Many students at Idaho’s alternative charter schools are raising children, working full time or catching up after falling behind — making success hard to measure with traditional metrics.

The challenge drove the Idaho Public Charter School Commission’s five-year effort to create a new evaluation framework for the schools.

Commissioners used the new framework for the first time this year. Part of the model includes accepting data directly from schools, not just relying on the Idaho Report Card, a collection of school progress measures.

Launching the new framework was also a quick turnaround for Executive Director Rachel Burk’s new staff, most of whom she hired after arriving at the commission in August.

Overall, Burk said the trial year of the new framework was a success, but there were some kinks to work out. She’s open to adjustments after feedback from school leaders.

“It’s a very special mission that these schools have. It’s a fair approach to give them an option to show the great work that they’re doing,” Burk said. “A student might not excel on the standard metrics, but they are growing.”

Commission spent years creating the framework

The charter commission authorizes most charter schools in Idaho, including nine alternative schools.

Commissioners authorize schools for a set time period, usually six years. They evaluate a school’s performance annually using a set of framework metrics. Schools that score below “meets standard” on framework categories are usually given a timeline to improve.

If conditions aren’t met, commissioners can start the process to revoke a charter and close the school.

In 2020, alternative school leaders asked commissioners to adjust the framework to more accurately capture their performance, said Burk.

That framework has four academic categories:

• Math Achievement and Growth
• English Language Arts Achievement and Growth
• Progress Toward Graduation
• Postsecondary Readiness

Schools are also evaluated on their finances.

The commission adopted the alternative framework later in 2020 and tested it during the 2021-22 school year. By 2023, school leaders raised concerns that the framework wasn’t what they had in mind, Burk said. Turnover at the commission impacted the creation of an effective framework, Burk acknowledged.

The commission hired Jody Ernst, a charter school data and accountability expert at Momentum Strategy & Research, to rework the metrics. After about a year and a half of work, the commission adopted the newly revised framework in June and used it for the first time to complete the 2025 annual reports.

How the new framework works

Ernst used the prior alternative framework as a jumping-off point.

She started by cleaning up data inconsistencies and moving details about how students are counted into a business rules document.

Schools can choose from two options on all categories except for postsecondary readiness, which has four.

The new framework allows schools to choose between two options for measuring progress toward graduation. The second option is based on the percentage of attempted credits completed.

In the traditional framework, schools are graded on their four-year graduation rate. Many alternative students take longer to graduate. If they don’t graduate on time, it counts against the most recent school the student attended.

On the new framework, schools can pick from four metrics that consider things like students obtaining a GED or intending to continue school the following year.

The first option in each category mirrors the framework for other charter schools.

Many of the goals were written in a convoluted way, Ernst said.

She helped schools clean up data reporting practices and specified which other test results schools could submit to the commission to show student achievement. Those tests must be nationally normed, Ernst said, but can show student progress in a way state tests may not if a student is too far behind to complete the exam.

The commission is using 2025 as a trial year, said Burk. Schools can choose a different academic option next year, but after that, they must remain on the same option for the entire charter term.

Changes cater to struggling students

Richard McKenna Alternative Charter School serves students who struggle in some form, said Principal Jon Wood.

Some students arrive testing five grades behind. They might progress by three grade levels a year after enrolling, a win in Wood’s mind. But the school’s test scores show low proficiency levels, despite the progress students made.

The new framework, Wood said, allows schools to get credit for those gains.

A variety of things might make an alternative school’s data look different than that of a traditional school, Wood said. Students might come in two or three years behind in credits and have limited time to catch up before they age out. Another student might be pregnant and need the flexibility to take fewer classes during pregnancy and the postpartum period.

“Having a framework that fits the work that we do, versus one size fits all, is great,” Wood said. “We know that we’re catching them up in those core areas.”

Richard McKenna has an alternative school and a virtual program that are evaluated separately on the charter’s annual report.

“We like that it allows us to showcase the areas that we do excel and to have that accounted for in a framework is really nice,” Wood said.