/Alternative Schools (At-Risk Definition)

• What definitions for at-risk are districts using now? Do any of them allow students to opt in without evidence of “risk” or “need”?
• What is the status of the IMEN network according to its members?
• What “logistics” get in the way of the mastery program (i.e. seat time)?

Open Enrollment

• How many people utilize open enrollment under the current system?
• Is there any evidence of students creatively working around barriers to open enrollment?
• Why does open enrollment work in places where there is a lot of utilization (i.e. Magic Valley)?
• Why do people utilize open enrollment (sports, social situation, etc.)?
• What happened in states that moved to a true open enrollment?

Red Tape Reduction

• How many districts use alternative methods to counting seat time?
• What are schools doing to account for seat time in the COVID era?
• Have any states done a longitudinal data system modernization in the last three years? If so, which ones and how did they do it? Who was the vendor, etc.?

Learn Everywhere

• How many districts have policies in place for out of school learning opportunities? What do those look like? Who leads the process? How are they approved?
• Is there a cost to districts for these opportunities? Are kids and parents just paying costs for out of school learning?
• What Advanced Opportunities data exist that show what it takes for a student or parent to take advantage of the program?
• Can students challenge classes, demonstrate knowledge and get credit for a standard/course?

General Questions

• How much instruction time do teachers lose because of other activities planned during school hours (i.e. assessment, social services, etc.)?
• Are there year-round or modified traditional schools/districts in Idaho? Is there a difference in outcomes between those students and students on a traditional calendar?
• What does parent engagement data show? Has that changed since COVID?
• How do district administrations measure success? How should it be measured?
• What current federal flexibility exists that Idaho doesn’t utilize?
• Which teacher accountability systems do teachers prefer?
• What year did each district implement each social service (using list of social services outside of educational instruction school are expected to provide)?
• How many districts use the Idaho Content Standards to determine curriculum?
• What percentage of districts will use IDLA as the core of their blended or online offering for the coming school year?
• How do districts house student data (IMS, LMS, etc.)? Which systems do they use for what types of data?
• Have any Idaho traditional public schools eliminated grade levels? How?
• What accountability measures, if any, are states using in place of ESSA testing/SBAC? Is there any rewards-based accountability? Is anyone using student engagement?
• What do higher education institutions expect from students who graduate from Idaho high schools?

Appendix B

Idaho Education Regions

• Region 1 (Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai, Benewah & Shoshone counties)
• Region 2 (Latah, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Lewis & Idaho counties)
• Region 3 (Adams, Washington, Payette, Gem, Canyon & Owyhee counties)
• Region 4 (Valley, Boise, Ada & Elmore counties)
• Region 5 (Camas, Blaine, Gooding, Lincoln, Jerome, Minidoka, Twin Falls & Cassia counties)
• Region 6 (Butte, Bingham, Power, Bannock, Caribou, Oneida, Franklin & Bear Lake counties)
• Region 7 (Lemhi, Custer, Clark, Fremont, Jefferson, Madison, Teton & Bonneville counties)