De Phase 2 Needs AssessmentFinal10.6.16part1

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities
Delaware Department of Education

October 2016
October 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................2
Best Practices .............................................................................................................................................................4
Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................................................................................................... 25
School Enrollment Patterns ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................... 52
October 2016
INTRODUCTION
In June 2016, the Delaware Department of Education (DDOE) contracted with PCG to produce a comprehensive
report that supports informed decision making of Delawares future school capacity needs, taking into account the
specific needs of diverse and at-risk learners. This report draws from multiple data sources to develop a
comprehensive understanding of projected gaps in schooling options for all of Delawares students.
For two decades, the state of Delaware has invested in a commitment to providing students with a range of
educational options through the statewide school choice program. By providing access to traditional public, magnet,
vocational technical, and charter school options, the program allows students to select schools that align to their
interests and support their postsecondary goals. In order to identify future school capacity needs, it is critical to first
understand demand, access, and projected needs for these specialized educational options throughout the state.
In 2015, Public Consulting Group (PCG) was contracted by the Delaware State Board of Education (SBE) and the
Delaware Department of Education (DDOE) to conduct a Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities for
Delaware Students (SREO). In examining the educational opportunities available to Delawares school age children,
the study identified discrepancies in the rate at which students of various demographic profiles were accessing
certain choice opportunities. Specifically, the study identified that students from low income families, students with
disabilities, and students receiving ELL services participate in specialized educational opportunities at lower rates
than their peers.
The demographic profile of Delawares schools is changing. In the next decade, students from low income families,
black students, Hispanic students, and English learners are expected to comprise a larger percentage of the total
student population. Given existing differences in school choice participation rates, this report seeks to identify
barriers to access and determine how they can be mitigated to ensure that all students have access to the choice
program.
Recommendations included in this report are the product of a triangulated review process involving 1) a review of
the research and practice literature, 2) a gap analysis; and 3) qualitative data collection.
1. The best practices review identifies the ways in which Local and State Education Agencies set policies
and procedures to increase participation of diverse and at-risk learners in school choice opportunities.
2. Based on demographic and geographic school enrollment projections, the gap analysis displays where
additional schooling options or an adjustment of practice may be needed in order to meet a growing number
of students or a shifting student demographic profile. All student enrollment data included in this report
represents student enrollment as of June 30, 2016.
3. Qualitative data collection occurred through focus groups, interviews and an electronic survey. This data
provided a picture of Delawares educational landscape, including perceived strengths and areas for
improvement in the current education system. All qualitative data included in this report was collected
between June and August 2016.
Stakeholder outreach served as a critical aspect to ensuring that report recommendations are responsive to the
environment in which they will operate. In addition to recommendations, this report identifies areas where further
analysis is needed to determine how school and programming options should be tailored to meet the diverse needs
of Delawares student population.
October 2016
Key Findings
Quantitative and qualitative data analysis included in this review uncovered several key findings about school
quality, student demographics, and enrollment patterns. These findings, which are analyzed in greater detail within
the report, are highlighted below.
SCHOOL QUALITY
The majority of survey respondents (80.1%) indicated that they are either satisfied or very satisfied with
their current schooling experience
Nearly 90% of survey respondents believe that access to a quality school is not a given for all of Delawares
students
Despite diverse backgrounds and varied experiences with DE public schools, stakeholders identified
consistent beliefs when describing their definition of a quality school
SCHOOL ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
Black students, Hispanic students, English Learners, and students who are low income are more likely than
their peers to be enrolled in schools receiving the lowest academic achievement ratings in the Delaware
School Success Framework (DSSF)
White students are more likely than their peers to be enrolled in schools receiving the highest academic
achievement ratings in the DSSF
Nearly 70% of Wilmington students attend schools receiving low academic achievement ratings in the
DSSF (1 or 2-stars)
Less than 1% of Wilmington students attend schools receiving 5 stars for academic achievement in the
DSSF
SCHOOL CHOICE PATTERNS
Low income students and English learners are less likely than their peers to exercise school choice
There are five Delaware zip codes in which fewer than half of all students attend their feeder pattern school.
Each of these zip codes (19801, 19804, 19805, 19806, 19807) are located in New Castle County
October 2016
BEST PRACTICES
In order to support informed decision making of Delawares future school capacity needs, we investigated the
national landscape with respect to schooling options provided to students. The investigation revealed shared
challenges, evidence of successes, and promising practices.
National Landscape
OVERVIEW
Providing parents and students with enrollment options has increased in popularity over the past three decades.
Since the establishment of Minnesotas open enrollment policy in 1988, many states have implemented policies
that either allow students to transfer to a public school within their district (intradistrict enrollment) or to another
district (interdistrict enrollment). Depending on the state, district participation is mandatory, voluntary, or a
combination (e.g., mandatory for low-performing schools or districts).1
Currently, twenty-one states give students the opportunity to enroll across district lines, while twenty-two states
allow students to enroll in other schools within the district. 2 As a greater number of states have increased the range
of options available, more families have accessed these options: [T]he percentage of children attending a . . . public
school other than their assigned public school increased from 11% to 16% from 1993 to 2007. 3
While states vary in their implementation of these policies, there are several common characteristics across these
policies (see Table 1).
Table 1. Common Characteristics of State Policies that Increase Enrollment Options 4
Admission Policies:
o Most policies enable districts to create a hierarchy of preferences to admit students (e.g., children of indistrict teachers, siblings).
o Most policies prohibit districts from selectively accepting or denying students because of achievement,
extracurricular or athletic ability, disability, and/or English-language proficiency.
Desegregation: Transfers cannot supersede a court-ordered desegregation program.
Enrollment: Most policies provide a space available opt-out provision for districts and schools.
Funding: State and local funding normally follows the student.
PUBLIC RESPONSE
Advocates of providing more options point to the following positive attributes:
Fuels increased competition, accountability, and incentives: Providing parents and students with a
range of options incentivizes improvement among all schools, as schools seek to appeal to parents who
Wixom, M.A. (2015). Education Commission of the States. 50 state comparison: Open-enrollment policies. http://www.ecs.org/openenrollment-policies/.
2
Schools of choice: How education options empower students and improve America's schools. Right to Rise Policy Solutions.
http://rtrpolicy.com/policy-papers/schools-of-choice
3
Mikulecky, M.T. (2013). Open enrollment is on the menubut can you order it? Education Commission of the States.
4
October 2016
are making selections for their children. Parents are drawn to a range of program options, engaged
teachers, and student achievement, and thus schools are required to improve in these areas. 5
Provides disadvantaged students with access to quality education: Because parents are able to select
schools outside of the neighborhoods in which they reside, their children are able to enroll in higherperforming schools and districts than they would otherwise have access to.6
Provides students with access to schools that better meet their interests or needs: If another school
or district is better aligned with a students needs or interests, he/she has the opportunity to access
education outside of the neighborhood of residence.
Increases parent and student satisfaction: Parents and students who are presented with options that
enable them to select a school that fully addresses their needs, interests, and priorities report higher levels
of satisfaction, which in turn leads to better engagement: a critical component of student achievement. 7
Alternately, critics articulate the following concerns:
Disproportionately affects low-income schools: Enabling students to opt out of attending their
neighborhood schools leads to greater economic and racial segregation. Another challenge that low-income
schools contend with is the loss of their highest-performing students, which negatively impacts students
peer groups.8 A final challenge relates to reduced funding. 9
Negatively impacts neighborhood schools: Funding frequently follows the student, and the loss of a
number of students has a substantial net negative impact on the district losing the pupil and a substantial
net positive impact on the district gaining the pupil. 10 Because the costs associated with one more or one
fewer students is nominal, student transfers do not substantially change what it costs the district to educate
its student population. However, student transfers reduce district revenue, thereby reducing the districts
ability to meet its costs.
Inability to access options: Critics describe how several factors limit parents ability to access the range
of options available, including poor communication with parents, limited transportation options, and schools
at capacity.
Delawares Choice Program

OVERVIEW
Delaware is one of the twenty-two states that gives students the opportunity to enroll across district lines.
Since the 19961997 school year, students have been able to seek enrollment in any district, charter school,
magnet school, or vocational-technical school. Each organizing body is able to determine the order in which
applications for enrollment shall be considered and the criteria by which such applications shall be evaluated. 11 In
Ozek, U. (2009). The effects of open enrollment on school choice and student outcomes. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in
Education Research.
6
Ibid.
7
(2002). School Choice. No Child Left Behind Policy Brief.
8
Carlson, D., Lavery, L., & Witte, J.F. (2011). The determinants of interdistrict open enrollment flows: Evidence from two states. Educational
evaluation and policy analysis, 33 (1), 7694..
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254089995_The_Determinants_of_Interdistrict_Open_Enrollment_Flows_Evidence_From_Two_Stat
es.
9
10
ECO Northwest. Expanding choice within the public school system. http://chalkboardproject.org/sites/default/files/ExpandChoicePS.pdf
11
Delaware Department of Education. School choice: About the choice program. http://dedoe.schoolwires.net/domain/81
October 2016
order to ensure that these students are not limited in their selections, the receiving local education agency is
required to:
Only request supplemental information from transfer students that it requests from attendance zone
students.
Limit the extent to which supplemental information is used in the review process.
Not reject applications of students with special needs.
In an effort to ensure greater parity across these educational organizations, Delaware requires all organizations to
use and accept a standard application form. The application timeline is provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Application Timeline
NovemberJanuary: The Department of Education and/or the local educational agency receives the standard
application form on or after the first Monday in November through the second Wednesday in January.
January: Ten working days after the January application deadline:
o The Department of Education must disseminate all application forms to the receiving local educational
agencies.
o The receiving local education agencies must inform its applicants home districts that applications have
been received.
February: By the last day of February, the receiving local education agency must approve or disapprove
applications for grades 1 through 12. Kindergarten applications must be approved or disapproved by June 15.
February/March: Within five days of the receiving local education agencys decision, the parent and the
students home district must be notified.
March: A parent must respond to accept or reject the offer no later than the third Friday in March.
After January: If availability remains, charter schools, vocational-technical districts, and magnet schools may
continue to accept applications.
ACCESS FOR ALL STUDENTS
While Delawares program is designed to provide equitable opportunity to all students, all students are not
accessing the range of enrollment options available in numbers that are representative of the states total
population.12 Specifically:
There are instances in which students of a certain racial group are over- or underrepresented in choice
schools. Black students participate in the range of enrollment options available at a higher rate than
students of other racial groups, while white students do so at lower rates. The percentage of Hispanic
students of any race participating in enrollment options is lower than the overall percentage of Hispanic
students in the state.
Students from low income families access the range of enrollment options at lower rates than their peers.
Student with disabilities access the range of enrollment options at lower rates than their peers
English Learners access the range of enrollment options at lower rates than their peers.
12
PCG Education. (2015). Statewide review of educational opportunities. Delaware Department of Education and Delaware State Board of
Education.
October 2016
COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS

On its website, Delaware provides information about the range of options available to its students.13 The
website includes an overview of the program, links to district choice and charter school websites, frequently asked
questions, and application and termination forms available in English and Spanish. Each district and charter school
website has a range of applicable information available to parents seeking to explore their enrollment options,
including presentations about the enrollment options available (6.5% of websites), information about the choice
process (19.6%), and details about the procedures of the local educational agency (30.4%).
TRANSPORTATION
Delaware Code Title 14. Education 508. Responsibility for student transportation stipulates that the
state of Delaware does not offer transportation assistance for students accessing enrollment options
outside of their home districts. 14 As stated in the code, parents are generally responsible for transporting their
children to and from a point on a regular bus route when students access schools outside of their home districts.
These parents are not offered reimbursement of any kind. However, the state of Delaware does fund transportation
for charter schools, which enables charter schools to transport students attending their schools to and from the site.
SCHOOLS AT CAPACITY
The state of Delaware revised its School Capacity Calculation Procedures in November 2014. 15 In Delaware,
schools are defined as at capacity if their enrollment is at 85% of building capacity at the
elementary/middle school levels, and 90% at the high school level. That is, traditional district schools are not
mandated to accept students if the capacity of their schools is above 85% at the elementary/middle school level,
and 90% at the high school level. This is based on a formula of 24 students per classroom in elementary school,
23 in middle school, and 21 in high school.
Based on available data, schools at or above capacity per waitlists include 16:
67% of charter schools

100% of vocational technical schools
32% of traditional district schools
Delaware has repeatedly sought to clarify: the process by which schools determine when there is a need
for a new building or major capital improvement, how school sites are selected, what design standards are in
place, and how construction-related issues are addressed.17 Recommendations and next steps were documented
in Building Quality Schools: Revisions to the School Construction Formula and Recommended Standards
(October 2002), The Certificate of Necessity Process Evaluation Recommendations and Findings (May 2004),
Building Quality Schools: Revisions to the School Construction Formula and Recommended Standards: Second
Edition (September 2005), and 2007 School Construction Committee Report and Recommendations (April 2008).
13
Delaware Department of Education. School choice: About the choice program. http://dedoe.schoolwires.net/domain/81
Delaware Code Title 14. Education 508. Responsibility for student transportation. http://codes.findlaw.com/de/title-14-education/de-codesect-14-508.html.
15
Delaware Department of Education. School construction manual: By section. http://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/1828.
16
PCG Education. (2015). Statewide review of educational opportunities. Delaware Department of Education and Delaware State Board of
Education.
17
Hunter, A., Sawak, C., Cleaver, S. (2004). The certificate of necessity process evaluation: Recommendations and findings.
http://www.ipa.udel.edu/publications/cn.pdf
14
October 2016
Ultimately, in order to build a new school, a district is required to obtain a Certificate of Necessity from the Delaware
Department of Education. This Certificate does the following 18:
Certifies that the construction project is necessary.

Sets the scope and cost limits of the project.
Authorizes the school district to hold a referendum for the Major Capital Improvement Program identified.
Authorizes the district to sell bonds to pay the local portion in the event of a successful referendum.
In addition to providing guidance related to building a new school, the state of Delaware provides a process by
which a district may decide to close a school, whereby demand and subsequently enrollment have declined.
The decision making process was revised in November 2014 and is articulated through an index [that] employs
nine objective weighted criteria factors . . . these criteria and their relative importance was synthesized from a survey
of over 50 school districts nation-wide which have closed elementary schools. 19 Criteria include cost per pupil,
space per pupil, pupil/teacher ratio, racial composition, auxiliary facilities, transportation, present school enrollment,
projected enrollment, and building age.
COLLABORATION ACROSS SCHOOLS
In 2013, the Task Force for Promoting Charter-District Collaboration was established to consider the current
state of collaboration between public charter schools and traditional public schools and to develop
recommendations for strengthening such collaboration. 20 Desired outcomes were articulated as follows 21.
Development of an ongoing, sustainable mechanism for sharing effective practices between public charter
schools and traditional public schools; and
Development of requirements for documenting and sharing effective practices for any recipients of the
Charter Performance Fund.
While the legislation identified collaboration across districts, charter schools, and vocational-technical schools
across the state of Delaware as a goal, and put the processes in place to achieve the goal, these outcomes were
not fully or systematically achieved.
Recently, additional efforts to encourage collaboration have taken place, as evidenced by the Educators as
Catalysts Showcase of Innovation, a presentation given by the Charter Schools Network at the September 2016
State Board of Education Meeting.22 The presentation discussed existing charter school and district partnerships,
which is indicative of ad hoc collaboration that can be capitalized on.
Shared Challenges
As stated above, an increasing number of states have adopted policies that provide parents and students with
greater enrollment options. As states and districts have written, regulated, and implemented these policies, several
shared challenges have emerged, including:
18
State of Delaware. 401 major capital improvement programs. http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/400/401.shtml

Delaware Department of Education. School construction manual: By section. http://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/1828.
20
Task Force for Promoting Charter-District Collaboration. (2013). Background and examples of collaboration.
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/TaskForces.nsf/113411bdd5de74d385257b3b005e343c/6bdd001142dfb1cd85257b980051be27/$FILE/charterdistrict%20collaborationMKM.pdf
19
21
Ibid.
Charter School Network. Educators as catalysts showcase of innovation. State Board of Education Regular Monthly Meeting, 9/15/2016.
https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/ViewMeetingOrder.aspx?S=190001&MID=822.
22
October 2016
Implementation of these policies has led to separation of students by race and ethnicity across schools
and programs.
English learners and students with disabilities are not accessing the range of enrollment options.
Socioeconomically disadvantaged students are not accessing the range of enrollment options.
Parents are not effectively communicated with and do not understand the range of options available.
Transportation often serves as a barrier to parents and students fully accessing enrollment options.
Parents and students face a Table 3. Examples of Challenges Related to Race and Ethnicity
more limited range of options Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities
because
high-performing State of Massachusetts: Students transferring were more
school and districts are full.
likely to be white.23
Schools within and across
San Diego, California: Students were making selections that
districts are not effectively
resulted in attendance at schools with more white students. 24
collaborating.
RACE AND ETHNICITY
Twin Cities, Minnesota: Thirty-six percent of the transfers

increased segregation, with white students predominantly
leaving three city districts.25
Research has demonstrated that when

policies are not designed to racially or
socioeconomically integrate schools, the opposite often occurs. That is, these policies lead to separation of
students by race and ethnicity across schools and programs. For example, a student whose districts
demographic profile does not match his/her own is more likely to exit the home district. The students decision to
select an educational opportunity outside of the home district contributes to greater separation. 26 Relatedly, students
who access opportunities outside of the home district typically live in districts with a lower percentage of students
who are white. Therefore, when these students decide to be educated elsewhere, greater racial stratification
results.27
23
Armor, D.J., & Peiser, B.M. (1998). Interdistrict choice in Massachusetts. In P.E. Peterson & B.C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school
choice.
24
Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives. (2011). Research brief: Case studies of school choice and open enrollment in four cities.
25
Tully, S. (2016). Interdistrict enrollment is appealing but tricky. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/05/18/interdistrict-enrollmentappealing-tricky.html?qs=open+enrollment.
26
Cowen, J., & Keesler, V. (2015). Dynamic participation in inter-district open enrollment: Evidence from Michigan 20052013.
27
Ibid.
October 2016
STUDENTS FROM LOW INCOME FAMILIES

Research has also demonstrated that Table 4. Examples of Challenges Related to Low Income Families
socioeconomically disadvantaged Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities
students are not accessing the Denver, Colorado: Relatively wealthy students were more likely
to transfer to more advantaged districts. 28
range of enrollment options to the
same degree as their more
State of Colorado: Low-income students were significantly less
advantaged peers.33
Instead,
likely to transfer to another district.29
multiple studies indicate that wealthier
students more frequently access the State of Massachusetts: Students transferring tended to be
range of options available, choosing to
wealthier and more academically skilled.30
leave their relatively less advantaged
districts and to capitalize on the State of Minnesota: Low-income students were significantly less
likely to transfer to another district.31
opportunities provided by the more
advantaged districts. Lavery states:
San Diego, California: Students were making selections that
Although common rhetoric concerning
resulted in attendance at schools with more advantaged peers.32
open enrollment is that it would permit
disadvantaged students to attend highquality schools, it seems likely that the programs primary use is as a public school voucher program for middleclass and upper-middle-class families. This needs to be recognized for discussion and debate. 34
28
Holme, J.J., & Richards, M.P. (2009). School choice and stratification in a regional context: Examining the role of inter-district choice.
Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 150171.
29
evaluation and policy analysis, 33 (1), 7694..
es.
30
Armor, D.J., & Peiser, B.M. (1998). Interdistrict choice in Massachusetts. In P.E. Peterson & B.C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school
choice.
31
evaluation and policy analysis, 33 (1), 7694.
es.
32
33
Cowen, J., & Keesler, V. (2015). Dynamic participation in inter-district open enrollment: Evidence from Michigan 20052013.
34
Ibid.
10
October 2016
ENGLISH LEARNERS AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Similarly, English learners and students with disabilities are not fully accessing the range of enrollment
options. Cowen and Keesler state: students with special designations ELL [English Language Learner] . . . [and]
learning disabled are also significantly less likely to open enroll. 35
Several studies highlight English learners comparatively limited utilization of school options. In Texas, Heilig and
Holme stated: Due to differences in cultural and social capital, it is likely that students whose home language is not
English are less likely to take advantage of choice.36 A comparable trend was noted in Connecticut. Miller
referenced a report produced by policy analysts Cotto and Feder:
In the 20112012 school year, 76% of public charters, 64% of magnets, and 56% of technical schools in
the Greater Hartford Area had substantially lower enrollment percentages of ELL students than the local,
traditional public schools in their district. 37
Additionally, a case study examining New York Citys system of choice noted an issue that contributes to students
with disabilities not accessing the options available. Namely, this issue is the inability of certain schools to fully
serve these students, and relatedly, the inability of parents to determine the extent to which their children will be
fully served. In the case of the New York City Department of Education, the study asserts that: The [Department]
did not have a formal mechanism for assigning students with special needs to schools that had the capacity to serve
them.38
COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS
Table 5. Examples of Lack of Communication with Parents
Boulder Valley School District, Colorado: High-achieving white students tended to be the ones
transferring out of low-performing public schools for charter or schools in wealthier neighborhoods. This is
mainly the result of a familiarity with the options and an understanding of how to navigate the
system.39
New Orleans, Louisiana: Schools are trusted to recruit and enroll students, while parents are left to
navigate the choice process alone, circumstances that increase the likelihood of only the most active and
knowledgeable parents getting their child placed in one of their top choice schools. 40
New York City, New York: Lack of publicity and complex application process limited the effectiveness
of reaching out to low-income families.41
Pinellas County, Florida: The extent to which open enrollment improves student achievement relies on
households willingness and ability to send their children to higher quality public schools in the presence
of open enrollment.
Another area that has presented a challenge to states and districts is communication with parents. Across the
nation, parents are not effectively communicated with and therefore do not understand the range of options
available. Because communication is lacking, it is only those parents with the time, resources, networks, and
35
Ibid.
Heilig, J.V., & Holme, J.J. (2013). Nearly 50 years post-Jim Crow: Persisting and expansive school segregation for African American, Latino,
and ELL students in Texas. Education and Urban Society. http://eus.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/29/0013124513486289.
37
Miller, C. (2015). English Language Learners underrepresented in Connecticuts choice schools.
http://commons.trincoll.edu/cssp/2015/05/12/english-language-learners-underrepresented-in-connecticuts-choice-schools/.
38
39
Eisenhart, M.A., & Howe, K.R. (2000). A study of Boulder Valley School District's open enrollment system.
40
41
Cookson, P., & Shroff, S. (1997). School choice and urban school reform. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
36
11
October 2016
education levels to independently investigate the available options and application processes who are able to
accrue the necessary knowledge. Consequently, there is a fairly large knowledge gap between middle- and upperincome and low-income parents, which is demonstrated by the fact the middle- and upper-class students still
comprise the bulk of participants [in open-enrollment programs].42 The policy brief further makes evident the gap:
[Henig] found that whether parents even know of the term magnet school depended on a parents ethnicity and
income level.43 Roda and Wells reinforces this finding, pointing to the relative advantage in terms of resources
and networks that white parents have in order to take advantage of school choice. 44 Despite acknowledging these
communication gaps, weak mandates on parent information outreach and no monitoring has meant little
improvement.45
TRANSPORTATION
Additionally, transportation often serves as a barrier to parents and students fully accessing enrollment
options. Cullen, Jacob, and Levitt report: Distance represents a substantial constraint on families interdistrict open
enrollment decisions and is thus a significant predictor of open enrollment flows. 46 In fact, studies of enrollment
options in Denver, Colorado and the state of Washington:
[F]ound that between 25 and 40 percent of families said that transportation options affected which school
they sent their child to. A similar proportion said that they would send their child to a different school if not
for transportation concerns.47
The barrier is particularly pronounced for students from low-income families, who may not have the means to get
to and from a school outside of their home district. Challenges include parents work schedules, availability of family
vehicles, and limited surplus funds. Tesky, Fitzpatrick, and OBrien corroborate this: [Their] study draws a
significant correlation and concludes that the lower the income of the students family, the more likely they are to
identify transportation as a barrier to exercising school choice options. 48
HIGH-DEMAND SCHOOLS AT CAPACITY
Often parents and students face a more limited range of options because high-performing schools and districts are
full. Frequently, states enable a school or district to prohibit transfers if their buildings are at capacity. However,
many states fail to define what constitutes full or at capacity.49 Thereby, parents and students face two challenges
with respect to capacity: spatial concerns and reputational concerns. That is, high-quality schools are either unable
to serve additional students because of space and resource constrains, or schools are unwilling to serve additional
students because of concerns related to test scores. A policy brief articulates these two challenges:
Waiting lists for high-performing public schools are already lengthy without the added burden of more
applicants. Beyond spatial concerns, it is questionable whether high performing public schools will want to
risk their high test scores and sterling reputations by accepting potentially underachieving students. 50
42

Ibid.
44
Roda, A., & Wells, A.S. (2013). School choice policies and racial segregation: Where white parents good intentions, anxiety, and privilege
collide. American Journal of Education, 119, 2.
45
Holme, J.J., &Wells, A.S. School choice beyond district borders: Lessons for the reauthorization of NCLB from interdistrict desegregation
and open enrollment plans. http://school-diversity.org/pdf/ASW-interdistrict.pdf.
46
Cullen, J.B., Jacob, B.A., & Levitt, S.D. (2005). The impact of school choice on student outcomes: An analysis of the Chicago public
schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 729760.
47
48
Teske, P., Fitzpatrick, J., & OBrien, T. (2009). Drivers of choice, parents, transportation, and school choice.
49
50
43
12
October 2016
State of our Schools: Americas K12 Facilities 2016 points to the facilities needs across the nation, specifically
$145 billion annually, which includes $58 billion in maintenance and operations, $77 billion in capital construction,
and $10 billion in new facilities. Currently, annual spending is $99 billion, which suggests a $46 billion shortfall. In
looking at Delaware specifically, state funding as a percentage of total capital spending is higher than most states:
Delaware has assumed the responsibility for 57% of capital investments. However, given that enrollment is
expected to increase across the nation, including the state of Delaware, capital costs are expected to increase. As
enrollment is expected to increase by 9,274 students between 2013 and 2024, the estimated total cost of new
construction required for growth is estimated at $382,108, 675. 5152
COLLABORATION ACROSS SCHOOLS
A final challenge faced by states is that schools within and across districts are not effectively collaborating.
Instead, traditional public schools, charter schools, and vocational technical schools often operate independently,
rather than seeking opportunities to partner in service of the students. As stated by Medler: Too often the charter
school sector and the traditional district school sector have operated at odds, with state education agencies sitting
on the sidelines53
The Center for Reinventing in Public Education reinforces how charter and district schools typically engage:
Historically, relationships between school districts and charter schools have been rocky. Charter schools,
which were started in part to challenge the existing structures of district governance, sought to provide
school autonomy, choice, and competition. These aims placed charter schools at odds with school districts,
which often responded with opposition to charter creation, expansion, and success. In turn, charter school
advocates have gone to the courts and legislatures in order to create new schools or convert existing district
schools.54
As stated, districts are not effectively learning from charter schools ability to service typically underserved
populations, nor are charter schools leveraging the training and services that districts have developed over time.
Collaboration has been especially difficult in instances where mutual benefit is not easily recognizable or where
issues under consideration are highly charged politically, including closing low-performing schools, serving
students with special needs, and building common accountability systems.55
Inventory of Promising Practices

Many promising practices have surfaced in response to the shared challenges, related to inclusion, communication,
transportation, and collaboration. Promising practices include:
Implementing policies explicitly designed to foster diversity

Disseminating information about the availability of open enrollment to more disadvantaged families
Improving transportation options
Increasing capacity of high-demand schools
Filardo, M. (2016). State of our schools: Americas K12 facilities 2016. http://www.21csf.org/besthome/docuploads/pub/331_StateofOurSchools2016.pdf.
52 The population projection of 9,274 students (Filardo, 2016) does not match University of Delaware projections (Ratledge, 2016) included
elsewhere in this report.
53
Medler, A. (2016). What states can do to promote district-charter collaboration. Center of Reinventing in Public Education.
54
Center for Reinventing in Public Education (2013). Good Options and Choices for All Families: How Some
Portfolio Districts Are Collaborating with Charter Schools.
http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/PortfolioSpotlight_Good%20Options%20and%20Choices%20for%20All%20Families_1.pdf
55
Ibid.
51
13
October 2016
Facilitating collaboration across schools
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES EXPLICITLY DESIGNED TO FOSTER DIVERSITY

As detailed above, students from various subgroups (e.g., non-white, low income, English Learners, students with
disabilities) are not accessing the range of enrollment options available. This trend leads to limited diversity, which
is disadvantageous to all students. As reported by Kahlenberg and Potter:
There is a large body of research suggesting that socioeconomic and racial integration provide educational
benefits for all students especially at-risk students that are worth pursuing . . . recent studies have also
confirmed academic achievement gains associated with racial and economic integration in K12 settings.56
This trend also indicates the failure of these policies to expand options for the students they were intended to serve.
One of the primary goals of these policies is to provide disadvantaged students with access to quality education, as
parents have the option of enrolling their children in schools outside of the neighborhoods in which they reside.
Thereby, their children obtain access to higher-performing schools and districts than they would otherwise have the
opportunity to attend. However, the policies are not being executed in a manner that enables this goal to be realized.
Consequently, it is critical for states and districts to implement policies that more explicitly foster diversity.
Options may include:
Balance enrollment from suburban and urban districts.

Create schools that meet the needs of diverse consumers.
Draw students from across the district.
Implement weighted lotteries (e.g., based on family income, geography, parents educational status, racial
makeup of the neighborhood).
Reserve a percentage of available seats for low-income students.
Use recruitment strategically, recruiting parents across a wide range of communities and targeting
underrepresented populations.
Examples of efforts to foster diversity are provided in Table 6.

Table 6. Examples of Efforts to Foster Diversity57,58
Blackstone Valley Prep Mayoral Academy, Charter School Network, Cumberland, Rhode Island:
o Balances enrollment from urban and suburban districts.
o Reserves 50% of seats in admissions lottery for low-income students.
Brooklyn Prospect Charter School, Charter School Network, Brooklyn, New York:
o Gives priority in the waitlist for late admission to transient students who are also English learners,
eligible for free or reduced-price meals, or who have a parent who is a member of the U.S. armed
forces.
o Offers preference in admissions lottery for students eligible for free and reduced-price meals.
56
Kahlenberg, R.D., & Potter, H. (2012). Diverse charter schools: Can racial and socioeconomic integration promote better outcomes for
students? The Century Foundation.
57
Potter, H., Quick, K., & Davies, E. (2016). A new wave of school integration: Districts and charters pursuing socioeconomic diversity. The
Century Foundation.
58
Kahlenberg, R.D., & Potter, H. (2012). Diverse charter schools: Can racial and socioeconomic integration promote better outcomes for
students? The Century Foundation.
14
October 2016
Table 6. Examples of Efforts to Foster Diversity57,58

Cambridge Public Schools, Massachusetts: Assigns students based on parental preference (i.e., parents
list their top three school choices) and on the maintenance of socioeconomic balance. 59
59
Capital City Public Charter School, Washington D.C.: Partnered with community organizations that
provide other services, such as health care or after-school programs, and capitalized on the trust that these
organizations had already built with members of the Latino community, in an effort to increase the number
of Latino families.
Citizens of the World Charter Schools, Charter School Network, Los Angeles, California: Gives a
weighted preference in the admissions lottery for students who qualify for free and reduced-price meals.
Community Roots Charter School, Brooklyn, New York: Reserves 40 percent of its seats for students
who live in public housing.
Compass Charter School, Brooklyn, New York: Gives added weight in the schools admissions lottery to
students eligible for free- and reduced-price meals.
DSST Public Schools, Charter School Network, Denver, Colorado:

o Combination of income- and geography-based preferences.
o Reserves 40 to 70 percent of seats in admissions lottery for students of low socioeconomic status.
E.L. Haynes Public Charter School, Washington D.C.: Focuses all recruitment efforts on low-income
and non-English speaking families, who have less access to information and who are less likely to hear
about the school through its reputation.
High Tech High, Charter School Network, San Diego, California:

o Gives statistical advantage in their lottery to students who receive free and reduced-price meals.
o Weights the lottery by zip code to draw from a balanced cross section of San Diego neighborhoods,
which leads to a racially and socioeconomically diverse student body.
Larchmont Charter School, Charter School Network, Los Angeles, California:

o Each school designs a recruitment plan at the beginning of the year outlining their strategies and
the community groups with which they plan to partner. Each month, leaders examine the racial,
ethnic, and socioeconomic breakdown of the lottery pool to measure their progress and adjust strategies
as needed.
o Uses an annual updated algorithm in its lottery system to ensure its population of low-income
students matches neighborhood census data.
15
October 2016
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF OPEN ENROLLMENT TO MORE

DISADVANTAGED FAMILIES
Communication with low-income parents has been challenging for states and districts, which results in parents not
fully understanding the range of enrollment options available. Therefore, it is important for states and districts
to consider how they may better inform parents of their options.
Further, because of the knowledge gap between middle- and upper-income and low-income parents, it is critical
that states consider what kinds of campaigns can specifically target low-income families. The policy brief states:
Half the battle is simply getting the word out to low-income families, letting them know and understand their
school choice options and how to take full advantage of these options. Greater outreach and assistance
for low-income families who are either unaware or unsure of their options may alleviate some of the
disparity among students involved in public school choice programs.60
Recommendations for closing the information gap include:
Create public information campaigns that reach out to low-income families.

Establish public school choice information centers through the district (e.g., post office, grocery store).
Mail information directly to parents to help spread awareness of the available options.
States publicize or require districts to publicize the availability of open enrollment options.
Examples of efforts to improve communication are provided in Table 7.

Table 7. Examples of Efforts to Improve Communication
Appoquinimink School District, Delaware: The district provided documentation in the form of a
PowerPoint, which clearly details the steps of the choice process and communicates information about
academic performance and distinguishing characteristics of the district. 61
Boston Public Schools, Massachusetts: The district developed a school search engine (disoverbps.org)
that helps parents understand where their children are eligible to go to school, as well as learn about
school offerings, compare features, and a personalized list of favorites. Also, the district offers citywide
Showcases of Schools in December, as well as staff resource centers in Dorchester, East Boston,
Roslindale, and Roxbury to provide parents with support in exploring their options. 62
Cambridge Public Schools, Massachusetts: The district established a Family Resource Center (FRC),
which guides families through the application and registration processes. The FRC provides parents with
information about schools in the district, arranges schools visits and tours, and assists with the application
process. To facilitate a productive school visit, the center provides a list of questions for parents to keep in
mind, i.e. What is the philosophy of the program? How do teachers manage their classrooms?63
Additionally, each school has a set of parent liaisons who provide tours and provide translation services as
needed.
60

Appoquinimink School District. Choice. http://www.apposchooldistrict.com/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=179317&type=d.
62
Boston Public Schools. Discover BPS. http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/Page/652
63
61
16
October 2016
Chandler Unified School District, Arizona: All 42 of the districts schools post online videos that provide
parents a virtual tour of the classrooms, school culture, and facilities. The district also sends mailers to
parents, informing them of their options.64
San Diego Unified School District, California: The district distributes an Enrollment Options Catalog to all
parents in November, which details enrollment options, school feeder patterns, and the application process.
Additionally, the district holds enrollment fairs in January, which allow parents the opportunity to research
school options prior to the February application deadline. Further, the district offers a Facts for Parents
brochure with enrollment information. The brochure is available in six languages.65
State of Florida: The state of Florida is implementing mandatory, interdistrict open enrollment in the 2017
2018 school year and is requiring schools to advertise which campuses have openings.
IMPROVING TRANSPORATION OPTIONS

Because transportation limits the extent to which parents and students are able to access enrollment options,
Mikulecky suggests that states should examine ways to provide cost-effective, efficient, and realistic
transportation options, particularly for low-income families or students leaving low-performing schools.66
The following questions should inform the planning process 67:
What transportation policies are currently in effect to help low-income students travel to a school of their
choice?
If none exist, what programs should be put in place to enable students to attend schools outside their
district, e.g., means-tests transportation grants to families?
What are the unique transportation challenges facing the urban and rural school districts in the state?
States provide transportation support in a variety of areas:
Overall support
Support if student is coming from a low-performing school or district
Support if student is from a low-income family
Support to address racial imbalances
Other reasons, as dictated by state policy
Examples of support are provided in Table 8. 68
64
Gibbons, P.R. (2015). What can Florida learn from open enrollment in Arizona? RedefinED. https://www.redefinedonline.org/2015/04/openenrollment-arizona
65
66
67
68
Wixom, M.A. (2015). Education Commission of the States. 50 state comparison: Open-enrollment policies. http://www.ecs.org/openenrollment-policies/.
17
October 2016
Table 8. Examples of Transportation Support

Overall support:
State of Arkansas: Although parents are ultimately responsible for transportation, receiving districts may
enter into an agreement with the student, student's parent, or the sending district to provide transportation
State of California: Although parents are ultimately responsible for transportation, parents may request
receiving districts to provide transportation assistance within the district borders.
State of Indiana: The sending district must provide transportation to and from the receiving district, although
the sending district may contract with the receiving district to provide transportation.
State of Kansas: Agreements between sending and receiving school districts must have a provision for
transportation and for payment or sharing of transportation costs.
State of Louisiana: The receiving district is responsible for transportation when a student transfers to a
school closer to the student's residence than the student's assigned school.
State of Mississippi: Transfer agreements between school districts must include a provision providing for
transportation. In the absence of a provision, parents are responsible for transportation.
State of Nevada: Transportation costs must be paid by the sending district.
Support if student is coming from a low-performing school or district:
State of Arkansas: When a student transfers from a school or school district under academic or facilities
distress, the sending district must pay for transportation.
State of Colorado: Students enrolled in the attendance zone of a low-performing school or district receive
transportation tokens for use for public transportation or other forms of approved transportation.
State of Florida: The school district must pay transportation costs for students attending a higher-performing
school within the same district under the Opportunity Scholarship Program. In all other cases, parents are
responsible for transportation.
State of Louisiana: When a student transfers from a low-performing school, the sending district must provide
transportation.
Support if student is from a low-income family:

State of Arizona: A receiving district may provide transportation for income-eligible students living in an
adjacent school district up to 20 miles each way to and from the school or a point on a regular transportation
route.
State of Colorado: Students (grades 18) who are eligible for free and reduced price lunch and who are
enrolled in the attendance zone of a low-performing school or district receive transportation tokens. Tokens
may be used for public transportation or other forms of approved transportation.
State of Massachusetts: Students who receive free or reduced price lunch may qualify for reimbursement
from the state. Reimbursement may go to the students' guardian or sending school district, depending upon
transportation arrangements and proximity.
State of Minnesota: Receiving districts may reimburse low-income students for the cost of transport to the
district border.
State of Nebraska: Students eligible for free lunch are eligible for transportation reimbursement.
Support to address racial imbalances:
State of Massachusetts: The state will pay when the transfer addresses racial imbalances.
State of Minnesota: Receiving districts may apply to the commissioner of education to reimburse the cost
of transporting open enrollment students contributing to desegregation or integration plans.
18
October 2016
Other reasons, as dictated by state policy:

No alternate options:
State of Iowa: If the resident or receiving district cannot accommodate the students transportation, the state
provides transportation reimbursement to open enrollment families.
School or district in facilities distress or no facilities:
State of Arkansas: When a student transfers from a school or school district under academic or facilities
distress, the sending district must pay for transportation.
State of Maine: When a sending district has a contract with another district because the sending district
does not have a school, the sending district is responsible for transportation costs.
Students with disabilities:
State of Arizona: A receiving district must provide transportation, up to 20 miles each way, for students with
a disability or an individualized education plan.
State of Nebraska: For students with disabilities, transportation services are provided by the sending school
district, and the sending school district is reimbursed by the state.
19
October 2016
INCREASING CAPACITY OF HIGH-DEMAND SCHOOLS

Often parents and students face a more limited range of options because high-performing schools and districts are
full. Therefore, states should more fully examine how schools are defining at capacity, as well as determine a
plan for expanding options to high-quality schools. As stated in a policy brief: Increasing capacity is important
because space considerations constitute a key challenge for public school choice programs.69
The following questions should inform the planning process 70:
How will states and districts define when a school is full?

How will states and districts deal with the space considerations of schools?
What are current facilities conditions, and to what extent are improvements or new capital investments
required?
Will states and districts require schools to amend their admission policies to give students from lowperforming schools a better chance of enrolling in the school (e.g., states and districts may require a lottery
for admission to a school or for a certain percentage of seats at a school)?
Several suggestions are offered to increase capacity of high-demand schools:
Define what full means.

Institute a hold-harmless period when new students test scores wont affect a schools score.
Offer high-performing schools fiscal incentives to accept transfers.
Develop statewide and citywide strategies for where new charter and district schools should open.
The State of our Schools: Americas K12 Facilities 2016 offers a set of recommendations for states that are seeking
to meet the demand for high-quality schools, which may include additional construction.
Table 9. Recommendations for States Seeking to Increase Capacity of High-Demand Schools71
Understand current facilities conditions: It is critical that policymakers understand the conditions in their
own schools and how these facilities impact student and teacher health and performance, the environment,
the local economy, and overall community vitality. Also required is an understanding of current and future
state, primarily in the areas of enrollment and demand.
Engage communities in planning for adequate and equitable 21st century facilities: In an effort to more
fully understand demand and to capture the expertise within the community, policymakers should engage
the public in their planning efforts. The State of our Schools: 2016 reinforces that part of the engagement
and planning process should be the establishment of priorities, learning from best practices, and involving
the community in the development of creative and practical plans.
Find and pilot new innovative sources of public funding: The State of our Schools: 2016 recommends
that states find dedicated revenue to support facilities in their local districts to increase their support of capital
outlays for school facilities. Specific state-examples include:
o
69
70
State of Georgia: Enabled its counties to pass a special option sales tax dedicated to school
construction.

Filardo, M. (2016). State of our schools: Americas K12 facilities 2016. http://www.21csf.org/besthome/docuploads/pub/331_StateofOurSchools2016.pdf.
71
20
o
o
o
o
o
o
October 2016
State of Iowa: Dedicated a portion of their state sales tax for school construction.
State of Massachusetts: Dedicated a portion of their state sales tax for school construction.
State of New Mexico: Uses oil and gas reserves revenue.
State of Ohio: Dedicates its tobacco settlement.
State of South Carolina: Established a statewide property tax to ensure adequate and equitable
schools, including facilities.
State of Wyoming: Use revenues from coal lease bonuses.
Leverage public and private resources: To meet the facilities needs, states need to more creatively and
fully leverage public and private resources, funding streams, and partnerships. Drawing on a range of
resources will enable states to raise and save funds, adopt appropriate structures, and establish
transparency.
21
October 2016
FACILITATING COLLABORATION ACROSS SCHOOLS

The absence of collaboration across traditional public schools, charter schools, and vocational technical schools
negatively effects students. Medler identifies how greater collaboration can serve parents and students in the
following ways72:
Parents will better understand how schools compare if these schools implement and make public common
performance measurements.
Parents will be better able to navigate complex application and enrollment systems, if these schools
streamline their application and enrollment processes.
Students will be better served because through coordinated efforts, all schools will be better able to deliver
quality special education, foster innovative models, and ensure that students with disabilities receive what
they need to succeed.
The following table articulates how certain districts and charter schools have collaborated through the DistrictCharter Collaboration Compacts, which was intended to stimulate sharing of resources, data, and ideas.73
Table 10. Examples of District-Charter Collaborations
Baltimore Public Schools, Maryland: A single set of performance standards were adopted for district and
charter schools. All metrics were common across school type, except for a few specific to charter and contract
schools, such as fidelity to mission and financial stability. The alignment allows stakeholders to compare
schools across sectors.
Boston Public Schools, Massachusetts:

o The city committed to regular meetings and set up formal agreements and bylaws for participation, which
provide a forum for regular communication and collaboration.
o
The city identified district and charter schools that had successfully addressed the literacy achievement
gap with black and Latino boys and provided grant funding to enable them to disseminate these best
practices.
Denver Public Schools, Colorado: The state implemented a single school enrollment system for district and
charter schools: parents fill out one form where they rank their choices, which enables the city to finalize
school enrollments earlier and schools time to prepare for incoming students.
New Orleans Public Schools, Louisiana: As implemented in Denver, a single school enrollment system
was implemented. The goal of the system was to address inequities in special education enrollment, by giving
all students the same odds of scoring a seat in their top choice school.
New York City Schools and New Visions for Public Schools, New York: New Visions for Public Schools
created 133 New York City public schools and collaborated with the citys Charter Center to provide curricular
and assessment support tied to the Common Core.
72
Center for Reinventing in Public Education (2013). Good Options and Choices for All Families: How Some
Portfolio Districts Are Collaborating with Charter Schools.
http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/PortfolioSpotlight_Good%20Options%20and%20Choices%20for%20All%20Families_1.pdf
73
22
October 2016
School District of Philadelphia and Mastery Charter Schools Charter Management Organization,
Pennsylvania: The charter management organization has partnered with the school district to provide district
teachers with professional development.
Additionally, Medler stipulates that states can play a critical role in fostering collaboration across district, charter,
and vocational technical schools. Roles may include removing impediments to collaboration that may be reflected
in laws or policies, supporting districts when collaboration creates local controversy, and creating incentives for
collaboration. Examples of states efforts to stimulate collaboration are provided in Table 11.
Table 11. Examples of Efforts to Stimulate Collaboration
State of Florida: The state runs a competitive grant program for district-charter collaboration.
State of Louisiana: The state adjusted its special education funding formula to create incentives and supports
that ensure that students with severe disabilities are better served, regardless of the type of school they attend.
State of Oregon: The state uses federal funds from the Charter Schools Program (CSP) to fund specific
district-charter partnerships to share ideas for better serving disadvantaged students.
In order to improve collaboration across district, charter, and vocational technical schools, states may leverage their
roles in several key areas:
Prioritizing federal charter funding around collaboration: States may prioritize CSP funding to
encourage collaboration. Reauthorized as part of ESSA, the CSP encourages collaborating, improving
school access for ELs and students with disabilities, and strengthening the charter sector. Medler details
how these funds may be used to better serve ELs:
For example, a state could prioritize start-up grants for schools with promising, research-based
strategies that address the needs of historically underserved populations, like English language
learners (ELLs). If this incentivized or improved the charter schools ability to serve ELLs, the
program might also accelerate collaboration between districts and charter schools in communities.
This funding might help in districts where charter schools historically served too few ELLs, and
where districts were consequently skeptical of a charter schools commitment or ability to serve all
students.74
74
75
Repurposing funding: In response to the flexibility provided through ESSA, states may develop new
accountability systems and approaches for working on low-performing schools.
Facilitating partnerships to meet student needs: In recognition that charter schools, without the benefit
of economics of scale, can be challenged to serve [special education and other unique populations]
adequately, states should incentivize collaboration. 75 Other options for enhancing schools capacities to
serve these unique populations include creating commissions, adjusting rules and resources, and enabling
other groups (e.g., nonprofit, advocacy group) to explicitly focus on working on comprehensive approaches
to improve access, service, and outcomes. Additionally, to ensure special education students are
Ibid.
23
October 2016
adequately served, states may need to rework funding systems and/or adjust the legal and regulatory
structures that shape intermediate school units, or cooperatives, to ensure that charter schools have access
to economies of scale or technical assistance. 76
Establishing family-friendly policies, including discipline: States may help operationalize strategies
that result in common discipline data, policies, and resources that have demonstrably improved disciplinary
programs.
Establishing common enrollment systems: State may encourage common applications, policies, or
timelines to limit parent frustration related to disparate timelines, eligibility requirements, and formats.
Leveraging state political clout and developing structures for collaboration: As efforts to collaborate
are not always popular, it is critical that state leaders recognize and adequately support on-the-ground
collaboration. Also important is their support in establishing structures that facilitate this collaboration and
communication.
Conclusion
Providing parents and students with enrollment options has increased in popularity over the past three decades.
Currently, twenty-one states give students the opportunity to enroll across district lines, while twenty-two states
allow students to enroll in other schools within the district. Delaware is one of the states that gives students the
opportunity to enroll across district lines.
The state of Delaware has seen both successes and challenges related to providing its students with a range of
enrollment options. Challenges shared across state lines include providing equitable access to all students,
communicating effectively with parents, providing sufficient transportation options, meeting the demand for highquality schools, and facilitating collaboration across school types.
In order to support informed decision making of Delawares future school capacity needs and enable the state to
begin addressing the challenges it faces, we identified a set of promising practices related to inclusion,
communication, transportation, and collaborations. Promising practices include implementing policies designed to
foster diversity, disseminating information to more disadvantaged families, improving transportation options,
increasing capacity of high-demand schools, and facilitating collaboration across schools. Recommendations about
how Delaware may capitalize on these promising practices are further detailed in Section V. Recommendations.
76
Ibid.
24
October 2016
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
In an effort to gather parent, educator, policymaker, and community member perceptions on school quality,
educational opportunities, and educational needs across Delaware, PCG worked in collaboration with DDOE to
conduct a series of focus groups and interviews alongside a statewide electronic survey in August 2016.
Focus Groups and Interviews

In August 2016, PCG conducted a total of 10 focus groups and interviews with the following stakeholders:
1. Parents
Focus group participants included parents of children enrolled in traditional public schools, charter schools,
vocational technical schools, private schools, and specialized programs for students with disabilities. Parent
focus groups were held in New Castle County, Kent County, and Sussex County.
2. Educators
Focus group participants included teachers and leaders from traditional, charter, and vocational technical
schools. A targeted focus group discussing the needs of students with disabilities included special
education leaders from traditional public schools, specialized programs for students with disabilities, charter
schools designed to serve students with disabilities, and special education practitioners from programs
outside of Delawares public schools.
3. Policymakers and Advocates
Interviews were conducted with policymakers, including state representatives, along with representatives
from Delawares advocacy community.
Individual interviews were 30-60 minutes in length. Focus groups were each 90 minutes and group sized ranged
from 2 to 11 participants. All focus groups were held in person, while interviews were conducted via phone.
Participants had the opportunity to discuss their definition of a quality school, their perceptions of current options
available to Delaware students, and the ways in which they believe educational options could be strengthened for
all students.
Survey
A statewide electronic survey was designed to produce a more comprehensive picture of family and community
member perceptions of the educational options afforded to students. The survey asked specifically about
educational opportunities available in traditional public, charter, and vocational technical schools. The survey was
open for a nineteen-day period between August 3 to August 21, 2016. Language options for both the survey and
associated marketing materials included English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole.
SAMPLE
The survey was distributed to a range of stakeholders through the DDOE website, a social media campaign, state
agency newsletters, and an email to a statewide listserv. Survey dissemination efforts were conducted by DDOE,
the Office of Early Learning and the Office of Higher Education in an effort to generate as many responses as
possible. All responses were collected anonymously and survey language ensured participants that their responses
would not be individually identified. The survey was designed to take no more than 10 minutes to complete.
25
October 2016
SURVEY QUESTIONS
In addition to asking participants about their definition of a quality school, the survey asked whether participants
believe that access to quality schools varies by geographic location, family income, race/ethnicity, grade level, or
specific learning need including special education or English learner services. Parents of current and former
students were asked about the factors that impacted their schooling decisions.
For questions requiring participants to rank or rate the answer choices, the project team used a four-point Likert
scale. This method ensured that all participants expressed an opinion on the topic questioned. Survey questions
were tailored to respondents based on their response type, including whether they had a child enrolled in DE public
schools and whether they had opted to exercise choice.
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
A total of 748 individuals participated in the survey, with 541 submitting complete responses and 243 submitting
partial responses. Only complete responses are analyzed in this report. Parents and guardians of current students
represented the largest percentage of survey respondents (28.5%), followed by teachers/administrators (25.9%).
Other survey respondents included community members (16.3%), parents of students not enrolled in DE public
schools (8%), and other (20.4%) (Figure 1.1).
Roughly half of the survey respondents (50.2%) indicated that they had at least one school age child. Of these
respondents:
22.5% had a child receiving special education services (n=61),

27% had a child who identifies as a racial/ethnic minority (n=73)
20% had a child who receives free or reduced priced lunch (n=54)
34.4% had a child who is identified as academically gifted (n=93)
2.9% had a child who is an English learner (n=8).
Survey responses were collected from every district of residence, with the greatest number of responses from Red
Clay Consolidated School District (132), Christina School District (116), and Brandywine School District (97).
26
October 2016
Profile of Survey Respondents

30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Parent/guardian of Parent/guardian of Current or recent
Teacher or
a DE public school child not currently DE public school administrator in a
student
enrolled in a DE
student
DE public school
public school
Member of the
community
Other
Figure 1.1
DATA COLLECTION LIMITATIONS
A low sample size of parents who identified as English learners prevented analysis of non-English speaking families
perceptions of school quality and educational opportunities. PCG attempted to conduct a targeted focus group for
families of English learners, but was unable to identify available participants. Further outreach to this population of
parents is required in order to elicit themes directly related to programs and services for non-English speaking
students.
27
October 2016
Summary of Community Perceptions

The following summary of community perceptions details the themes that emerged though survey results, focus
groups and interviews with parents, educators, and other stakeholders. While the report identifies areas in which
stakeholders are pleased with their schooling experiences and options, it focuses on areas for improvement in
Delawares schools.
Strengths
The majority of survey respondents (80.1%) indicated that they are either satisfied or very satisfied with their current
schooling experience (Figure 1.2). Over half of respondents (56%) said they are satisfied with the public school
options currently available to them. In most instances, focus group participants and survey respondents noted that
they appreciate the states commitment to offering families educational options through the choice program.
Many participants expressed a perception that Delawares schools are improving. Participants gave examples of
innovative programs, including activity-based learning and dual-language immersion, occurring in the states
traditional, charter, and vocational technical schools. The majority of focus group participants expressed a belief
that Delaware is home to a number of exceptionally strong schools, with very high quality educators and strong
student outcomes. Stakeholders expressed a desire for these very high quality educational opportunities to be made
available to a wider group of students, including low income students, students with disabilities, non-English
speaking students, and racial/ethnic minority students.
Satisfaction with Current School Experience

(By Subgroup and Location)
All Responses
Racial/Ethnic Minority
Students with Disabilities
Academically Gifted
Low Income
Kent County
Sussex County
New Castle County
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
Very Satisfied
30.0%
Satisfied
40.0%
50.0%
Dissatisfied
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0% 100.0%
Very Dissatisfied
Figure 1.2
School Quality
Despite diverse backgrounds and varied interactions with DE public schools, focus group participants and survey
respondents identified consistent themes when describing their definition of a quality school.
STUDENT, STAFF, AND PARENT ENGAGEMENT
Many stakeholders described student, staff, and parent engagement as key to a quality school. Participants
described schools where students, staff, and parents are active participants in the learning process and are valued
28
October 2016
for their contributions. A large number of survey respondents gave examples of experiential and active learning in
their descriptions of student engagement at high quality schools.
Several stakeholders expressed concern that large class sizes inhibit student engagement in many Delaware
schools. Some parents reported seeking out schools with smaller class sizes due to a belief that their child would
receive more individualized attention.
Sample of survey responses regarding characteristics of a quality school:
A quality school brings in the family and the community to help their students succeed
Students and families are welcome and encouraged to participate in a non-threatening manner that fosters
true learning
Instruction is individualized, interdisciplinary, and hands-on
SCHOOL CLIMATE AND SCHOOL SAFETY

Survey respondents expressed that school quality can be assessed by whether or not a school has a community
feel. Many described a quality school as an inclusive environment where children are safe, there are limited
disciplinary problems, and staff care about student wellbeing. Parents also indicated seeking schools with programs
in place to prevent and address bullying.
A quality school is a place kids feel they belong and love coming to every day
Students enjoy going to school because staff is positive and respectful
A quality school recognizes challenges students face and offers support and services
COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS

While survey respondents expressed a range of opinions on the viability of testing to measure school quality,
respondents agreed that a quality school provides students with skills for further education or employment. Many
described an environment that inspires students to achieve and instills the importance of work ethic. Many survey
respondents noted that quality schools should prepare students for the modern job market by using technology and
up-to-date curriculum.
Students are adequately prepared for the rigors of college if they choose to attend, or the work force if they
choose not to go to college
Has the resources to meet the needs of all students so they are able to pursue their goals for postsecondary education or training
Serves all types of students equitably, preparing them for the next grade but also the world that they'll face
RESPONSIVENESS TO DIVERSITY
Participants expressed that high quality schools are appreciative and responsive to a diversity of student cultures,
backgrounds, learning needs, and interests. Several parents and educators noted that the highest quality schools
take a students first approach and are willing to find a way to help every student succeed.
Welcomes and meets the needs of different types of diverse students
29
October 2016
Students are treated with equity regardless of race or national origin

A quality school provides various learning experiences that meet children's diverse learning styles
QUALITY OF TEACHERS AND LEADERS

Stakeholders believed the quality of educators and school leaders has a profound effect on school quality. Parents
noted that teacher quality is particularly important in the younger grades when students spend the majority of their
instructional time in the same classroom. Several participants expressed a belief that strong leadership is critical to
raising instructional quality and improving public perception of a school.
Teachers are interested in their own growth as well as the growth of their children and embrace learning
opportunities
A strong school leader has created a culture that is supportive to students and families
Great teachers and principals inspire student passions
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
In most instances, focus group participants and survey respondents expressed a desire for more individualized
programs across the state, allowing every student to identify their interests and work towards their college, career,
and extracurricular goals. The majority of focus group participants noted that there was not a specific program they
look for in a quality school, as student outcomes and school climate have a greater influence on their perception of
school quality.
Among survey participants, 55% said that they would like to see expansion of early childhood programs, 45% would
like to see expansion of health and counseling programs, and 41% would like to see expansion of arts programs.
Fewer than 25% of respondents would like to see expansion of extended day programs, extended school year
programs, or programs for English learner students.77
Provides individualized supports for students to promote both academic and social-emotional well-being
Wide variety of learning experiences including CTE and arts
Offers courses and instruction that are diverse and prepare students to be successful in their future
Access to Quality Schools

Survey respondents were asked to respond to the statement, Delawares students have access to a quality school.
Parents, educators, policymakers, and other stakeholders all agreed that access to quality schools varies based on
geographic location, student demographics, and specialized learning needs. Nearly 90% of survey respondents
believe that access to a quality school is not a given for all of Delawares students. (Figure 1.3).
77
The following percentage of respondents would like to see growth of the following programs: Early childhood (55%), Dual
language (34%), STEM (38%), Vocational/technical (32%), Experiential learning (28%), Arts (41%), Extended day (22%), Year
round school year (23%), Special needs (31%), Gifted (38%), English learner (20%), Programs for students who have
experienced trauma (38%), Heath and counseling (45%), Other (13%).
30
October 2016
Access to Quality Schools

Not true, 6.4%
Other, 2.8%
True for all students,

7.7%
True for all students
True for some, but not all

students
May be true, but not all
families know how to
access opportunities
Not true
May be true, but not all

families know how to
access opportunities, 28.1%
True for some, but not

all students, 55.0%
Figure 1.4
When asked to share additional comments about access to quality schools, participants noted that barriers in
information and resources prevent students from accessing opportunities that would otherwise be available to them.
Stakeholders noted that a high level of parent engagement is critical for a family to effectively identify and access
high quality schools through Delawares choice program. Many expressed a belief that Delawares choice process
disadvantages students who could most benefit from the program, particularly students from low income families,
English learners, and special education students.
Sample of survey responses:
Choice is really only available to families who know how to access it and are able to provide transportation
for their children.
Students are not given equal opportunity to attend the schools they would like to, due to either a "lottery"
system of entrance, or transportation issues preventing their attendance.
Some parents are marginalized for a variety of reasons. They might not feel welcomed in their child's school,
they might not know how to talk with leaders in the school, they might just be overwhelmed with all the
information out there and the decision-making process itself.
Today's families need to be given the necessary information up front. They don't know where to look or how
to research. It seems as though the school districts are not completely up front or honest with the families.
Not only are there not enough quality schools that are easily accessible to all students (especially our most
at-risk ones), but there are also barriers to attending the ones that do exist: transportation, application
processes/selective admissions, uniform requirements, etc.
31
October 2016
INFORMATION
Focus groups participants noted that choice is only available to those families who know where to look, how to
determine school quality, and how to access opportunities. There is the belief that families lack a central location
where they can view information on a school to determine whether it is the right fit for their child. In the absence of
this information, participants expressed that the choice process favors the most involved and knowledgeable
families.
Survey respondents noted instances in which parents of English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, and low
income parents are marginalized from schools due to a lack of cultural awareness on the part of the school, a school
environment that is perceived as unwelcoming, or negative prior school experiences. Survey respondents
expressed concern that these individuals may not have information needed to take advantage of school choice
opportunities, both within and outside of traditional districts.
When asked where they look to find information on school quality or school programs, parents in focus groups
reported that they primarily find out about their options via word of mouth. Many noted that they also look to social
media, particularly Facebook, in an effort to find out about high quality options. Parents said that they will look to a
schools website for additional information, but this primarily takes place after they have become interested in a
schools specific offerings.
LOW INCOME STUDENTS
Across focus group conversations and survey responses, participants expressed a belief that students from low
income families are disadvantaged in Delawares current choice system due to barriers including transportation,
school interest preferences, and access to information.
Transportation
Focus group participants reported that transportation is the greatest barrier that prevents students from low income
families from exercising choice. Families accessing choice schools are required to provide their own transportation,
and are only able to access another districts bus if they can get to a bus stop along the choice schools bus route.78
Several participants noted that Delaware previously offered transportation reimbursement to families accessing
choice, but funding has since been eliminated. Given the lack of transportation for choice students, many survey
respondents expressed a perception that families may not even apply for choice schools since they know that
transportation will be a challenge.
Enrollment Preferences
Respondents voiced concern over the interest preference that serves as a factor in the application process in
some non-traditional schools. This application factor allows schools to preference students who have a specific
interest in the schools teaching methods, philosophy, or educational focus. 79 Parents and educators expressed
that this preference often offers an advantage to higher income students, who have the ability to attend enrichment
programs and other extracurricular activities to demonstrate interest.
Equity of Funding and Resources
Survey respondents expressed a perception that there is a wide variance in funding, facilities, technology, and other
resources that impacts school quality. Several participants noted that schools in high income areas generally offer
better facilities, programs, and resources than those in low income areas. Others expressed a belief that schools
78
79
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title14/c004/index.shtml
http://www.delcode.delaware.gov/title14/c005/index.shtml
32
October 2016
serving fewer high needs students have more resources to invest in technology and specialized programming.
Many stakeholders expressed concern that schools serving large percentages of low income students do not have
sufficient resources to provide an appropriate education for this population of students. Several stakeholders who
expressed familiarity with the states funding model voiced an opinion that schools serving the largest numbers of
students from low income families should receive additional funding.
School Satisfaction
Of the survey respondents who identified as low income (n=54), 83.3% indicated that they are either satisfied or
very satisfied with their current school experience. 61.1% of these respondents are satisfied with the public school
options available to them. The majority of survey respondents who identify as low income have children enrolled in
traditional public schools (89.6%), and most noted that they made this decision due to the fact that the school is
part of the neighborhood/community. Of those who opted to exercise choice, most indicated making this decision
because the school has a unique academic program or specialized learning opportunity (66.7%) or because
students at the school perform well academically (58.3%).
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
In focus group conversations and survey responses, participants voiced a belief that students with disabilities do
not have the same opportunities as their non-disabled peers within the choice program. Of survey respondents who
have a child with a disability (n=61), over half said they would like to see programs for students with disabilities
expanded in their area. Only one third of all survey respondents indicated that programs for students with disabilities
should be expanded.
Charter and Vocational Technical Schools
Participants expressed a perception that many charter and vocational technical schools do not have adequate
resources to meet the services written in a students IEP. In some instances, families reported that charter and
vocational technical schools will dissuade students with disabilities from applying. Other families reported that these
schools are open to enrolling students with disabilities, but lack the resources to provide adequate services. Several
parents of students with disabilities reported that they do not consider options outside of traditional public schools
to be available to them, with the exception of a small number of charter schools that are designed to serve students
with disabilities. Parents expressed a perception that charter and vocational technical schools are not equipped to
provide services for students with low-incidence disabilities or more severe disabilities.
Specialized Programs
In focus group conversations, parents expressed that Delaware has several strong specialized programs for
students with disabilities. Parents expressed appreciation for two charter schools designed to specifically serve this
student population. Participants noted that these charter schools appear to collaborate well with other charters, as
some parents received information about these charter options from other charter schools. Several parents of
students with disabilities enrolled in traditional public schools expressed that Delaware has strong specialized
programs for students with more severe disabilities.
School Satisfaction
The majority (76.7%) of parents of students with disabilities who responded to the survey indicated that they are
either satisfied or very satisfied with their current school experience. 54.1% of these parents indicated that they are
satisfied with the public school options available to them. Across all school types, parents expressed that strong
advocacy is essential to students receiving appropriate services.
33
October 2016
ENGLISH LEARNERS
Many participants expressed a belief that there are insufficient resources for non-English speaking families who
may be unaware of the options available to them. Specifically, participants expressed a need for non-English
speaking families to access information in community locations and have the opportunity to receive support filling
out relevant applications. Participants noted that this is particularly critical for parents who attended school in
another country and are unfamiliar with the US education system.
NON-COLLEGE BOUND STUDENTS
Focus group participants and survey respondents voiced concern that there are limited meaningful workforce
preparation programs for students who struggle academically and do not want to pursue a college degree. Parents,
educators, and policymakers expressed a belief that vocational technical schools predominantly serve academically
high-achieving students. Many respondents are concerned that the academic focus of the states vocational
technical schools limits options for students who are not college-bound. Several participants expressed a belief that
stronger vocational programs for academically struggling students would result in a decline in dropout rates across
the state.
ACADEMICALLY GIFTED STUDENTS
Several participants noted that there are a small number of charter schools in Delaware that function as schools for
academically gifted students, but are not advertised in this way. Parents and community members expressed a
perception that through an application, interest preference, or interview, these schools are able to identify high
performing students before they enroll. While some respondents expressed concern that these schools represent
the privatization of public school, others would prefer if these schools would be advertised as schools for gifted
students. Participants noted that accurate messaging of school offerings would encourage a more diverse group of
students to apply for admission, as a few schools are currently perceived as exclusionary in the absence of such
messaging.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
Are there sufficient educational options in each region?

City of Wilmington
Sussex County
Kent County
New Castle County (excluding Wilmington)

0%
10%
20%
30%
Yes
No
Don't Know
Figure 1.5
34
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
October 2016
New Castle County

In focus groups and interviews, stakeholders expressed that there is a difference in the quality of educational
opportunities available in the City of Wilmington in comparison to suburban New Castle County. In focus groups,
stakeholders expressed an opinion that the greatest breadth of educational options are available to students in New
Castle County.
Among all survey respondents, 34% believe that sufficient educational options are available to students in suburban
New Castle County; while 40% of survey respondents who reside in New Castle County believe that current options
are not sufficient. Most (80.1%) New Castle County residents who responded to the survey indicated that they are
either satisfied or very satisfied with their current school experience, yet only half (56%) indicated that they are
satisfied or very satisfied with the public school options available to them.
Of survey respondents with a child enrolled in their feeder pattern school, the majority (59%) said they made this
decision because the school is part of the neighborhood/community. Of those respondents who have chosen to
exercise choice, 60.4% said they chose this option due to a unique academic program or specialized learning
opportunity. 55.4% said that they made the decision because students at the school perform well academically.
In focus groups and interviews, some stakeholders expressed an opinion that there is an oversaturation of charter
schools in this region of the state. Participants expressed concern about the effects of the large number of choiceonly schools on traditional school districts, as many believe traditional districts serve a higher needs population,
including low income students, students with disabilities, and English learners.
Other participants expressed an opinion that the range of educational options in New Castle County is a strength,
as it provides families with a range of programming opportunities depending on each childs needs and interests.
Representatives from a range of New Castle County schools expressed a willingness to collaborate to inform
families about their schooling options. In recent years, the Delaware Charter Schools Network has hosted a public
school expo designed to inform parents about the range of schooling options available for their children in charter,
vocational technical, and traditional districts.
Despite several leaders expressing a willingness to collaborate, many stakeholders noted that perceived
competition between traditional, charter, and vocational technical districts makes it more difficult for families to
become informed on their schooling options. Parents reported that except in circumstances where a child requires
special education services, there is the belief that schools are largely unwilling to inform parents about other
educational programs that may better meet their childs needs or interests. Given that parents will likely not find out
about schooling options from their childs current school, parents expressed a need for a centralized resource where
families could be made aware of their options.
City of Wilmington
Although stakeholders varied considerably in their thoughts on how to address the problem, many expressed
concern regarding quality educational options for Wilmington residents. Of survey respondents who reside in New
Castle County, only 13.1% believe there are sufficient educational options for Wilmington students.
Stakeholders expressed a perception that regardless of the students district of residence, Wilmington residents
have overall lower quality options than their suburban peers. Several participants noted that many of the high quality
schools located within the city predominately serve a well-resourced student population. When asked to share
additional comments about educational options for Wilmington students, several participants noted that schools in
Wilmington are perceived as segregated, less safe, and having insufficient resources to provide a quality education
to high needs students, including those from low income families, English learners, and students with disabilities.
35
October 2016
Kent County
The majority of survey respondents (65.3%) indicated that they did not know whether sufficient educational options
exist in Kent County. However, among survey respondents who reside in Kent County, half (51%) indicated that
there are not sufficient educational options for Kent County students. 87.8% of Kent County residents expressed
high levels of satisfaction with their current school experience (88% either satisfied or very satisfied) and with the
current public school options available to them (65.3% either satisfied or very satisfied).
The majority of Kent County survey respondents (65.9%) had children enrolled in their feeder pattern school. When
asked about factors impacting their schooling decision, 69% responded that they selected the school because it is
part of the neighborhood/community. Of the 34% of survey respondents with children enrolled in traditional, charter,
or vocational technical schools outside their feeder pattern, 44.4% chose this option due to a unique academic
program or specialized learning opportunity. 33.3% chose to exercise choice due to school culture. Among all Kent
County survey respondents, 49% responded that they would like to see an increase in early childhood programs,
43.9% would like to see an increase in STEM programs, and 43.9% would like to see an increase in arts programs.
Sussex County
A range of stakeholders expressed concern that limited educational options are available to Sussex County
students, given that this region of the state is the least densely populated. Parents expressed a belief that quality
traditional, charter, and vocational technical schools exist in the region for those students who either have a high
quality feeder school option or have transportation to take advantage of school choice. Only 9.2% of survey
respondents believe that sufficient educational options are available for Sussex County students, with the majority
(66.4%) reporting that they do not know whether such options exist. Among Sussex County residents who
responded to the survey, 57.5% said that there are not sufficient educational options in their region of the state.
Sussex County survey respondents had the highest satisfaction levels their current school experience (94.1% either
satisfied or highly satisfied). 67.5% said that they are either very satisfied or satisfied with the current school options
available to them.
56.3% of Sussex County residents who responded to the survey indicated that they would like to see early childhood
programs expanded in their region of the state. 42.3% of Sussex County survey respondents would like to see an
increase in health and counseling programs in the region.
District Size
Numerous participants expressed a belief that Delaware has too many school districts relative to the number of
students in the state. Many stakeholders believe this results in lower school quality, as resources are spread thinly
across the state. Several participants expressed a belief that district consolidation would strengthen programming
by allowing schools to share resources, eliminating duplication of efforts, and allowing for a greater breadth of
programming than is currently feasible.
36
October 2016
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT PATTERNS

Overall Enrollment
Student Enrollment by School Type
5.4%
10.4%
84.2%
Traditional District School
Charter School
Vocational Technical School
Figure 2.1
As of June 2016, there are 136,027 students enrolled in Delawares public schools. Of these students, 84%
(N=114,579) are enrolled in traditional public schools, 10.4% (N=14,112) are enrolled in charter schools, and 5.4%
(N=7,336) are enrolled in vocational technical schools.
There are slightly more male students than female students enrolled in Delaware schools. 54% of students identify
as racial/ethnic minorities, 36% of students come from low income families, 15% of students have a disability, and
6% of students are classified as English learners. The table below displays a profile of Delaware students.
Subgroup
% of Student Population
Number of Students
All students
100%
136,027
Male
51%
69,800
Female
49%
66,227
54%
73,510
Low Income
36%
48,996
15%
19,910
English Learners
6%
8,706
37
October 2016
School Choice Enrollment

School Choice Enrollment Overview
16.3%
38.1%
31.3%
14.4%
Traditional Interdistrict Choice
Traditional Intradistrict Choice
Charter School
Figure 2.2
A third of Delaware students (N=45,066) exercise school choice in traditional, charter, or vocational technical
schools. Over half of these students (52.4%) participate in choice within the traditional school setting. The remainder
exercise choice in charter schools (31.3%) or vocational technical schools (16.3%). 80
Low income students and English learners are less likely than their peers to exercise choice in some capacity. The
table below illustrates the rates at which students from each subgroup exercise choice.
Subgroup
Choice % of Population
Number of Students
All students
33%
45,066
32%
23,913
Low Income
28%
13,656
38%
7,618
English Learners
23%
1,971
80
Vocational technical schools are available to students in grades 9-12 only. 18% of high school students attend
a vocational technical school.
38
October 2016
Enrollment by School Academic Achievement Level

SCHOOL ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
In 2015, overall school accountability ratings were not computed while the states new accountability system was
piloted. Instead, schools were given scores for each accountability component including Academic Achievement,
Academic Growth, On Track to Graduation, and College & Career Preparation. In each category, schools received
a rating of 1 star (far below) to 5 stars (exceeds). Each accountability component is critical in assessing school
success and a holistic view of school performance requires an analysis of all four of these components. The
Academic Achievement rating, used throughout this report, assesses the percentage of students in the school who
are proficient in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. This PCG identified proxy for
student achievement looks solely at academic proficiency, and does not account for rate of student growth, career
readiness, or whether students are on track to graduation. Analysis on all four school success criteria is required
for a fully comprehensive view of the relationship between school performance and school choice decisions.
Academic achievement data was unavailable for 40 schools, serving a total of 8,434 students included in this report.
In all instances where academic performance is listed as not applicable, the students within the category attend a
school for which data was unavailable.
PROFILE OF DELAWARE SCHOOLS
Enrollment by School Performance

All Students
4.6%
5.8%
6.2%
16.1%
26.8%
40.5%
1 Star
2 Star
3 Star
4 Star
5 Star
Not Applicable
Figure 2.3
The majority of Delawares students attend schools receiving 3 stars (40.5%) or 2 stars (26.8%) under Delawares
2015 academic achievement rating. 16% of students attend schools receiving 4 stars for academic achievement,
while the remainder attend schools receiving 5 stars (4.6%) or 1 star (5.8%).
39
October 2016
SCHOOL ACADEMIC ACHIVEMENT BY RACE
Figure 2.4
Black/African American
Black students are more likely than their peers to be enrolled in schools receiving 1 or 2 stars in the academic
achievement category. 44% of black students are enrolled in schools receiving 1 or 2 stars, compared to 32.6% of
Delawares entire student population. Similarly, only 1.7% of black students are enrolled in schools receiving 5
stars, while 4.6% of all Delaware students are enrolled in schools representing the top academic achievement level.
Hispanic
Nearly half of Delawares 21,718 Hispanic students attend schools at the bottom two academic achievement levels
(45.1%). 10.7% of Hispanic students attend schools receiving 4 or 5 stars, while the remainder (37.8%) attend
schools receiving 3 stars.
Asian
Asian students are more likely than their peers to be enrolled in schools receiving 4 or 5 stars. 44.7% of Asian
students are enrolled in schools at the top two academic achievement levels, compared to 20.7% of all students.
Asian students are less likely than their peers to be enrolled in schools at the lowest two academic achievement
levels.
White
White students are more likely than their peers to be enrolled in schools representing the top academic achievement
levels. Over 70% of white students are enrolled in schools receiving 3, 4, or 5 stars, while just 2.7% of white students
are enrolled in schools receiving 1 star.
Other Ethnicities
40
October 2016
Students of other ethnicities including American Indian, Hawaiian, and multiple races (N=4,989) are slightly less
likely to be enrolled in schools receiving 1 or 2 stars than the state average. Nearly 70% of students of other
ethnicities attend schools at the top three academic achievement levels (69.8%).
SCHOOL ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT BY SUBGROUP
Figure 2.5
Students with disabilities, English learners, and students from low income families are more likely to be enrolled in
schools receiving 1 or 2 stars than their peers statewide. Similarly, students representing each subgroup are less
likely to be enrolled in high academic proficiency schools receiving 4 or 5 stars. Further information about each
subgroup is provided below.
Low Income
Figure 2.6
41
October 2016
Low income students are less likely than their peers to attend schools with high academic proficiency ratings. 41.8%
of low income students attend schools at the lowest two academic achievement levels, compared to 32.5% of all
students. While 20.1% of all Delaware students attend schools in the top two academic achievement levels, only
12.6% of low income students attend these schools.
English Learner
Figure 2.7
Like students from low income families, English learners are less likely than their peers to attend schools with high
academic achievement ratings. 43.4% of English learners attend schools at the lowest two academic achievement
levels.
Figure 2.8
42
October 2016
Only 12.6% of students with disabilities attend schools at the top two academic achievement levels, compared to
20.7% of all students. Students with disabilities are slightly more likely than their non-disabled peers to attend
schools at the lowest two academic achievement levels.
SCHOOL ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
The rate at which Delaware students attend schools within each academic achievement category varies significantly
by geographic location. As is displayed in the chart below, students in the City of Wilmington are more likely than
their peers in other regions of the state to be enrolled in schools at the lowest academic achievement level. Students
in Sussex County are more likely than their peers to be enrolled in schools receiving 4 or 5 stars for academic
achievement. The following chart displays the percentage of students enrolled in schools of each academic
achievement level, disaggregated by the region of the state in which students reside.
Student Enrollment by Performance

Wilmingtion
Sussex
New Castle
Kent
0%
10%
20%
1 Star
30%
2 Star
40%
3 Star
50%
4 Star
Figure 2.9
New Castle County
Figure 2.10
43
60%
5 Star
70%
Not Applicable
80%
90%
100%
October 2016
Students residing in New Castle County are enrolled in schools at each academic achievement level at rates that
roughly mirror state averages. Since students in New Castle County represent 58% of all students in Delaware,
enrollment patterns for this group of students have a strong influence on state averages. Students in New Castle
County attend schools at the lowest two academic achievement levels at rates that are slightly higher than the state
average.
City of Wilmington
Figure 2.11
Students residing in the City of Wilmington are more likely to attend academically low-performing schools than their
peers in other areas of the state. Nearly 70% of Wilmington students attend schools receiving 1 or 2 stars for
academic achievement, and less than 1% of Wilmington students attend schools receiving 5 stars in this
component.
Kent County
Figure 2.12
44
October 2016
There are no Kent County students enrolled in schools at the lowest academic achievement level. Nearly 60% of
Kent County students attend schools receiving 3 stars for academic achievement, while 18.3% attend schools
receiving 2 stars and 12.2% attend schools receiving 4 stars. A small percentage (4.8%) of Kent County students
attend schools receiving 5 stars for academic achievement.
Sussex County
Figure 2.13
Students in Sussex County are slightly more likely than their peers in other regions to attend schools at the top two
academic achievement levels. 33.9% of Sussex County students attend schools at the lowest two academic
achievement levels, a figure which is similar to the state average (32.6%).
45
October 2016
School Choice Patterns by Traditional District

84.2% of Delaware students attend a traditional public school. 66% of students are enrolled in their feeder pattern
school (n=90,961), 13% are enrolled in intradistrict choice (n=17,150), and 5% are enrolled in interdistrict choice
(n=6,468). Students in Kent and Sussex County are more likely than students in New Castle County to be enrolled
in their feeder pattern school. 75% of Kent County students and 77% of Sussex County students are enrolled in
their feeder pattern school, compared to 60% in New Castle County.
Intradistrict choice participation is highest in New Castle county, with 14.4% of students exercising this choice option
compared to 8.8% in Kent County and 11.5% in Sussex County.
Interdistrict choice participation rates are lower than 6% of all students in each county. In most districts, students
choicing out of the district are less likely to be identified as low income, students with disabilities, English learners,
or racial/ethnic minorities than their peers who remain in the district.
Feeder Pattern School
67% of Delaware students attend their feeder pattern school. Students from low income families and English
learners are more likely than their peers to enroll in their feeder pattern school. Of the 61 zip codes in which
Delaware students reside, there are four zip codes in which fewer than half of all students attend their feeder pattern
school. Each of these zip codes (19801, 19804, 19805, 19807) are located in New Castle County. 81
The table below displays a profile of students enrolled in their feeder pattern school.
Subgroup
% of Population
Number of Students
All students
67%
90,961
Male
67%
46,777
Female
67%
44,184
67%
49,597
Low Income
72%
35,340
62%
12,292
English Learners
77%
6,735
Intradistrict Choice
13% of students participate in school choice within their home district. Students with disabilities are more likely than
their non-disabled peers to participate in intradistrict choice. Low income students are slightly less likely than their
peers to participate in intradistrict choice. The table below displays a profile of students exercising intradistrict
choice.
81
61 zipcodes excludes two non-Delaware zipcodes in which one or more students attending Delaware public
schools reside
46
October 2016
Subgroup
% of Population
Number of Students
All students
13%
17,150
Male
13%
9,096
Female
12%
8,054
12%
8,567
Low Income
11%
5,405
21%
4,133
English Learners
14%
1,214
Interdistrict Choice
5% of students attend traditional public schools outside their home district. Students with disabilities are more likely
than their non-disabled peers to participate in interdistrict choice. English learners are less likely than their peers to
participate in this choice opportunity. The table below displays a profile of students enrolled in interdistrict choice.
Subgroup
% of Population
Number of Students
All students
5%
6,468
Male
5%
3,271
Female
5%
3,197
4%
3,275
Low Income
4%
2,076
7%
1,420
English Learners
2%
185
School Choice Patterns by Charter School

10% of Delaware students attend charter schools. English learners are less likely than their peers to attend charter
schools. Low income students and students with disabilities are slightly less likely than their peers to exercise this
choice option. Of the 61 zip codes in which Delaware students reside, there are five zip codes (19711, 19801,
19802, 19806, 19807) in which over 20% of students attend charter schools. Each of these zip codes are located
in New Castle County.
The table below displays a demographic profile of students enrolled in charter schools.
Subgroup
All students
Male
% of Subgroup Population
10%
10%
47
% of Charter Population
100%
50%
# Students
14,112
7,103
Female
Low Income
English learners
October 2016
10%
11%
9%
7%
5%
50%
58%
31%
9%
3%
7,009
8,184
4,359
1,294
421
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Very few charter school students enroll from feeder schools that receive 4 or 5 stars for academic achievement.
11% of charter school students come from 4-star schools, and only 1% come from 5-star feeder schools. The
majority of students who enroll in charter schools have a feeder school with a 2 or 3-star academic achievement
rating (68%). 18% of charter school students have a feeder school with a 1-star academic achievement rating.
26% of charter students are enrolled in a school receiving 5 stars for academic achievement. Roughly a third of
charter students are enrolled in 3 or 4 star schools, and another third of students are enrolled in 1 or 2 star schools.
A profile of academic achievement in both the enrolled school and feeder school for all charter students is included
below.
Enrolled School
% of Population
Number of Students
1 Star
8%
1065
2 Star
21%
2907
3 Star
16%
2310
4 Star
15%
2174
5 Star
26%
3706
Not Applicable
14%
1950
Feeder School
% of Population
Number of Students
1 Star
18%
2596
2 Star
34%
4836
3 Star
34%
4761
4 Star
11%
1613
5 Star
1%
73
Not Applicable
2%
233
School Choice Patterns by Vocational Technical District

5% of Delaware students attend vocational technical schools. English learners are less likely than their peers to
attend vocational technical schools. Low income students and students with disabilities are slightly less likely than
their peers to exercise this choice option. The table below displays a profile of students enrolled in vocational
technical schools.
Subgroup
All students
Male
Female
Low Income
% of Subgroup Population
5%
5%
6%
5%
4%
4%
48
% of Votech Population
100%
48%
52%
53%
25%
11%
# Students
7,336
3,553
3,783
3,887
1,816
771
English learners
October 2016
2%
2%
151
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
There are no vocational technical students who come from a feeder school receiving 4 or 5 stars for academic
achievement. The majority of students come from 2-star feeder schools (52%). 29% of students have a 1-star feeder
school, and the remaining 19% have a 3-star feeder school.
There are no vocational technical schools classified as either 1-star or 5-star schools in the academic achievement
category. A profile of academic achievement in both the enrolled school and feeder school for all vocational
technical students is included below.
Enrolled School
% of Population
Number of Students
1 Star
2 Star
3 Star
4 Star
5 Star
Feeder School
0.0%
64.0%
16.3%
19.7%
0%
% of Population
0
4698
1194
1444
0
Number of Students
1 Star
2 Star
3 Star
4 Star
5 Star
28.9%
51.7%
19.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2120
3794
1422
0
0
49
October 2016
Enrollment Projections
PROJECTIONS BY SUBGROUP
Subgroup
% of Population, 2016
% of Population, 2040
Low Income
36%
52%
15%
12%
English learners
6%
8%
By 2040, Delaware is projecting the school-aged population to grow by 5,427 students. At that time, it is projected
that 52% of students will be from low income families, representing a significant increase from the current
percentage of students from low income families (36%). The percentage of English learners in the state is expected
to grow slightly, from 6% of the total student population in 2016 to 8% of the total student population in 2040.
Students with disabilities are expected to comprise 12% of the school-aged population in 2040, which represents a
decrease from the current percentage (15%). The table below shows the expected number of school aged students
in each subgroup through 2040. All projections data was sourced through School District Enrollment Projections
produced by the University of Delaware (Ratledge, 2016).
2014
2020
2030
2040
2014-2040
Change
% Change
Subgroup
All Students
Low Income
134,883
67,577
136,294
69,317
138,364
70,356
140,310
73,198
5,427
5,621
4.0%
English Learner
Special Education
8,308
16,284
9,216
16,461
8,928
16,857
10,709
17,057
2,401
773
8.3%
28.9%
4.7%
PROJECTIONS BY LOCATION
The majority of Delaware districts are projecting slight growth in student population between 2016-2040. Three
districts in New Castle County (Christina, Colonial, Red Clay) are projecting significant growth in student population
by 2040, with an increase of more than 650 students. One district in Sussex County (Indian River) is also projecting
significant growth. Two districts in New Castle County, two districts in Kent County, and one district in Sussex
County are expecting a small decline in student population by 2040. The projection data included in this report does
not account for projected school choice decisions. This information allows DDOE to plan for projected enrollment
in each geographic region, but does not account for the manner in which availability and type of school choice
options will influence student enrollment decisions in each location.
New Castle
County
2015
2016
2020
2030
2040
2015-2040
Change
% Change
Appoquinimink
10,381
10,378
10,259
10,456
10,241
-140
-1.3%
Brandywine
10,577
10,580
10,505
10,676
10,542
-35
-0.4%
Christina
15,553
15,553
15,749
15,849
16,509
956
6.1%
Colonial
9,760
9,763
9,893
10,068
10,423
663
6.8%
Red Clay
16,094
16,094
16,276
16,350
17,145
1,051
6.5%
50
October 2016
Kent County
2015
2016
2020
2030
2040
2015-2040
Change
% Change
Caesar Rodney
7,729
7,731
7,660
7,767
7,680
-49
-0.6%
Capital
6,485
6,486
6,520
6,655
6,714
229
3.5%
Lake Forest
3,792
3,794
3,743
3,819
3,733
-59
-1.6%
Milford
4,122
4,119
4,132
4,205
4,277
155
3.8%
Smyrna
5,233
5,233
5,182
5,347
5,224
-9
-0.2%
Sussex County
2015
2016
2020
2030
2040
2015-2040
Change
% Change
Cape Henlopen
5,171
5,170
5,127
5,235
5,196
25
0.5%
Delmar
1,345
1,347
1,321
1,342
1,301
-44
-3.3%
Indian River
10,169
10,171
10,276
10,392
10,878
709
7.0%
Laurel
2,223
2,221
2,215
2,261
2,254
31
1.4%
Seaford
3,473
3,473
3,493
3,552
3,623
150
4.3%
Woodbridge
2,466
2,466
2,481
2,533
2,591
125
5.1%
51
October 2016
RECOMMENDATIONS
This report intends to provide relevant data that will support longer term school facilities and program planning
across the State of Delaware. Given Delawares statewide School Choice program, long term planning for the right
mix, location and number of schools cannot be completed without first understanding the current need for schools,
demand for programming options, gaps in student access across schools, and the barriers that may be causing
those gaps. Understanding these patterns, and developing policies to support more equitable access to high quality
educational opportunities will help DDOE make more informed and strategic decisions about program and schooling
needs for the states students.
In this report, PCG gives detailed attention to the school choice patterns of those students who are most likely to
benefit from access to specialized educational opportunities. Specifically, the report seeks to better understand the
educational priorities of students of color, students who are low income, English Learners and students receiving
special education services. The report also examines how a students home address impacts their choice options,
opportunities and enrollment patterns. PCG found that students in these identified subgroups are more likely to
attend a school that is considered academically underperforming, and are less likely to choose an educational
option other than their feeder pattern school. Demographic projections suggest that both the low income and
English learner populations will see large growth over the next 20 years, making the educational needs of these
students even more pressing.
The following recommendations seek to support Delaware as it develops a strategic roadmap that will determine
when, how and where additional schools are needed to create the right mix of educational opportunities for all of
Delawares students. PCG has divided the recommendations in two parts. Areas for Further Review identifies
data that PCG believes warrants further study to continue to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the
current state of school choice in Delaware. We believe these data likely have implications for future planning.
Policy Recommendations draw from the literature and qualitative data gathered from stakeholder groups, and are
supported by our enrollment trends analysis. These recommendations provide specific policy or procedural changes
that we believe require consideration in the development of a strategic roadmap for new school and program
creation. These recommendations are intended to help support improved access and opportunity for all students
in the school choice program.
Areas for Further Review

1.
2.
English Learners Needs for Educational Options

As mentioned in the report, a low sample size of parents who identified as English learners prevented
analysis of non-English speaking families perceptions of school quality and educational opportunities. PCG
attempted to conduct a targeted focus group for families of English learners, but was unable to identify
available participants. Further outreach to this population of parents is required in order to better understand
desired programs and options for non-English speaking students, as well as potential barriers for accessing
these options.
Choice Patterns at the School Level
Using available data, PCG created a Student Enrollment Patterns Data Report that provides information
on the characteristics of students exercising choice for every school in the state. In addition to each schools
current academic achievement rating, the table includes the number and percentage of students in the
school who come from low income families, have a disability, or are English learners. Data included in the
report identifies schools where a large percentage of students choice out, as well as schools where a large
percentage of students choice in. Further analysis is required to determine the basis of these choice
decisions. In instances where a school represents an outlier with regard to choice percentages, further
contextual information is needed in order to inform analysis. For instance, in feeder pattern schools where
very few families exercise choice, further data is needed to determine whether this reflects a high level of
community satisfaction with the school, lack of other local schooling options, lack of community access to
other local options, or other factors that could impact choice participation rates.
52
3.
4.
October 2016
Analysis of High Demand Schools for Promising Practices

Further analysis is required to identify schools in high demand amongst subgroups of students with lower
choice participation rates, including English learners and students who are low income. The Student
Enrollment Patterns Data Report will support this analysis. While the data presented in this report
identifies charter and vocational technical schools with high percentages of students from each subgroup,
analysis has not been conducted at the traditional public school level. This additional analysis would allow
DDOE to identify schools of all types that are in high demand amongst these subgroups of students in order
to determine if there are promising practices that could be replicated in other areas of the state.
District Level Review
The District Profiles included in the Appendix present data on the differences between students who
reside in the district, enroll in the district, choice into the district, and choice out of the district. In several
cases, there are significant demographic differences between these groups of students. In these cases,
further analysis is needed to determine the district-specific factors influencing patterns. For instance,
additional contextual information is required to determine whether there is a link between availability of
public transportation and the demographic profile of students who exercise choice.
Policy Recommendations
1.
2.
New School Approval Process. Develop a comprehensive set of policies regarding authorization of new
schools.
a. Ensure that policies take into consideration the current traditional, charter, and vocational
technical opportunities in the schools proposed geographic location. Identify the role of the new
school in relationship to other educational options in the same geographic area.
b. Solicit input from a range of stakeholder groups in developing school authorization policies.
Communication and Marketing. Centralize communications at the state level to better support informed
decision-making as families explore choice options. Target outreach activities to families who are low
income, non-English speakers and/or who live in the City of Wilmington.
a. Serve as the primary hub for families interested in learning more about a school or program
outside of their feeder pattern. Understand that sending schools or districts may not be
knowledgeable about options in other parts of the state.
b. Expand current DE school choice webpage on the DDOE website to encourage one stop
shopping. Link the SchoolChoiceDE.org website hosted by the Data Service Center to the DDOE
school choice webpage. Consider allowing families to submit a common application to any
district or charter school through the DDOE website.
c. Include district and public transportation options when providing information about choice
schools.
d. Ensure all webpages on both the state and districts websites offer translation of key content to
allow for families who do not speak English to access information.
e. Encourage that all LEAs provide additional information about their distinguishing characteristics
and programs, so that parents have more comprehensive information to inform their decision
making. Consider providing LEAs with a template, to ensure that common information is reported
across schools. This information may be provided on the state/district websites and as part of the
Enrollment Options Catalogue.
f. Publicize the new DE Student Success Frameworks to support families understanding of school
quality.
g. Publish current waitlist numbers on the DDOE website. Require all schools and districts to
provide this information in a consistent manner.
h. Tap into existing networks, community groups, and parent groups to share information and
resources.
i. Use social media to communicate about options with families.
53
October 2016
j.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Host a statewide or regional Enrollment Fair to allow families to learn about all of their options in
one location. The Enrollment Fair should include all school types: district, charter school, and
vocational technical.
k. Publish an Enrollment Options Catalogue in multiple languages to allow families to review all of
their options in one location.
l. Provide parents with a set of best practices related to the search and selection process (e.g., a
list of questions to facilitate parent exploration of available options).
Collaboration. Develop formal and informal networks that encourage public, charter, and vocational
technical schools to share knowledge and resources.
a. Incentivize schools to share staff and resources, particularly when this sharing supports
increased student access to a school.
b. Create structured opportunities and forums for the public, charter, and vocational technical
schools to regularly work together on common goals and share best practices.
c. Provide opportunities for public, charter, and vocational technical schools to participate in shared
professional development experiences.
Admissions Preferences. Review and revise admissions preference policies that may result in
marginalized access (either real or perceived). Concurrently, modify recruitment strategies to reflect
admissions preferences.
Vocational Technical.
a. Determine if additional vocational technical programs are needed at comprehensive high schools
to increase career readiness for those students who do not receive access to a Vocational
Technical high school.
b. Clarify current admissions and applications processes for vocational technical schools.
Disproportionate Choicing Out. Develop clear policies and practices for schools where an excessive
number of students are choosing not to attend the school.
a. Maintain and analyze at least annually the Student Enrollment Patterns Data Report.
b. Facilitate guided conversations with schools and districts where a disproportionate number of
students are choicing out.
c. Host forums or provide other opportunities for families who have left these schools to share their
concerns.
English Learner Taskforce. Create a Taskforce to specifically address the educational options needs for
English learners in the state.
Transportation. Ensure that transportation is not a barrier to school choice.
a. Revisit transportation policies for the City of Wilmington.
b. Consider reinstating a transportation stipend for low income families.
54
October 2016
APPENDIX
School Choice Patterns by LEA
The following tables display school choice patterns for all traditional public school districts, vocational technical
districts, and charter schools. Data has been suppressed in instances where student counts are below 15.
CHOICE PATTERN CHARTS: TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Appoquinimink School District
Profile of Students Residing in the District
# Students
11,741
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
Enrolled in feeder pattern home school
9,270
78.95%
By School Type
Enrolled in traditional school choice in home district (intradistrict choice) 742
6.32%
Enrolled in traditional choice in other district (Interdistrict choice)
192
1.64%
Enrolled in charter school
1,082
9.22%
Enrolled in vocational technical school
455
3.88%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
Low Income
1,588
13.53%
1,438
12.25%
English Learner
179
1.52%
4,597
39.15%
Profile of Students Enrolled in the District
# Students
10,378
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
9,270
89.32%
By Subgroup
By School Type
Enrolled in traditional school choice in home district (intradistrict choice) 742
55
7.15%
October 2016
366
3.53%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
Low Income
1,526
14.70%
1,238
11.93%
English Learner
164
1.58%
4,146
39.95%
Profile of Students Choicing Out of the District
# Students
1,729
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Traditional District
192
11.10%
Charter School
1,082
62.58%
455
26.32%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
127
7.35%
242
14.00%
English Learner
19
1.10%
617
35.69%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Enrolled in 1 Star School
15
0.87%
510
29.50%
165
9.54%
848
49.05%
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
By Enrolled School Performance Level
56
October 2016
102
5.90%
Not Applicable
89
5.15%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Choicing out of 1 Star School
0.00%
0.00%
1174
67.90%
278
16.08%
69
3.99%
Not Applicable
208
12.03%
Profile of Students Choicing into the District
# Students
366
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
65
17.76%
42
11.48%
English Learner
--
--
166
45.36%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Choicing in from 1 Star School
33
9.02%
117
31.97%
177
48.36%
39
10.66%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
By Feeder School Performance Level
By Subgroup
57
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
0.00%
172
46.99%
99
27.05%
25
6.83%
Not Applicable
70
19.13%
# Students
11,545
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
8,119
70.32%
Enrolled in traditional school choice in home district (intradistrict choice) 1,812
15.70%
299
2.59%
1,021
8.84%
294
2.55%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
Low Income
3,730
32.31%
1,630
14.12%
English Learner
448
3.88%
6,109
52.91%
# Students
10,580
Brandywine School District

By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
58
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
8,119
76.74%
17.13%
649
6.13%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
Low Income
3,285
31.05%
1,521
14.38%
English Learner
438
4.14%
5,540
52.36%
# Students
1,614
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
299
18.53%
Charter School
1,021
63.26%
294
18.22%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
661
40.95%
198
12.27%
English Learner
24
1.49%
1,063
65.86%
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup

Category
59
October 2016
182
11.28%
704
43.62%
65
4.03%
307
19.02%
48
2.97%
Not Applicable
308
19.08%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
342
21.19%
956
59.23%
316
19.58%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
649
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
216
33.28%
89
13.71%
English Learner
--
--
494
76.12%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
181
27.89%
282
43.45%
159
24.50%
By Subgroup
60
October 2016
23
3.54%
0.00%
Not Applicable
--
--
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
183
28.20%
377
58.09%
70
10.79%
0.00%
Not Applicable
19
2.93%
# Students
7,963
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
5,751
72.22%
16.66%
324
4.07%
169
2.12%
392
4.92%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
Low Income
2,468
30.99%
1,194
14.99%
English Learner
164
2.06%
3,571
44.84%
Caesar Rodney School District

By School Type
By Subgroup
61
October 2016
# Students
7,731
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
5,751
74.39%
17.16%
653
8.45%
0.00%
0.00%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of Total
Population
Low Income
2,410
31.17%
1,206
15.60%
English Learner
158
2.04%
3,470
44.88%
# Students
885
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
324
36.61%
Charter School
169
19.10%
392
44.29%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
229
25.88%
143
16.16%
By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
62
October 2016
English Learner
--
--
387
43.73%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
166
18.76%
552
62.37%
36
4.07%
45
5.08%
Not Applicable
86
9.72%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
0.00%
773
87.34%
111
12.54%
--
--
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
653
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
171
26.19%
155
23.74%
English Learner
--
--
286
43.80%
By Subgroup
63
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
196
30.02%
315
48.24%
66
10.11%
71
10.87%
Not Applicable
--
--
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
0.00%
346
52.99%
120
18.38%
35
5.36%
Not Applicable
152
23.28%
Cape Henlopen School District

# Students
5,455
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
4,607
84.45%
Enrolled in traditional school choice in home district (intradistrict choice)
290
5.32%
138
2.53%
206
3.78%
214
3.92%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,688
30.94%
832
15.25%
English Learner
221
4.05%
By School Type
By Subgroup
64
October 2016
1,781
32.65%
# Students
5,170
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
4,607
89.11%
290
5.61%
273
5.28%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,698
32.84%
900
17.41%
English Learner
224
4.33%
1,737
33.60%
# Students
558
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
138
24.73%
Charter School
206
36.92%
214
38.35%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
85
15.23%
52
9.32%
English Learner
--
--
130
23.30%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
43
7.71%
40
7.17%
224
40.14%
221
39.61%
Not Applicable
27
4.84%
By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
65
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
329
58.96%
107
19.18%
122
21.86%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
273
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
95
34.80%
120
43.96%
English Learner
--
--
86
31.50%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
103
37.73%
121
44.32%
23
8.42%
--
--
Not Applicable
16
5.86%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
78
28.57%
56
20.51%
92
33.70%
0.00%
Not Applicable
47
17.22%
# Students
8,015
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
By Subgroup
Capital School District

By School Type
Category
66
October 2016
5,501
68.63%
642
8.01%
610
7.61%
984
12.28%
278
3.47%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
3,869
48.27%
1,341
16.73%
English Learner
270
3.37%
5,237
65.34%
# Students
6,486
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
5,501
84.81%
642
9.90%
343
5.29%
0.00%
0.00%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
3,338
51.46%
1,232
18.99%
English Learner
270
4.16%
4,446
68.55%
# Students
1,872
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
610
32.59%
Charter School
984
52.56%
278
14.85%
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
Category
67
October 2016
Low Income
670
35.79%
224
11.97%
English Learner
--
--
1,017
54.33%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
320
17.09%
1221
65.22%
125
6.68%
31
1.66%
Not Applicable
174
9.29%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
849
45.35%
717
38.30%
306
16.35%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
343
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
139
40.52%
115
33.53%
English Learner
--
--
226
65.89%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
45
13.12%
227
66.18%
45
13.12%
20
5.83%
Not Applicable
--
--
By Subgroup
68
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
129
37.61%
86
25.07%
58
16.91%
0.00%
Not Applicable
70
20.41%
# Students
22,985
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
11,794
51.31%
2,886
12.56%
1,393
6.06%
5,110
22.23%
1,802
7.84%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
9,071
39.46%
3,395
14.77%
English Learner
1,660
7.22%
15,531
67.57%
# Students
15,553
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
11,794
75.83%
2,886
18.56%
873
5.61%
0.00%
0.00%
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Christina School District

By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
Category
69
October 2016
Low Income
6,819
43.84%
2,935
18.87%
English Learner
1,372
8.82%
10,866
69.86%
# Students
8,305
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
1,393
16.77%
Charter School
5,110
61.53%
1802
21.70%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
2,613
31.46%
874
10.52%
English Learner
323
3.89%
5,222
62.88%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
546
6.57%
3192
38.43%
990
11.92%
660
7.95%
2120
25.53%
Not Applicable
797
9.60%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
3,711
44.68%
2760
33.23%
1211
14.58%
623
7.50%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
873
By School Type
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
70
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
361
41.35%
414
47.42%
English Learner
35
4.01%
557
63.80%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
61
6.99%
282
32.30%
420
48.11%
68
7.79%
--
--
Not Applicable
32
3.67%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
176
20.16%
203
23.25%
209
23.94%
84
9.62%
0.00%
Not Applicable
201
23.02%
# Students
13,399
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
8,800
65.68%
733
5.47%
938
7.00%
1,709
12.75%
1,219
9.10%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
5,270
39.33%
2,035
15.19%
Colonial School District

By School Type
By Subgroup
71
October 2016
English Learner
998
7.45%
9,349
69.77%
# Students
9,763
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
8,800
90.14%
733
7.51%
230
2.36%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
4,087
41.86%
1,600
16.39%
English Learner
858
8.79%
6,759
69.23%
# Students
3,866
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
938
24.26%
Charter School
1,709
44.21%
1219
31.53%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
1,289
33.34%
520
13.45%
English Learner
146
3.78%
2,742
70.93%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
296
7.66%
2135
55.23%
551
14.25%
419
10.84%
84
2.17%
Not Applicable
381
9.86%
By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
72
October 2016

Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
2321
60.04%
1545
39.96%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
230
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
106
46.09%
85
36.96%
English Learner
--
--
152
66.09%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
49
21.30%
77
33.48%
74
32.17%
22
9.57%
--
--
Not Applicable
--
--
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
68
29.57%
116
50.43%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
46
20.00%
# Students
1,339
By Subgroup
Delmar School District

By School Type
73
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
683
51.01%
583
43.54%
42
3.14%
0.00%
31
2.32%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
239
17.85%
151
11.28%
English Learner
54
4.03%
404
30.17%
# Students
1,347
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
683
50.71%
583
43.28%
81
6.01%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
227
16.85%
132
9.80%
English Learner
52
3.86%
394
29.25%
# Students
73
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
42
57.53%
Charter School
0.00%
31
42.47%
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
Category
74
October 2016
Low Income
23
31.51%
22
30.14%
English Learner
--
2.74%
18
24.66%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
1.37%
--
16.44%
--
17.81%
33
45.21%
--
2.74%
Not Applicable
--
16.44%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
0.00%
48
65.75%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
25
34.25%
# Students
81
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
--
--
--
--
English Learner
0.00%
--
--
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
71
87.65%
--
--
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
By Subgroup
75
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
0.00%
81
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
10,722
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
8,397
78.32%
1,445
13.48%
205
1.91%
181
1.69%
494
4.61%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
4,384
40.89%
1,726
16.10%
English Learner
1,392
12.98%
5,151
48.04%
# Students
10,171
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
8,397
82.56%
1,445
14.21%
329
3.23%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
4,283
42.11%
1,677
16.49%
Indian River School District

By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
76
October 2016
English Learner
1,388
13.65%
4,992
49.08%
# Students
880
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
205
23.30%
Charter School
181
20.57%
494
56.14%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
195
22.16%
121
13.75%
English Learner
--
--
273
31.02%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
58
6.59%
49
5.57%
554
62.95%
176
20.00%
Not Applicable
37
4.20%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
528
60.00%
318
36.14%
34
3.86%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
329
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
94
28.57%
By School Type
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
77
October 2016
72
21.88%
English Learner
--
--
114
34.65%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
23
6.99%
167
50.76%
76
23.10%
32
9.73%
--
--
Not Applicable
29
8.81%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
101
30.70%
78
23.71%
40
12.16%
52
15.81%
Not Applicable
58
17.63%
# Students
4,036
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
3,278
81.22%
115
2.85%
317
7.85%
69
1.71%
257
6.37%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,657
41.06%
637
15.78%
English Learner
71
1.76%
1,492
36.97%
Lake Forest School District

By School Type
By Subgroup
78
October 2016
# Students
3,794
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
3,278
86.40%
115
3.03%
401
10.57%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,599
42.15%
605
15.95%
English Learner
75
1.98%
1,360
35.85%
# Students
643
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
317
49.30%
Charter School
69
10.73%
257
39.97%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
173
26.91%
107
16.64%
English Learner
0.00%
229
35.61%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
65
10.11%
400
62.21%
53
8.24%
--
--
Not Applicable
108
16.80%
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup

Category
79
October 2016
0.00%
0.00%
500
77.76%
0.00%
143
22.24%
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
401
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
115
28.68%
75
18.70%
English Learner
--
--
97
24.19%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
24
5.99%
94
23.44%
188
46.88%
59
14.71%
0.00%
Not Applicable
36
8.98%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
0.00%
229
57.11%
0.00%
143
35.66%
Not Applicable
29
7.23%
# Students
2,623
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
2,156
82.20%
By Subgroup
Laurel School District

By School Type
80
October 2016
0.00%
266
10.14%
39
1.49%
162
6.18%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,303
49.68%
377
14.37%
English Learner
160
6.10%
1,175
44.80%
# Students
2,221
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
2,156
97.07%
0.00%
65
2.93%
0.00%
0.00%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,204
54.21%
345
15.53%
English Learner
155
6.98%
1,068
48.09%
# Students
467
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
266
56.96%
Charter School
39
8.35%
162
34.69%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
124
26.55%
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
81
October 2016
42
8.99%
English Learner
--
--
123
26.34%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
19
4.07%
71
15.20%
115
24.63%
185
39.61%
54
11.56%
Not Applicable
23
4.93%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
434
92.93%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
33
7.07%
# Students
65
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
25
38.46%
--
--
English Learner
--
--
16
24.62%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
24
36.92%
17
26.15%
--
--
--
--
Not Applicable
--
--
By Subgroup
82
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
53
81.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
--
--
# Students
4,627
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
3,861
83.44%
128
2.77%
349
7.54%
77
1.66%
212
4.58%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,992
43.05%
693
14.98%
English Learner
386
8.34%
2,226
48.11%
# Students
4,119
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
3,861
93.74%
128
3.11%
130
3.16%
0.00%
0.00%
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Milford School District

By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
Category
83
October 2016
Low Income
1,855
45.04%
579
14.06%
English Learner
375
9.10%
2,024
49.14%
# Students
638
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
349
54.70%
Charter School
77
12.07%
212
33.23%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
183
28.68%
131
20.53%
English Learner
--
--
250
39.18%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
51
7.99%
196
30.72%
195
30.56%
106
16.61%
Not Applicable
86
13.48%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
354
55.49%
250
39.18%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
34
5.33%
# Students
130
By School Type
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
84
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
46
35.38%
17
13.08%
English Learner
--
--
48
36.92%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
26
20.00%
76
58.46%
--
--
16
12.31%
Not Applicable
--
--
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
36
27.69%
81
62.31%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
--
--
# Students
18,991
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
9,417
49.59%
5,212
27.44%
658
3.46%
2,782
14.65%
922
4.85%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
7,004
36.88%
2,558
13.47%
Red Clay Consolidated School District

By School Type
By Subgroup
85
October 2016
English Learner
2,021
10.64%
10,939
57.60%
# Students
16,094
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
9,417
58.51%
5,212
32.38%
1,465
9.10%
0.00%
0.00%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
6,020
37.41%
2,171
13.49%
English Learner
1,926
11.97%
9,266
57.57%
# Students
4,362
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
658
15.08%
Charter School
2,782
63.78%
922
21.14%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
1,418
32.51%
539
12.36%
English Learner
173
3.97%
2,511
57.57%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
334
7.66%
1551
35.56%
737
16.90%
541
12.40%
By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
86
October 2016
774
17.74%
Not Applicable
425
9.74%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
1,304
29.89%
2342
53.69%
530
12.15%
114
2.61%
0.00%
Not Applicable
72
1.65%
# Students
1,465
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
434
29.62%
152
10.38%
English Learner
78
5.32%
838
57.20%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
411
28.05%
627
42.80%
383
26.14%
44
3.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
136
9.28%
446
30.44%
392
26.76%
416
28.40%
0.00%
Not Applicable
75
5.12%
By Subgroup
Seaford School District
87
October 2016
# Students
4,057
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
2,589
63.82%
763
18.81%
294
7.25%
121
2.98%
290
7.15%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,993
49.12%
637
15.70%
English Learner
413
10.18%
2,232
55.02%
# Students
3,473
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
2,589
74.55%
763
21.97%
121
3.48%
0.00%
0.00%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,893
54.51%
596
17.16%
English Learner
414
11.92%
2,066
59.49%
# Students
705
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
294
41.70%
Charter School
121
17.16%
By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
88
October 2016
290
41.13%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
162
22.98%
63
8.94%
English Learner
--
--
225
31.91%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
35
4.96%
112
15.89%
72
10.21%
303
42.98%
133
18.87%
Not Applicable
50
7.09%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
399
56.60%
260
36.88%
46
6.52%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
121
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
62
51.24%
22
18.18%
English Learner
--
--
59
48.76%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
65
53.72%
19
15.70%
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
89
October 2016
--
--
--
--
Not Applicable
25
20.66%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
27
22.31%
56
46.28%
38
31.40%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
6,000
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
4,522
75.37%
472
7.87%
256
4.27%
537
8.95%
213
3.55%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,516
25.27%
939
15.65%
English Learner
66
1.10%
2,409
40.15%
# Students
5,233
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
4,522
86.41%
472
9.02%
239
4.57%
0.00%
Smyrna School District

By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
90
October 2016
0.00%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,354
25.87%
801
15.31%
English Learner
62
1.18%
2,015
38.51%
# Students
1,006
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
256
25.45%
Charter School
537
53.38%
213
21.17%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
213
21.17%
160
15.90%
English Learner
--
--
439
43.64%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
63
6.26%
659
65.51%
83
8.25%
--
--
Not Applicable
188
18.69%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
423
42.05%
393
39.07%
190
18.89%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
91
October 2016
# Students
239
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
51
21.34%
22
9.21%
English Learner
0.00%
45
18.83%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
67
28.03%
118
49.37%
42
17.57%
--
--
Not Applicable
--
--
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
53
22.18%
119
49.79%
67
28.03%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
# Students
2,529
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
2,216
87.62%
0.00%
187
7.39%
25
0.99%
101
3.99%
By Subgroup
Woodbridge School District

By School Type
By Subgroup
92
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,224
48.40%
327
12.93%
English Learner
203
8.03%
1,307
51.68%
# Students
2,466
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
2,216
89.86%
0.00%
250
10.14%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Total Population
Low Income
1,223
49.59%
307
12.45%
English Learner
203
8.23%
1,290
52.31%
# Students
313
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
187
59.74%
Charter School
25
7.99%
101
32.27%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
86
27.48%
47
15.02%
English Learner
--
--
100
31.95%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
31
9.90%
By School Type
By Subgroup
By School Type
By Subgroup
93
October 2016
103
32.91%
98
31.31%
45
14.38%
Not Applicable
28
8.95%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
164
52.40%
65
20.77%
38
12.14%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
46
14.70%
# Students
250
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
85
34.00%
27
10.80%
English Learner
--
--
83
33.20%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
35
14.00%
134
53.60%
51
20.40%
--
--
--
--
Not Applicable
--
--
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
56
22.40%
73
29.20%
44
17.60%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
77
30.80%
By Subgroup
94
October 2016
CHOICE PATTERN CHARTS: VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS

New Castle County Vocational Technical School District
# Students
4,698
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
1,317
28.03%
572
12.18%
English Learner
142
3.02%
3,017
64.22%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
1,730
36.82%
2327
49.53%
641
13.64%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
POLYTECH School District
# Students
1,194
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
225
18.84%
100
8.38%
English Learner
--
--
413
34.59%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
539
45.14%
648
54.27%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
Sussex Technical School District
# Students
1,444
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
95
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
274
18.98%
99
6.86%
English Learner
--
--
457
31.65%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
383
26.52%
928
64.27%
133
9.21%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
96
October 2016
CHOICE PATTERN CHARTS: CHARTER SCHOOLS

Academia Antonio Alonso
# Students
320
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
234
73.13%
--
--
English Learner
79
24.69%
300
93.75%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
107
33.44%
97
30.31%
93
29.06%
20
6.25%
--
--
Not Applicable
--
--
Academy of Dover Charter School
# Students
284
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
187
65.85%
27
9.51%
English Learner
--
--
258
90.85%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
30
10.56%
140
49.30%
106
37.32%
--
--
Not Applicable
0.00%
Campus Community Charter School
# Students
417
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
97
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
192
46.04%
29
6.95%
English Learner
--
--
299
71.70%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
0.00%
92
22.06%
243
58.27%
78
18.71%
--
--
Not Applicable
0.00%
Charter School of Wilmington
# Students
972
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
36
3.70%
--
--
English Learner
--
--
386
39.71%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
241
24.79%
650
66.87%
81
8.33%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
Delaware Academy of Public Safety and Security
#Students
303
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
98
32.34%
59
19.47%
English Learner
--
--
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
98
October 2016
152
50.17%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
105
34.65%
173
57.10%
25
8.25%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
Delaware College Preparatory Academy
# Students
186
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
144
77.42%
--
--
English Learner
--
--
186
100.00%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
70
37.63%
58
31.18%
44
23.66%
--
--
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
Delaware Design Lab High School
# Students
233
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
89
38.20%
48
20.60%
English Learner
--
--
158
67.81%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
76
32.62%
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
99
October 2016
134
57.51%
23
9.87%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
Delaware Military Academy
# Students
564
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
38
6.74%
22
3.90%
English Learner
--
--
89
15.78%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
214
37.94%
314
55.67%
36
6.38%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
Early College High School at Delaware State University
# Students
209
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
69
33.01%
22
10.53%
English Learner
--
--
184
88.04%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
22
10.53%
128
61.24%
59
28.23%
0.00%
0.00%
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
100
October 2016
Not Applicable
0.00%
EastSide Charter School
# Students
443
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
355
80.14%
57
12.87%
English Learner
15
3.39%
443
100.00%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
177
39.95%
93
20.99%
152
34.31%
18
4.06%
0.00%
Not Applicable
--
--
Edison Charter School
# Students
758
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
596
78.63%
53
6.99%
English Learner
--
--
751
99.08%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
273
36.02%
150
19.79%
258
34.04%
76
10.03%
0.00%
Not Applicable
--
--
Family Foundations Academy
# Students
792
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
Category
101
October 2016
Low Income
404
51.01%
68
8.59%
English Learner
20
2.53%
738
93.18%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
128
16.16%
255
32.20%
392
49.49%
15
1.89%
0.00%
Not Applicable
--
--
First State Military Academy
# Students
202
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
72
35.64%
39
19.31%
English Learner
--
--
78
38.61%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
137
67.82%
52
25.74%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
First State Montessori Academy
# Students
325
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
27
8.31%
24
7.38%
English Learner
--
--
113
34.77%
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
102
October 2016

Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
29
8.92%
69
21.23%
158
48.62%
65
20.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
--
--
Freire Charter School
# Students
234
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
106
45.30%
15
6.41%
English Learner
--
--
200
85.47%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
78
33.33%
117
50.00%
39
16.67%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
Gateway Lab School
# Students
212
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
66
31.13%
129
60.85%
English Learner
--
--
87
41.04%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
36
16.98%
66
31.13%
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
103
October 2016
90
42.45%
15
7.08%
--
--
Not Applicable
--
--
Great Oaks Charter School
# Students
212
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
116
54.72%
36
16.98%
English Learner
--
--
193
91.04%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
59
27.83%
86
40.57%
67
31.60%
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
Kuumba Academy Charter School
# Students
644
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
393
61.02%
69
10.71%
English Learner
--
--
643
99.84%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
240
37.27%
177
27.48%
199
30.90%
26
4.04%
0.00%
Not Applicable
--
--
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
104
October 2016
Las Amigas Aspira Academy
# Students
639
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
181
28.33%
54
8.45%
English Learner
166
25.98%
470
73.55%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
35
5.48%
185
28.95%
353
55.24%
50
7.82%
--
--
Not Applicable
--
--
MOT Charter School
# Students
1,013
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
60
5.92%
69
6.81%
English Learner
17
1.68%
413
40.77%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
84
8.29%
96
9.48%
471
46.50%
193
19.05%
30
2.96%
Not Applicable
139
13.72%
Newark Charter School
# Students
2,140
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
170
7.94%
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
105
October 2016
138
6.45%
English Learner
52
2.43%
751
35.09%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
247
11.54%
837
39.11%
513
23.97%
512
23.93%
15
0.70%
Not Applicable
16
0.75%
Odyssey Charter School
# Students
1,161
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
202
17.40%
57
4.91%
English Learner
--
--
451
38.85%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
133
11.46%
359
30.92%
471
40.57%
156
13.44%
--
--
Not Applicable
37
3.19%
Positive Outcomes Charter School
# Students
126
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
35
27.78%
79
62.70%
English Learner
0.00%
37
29.37%
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
106
October 2016
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
50
39.68%
70
55.56%
--
--
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
Prestige Academy
# Students
224
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
144
64.29%
61
27.23%
English Learner
--
--
220
98.21%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
102
45.54%
48
21.43%
71
31.70%
--
--
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
Providence Creek Academy Charter School
# Students
690
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
134
19.42%
35
5.07%
English Learner
0.00%
259
37.54%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
--
--
60
8.70%
432
62.61%
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
107
October 2016
181
26.23%
--
--
Not Applicable
15
2.17%
Sussex Academy
# Students
594
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
62
10.44%
29
4.88%
English Learner
--
--
133
22.39%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
38
6.40%
257
43.27%
215
36.20%
84
14.14%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
The Delaware Met
# Students
215
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
Low Income
149
69.30%
60
27.91%
English Learner
--
--
192
89.30%
Category
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Population
83
38.60%
118
54.88%
--
--
0.00%
0.00%
Not Applicable
0.00%
By Subgroup
By Subgroup
108
www.publicconsultinggroup.com

De Phase 2 Needs AssessmentFinal10.6.16part1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

De Phase 2 Needs AssessmentFinal10.6.16part1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Delaware Department of Education

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

SCHOOL ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

SCHOOL CHOICE PATTERNS

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Desegregation: Transfers cannot supersede a court-ordered desegregation program.

Funding: State and local funding normally follows the student.

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Alternately, critics articulate the following concerns:

Delawares Choice Program

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS

67% of charter schools

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Certifies that the construction project is necessary.

State of Delaware. 401 major capital improvement programs. http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/400/401.shtml

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

RACE AND ETHNICITY

Twin Cities, Minnesota: Thirty-six percent of the transfers

Research has demonstrated that when

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

STUDENTS FROM LOW INCOME FAMILIES

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

ENGLISH LEARNERS AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

(2002). School Choice. No Child Left Behind Policy Brief.

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Inventory of Promising Practices

Implementing policies explicitly designed to foster diversity

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Facilitating collaboration across schools

IMPLEMENTING POLICIES EXPLICITLY DESIGNED TO FOSTER DIVERSITY

Balance enrollment from suburban and urban districts.

Examples of efforts to foster diversity are provided in Table 6.

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Table 6. Examples of Efforts to Foster Diversity57,58

DSST Public Schools, Charter School Network, Denver, Colorado:

High Tech High, Charter School Network, San Diego, California:

Larchmont Charter School, Charter School Network, Los Angeles, California:

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF OPEN ENROLLMENT TO MORE

Create public information campaigns that reach out to low-income families.

Examples of efforts to improve communication are provided in Table 7.

(2002). School Choice. No Child Left Behind Policy Brief.

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

IMPROVING TRANSPORATION OPTIONS

States provide transportation support in a variety of areas:

Examples of support are provided in Table 8. 68

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Table 8. Examples of Transportation Support

Support if student is from a low-income family:

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

Other reasons, as dictated by state policy:

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities

INCREASING CAPACITY OF HIGH-DEMAND SCHOOLS

How will states and districts define when a school is full?

Several suggestions are offered to increase capacity of high-demand schools:

Define what full means.

(2002). School Choice. No Child Left Behind Policy Brief.

Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities