A. What information is key to understanding this model that was not included in the brief at the meeting? Provides for a menu of options to achieve HSD to be developed by state superintendent (MN commissioner) but doesn’t set to define the criteria in the law and does provide an overall statement of intent very specifically defines target population over 18 yr 6 mo and not enrolled in HS.
Under s. 115.29 (4) (a), Stats., the state superintendent may issue a high school equivalency diploma to a person who, in the state superintendent’s judgment, has presented satisfactory evidence of having completed a recognized high school course of study or its equivalent; and the state superintendent may establish the standards by which high school graduation equivalency may be determined. The purpose of the high school equivalency diploma is to provide a credential to adults who did not graduate from high school and are unable to receive a high school diploma from their school district of residence, but are able to demonstrate attainment of credits, knowledge, and skills that are equivalent to those which would be attained in a high school program of study. This chapter sets forth criteria for determining that equivalency, based on s. 118.33, Stats., the high school graduation standards, and s. 121.02 (1) (m), Stats., the education for employment standard. The age eligibility requirements are intended to aid school districts in serving children at risk by discouraging youths from dropping out of school to pursue the high school equivalency diploma.
One menu item, option 5.09, seems well connected to the MN idea, allowing variety of programs delivering ABE to submit a plan defining population, appropriateness of service, professional staff, evaluation etc to superintendent/commissioner for conditional approval (one year or less). After proving it meets the standards, the plan can have continuing approval subject to annual reviews:
High school equivalency diploma based on completion of a program approved by the state superintendent.
(1) A TCS district, college, university, community−based organization, federal job corps center or the department of corrections may submit a plan to the state superintendent requesting approval of a program for determining high school equivalency. The program shall be designed to determine whether a person has attained the knowledge and skills generally associated with graduation from high school, including employability skills, career awareness, citizenship, and each of the subject areas under s. 118.33 (1) (a), Stats., except physical education. The plan shall include all of the following:
(a) A description of any courses, training, and counseling which will be included in the proposed program, including the number of hours of instructional time, if any; and a description of the methods of evaluation or assessment that will be used to determine the person’s knowledge and skills.
(b) The qualifications of the professional staff members who will be involved in the program. (c) A description of any groups, such as older adults, minorities, displaced homemakers or displaced workers, which might be effectively served by the proposed program, and a description of how the program will meet the special needs of these groups. (d) A plan for evaluating the proposed program to determine its effectiveness in assessing high school equivalency.
(2) (a) The state superintendent may approve the program for an initial period of time, not to exceed one year. At the end of the initial approval period, if the state superintendent determines that the program has successfully measured attainment of high school equivalency, as described in sub. (1) (intro.), he or she may grant continuing approval, subject to annual reviews. The state superintendent may withdraw approval of a program at any time, if the program does not meet all of the requirements of this section and of the approved plan. (b) The state superintendent shall approve or disapprove the application in writing. If the application is not approved, the reasons for disapproval shall be specified in the written disapproval. An agency under sub. (1) which has been denied approval may, within 30 days of receipt of the written disapproval: 1. Resubmit the application with additional information or modifications in the proposed program, or, 2. Request, in writing, a review of the disapproval and an opportunity to meet with the department concerning the reasons for disapproval. If a request is made under this subdivision, the department shall grant the request and shall issue a final decision in writing following the review and any requested meeting.
(3) The state superintendent shall grant a high school equivalency diploma to a person who meets the requirements of s. PI 5.03 and provides written verification that he or she has satisfactorily completed an approved program under this section.
B. Does this model provide for credit for prior learning, demonstrated competency, multiple learning opportunities/coursework, etc.? It could but that would be established by superintendent – not by the law.
C. How does this model meet the needs of Minnesota’s adults? Law doesn’t explicitly lay out model – 5.09 allows development of different programs, so there wouldn’t be one portable program.
D. How do its standards compare to ABE standards? Not clear
E. How do its standards compare to Minnesota’s K-12 standards? Not clear
F. How does this model compare to other models explored?
A. How could this model be implemented in Minnesota?
In the same way but it would result in multiple versions rather than a statewide version of an adult HSD. Also, would not guarantee sustainability within ABE system.
B. What roles are needed to appropriately implement this model both at the state and local level?
C. How well could this model work in Minnesota’s ABE programs, thinking about programs of all sizes and in all areas of the state?
Could lead to some very creative models that could eventually be rolled out statewide.
D. How sustainable would this model be, thinking in terms of operational costs?
E. What adaptations or changes should we possibly consider if the task force chooses to select this model?
Defining programs as ABE approved through MDE.
What questions do I still have that I would like to ask the specialists who work with this model?
Have there been examples of creative development by individual programs leading to replication by other programs? Which of the models has served the most adults? Do the models tend to be preferred by some populations rather than others?
A. What are the model’s strengths? Allows for creativity in the field.
B. What are the model’s challenges? Not statewide.
C. Could this adult diploma model could be adopted in Minnesota? Sure
D. Could this adult diploma model would work well for adults needing a secondary credential? Yes