Dropout Prevention Insights Gained from the

Minnesota Department of Education Initiative Education Commission of the

StatesCommissioners MeetingNew OrleansJanuary 6-8, 2010

Dropout Prevention Initiative

Minnesota 2008 Graduation Rate

• AYP 91.6%

• Four Year 72.8%White 80.6 %

American Indian 41.0 %

Black 40.9 %

Hispanic 39.6 %

LEP 43.4 %

Special Ed 51.8 %

F & R Price Lunch 51.8 %

Sobering Statistics• Nearly 14,000 students did not graduate from Minnesota’s high schools in

2009, the lost lifetime earnings in Minnesota for that class of dropouts alone total more than $3.6 billion [or about $260,000 per student in lost revenue].

• If Minnesota’s high schools graduated all of their students ready for college, the state would save almost 89.1 million a year in community college and remediation costs and lost earnings.

• Minnesota’s economy would see a combination of crime related savings and additional revenue of about $77.8 million each year if the male high school graduation rate increased by just 5%.

The Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009

Five Overall Goals for MDE1. Develop a comprehensive dropout prevention model

2. Develop tools to enhance the development of effective programming

3. Increase statewide and local coordination to address dropout prevention

4. Provide support and technical assistance for local education agencies

5. Increase the likelihood of continued implementation sustainability of grant success

Structure

• Cross Departmental Team – School choice, special education, Indian Education, Safe &

Healthy Learners, After school, English Language Learners, Service Learning, High School Improvement

– Staffed by Project Coordinator– Resource focused

• MDE Liaison to Pilot Districts– Role integrated into ongoing duties– Onsite/ongoing technical assistance– Coordinated through project team

• Checklists, Planning Tools/Processes, Framework

Participants in the Initiative• Participating high schools and middle schools from the

following seven districts:– Brooklyn Center – Duluth– Hibbing – Park Rapids – Red Lake– Richfield– St. Paul

• Wide variation in school enrollment numbers, student demographics, geographic location, district finances/structure, school and community contextual issues

Engaging Students in School and Learning Ten Strategies (National Dropout Prevention Center)

School-Community CollaborationSafe Learning EnvironmentsFamily EngagementLiteracy DevelopmentMentoring/TutoringService-LearningAfter School OpportunitiesProfessional DevelopmentContextualized and Active/Individualized LearningAlternative Schooling

Schools Use a Series of Checklists and Templates to Guide the Planning Process

• Checklist 1: Getting Started Start-up activities, gathering relevant data, needs assessment

• Checklist 2: Data Synthesis and Implementation FocusReflection & synthesis of data; articulate implementation focus

• Checklist 3: Implementation Detail and Evaluation Plan Implementation detail (what, who, timeline, etc.); evaluation plan with goals, objectives and indicators

We can work to engage students at a variety of levels… a comprehensive plan

• Few (5%)Tertiary Level(intensive)

• Some 10 -15% respondSecondary Level (targeted)

• All receive the intervention – prevention oriented80% respondPrimary Level(universal)

Levels of Intervention

3 Tiered Model

Levels of Intervention

• Universal – primary prevention, includes all youth, low cost per individual (systemic positive discipline program)

• Secondary – prevention/intervention, includes about 15% who are identified as being at risk of dropout, moderate cost (programs that work to build specific skills)

• Tertiary – intervention, includes 5% of youth exhibiting clear signs of early school leaving, high need, high cost (intensive wrap-around services)

What does it look like?• Graduation Triangles: Comprehensive Systems of Support

Brooklyn Center Schools

Dropout Prevention Initiative Timeline

9/05 Received Grant Organizing

1/06 Kick-off meeting with participating districts and stakeholders

Stage 1. MDE Exploration (Learning, Increased Awareness, Start-up)

8/06 Districts collected data/determined needs

2005-2006 Graduation/Dropout Rates

Stage 1. District Exploration

Planning, Needs Assessment

12/06 School Wide Graduation Plans Determined

Stage 2. Installation Implementation Focus

6/07 Implementation Progress Reports

2006-2007 school year

Stage 3. Initial Implementation

9/07 – 6/08

Full Implementation

2007-2008 school year

Stage 4. Full Implementation

9/08-6/09

Sustained Implementation

2008-2009 school year (data in process)

Stage 5. Innovation and

Stage 6. Sustainability

Data-based Indicators of Effectiveness

Four Year Graduation Rate – a four-year on-time graduation rate based on a cohort of first time ninth grade students plus transfers into the cohort within the four year period minus transfers out of the cohort within the four year period. The rate is similar to the National Governors Association (NGA) Graduation rate – but the NGA rate allows more time for special education

students and recent immigrants to graduate.

Includes count and percentage of students who graduate, dropout, continue or are of unknown status

4 Year Graduation and Continuing Rate (2004-2008)** 4 of 7 high schools showed significant increase in graduation/continuing rate over the 4 years** Average percentage change across 6 schools = +2.9%** Red Lake – significant decrease in graduation/continuing rate** 2 schools now at or above state average (2008; 88.1%)

Site Baseline 2004 2008 Change

Brooklyn Center 75.6 82.1 + 6.5%

Duluth Denfeld 85.9 84.6 - 1.3%

Hibbing 83.3 88.1 + 4.8%

Park Rapids 86.0 89.8 + 3.8%

Red Lake 59.2 43.9 - 15.3%

Richfield 82.7 87.3 + 4.6%

St. Paul Arlington 78.8 77.8 - 1.0%

Outcomes and Significant Results

• Students Dropping Out of School (2004-2008)– 5 of 7 high schools had fewer dropouts– 2 of the 7 schools increased number of dropouts– Number of students dropping out of school decreased by 24%

**Data used from 6 of 7 schools; 179 to 136**Enrolled 9th grade cohort stayed about the same (decrease of .2%; 1633 to 1630)

• Persisting in School– Number of students persisting in school increased by 17% from

2004-2008 (6 of the 7 schools increased the number and percentage of students continuing in school beyond four years)

4 Year Graduation Rate (percentage)Disaggregated for Selected Student GroupsSite Category Baseline 2004 2008

Brooklyn Center Free and Reduced Price Lunch

51.6 62.5 +

Park Rapids Free and Reduced Price Lunch

69.1 81.5 +

Richfield Black 45.0 56.7 +

Richfield Free and Reduced Price Lunch

44.3 47.1 +

St. Paul Arlington Black 52.6 60.8 +

Duluth Special Education 61.0 63.6 +

Hibbing Male 71.7 78.4 +

Results by School and for Specific ProgramsIndicators Associated with Dropout and School Completion• Duluth – Average daily attendance increased; number students

receiving failing grades decreased, increased scores on scale of developmental intercultural sensitivity

• Red Lake Schools – suspensions decreased, attendance rates increased

• Hibbing – truancy referrals decreased• Richfield – academic growth in reading and math (MCA scores);

Check & Connect (n=32) – decrease in absences and tardies; decrease in number of in school suspensions; improved grades; Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) 368 fewer days missed 2007-2008 (n=124)

• Brooklyn Center – improved school climate as indicated by student survey findings; decrease suspensions and behavioral referrals (by over 50% from 2006 – 2008)

• Park Rapids – number of out of school suspensions decreased; truancy referrals decreased, bullying incidents decreased on playground and bus

• St. Paul – increase in number of students attending organized college visits

Changes in Scope or Unexpected Results• There were several positive residual outcomes associated with the Dropout

Prevention initiative that could not be measured via quantitative outcome indicators, to include: – a more collaborative approach to dropout prevention at all levels of the

Minnesota Department of Education, as well as, the local schools. – greater awareness on the part of the public about the dropout issue and

the risk factors involved. – schools and communities are collaborating in ways they never dreamed

of before the Initiative and local resources are being used in at every site to support the initiative. (External Evaluator, 2009)

• Host Americorps Promise Fellow through Minnesota Alliance With Youth – link with 60 other Promise Fellows throughout Minnesota (MN) and statewide partners including Search Institute, National Youth Leadership Council, Mentoring Partnership of MN, University of MN Center for Youth Development, Youth Community Connections

Changes in Scope or Unexpected Results• Listening Groups with Youth – Focus groups conducted by steering

committee members (Konopka Institute, University of Minnesota)

• Minnesota Summit on Youth Development and Graduation (Dec., 2007) – award through America’s Promise Alliance (national organization founded by Colin and Alma Powell)

• Ten Community Mini-Summits focused on positive youth development and graduation (fall, 2008)

• Dropout Prevention Graduation Summit (November, 2009) Sharing the Vision for High School Completion– Metro Graduation Summit: Strategies for Engaging Youth in School

and Learning– Statewide Graduation Summit: Policy and Action

Sustainability• Districts continue to implement approaches/programming that required

start up money (to build professional development, capacity and infrastructure) rather than sustained funding

• Ongoing and new activities – Graduation Summit, Indian Education Workshop, Alternatives to Suspension, After-School Programming Initiative (Supporting Youth Success)

• Web Site – Journey to School Completion Video, Programming Guide, Voices PowerPoint, Archived Newsletters, Links, Fact Sheets, Ten Effective Strategies, Process Checklists, Graduation Triangles, Participant List, and more…

• “In spite of requirements and efforts to infuse sustainability into the system after the life of the grant, there is no way around the fact that many strategies that are research-based cost significant dollars, and without the grant resources, [several of] the strategies and interventions cannot be sustained” (External Evaluation, 2009)

Steering Committee Report - Sustainability• Legislate raising the legal age of compulsory school attendance and increase

supports for students who are disengaging from school. • Identify, emphasize and promote research based programs that can be sustained

with minimum cost.

• Intentionally educate, build networks and work collaboratively with local and state agencies, community organizations, educational entities and businesses for funding to support dropout prevention programming.

• Maintain a statewide focus on best practices in dropout prevention through creation and maintenance of a managing entity.

• Publicize grant opportunities for addressing dropout prevention (e.g., service learning, after-school programming, etc.) and assist Local Education Agency staff

• Be proactive with legislators and engage policymakers in discussions of dropout

prevention to intentionally increase funds that support innovative, evidence-based and promising programs in schools that want change.

Lessons Learned• Implementation process is key

• Systemic change is required – rather than a band-aid approach

• Collaboration is critical (school, family, community, departmental)

• Provide a framework and allow schools/districts to tailor programming to meet needs

• Work at a district level (rather than school) to effect sustainability

What would be most useful to other districts that are addressing dropout prevention? (information gathered from leadership team members aggregated across participating districts)

PROCESS• Assessing School Climate 97% • Gathering Data to Guide Programming 93%• Disaggregating Data by Student Groups 80%• Establishing a Local Leadership Team 80%• Identifying/Mapping Current Prevention Efforts 74%• Use of Planning Templates 73%• Developing a Communication Plan 73%• Use of Planning Checklists to Guide the Process70%• Meetings with Other Participating Districts 70%

FRAMEWORK

• Focusing on Promoting Successful Transition 93%• Collaboration Between Middle & High Schools 90%• Providing Supports at 3 Levels of Intervention 87%• Using NDPC’s 10 Dropout Prevention Strategies 83%

PRODUCT• Summary Listing of NDPC’s 10 Effective Strategies 74%

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE• MDE Coordinator* 86%• MDE Consultation via Site Visits 80%• Contact with MDE Liaisons 73%• Salaries/Wages for Added Positions 87%

FUNDING• Professional Development 83%• Supplies, Curriculum & Materials for

Programming 76%

Orientation/Approach 1.1 Foster a sense of belonging and connectedness for all students by creating positive

relationships with caring adults.

1.2 Create school environments or school climates that are positive, safe and welcoming.

1.3 Promote ongoing staff development to examine, identify and understand unique contextual issues of all students being served.

1.4 Invest in programming and instructional strategies for learning that can be applied universally, disseminated and replicated. Maintain the integrity of key elements…

1.5 Promote staff retention by building on consistency, expertise, capacity and the power of initiatives to increase student engagement and prevent dropout across years.

1.6 Establish consistency in measurement and definitions for key qualitative and quantitative indicators associated with school completion (these should include graduation rates, dropout rates, attendance, student engagement and school climate).

Suggested Best PracticesSteering Committee Recommendations

Supporting Students Placed At-Risk

2.1 Ensure the discussion of and movement towards cultural competence for all educators, support staff, administrators and others working with youth in school.  Cultural competence is embodied by commitment to open-mindedness, confrontation of stereotypical thinking and the creation of an atmosphere of care and concern for all students.

2.2 Establish and maintain an ongoing exchange of information between parents, families and school staff.

2.3 Emphasize the important role that parent support can play in student learning (inside and outside of school) and encourage a focus on family engagement in student learning.

2.4 Utilize research based dropout prevention strategies designed to increase student engagement in school and learning such as after-school activities, mentoring, tutoring, service learning, alternative learning programs, and safe learning environments…

Suggested Best PracticesSteering Committee Recommendations

Supporting Students Placed At-Risk2.4 Provide student centered planning individualized to meet student

needs. Closely monitor students’ progress to support students who are disengaging from school.

2.5 Provide supports to students during key transition periods such as

between middle and high school; transition during the year for students new to the school; return to school for students who were suspended; expelled or in care and treatment; and students new to America.

2.6 Encourage school-community collaboration to support programs and activities that will sustain caring environments inside of and outside of school where youth can develop, learn and thrive.

Suggested Best PracticesSteering Committee Recommendations

Summary Thought…

“Promoting school completion implies much more than the reduction of dropout rates. Preparation of youth for productive and meaningful participation in a community begins, for educators, with the promotion of students’ engagement in school and learning.”

(Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr, & Anderson, 2003)

For more information, see Dropout Prevention, Retention and Graduation Initiative http://www.education.state.mn.us/mde/index.html