HR 23 School Retention and Social Promotion Task Force Meeting #4

December 16, 2014

Meeting Minutes - Approved

Attendees:Kendall MassettDonna Johnson

Tina ShockleyMichele Marinucci

Phyllis KohelDana Kelley

Rep. Paul BaumbachAlton Irvin

Rep. Donald BlakeyVictoria Seifred

  1. Introductions

The group members were all familiar, so formal introductions were not made. Victoria Seifred was on via conference call.

  1. Approve Minutes

A quorum was present. Paul Baumbach made a motion to approve the minutes for the November 18, 2014 meeting. Phyllis Kohel motioned to approve, and it was seconded by Michele Marinucci. The minutes of the last meeting were thereby approved.

  1. Discussion of Grade Level Retention Data – Susan Haberstroh

Susan Haberstroh was not present, so Michele Marinucci presented aPowerpoint presentation (Attachment #1) regarding Retention and Drop Out Data.

Retention Data highlights were:

  • Number of students retained is going down
  • Percentage of retentions by district/charter school/technical school (a spike was noted in charter schools, but because they are smaller, their % of retentions is higher, Kendall Massett noted).
  • Number of retentions by ethnicity/grade
  • Ninth grade spike in retention, as students must focus on credit accumulation, and this is where they determine whether they are going to stay in school and attempt graduation or not.
  • Significant number of black males are retained in 9th grade
  • Retention by type of school was noted, as well as by social economic status
  • Percentage of retentions over time by ethnicity between 2009-2014 (35-40% white, 12 – 18% Hispanic and 38 – 44% black)
  • Percentage of retentions by gender – 62% male, 39% female; this was true for all grade levels
  • Statewide retained average is 3%

Drop Out Data highlights were:

  • Shown by school district/charter school with charters showing less than 15 students, Christina at 7.5% and Sussex Tech near 0% (2011-2013)
  • For 2012-2013 rates – Moyer was at 27% and Positive Outcomes had a data count issue.
  • The presentation noted the per county drop out rates, with state average drop out rate being at 4%

Donna Johnson noted that the definition of a drop out is different than a kid who did not graduate. The percentage is different.

Rep. Blakely encouraged the group to determine how low we can get the drop out rate, knowing we will never eliminate it, but perhaps consistently working to decrease it over time.

  1. Discussion – Legislation Related to School Retention & Social Promotion - Alton Irvin

Prior to the meeting Alton Irvinsent several documents electronically. All documents were forwarded to Task Force members via email for their review(see Attachment #2 - folder), and the following key points were discussed in the meeting:

-impact of increasing the age of compulsory school attendance to increase state graduation rates; group discussed and noted that this would have little effect due to noncompliance; may increase cost due to need for truancy officers. Donna Johnson noted that Rep. Heffernan introduced a bill to raise the compulsory attendance age to 18. Donna Johnson will do research to find the alternative pathways that were suggested (see as Attachment #3) at that time (2012). Victoria Seifred noted that we need to support In School Credit Program, Twilight Program, Groves Adult Education, as these programs work better than increasing compulsory attendance age.

-adopting a shorter school week (4 days); group discussed and noted this would work great for teachers; but parents would complain about day care issues; this would require a cultural change, Kendall Massett noted some charter schools run on this model with a longer day for 4 days, with a ½ day on Wednesdays and Fridays for Professional Development; it could possibly work if schools form partnership with Boys and Girls Club; Victoria Seifred mentioned that they have cost/budget issues too, however she did remember that ½ days were held in schools in the 1960s and 1970s; Dana Kelley asked Kendall how the ½ days work for all their schools; Kendall noted that they work differently in rural areas vs. metropolitan area; Victoria noted that with 20,000 kids in Red Clay, she didn’t think it would work effectively; Paul Baumbach noted that this is not a cost savings, and there is no parental support for it; it was also noted that Delaware has passed laws for 4 day week, with a 2 ½% in savings, improved moral of teachers, with sport programs being held on the ½ day; this works best in small schools; to some kids this might mean the difference between attending or dropping out; Rep. Baumbach noted he is aware of a Newark private school that has a ½ day and then brings students into the workplace; Phyllis Kohel noted that teacher would complain that there is not enough time to get their workload accomplished; a ½ day out of school would come at a price to students; Phyllis suggested that in secondary schools we could add 15 minutes to the day, but that the cost would need to come out of local funds; Victoria noted that when schools were off for a flood, teachers reported to do what they needed to do and that in their contracts they get one day prep for next marking period.

-next generation of assessments; group discussed and Donna Johnson asked if there was any up to date assessment data. She noted that the State Board is having a workshop on January 6 to talk about next generation of school accountability and state assessments. Donna noted that the K12 Education (Assessment Consortium) published an overview of the next generation of assessments. She will forward to the group as we may find it useful (see as Attachment #4).

-student achievement in charter schools; group discussed and it was noted that a review of learning and teaching was presented as outlined by the NCSL. It noted achievements made in charter school teaching, and reviewed public vs. charter schools. The conclusion being that success looks different in each grade.

-online learning; group discussed and Alton was to send pdf to the group on this (see as Attachment #5). It is noted that some states have this, where they do all classes online or certain schools do just some of the classes online. The key point here is that students have more opportunities to perform and graduate if doing work online. Perhaps a mixture of some school time and some online courses would work. It was suggested that this type of approach may work better in city schools.

Alton also gave an overview of the NCSL Drop Out Task Force Report. Some key points to addressing drop outs were:

  • Creating sustained urgency around high school graduation
  • Insisting on high expectations for students
  • Putting excellent teachers in classrooms
  • Identifying and supporting struggling students
  • Developing a Drop Out Recovery Program

Kendall Massett noted that we do most if not all of these already. Donna Johnson noted we should challenge ourselves to look at this. Yes, we do it, but how do we improve upon it?

Paul Baumbach asked what is the next step? Do we develop a Drop Out Recovery Program to re-engage out of school youth? Donna Johnson suggested we evaluate re-engagement programs to see what’s worked and how we can replicate those programs. We must also consider funding, sharing out, etc. Paul asked how are successful programs measured? Do we use a qualitative approach? How do we identify success? Donna responded that we make a decision for qualitative (the impact) instead of just quantitative. Paul asked, so what is our next step? Donna suggested we must define what we want success to look like? Michele referenced Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) and IM40, which is the developmental assets movement (there are 40 assets). Paul asked can we connect IM40 with task force findings, and promote DAP survey? Donna Johnson suggested Grit training with IM40 – curriculum that follows up on developing children.

Kendall Massett noted that when kids fail alot, they start to believe that are failures.

Donna Johnson noted that the Social Emotional DOE Workgroup is checking into this.

Paul – Do we need to do more to connect the value of a social emotionaltie in to improve results? Woodbridge has data to support via Michele’s dissertation. Dana Kelley suggested the Learning Coach Model where every person has a group they meet with. The whole thing is about making a connection with someone. Paul noted that perhaps in our recommendation we highlight what is perceived to be most successful approaches (academic, social emotional).

Alton remembers a similar program where mentors met with kids regularly and they made it through high school. Dana Kelley notes that the groups are mixed up with various backgrounds.

Paul asked if there is anything else to look at today? Paul noted that the next meeting will be in January. He asked what can we do individually between now and next meeting?

Donna Johnson mentioned that she attended a recent conference of the Education Commission of the States (ECS), where they shared resources that can be used by states gathering such information. They can also send staff to share research gathered by the organization. Paul asked what can we collect on focusing on both college and career path for students?

Donna Johnson said making sure all students have access to technical programs (engaged in learning). She mentioned the report coming in January on reducing barriers to all students having access.

On this subject Kendall Massett noted a lot of students want in and don’t get in because itsoversubscribed.

Alton noted in high school, they had smaller scale programs leading up to high school.

Donna Johnson noted that with vocational programs, we see most success in moving toward a comprehensive high school.

  1. Discussion – Cost of Edmentum & APEX at State Level vs. District Level – Susan Haberstroh

Susan Haberstroh was not present, so Michele Marinucci provided the group with an update on this issue. Michele noted that it cost $182/per license when purchased in packs of 100 licenses. In addition there is an onsite training fee of $4000/per district, and an adaptive intervention fee of $6250. Rep. Baumbach asked if there is a cost savings incentive for districts to work together on a statewide level. Michele indicated Susan Haberstroh may possibly have that data (to be presented at Jan 26 meeting).

  1. Discussion – RTI Information – Michele Marinucci

Michele referenced some information that she sent to Tina Shockley and asked if Tina sent it on to the group. Tina was not aware of it, but followed up with Michele after the meeting. (Tina forwarded information to group, and its attached here as well as Attachment #6.)

At this point Rep. Baumbach noted that nothing shareable was able to be gathered from the Charter Collaboration Committee that would overlap our work on this Task Force.

  1. Discussion –Regional Summer School - Phyllis Kohel and Kendall Massett

Phyllis Kohel talked to school superintendents, and they noted that summer school is an issue because of the funding. 10 out of 19 had to eliminate or reduce summer school. She continued that the idea of consolidating summer school into a regional summer school has been proposed. The superintendent’s thought it would not be a potential cost savings because of the increasedtransportation cost.

Skyping into a lesson was also suggested, but some students still have to come to schools to use the computer, or get transportation to library/school, which could still be a barrier.

A consolidated program is not an option. Likewise, as the end of Race to the Top funds draws near, this will become a real problem.

Rep. Baumbach requestedthe allocation of RTTT funds, which DOE provides on RTTT projects. Are we on the hook to pay for these programs that were started with RTTT funds?

Rep. Baumbach also asked if school districts have programs affecting retention and drop out rates, which are funded with RTTT dollars? Will we see that funding end? Yes, there very well may be. Rep. Baumbach asked Kendall if charter schools were facing the same thing? Kendall noted that most charter schools use it for something like that; and that most programs would end.

Paul Baumbach asked if exposure of newly funded programs likely increased challenges as of July 1.

Jobs Fund – ARRA stimulus funds were gone, but they had RTTT funds, but where do we go from here. Perhaps we go to Ed Sustainment funding- $26 million, $2.6 million in this year’s budget.

Donna Johnson proposed that if this money is used flexibly by districts as a one year band-aid, we could try to get $ back to 2008 level (gradual increase). Can we use Ed sustainment funds?

  1. Next Steps

As underlined here in, the following information will be presented at our next meeting:

  • Donna Johnson – Alternate Pathways to Increasing the Compulsory Age of Attendance
  • Donna Johnson - K12 Education (Assessment Consortium) published overview of Next Generation Assessments.
  • Alton Irvin – Online Learning Information
  • Susan Haberstroh/Michele Marinucci - Cost savings incentive for districts to work together on a statewide level on the Cost of Edmentum & APEX at State Level vs. District Level
  1. Establish Future Meetings

The next meeting is tentatively set for January 26, 2014 from 5:00pm to 7:00 pm in Conference Room C of the Collette Education Resource Building, 35 Commerce Way, Dover. The February meeting will be tentatively held February 23, 2014. This will be our final meeting in preparation of the March 1, 2015 deadline for a report to the Governor and General Assembly.

  1. Public Comment

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