ESSA: Parents & Educators MUST Attend The Upcoming Meetings & Educate Themselves On The Law!

The Delaware Dept. of Education will have three more Every Student Succeeds Act Community Engagement meetings in the next week.  They held a meeting in Georgetown on Tuesday.  The next three meetings will take place in Wilmington, Middletown, and Dover.  The DOE is “requiring” participants to register through a company called Event Brite.  Links to register can be found here.

I will stress with all the urgency I can muster that ALL public education parents attend these meetings.  Before you go, I would familiarize yourself with the federal law.  You can read the full text of the law here.  It is a very long law with a lot of repeated jargon and “legalese” in it.  The Delaware State Board of Education and Delaware DOE has put up many links to it on their websites, but a lot of that is open to interpretation.  As well, U.S. Secretary of Education John King has issued “proposed rulemaking” which are potential regulations.  These regulations are VERY controversial.  You can read those regulations here and here.

These are my major concerns with ESSA:

By allowing states to have more flexibility, many states have already created long-term plans based on the prior federal mandates.  Far too many in our state DOEs follow what the corporate education reformers want and give a false illusion of “stakeholder input”.

The Delaware DOE has given NO indication whatsoever that they will even consider changing the state standards away from Common Core even though they can certainly do this according to ESSA.  The US Secretary of Education isn’t required to approve these standards.  The states merely have to give an assurance that their standards will follow the law.

Student data still isn’t protected to parents satisfaction.  To stop this data from going out, they need to restore the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA) to pre-2011 levels

Bouncing off the previous statement, by allowing more social service and health-based practitioners into our schools, there is a serious question regarding what applies to FERPA and what applies to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

 

John King’s regulations would keep the 95% participation rates for state assessments with consequences for schools and districts.

John King’s Title I regulations would enact a “supplement not supplant” these funds.  This is in sharp contrast with federal law and he was called out on this the other day by the US House Education and Workforce Committee.

There is far too much talk of competency-based education through computer adaptive assessments.  That is just lingo for personalized learning.  This law would allow for classrooms to become online all the time.  There are severe dangers with this in regards to the downgrading of the teacher profession, far too much screen time for students, and the quality of the educational material.  As well as severe data privacy concerns.  In fact, there are incentives for schools to adopt personalized learning.

While the law forbids the US DOE from forcing or coercing states to implement any state standards, like Common Core, many states already have these in place and spent years embedding them into every facet of public education.

The law calls for state accountability “report cards”, based on performance of the state assessment, but the tests are not required to be exactly the same for all students.  So the state assessments are not a true measurement since they will be different for each test-taker.  Delaware set up their report card last year under the name of the “Delaware School Success Framework” but they inserted a very punitive participation rate penalty if a school dips below the 95% participation rate which can’t use parent opt-out in those calculations according to the law.

State assessments will not be required to have questions at the appropriate grade level for students.

ESSA requires any plan to be submitted to the State DOE, State Board of Education, the Governor and the state legislature.  To date, the Delaware DOE has not had “meaningful” consultation with the Delaware General Assembly about ESSA.

The law specifically states that all choice schools should have priority given to the lowest-achieving students, but Delaware allows for charter schools to have enrollment preferences that allow for higher-achieving students to have distinct advantages, especially in our magnet schools and charter schools like Charter School of Wilmington.

I have many other concerns with ESSA, but these ones stand out for me.  I am coming at this from the perspective of a parent.  I know educators have concerns over some of this as well.

Why I Want Your Vote For The Capital School Board

For those who haven’t heard, I am jumping into the fire!  Anyone reading this blog knows my stances on education.  Is it enough though?  We need change and we need it now.

These are the reasons I am running.  I will tackle each reason below.

1. Far too many Dover residents don’t want to send their child to Capital School District.
2. Every student needs to be treated as an individual and not a test score.
3. Our middle schools need a lot of help.
4. We need more fiscal transparency and accountability.
5. Low-Income Students.
6. The Every Student Succeeds Act.
7. Student Data.
8. More participation from parents in the district.
9. Special Education.
10. More participation in state legislative matters.
11. Charter schools within our district.
12. Kindergarten.
13. Support for our teachers.
14. Ensuring opt out of standardized testing is honored as a parental right.
15. More focus on the arts.
16. Perception of the district.
17. Perception of Dover as a result of the district.
18. Oversight of the Delaware Department of Education and the United States Department of Education.
19. Leadership

“Far too many Dover residents don’t want to send their child to Capital School District”

US DOE Race To The Top Report Released Today Is A Summary Of Lies And Reform Propoganda

I read this report released today by the US DOE, called Fundamental Change: Innovation in America’s Schools Under Race to the Top and found it to be laughable at best.  I’ll start off with the biggest and boldest first:

Race to the Top used transparency to advance knowledge about improving education and allow states to learn from each other.

What was not transparent was how schools, districts, teachers, parents and students were hoodwinked into believing this lie.  The caveat behind this Federal mandate disguised as a financial incentive was requirements to engage with outside companies with this money.

State work under the grants ended in summer 2015…

For Delaware, this part is completely false since the DOE and Governor Markell used parts of the state General Fund to keep Race To The Top created positions at the DOE.  This is hysterical, because the work continues.  They may not be getting federal funds anymore, but most states are using what they did from Race To The Top at all levels and implementing changes designed not to truly help students but to give their bloated Department of Education employees and leaders high salaries while contracting all their work to outside vendors.

State education agencies (SEAs) as drivers of change. SEAs moved beyond their traditional role of monitoring district compliance to driving comprehensive and systemic changes to improve teaching and learning across the state.

They are still accountability machines.  They live and die by compliance as never before.  Who are you kidding?

Improved, more collaborative, and productive relationships between states and districts. States worked more collaboratively with districts and increased their own capacity to effectively and efficiently support districts and schools in ways that were responsive to local needs.

Yeah, between states maybe, and the districts that sign up for all the personalized learning grants while selling students souls to Satan!

Better communication. States improved lines of communication with stakeholders and used a range of tools (e.g., social media platforms) to continuously gather input from teachers, parents, school leaders, stakeholders and the public to determine the additional supports needed to be successful in carrying out their work.

They certainly used a range of tools in Delaware.  I could name many of those tools, but I would hate to offend anyone.  And many of those tools either gained tremendous financial or political gain from all of this.  And the whole “stakeholder input” never mattered because our DOE didn’t listen to what parents were truly saying and did what they wanted to do anyways.

Higher standards. All Race to the Top states recognized the value of adopting higher standards that are similar across states. Each Race to the Top state implemented challenging kindergarten through 12th-grade academic content standards aimed at preparing students for success in college and careers. With improved standards, teachers, students and parents have a clear roadmap for what students need to know and be able to do to be prepared for success.

The clear roadmap called Common Core, where all students should be on the same level playing field across the country, but all the assessments designed for it are different?  That clear roadmap you say?  And the jury is still way out on if these were “improved” standards.

Teachers support each other to effectively implement higher standards. Teachers worked together to create tools and resources to help them understand the standards and how best to implement them in their classrooms. Hands-on, job-embedded training helped teachers transition to the new content and develop instructional tools, such as sample lesson plans and instructional videos, to translate the standards into effective classroom practices.

Teachers learned how to band together and collectively groan about everything the Feds and the States did to them.  You make it sound like it was such a wonderful and collaborative thing, but it wasn’t and it still isn’t.  Let’s get it straight: the standards were designed for teachers to teach to the state assessment.  Most teachers I know can’t stand these assessments and hate everything that comes with it.

Monitoring student progress during the school year. Every Race to the Top state developed resources and assessment tools that teachers can use in their classrooms to monitor student progress during the school year. Rather than focus on test preparation for the statewide assessment at the end of the school year, nearly all states introduced instructional resources for the classroom that measure higher-order thinking skills, including critical thinking and complex problem-solving.

You can change the words however you want, it is still teaching to the test.

Increased access to and use of objective information on student outcomes. States made critical investments in improving systems to compile student outcome data from pre-kindergarten through the workforce, while protecting personally identifiable information. As outcome data for schools and districts become more accessible to the public, a variety of stakeholders, including parents, policymakers and researchers, will be better able to use these data to answer important questions about educational outcomes, such as “Did students make a year’s worth of growth?” and “Are students succeeding, regardless of income, race, ethnicity or disability?”

That last line is the biggest joke of all.  Because income, race, ethnicity and disability can make a huge difference in a  student’s life, especially as those factors combine!  And we don’t know how much of our children’s data is being farmed out under certain FERPA laws and state regulations.

Local stakeholder engagement. Dramatic improvements in schools require the involvement of community members who understand local contexts and conditions, both inside and outside the school building, to help identify challenges and design solutions. States, districts, teachers, school leaders and community stakeholders are working together to implement strategies to improve the learning environments in their lowest-performing schools and provide services to meet students’ academic and nonacademic needs.

In Delaware, we call this Rodel and the Vision Coalition.  This local stakeholder engagement has been going on for ten years with little or no results except their CEO going from $170,000+ to a salary of $344,000 in a decade.

New performance management approaches. States are using performance management approaches to help districts support effective interventions in their lowest-performing schools. These approaches help states and districts identify problems, set goals to solve them and use data to track progress.

We call these priority schools and focus schools in Delaware.  Or “Partnership Zone” schools.  This is where our state blames teachers for standardized testing scores and do not factor in a lack of resources, funding, neurological disabilities, or issues outside of schools.

States used state-level funds to support districts. In addition to the 50 percent of the total grant award subgranted to districts, many states designed their state-level projects to distribute additional funds to districts. For example, New York competitively distributed nearly $80 million of its state-level “Teachers and Leaders” funds to districts to implement their plans to develop, implement or enhance teacher recruitment, development and retention.

Delaware farmed out millions upon millions of dollars to outside companies, some internal and some external, instead of giving the funds to the districts to lower classroom sizes and get more teachers and extra support.

Some states, such as Hawaii, Delaware and Massachusetts, created a separate office or designated an existing office to plan and coordinate Race to the Top initiatives across different offices

And then the Delaware DOE lied to their General Assembly when the funds ran out and found a way to keep those positions in our DOE without anyone the wiser.

…and Delaware created specific units within their state departments of education and used real-time data to assess whether projects were moving forward and producing quality results.

Results based on federal mandates that were neither Congressionally approved or regulatory in nature…

“We really keep coming back to three questions: Are we doing what we said we would do? Are we doing it well? Is it making a difference?” said Delaware’s former chief performance officer.

Which former chief performance officer is this?  I’m guessing this is why he or she is a former chief performance officer if they were asking questions like this in our dictatorial state led by the not-so-great Delaware Governor Jack Markell.

Beginning in 2008, the state-led effort included governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia and was informed by the best state standards already in use and the experiences of teachers, school administrators, content experts, state leaders and the public. From the beginning, state and local officials and educators took responsibility for adopting and implementing the standards, and for making decisions about how the standards are taught, how the curriculum is developed, and what materials are used to support teachers in helping students meet the standards.

Yes, the beginning of the cabal of the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State School Officer’s in leading the Common Core initiative where the two true educators in this design group dropped out from the development of these standards.  Then the districts were essentially brow-beaten, pressured, and lied to if they didn’t accept funds during a recession when states were cash-poor.

As a result, each Race to the Top state developed measures of growth in student learning and made the data available to teachers, school leaders, district leaders and, in some cases, parents.  These measure of growth in student learning provided a reliable measure of teachers’ contributions to student learning because they addressed a student’s proficiency across multiple years on a valid assessment that was comparable across classrooms and schools

“Valid assessment”.  I really don’t need to go any further on this one, do I?

In Delaware, the state hired data coaches to work directly with school leaders and teachers to lead professional learning communities.

The data coaches, who got tons of money.  Like the Vision Coalition in Delaware…

For many Race to the Top states and districts, the initiatives they implemented during the grant period have remained priorities that SEAs are now better equipped to support and continue. For example, Delaware’s performance management system did not exist prior to the grant period and will continue without Race to the Top funds. The state also will continue to implement, as part of its state capacity-building plan, its data analyses and biannual conversations with district leaders to better understand what is happening in districts and develop supports that match local needs. Through its district budget plan approval process, Delaware also is encouraging districts to use available funding streams to support work they found to be effective in their schools, such as using allowable federal funds for professional supports for teachers.

Our DOE might want to check with our General Assembly before they commit to all this.  Oh wait, they will answer to our Joint Finance Committee on 11/30/15 for their devious budget actions…

As directed in the report, the citation for this report belongs to U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of State Support, Fundamental Change: Innovation in America’s Schools Under Race to the Top, Washington, D.C., 2015

Delaware DOE Up To Their Usual Tricks With Outright Lies

Today, the Delaware Department of Education issued a press release about the upcoming school report card launch.  Apparently they want help in getting the “right” design picked, out of two whole possible choices.  Of course they don’t want actual feedback of the content of the report card, just how it looks…

For immediate release

 

Contact Alison May (302) 735-4000

PUBLIC INVITED TO VOTE ON SCHOOL REPORT DESIGN

Parents, students, educators and other community members are invited to help choose the look of the soon-to-be-launched Delaware School Success Reports.

The Delaware School Success Reports will improve the presentation of information on the state’s schools, making it easier for families and other members of the public to find the information they need about schools across the First State. Launching in October 2015, they eventually will replace the school profiles on the state’s web site. In addition to the online accessibility of all reports, families will receive a snapshot report on their children’s school mailed to their home beginning in 2016.

Development of the reports comes after months of community engagement and feedback. In partnership with the University of Delaware’s Institute for Public Administration and the Delaware Academy of School Leadership, the Delaware Department of Education hosted nine focus groups across all three counties to solicit feedback on the online and paper School Success Reports currently under construction. A hundred parents, teachers and community members participated in these facilitated, in-depth conversations about school performance. Demographics of the participants closely mirrored Delaware’s diverse communities, and most focus group members had students enrolled in the state’s public schools. Of the 100 participants, more than 70 percent were parents, 30 percent were educators and the remainder identified themselves as community members.

Beginning today, the public will be able to vote to choose their favorite School Success report design.

“While the focus groups informed what parents and the community want to know about their schools, this additional feedback is important to ensuring that Delaware’s School Success Reports significantly improve the presentation of the information on our schools so families have intuitive access to the information they need,” Secretary of Education Mark Murphy said.

Voting is open through 11 p.m. on Sunday, September 13. 

Email questions and other feedback to engagement@doe.k12.de.us.

Okay, I’ll bite.  When were these nine focus groups?  I know they had the four town halls groups last fall.  They had their Survey Monkey crap as well.  But now we find out there were 9 meetings nobody knew anything about?  Who were the attendees?  Where are the minutes? The agendas?  What came out of these meetings?  They are such filthy liars.

And why are they only giving this until 9/13?  Are they planning to have the State Board approve this monstrosity at their 9/17 meeting?  With the participation rate factored into the roficiency portion of the report card?  You know, punishing schools for opt-out rates, that whole thing.  Meanwhile, absolutely NOBODY from our General Assembly has done a thing about contacting Pete Schwartzkopf or Patti Blevins about calling for a special session to override Governor Markell’s veto of House Bill 50.  Even the sponsors!!!!  All I hear is, “They will never do it.”  Did anybody ASK them?  I’m just getting tired of excuses.  That’s how the DOE gets away with everything, because the General Assembly LETS them.  They sit back and expect someone else to do it.  No more.  They voted Smarter Balanced into law, so this is all on them!  I’ll bet Governor Markell just sits back and laughs at the puppets he controls.

I

Wilmington City Council vs. The DE DOE, Murphy & Schwinn, The Q&A, Part 1

I’ve watched the Wilmington City Council meeting from October 9th a couple of times.  But I got that insane idea in my head (again) to transcribe the question and answer part of it.  This was when the councilmen asked Delaware Secretary of Education Mark Murphy and Dr. Penny Schwinn questions about the Priority Schools designation for six “failing” schools in Wilmington.  This q & a lasted about 45 minutes, so I’m breaking it up into two parts.

Doing this allowed me to see how many times Murphy or Schwinn never really answered certain questions or danced around them with their very wordy answers.  If you are a stakeholder in the priority schools, I would highly recommend reading this.  Watching Mark Murphy try to sell this insane idea is actually kind of fun.  Even more fun is watching Murphy stumble through certain answers, or he would just start mumbling incoherent parts of sentences until he could collect his thoughts.  Without further ado, here is the cast, followed by Part 1.

Wilmington City Council Members: Theopalis Gregory (President), Nnamdi Chukwuocha (1st District), Ernest Congo II (2nd District), Darius Brown (3rd District), Hanifa Shabazz (4th District), Samuel Prado (5th District), Sherry Dorsey Walker (6th District), Robert Williams (7th District), Charles Freel (8th District), Michael Brown Sr. (Council Member At-Large), Maria Cabrera (Council Member At-Large), Loretta Walsh (Council Member At-Large), Justen Wright (Council Member At-Large)

Questions Presented to Delaware Secretary of Education Mark Murphy and Proficiency Officer Dr. Penny Schwinn by the Wilmington City Council.

Delaware Secretary of Education Mark Murphy Manages To Discriminate Against 5 Different Groups In One Shot @CapeGazette @delawareonline @DoverPost @TheStateNews @NYTimes @washingtonpost @WSJ @ChicagoTribune @LATimes

I called for Delaware Secretary of Education Mark Murphy’s ouster yesterday.  And that was before I even knew about his latest stunt.  At the Wilmington City Council meeting on Thursday night, Murphy had a flyer printed up to show reasons why the State of Delaware wanted to implement the Priority Schools initiative against the six Wilmington schools.  These schools are low income with heavy populations of African-Americans and students with disabilities.  I spoke at the Christina Board of Education meeting a couple weeks ago how the state’s programs have led to a bizarre type of triple segregation with these schools.  Murphy managed to top that with his comments about a school in the Indian River school district in Sussex County, Delaware.

In the flyer, entitled “Priority Schools: An Opportunity To Improve Our City’s Schools Together”, handed out to the public, part of it said the following:

A great Delaware example is Indian River’s Clayton Elementary, located in a rural area of Sussex County with many parents working for the poultry factories.  When Sharon Brittingham took over as principal in 1997, she found a staff that didn’t expect much of it’s low-income, black, Hispanic students.  The teachers commonly used the phrase, “You can’t make chicken salad from chicken shit.”  Brittingham found “teachers didn’t just need to believe in the ability of children to learn but also their ability to teach.”  She helped educators improve their instruction, providing high quality professional development with aid from the district and state.  She also added intensive intervention for struggling students.  And she found teachers needed help with inclusive classrooms, which include students with disabilities alongside their peers.  By the time she retired in 2006, her school was one of the top in the state with proficiency rates of 100 percent in some grades and subjects.  The school faltered a bit when some teachers did away with some of the changes she had put in place.  But the school now is doing well again after it’s current principal returned to some of Brittingham’s successful strategies.

So let’s see here, how many groups can you treat badly with discriminatory statements in one paragraph?  How about low-income, African-Americans, Hispanics, farmers and teachers.  Great job Murphy!  I’m sure this flyer really resonated with the folks up in Wilmington, but not in the way you expected.  It showed a DOE that is clueless about the realities these schools face, and showed their true colors.

Later on in the guide, it states the following hypocritical statement:

DOE has communicated the expectation to the participating districts that engagement of families and the community will be meaningful and genuine.

This one sentence is a summary of what the Delaware DOE has become, a manipulative back-stabbing entity that thrives on bullying school districts to do their bidding.  The DOE forced their Memorandum of Understanding on both Christina and Red Clay Consolidated School Districts, and aside from Governor Markell and Murphy’s impromptu press conference at Warner Elementary School, where the school districts first learned of the blitzkrieg plan, they have done nothing to try to bring the community and parents into their diabolical agenda.  In fact, Christina’s Board of Education chose to ignore the MOU so they could write their own to bring more stakeholders into it, including, you guessed it: families and the community.  If this flyer is any indication of how the Delaware DOE intends to engage with families and communities, someone might want to remind them this isn’t 1860.

Yesterday, Red Clay Education Association President Mike Matthews emailed both Markell and Murphy about how he and many other teachers were extremely offended by the flyer.  Apparently Murphy fanned the flames even more by sending a personal apology to Matthews and other union members, but not to the entire state in a public forum.  Murphy needs to go.  Period.

Delaware DOE, How They Spent Race To The Top Money, Rodel & Vision Network, and the Priority Zone Charters (cha-ching)

Delaware has spent over $100,000,000 of their Race To The Top funding.  Below is a list of how much each school district, vocational, and charter school received.  As well, amounts are listed for the Delaware Department of Education expenditures, subgrants, community involvement, school bonuses and more.  More information needs to be provided by the DOE for how much money went to who for their expenditures, as well as justification for certain expenditures like $3.7 million dollars to The Vision Network.  That’s a lot of money going to a non-profit organization!

I did not include funds received from partnership zone specific schools, but I will have another article based on that shortly.  What is very interesting is the charter schools in Delaware that received some of the highest amounts of funding.  Three charters in Wilmington received three of the five largest amounts.  Those three charters, Kuumba, Eastside and Thomas Edison are all within the priority school zone.  Markell mentioned a couple of them during his priority schools announcement as “schools that work”, as compared to the “failing” six elementary schools.  Were those schools beefed up for the past few years at the expense of the priority schools?

What did Thomas Edison Charter do to receive more than double the amount of funding than the next charter, Eastside Charter?  Also, many of the charters that received high amounts of funding have been known to have either low special education numbers or problems with special education.  If Moyer was does not meet or worse for three years in a row, what qualifies them for receiving more money than many other charters?  What qualified Campus Community and Providence Creek in Kent Country for getting such large amounts?  Why did the Charter School of Wilmington not receive any of the main funds?  You can’t say school size has much to do with it, because Newark Charter School has more than double the amount of students than Thomas Edison.

I’m going to go ahead and apologize in advance to the Delaware DOE. They may be getting a lot of calls tomorrow. I really hope this matches up with their budgets and Delaware Online Checkbook! Here are the numbers.

Delaware Race To The Top Funds

Public School Districts:

Caesar Rodney: $3,232,368
Laurel: $1,247,391
Lake Forest: $1,362,532
Capital: $5,290,106
Cape Henlopen: $2,118,985
Milford: $1,739,619
Seaford: $3,374,483
Smyrna: $1,586,135
Appoquinimonk: $215,946
Brandywine: $4,619,528
Red Clay: $7,473,377
Christina: $6,310,030
Colonial: $4,564,151
Woodbridge: $1,690,299
Indian River: $2,948,387
Delmar: $341,604

Vocational Schools:

New Castle Vocational Tech: $1,244,357
PolyTech: $265,875
Sussex Tech: $339,063

Charter Schools:

Odyssey: $23,872
Delaware College Prep: $17,896
Prestige Academy: $48,588
Positive Outcomes: $46,233
Eastside: $366,302
Campus Community: $183,225
Moyer: $285,329
Edison: $857,377.02
Sussex Academy: $25,528
Delaware Military Academy: $17,108
Family Foundations: $103,282
Kuumba: $166,965
Pencader: $38,827
Academy Of Dover: $191,519
Providence Creek: $220,721
MOT: $17,395
Newark Charter School: $57,523

Department of Education Spending from RTTT:

Delivery Unit Office Funds: $1,942,106
LDS (Longitudinal Data System): $5,863,495
Turnaround Unit Office Funds: $1,634,311
TLEU (Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit) $2,285,404
Indirect Costs $290,229
Data Coaches: $8,549,347
Development Coaches: $3,290,551
STEM Residency: $664,875
Leadership/Principal Training $2,376,416
SAMS $673,610
Vision Network/Comp Prof Dev $3,723,119
Teacher Prep Improvement Grants $170,000
Alternate Routes to Certification $2,614,778
Marketing/Community Engagement $304,970
Recruitment Website Portal $244,990
DE Talent Cooperative $1,557,263
Student Growth Measures $541,702
Academic Achievement Awards (School Based Bonuses): $113,594
Supplemental PZ School funds $-
Training and support for DCAS $1,014,754
STEM Coordinating Council $32,200
AP Summer Institutes $345,750
College Readiness (SAT and middle school college readiness): $1,492,943

Partnership Zone Specific School Funding:

Christina PZ funds Stubbs $543,916.53
Christina PZ funds Glasgow $458,637.54
NCCVT PZ funds for Howard $586,991.72
Positive Outcomes PZ funds $599,997.15
Indian River Community engagement subgrant $37,705.00
Seaford community engagement subgrant $47,476.00
Indian River SAMs subgrant $50,000.00
Lake Forest SAMs subgrant $50,000.00
Red Clay SAMs subgrant $50,000.00
Christina SAMs subgrant $49,997.35
Woodbridge SAMs subgrant $50,000.00
New Castle County VoTech SAMs $25,000.00
Red Clay PZ funds for Stanton Middle School $464,471.00
Red Clay PZ funds for Marbrook Elementary $325,035.78
Red Clay PZ funds for Lewis Elementary $417,172.23
Capital PZ funds for Dover H.S. $812,498.00
Laural PZ funds for Laurel Middle School $454,798.92
Christina PZ funds for Bancroft Elementary $291,163.91
CR Middle School Prep $71,201.00
Cape Henlopen Middle School Prep $42,293.00
Laurel Middle School Prep $17,696.80
Delmar Middle School Prep $18,438.00
Christina Middle School Prep $126,155.00
Smyrna Middle School Prep $50,688.78
Seaford Middle School Prep $25,870.00
Brandywine Middle School Prep $60,113.87
Capital Middle School Prep $54,570.00
Colonial Middle School Prep $50,171.08
Woodbridge Middle School Prep $20,056.00
Milford Middle School Prep $34,091.70
Delmar Family & Community Engagement $49,001.78
Lake Forest Family & Community Engagement $2,919.36
Kuumba Academy Family & Community Engagement $28,809.81
Capital Family & Community Engagement Dover H.S. $49,889.00
Red Clay Family & Community Engagement $27,970.81
Christina Family & Community Engagement $47,088.65
Indian River Middle School Prep $78,610.00
Appoquinimink Middle School Prep $29,023.21
Lake Forest Middle School Prep $34,606.00
Red Clay Middle School Prep $145,794.00
Christina William B. Keene Elementary School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Newark Charter School – School Based Bonuses $41,250.00
Indian River John M. Clayton Elementary School Based Bonuses $41,250.00
CR DAFB Middle School -School Based Bonuses $49,979.90
Cape Henlopen-Shields Elementary -School Based Bonuses $49,999.00
Kuumba Academy-School Based Bonuses $17,663.67
CR-Stokes Elementary-School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Milford-Morris Elementary-School Based Bonuses $41,009.68
Indian River-Showell Elementary-School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Appoquinimink High School-School Based Bonuses $17,500.00
Capital-South Dover Elementary-School Based Bonuses $41,250.00
Indian River-Lord Baltimore Elementary-School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Laurel School District -School Based Bonuses $48,928.59
Brandywine-Mount Pleasant Elementary School Based Bonuses $49,710.00
Cape Henlopen-Beacon Middle School -School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Smyrna-School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Cape Henlopen-Rehoboth Elementary School Based Bonuses $49,993.07
Brandywine-Hanby Elementary School Based Bonuses $49,901.00
Wilmington Charter – School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Indian River – Georgetown Elementary School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Indian River – Georgetown Middle School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Indian River – Long Neck Elementary School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Lake Forest -East Elementary School Based Bonuses $48,898.78
Lake Forest – South Elementary School Based Bonuses $49,958.00
NCCVT-St. George’s Technical High School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Capital – North Dover Elementary School Based Bonuses $17,500.00
Sussex Academy School Based Bonuses $41,250.00
Christina-Elbert-Palmer Elementary School Based Bonuses $40,639.34
Christina – R. Elisabeth Maclary Elementary School Based Bonuses $41,245.11
Appo-Middletown High School Based Bonuses $17,435.00
Colonial – Carrie Downie Elementary School Based Bonuses $47,830.65
Lake Forest- Lake Forest North Elementary School Based Bonuses $41,177.36
Caesar Rodney-W.B. Simpson Elementary School Based Bonuses $50,000.00
Indian River-East Millsboro Elementary School Based Bonuses $49,708.00

Other Items Not Specifically Categorized:

Next Generation Science Standards $41,430.50
Common Ground for Common Core $57,777.20
DE-TELL Survey $- ?
Strategic Data Proj SOW $- ?
Unallocated LEA funds (will be disbursed in years 3 and 4)

Grand Total: $100,331,556.52