HR 23 School Retention and Social Promotion Task Force Meeting #2

October 28, 2014

Meeting Minutes

Attendees:Susan Haberstroh

Tina Shockley

Michele Marinucci

Phyllis Kohel

Rep. Paul Baumbach

Patricia Anderson

Robert Fulton

  1. Introductions

Introductions were made by all. There were no members participating via phone, although a conference line was made available.

  1. Approve Minutes

Because a quorum was not present, we were unable to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2014 meeting. All efforts will be made to ensure a quorum is present at the November 18, 2014 meeting and minutes of the last two meetings will be presented for approval at that time.

  1. Discussion of Data Points – Susan Haberstroh

Susan Haberstroh provided copies of three handouts for the group: Students Retained 2011-2012 School Year, Students Retained 2012-2013 School Year, and a document entitled Multiple Retentions Among 2013 Retained Students, which were provided by Tommy Tao (DOE). She noted there was some good quality data on retention, which was obtained from a query done with DOE and the Data Service Center. She reviewed the documents which indicated that between 2 – 4 % of students are retained in Delaware public schools. Robert Fulton indicated that some schools have special programs and thus you can’t make conclusions across the board. Michele Marinucci indicated that in general students with or without special needs still fall in the 2-4% retention range. Robert Fulton inquired as to whether the grade levels make a difference as to when retention takes place. Michele Marinucci said this can be difficult to ascertain. Susan Haberstroh and Michele Marinucci will further discuss this matter.

Ms. Haberstroh noted the third document she shared shows how many times a child is retained. There was discussion as to what year a child is retained, as they could be 21 years old or older, but the e-school system may only show it as Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 or Year 4. Paul Baumbach asked if the e-school issue could be addressed. Michele indicated there needs to be a uniform way across districts to code the data. Paul also asked if we could aggregate charters into the total number. Michele Marinucci indicated that we show promotion up until grade 9 based on grades, but when in grades 9-12, promotion is based on credits. Phyllis Kohel indicated that credit is only given at the end of the year. Paul Baumbach note that this helps establish a baseline to see if we can reduce these numbers, and also asked what is the national average for times retained, and if there is Delaware-specific data on social promotion. Michele Marinucci indicated this data may possibly be in DELSIS, where every change a child makes is entered. She indicated a search could be done as to whether the child is placed, retained, etc., assuming the district is entering it correctly. As a next step, Michele Marinucci and Susan Haberstroh were going to see if those numbers (grade level and statewide) correlate with DOE’s numbers in order to answer Paul Baumbach’s questions. Susan Haberstroh will talk with Michele and Tommy Tao to see if this is possible (DOE).

  1. Discussion – Best Practices – Patricia Anderson and Alton Irvin

Patricia Anderson researched best practices via Council of State Governments (CSG), and then sent an email prior to the meeting which contained several documents related to grade retention and social promotion. She said there were no best practices found that support a strategy either for academic or non-academic, but rather it is on an idea basis. She noted that she found more information on grade retention, but still there was no common thread. Retention showed improvement for mathematics, but that graduation rates and dropouts were not showed to be related.

Patricia Anderson indicated that Alton Irvin will look into the legislative side of this to see if any state is legislating this issue. He was not in attendance, so as a next step, Alton Irvin will present his findings at the November 18 meeting.

Phyllis Kohel noted that you could easily see improvement in mathematics, as it is related to repeating principles, and students, with repeated instruction, may get it. However, if a student repeats English, they are likely not going to get it because they just don’t like to read. She further noted that in elementary schools there are alternatives to retention, i.e., positive behavior system vs. negativity of retention, and that we should use alternate means of education – tactical methods vs. traditional. We found more success among various learning styles.

Michele Marinucci noted differential learning may be key, but that changes happen in 9th grade, where you can’t use differential (alternative) learning, but you can in elementary school. Patricia Anderson noted that research shows the dropout rates decreased when using differential learning. Michele Marinucci said that research shows that when students are retained more than once, you have essentially written them a failure ticket. Patricia Anderson added that there are also issues with self-esteem and confidence.Michele Marinucci noted level of school connectedness is related to quality of grades.

Patricia Anderson noted that in her research when they integrated motivating activities (band, sports, etc.), students did better. Michele Marinucci noted the challenge is finding what interests them. Patricia Anderson noted that when she taught, she integrated tutoring. Michele Marinucci noted that Woodbridge has a group of kids who are less connected to school and asked what we could do to make you feel connected. We could consider developing access survey we have students identifying what they liked, and could then stay on them. However, if retained once, we’d need to note this as a child to handle differently.

Michele Marinucci noted that she is familiar with ED Insight Dashboard and this may be helpful, as it provides a dropout list indicator. Not every district uses it as it is up to the district to determine who has access to it, but it is free. Patricia Anderson questions how do teachers not make a preconceived judgment about a child based on the dashboard. Michele Marinucci notes this is information that helps teachers better relate to their student, know their challenges, etc.

Paul Baumbach painted the picture by saying essentially what you have is a list of kids, some are green (good to go), some are yellow (warning sign they may need to be handled differently) and some are red (time to make some changes). Michele Marinucci indicated this was correct. Michele Marinucci also noted she is familiar with iTracker, which works similar to ED Insight, but it doesn’t break it down as much. As a next step, Michele Marinucci agreed to share a visual display of this information to the group at our next meeting.

Paul Baumbach asked where are the bad decisions being made – district level, and is that because they are choosing to not use the system? Robert Fulton said yes teachers talk about this, and administrators know the students who need help.

Phyllis Kohel indicated that districts have access to programs to flag kids who are doing poorly. While we can identify them, how do we help them before it’s too late, or how do we get them to at least be career ready. She further noted that social promotion occurs at elementary level. Others agreed.

Paul Baumbach asked when students are initially flagged, and the answer was when they are deficient in three separate areas. Michele noted that we do have kids in the yellow area that maybe we should start looking at sooner. Phyllis Kohel indicated that the focus is on the kids listed in red first, as they contribute to drop out rate, graduation rate, etc. These students affect overall school performance. Certainly we want to help the students in the yellow area, but many times we run out of money to assist. Michele Marinucci indicated there were things that could be done that don’t necessarily cost a lot of money, like extra time after school, mentoring or otherways to give students skills.

Robert Fulton noted that we need to try to find things to motivate the child, for example, some kids want to learn a trade and could benefit from attending a VoTech school, but if they fail in 8th grade, they will not be considered for a VoTech school. As a next step, Tina Shockley will provide the group with a report from the Enrollment Preferences Task Force with regard to this issue. Robert Fulton also noted that it can be challenging for students with low social-economic status (who often want the trade-type education) to get into a tech school, because it is perceived that typically higher income students are sought after/selected by tech schools.

Susan Haberstroh noted what motivates a kid to come to school is important, and that we should be ensuring that something is available to them. Robert Fulton noted that prior to kindergarten is the time to have them become engaged with school. Phyllis Kohel indicated that there is research that supports that theory. Susan Haberstroh noted that one example of that is third grade literacy. If they are on track, then they are okay, but if can’t read by third grade, there is a problem.

Paul Baumbach notes that with no best practices available, we are essentially doing what other states are doing. Paul Baumbach asked if we are collecting before and after numbers. Susan Haberstroh indicated that the state doesn’t collect programmatic data, but the districts do. Robert Fulton supported the collection of before and after numbers. Susan Haberstroh mentioned the STARS Program, it’s a quality rating system, and it would be good to look longitudinally at the data and at preparedness for kindergarten. Michele Marinucci noted that the Department for Children, Youth and Their Families may keep such data, but not DOE.

The group discussed the way VoTech was previously set up, all trade focused, and not as academic, as compared to how it is now, with a more academic, but still career focused approach. Paul Baumbach believed this would provide a hook for everyone. He asked if as a next step, Patricia Anderson could research with CSG to determine if VoTech attendance impacts retention. He asked whether we consider opening VoTechs to students who need it for a trade path, if we can tie it to retention/drop out rate. We may need community involvement, or schools to share resources (buses, programs, etc.)

  1. Discussion – Inventory of Programs/Contacts – Michele Marinucci and Phyllis Kohel

Michele Marinucci and Phyllis Kohel will work to do this outreach for our next meeting. They will look at what programs/contacts are available, and what we wouldbe interested in trying regarding programs related to school retention and social promotion.

  1. Other Discussions

The group discussed financial cutbacks and how that has eliminated some programs. Likewise, salaries and transportations have become very important and sometimes squeeze out other needs.

Someone asked who gets summer school, and is it voluntary or mandatory? Michele Marinucci noted it is optional, but in lower grades there are other alternatives such aspreparatory classes or additional help. Phyllis Kohel noted in high school it’s known as paying for credit recovery.

Paul Baumbach indicated that once we have an inventory and contacts, we will do a rough comparison against percentages and age to see if a program is making a difference. He acknowledges there are many variables to look at. Michele Marinucci indicated that it make take a few years to see a change in the retention numbers.

Paul Baumbach asked how can we address such shortcomings – what programs are available (summarize in 2-5 sentences describing each program)?

Susan Haberstroh wants to note what supports are out in the districts that we can take advantage of. We should look across the state and share ideas, create a clearinghouse of strategies.

Paul Baumbach indicated that the Charter/District Collaboration Task Force he serves on may be able to share some ideas.

  1. Next Steps

Rep. Paul Baumbach and the group decided that the next steps (six of them) underlined in this document would be discussed at our meeting on November 18, 2014.

  1. Establish Future Meetings

The group decided its next meeting will be November 18 due to the holidays being at the end of the month (when we usually would meet).

The next meeting will be Tuesday, November 18, 2014 from 4:30pm to 6:30pm in the Townsend Building, 2nd Floor Conference Room. Subsequent meetings are tentatively set for December 16, 2014 from 4:30pm to 6:30pm in the Townsend Building Cabinet Room.

  1. Public Comment

There was no public comment given at this task force meeting.