HMB High’s dropout rate soars under new reporting system


Posted by on Tue, July 22, 2008

 border=
Chart by Jonathan Lundell

More accurate tracking and counting methods have resulted in substantially higher reported dropout rates for California schools. CUSD’s reported dropouts rose from 10 in 2005-06 to 49 in 2006-07.

From the Sacramento Bee’s July 17 story:

A new high school dropout report released Wednesday shows significantly higher rates of students leaving public school in California than reported in previous years.

In the past, dropout counts were self-reported by schools and districts. In many places, the figures were considered serious undercounts, especially when compared with the rates of freshmen who actually graduated with their classes four years later.

[State Superintendent] O’Connell said the new system was designed to make better sense of transfers.

In the past, he said, when students left schools saying they were switching to another campus, their schools counted them as transfers, not dropouts, without checking if the students actually re-enrolled elsewhere. With the new student tracking system, the state was able to determine whether such transfers took place.

The newly released Half Moon Bay High School 2006-07 numbers show 313 seniors and 239 graduates, a loss of 74, with 49 reported dropouts, a 15.6% dropout rate (27% among Hispanic students).

By contrast, in 2005-06, the last school year under the old system, the preliminary report shows a senior class of 323 students, 272 graduates, and only 10 dropouts, a 3% dropout rate.

Not all the missing graduates dropped out; some simply failed to meet their graduation requirements, including the required exit exam, and some of those may yet graduate.

The accompanying graph shows reported dropout rates for the most recent six years (through 2006-07) for CUSD, San Mateo County, and California as a whole.

Enrollment, dropout and other school-related statistics are available at Ed-Data and CDE’s DataQuest site.

NOTE: Coastsider called CUSD Superintendent Rob Gaskill for comment, but he didn’t call us back before our 5pm deadline. We’ll post an update when we hear from him.


The chart seems to give a wildly inaccurate impression—suggesting that something happened in the past year that caused a sharp spike in dropouts when in fact it is just an artifact of the change in methods.

The point should be not that the dropout rate has increased but that the dropout rate has always been much higher than admitted (making some assumptions about the missing data).

It would be nice to include data about kids who are “dropouts” only because they haven’t passed the test so we can better compare a recent year (which has testing requirements) with an older year (without testing requirements).

Finally, I assume that economic and other factors which vary from year to year might have an affect on how many immigrant high schoolers return to their home country—given the high percentage of such kids in our schools that movement might play an important role in the data—giving the impression that our schools are failing when in fact other factors may be more dominant.

—Darin

Darin,

That’s why the chart is labeled *reported* dropout rate; see the first paragraph of the text, not to mention the rest of the article. I think it’s fairly obvious that dropouts have been grossly underreported, and more so in this district than across the state.

My understanding is that students who simply fail to graduate are not counted as dropouts. Perhaps Supt Gaskill can confirm.

I’m sure there’s variation from year to year, though overall Hispanic enrollment has steadily increased for at least the last 15 years. And if you care to follow the links, you’ll see a similar dropout-reporting pattern among white students. CUSD reported a white dropout rate of 0.0% in 2003-04; 9.1% in 2006-07.

The basic message is this: we have a much higher dropout rate, across all ethnic subgroups, than has been reported in the past. Whether the district is failing depends, I suppose, on your standards for success.

Basically, the new data confirms what Ken Johnson ( http://cusd.info/ ) has been saying for several years, and refutes what CUSD officials have been sayng for several years.

Jonathan and I both served on the CUSD strategic planning team for academic achievment back in 2005. During those planning meetings it was repeatedly claimed by CUSD officials that HMB high school dropout rates were extremely low and nothing to worry about.

At the time, Ken Johnson presented data to then-CUSD Superintendant John Bayless which compared the number of entering freshman at HMBHS to the actual number of graduating seniors 4 years later. The figures proved that the dropout rate was way higher than CUSD’s official figures. Bayless and the elected CUSD trustees ignored Ken’s analysis.

I’m not exactly in the habit of saying anything good about CUSD, but the way that I read Jonathan’s charts, under the new reporting method CUSD’s dropout rate is the same percentage as San Mateo County, and CUSD’s dropout rate is a lower percentage than California’s.  Previously CUSD’s under-reporting was more severe than the other groupings.  Am I missing something?

In any case, all of the dropout rates shown under the new reporting system are appallingly high.  If I had to guess, I’d guess that the actual dropout rate from my (public) high school class of 500 was probably near zero.

Well, Leonard, you needn’t worry—saying that CUSD’s dropout rate is as bad as California’s or San Mateo’s generally isn’t saying anything particularly good about the district.

Let me say a word about the “point” of the piece. The new dropout report method and the big jump in reported rates has been making a statewide splash. My intention was simply to look at the local specifics of the statewide story.

If I were to editorialize, I guess I’d start with Kevin’s observation, that the district has been in public denial about high school dropouts, and the numbers suggest (and this actually surprised me) that the denial was worse at CUSD than elsewhere, even though the actual dropout rates were similar. I’d also point out that the district has been claiming a remarkably high rate of passing the high school exit exam, and that this claim doesn’t look quite so impressive when dropouts are added to the mix.

Hopefully, the new data itself will eventually motivate everyone concerned to do something about it.

The graph is still misleading—it essentially mixes data types—the “reported drop out rate” prior to the last column is a different beast than the “reported drop out rate” in the last column.

Oh, what would Edward Tufte say!

In any event, if we really want to address the problem we need to dive a bit deeper into the data. Here is the chart that I think Jonathan is referring to:

http://tinyurl.com/6s49o3

And what jumps out is that three fourths of the drop outs are Hispanic (29 out of the 39)—keeping in mind that along the coast here “Hispanic” is almost 100% correlated to other demographic categories (income, language, etc).

So that is interesting.

One question that is raised is when you adjust the chart using the pull-down menu to show the dropouts by exit code it isn’t immediately obvious how they got to 39. My rough count from that display is roughly 29 dropouts by the standards I would normally use for the phrase “dropout.”

Does anyone have the list of codes that comprise “dropouts” according to the reports?

—Darin

Again, Darin, that’s the whole point: a change to the reporting method (presumably to a more accurate one) produced a big change in the reported data.  And while the new method indeed represents “a different beast”, our school district (and the rest of California’s school districts) have been presenting the old numbers as the “dropout rate”.

I think it’s safe to assume that we’ve had a substantially higher dropout rate than we’ve seen reported over the years. We can also agree that the rate is higher for Hispanics, ELLs and poor students, though the 9.1% rate for white students is hardly comforting.

At this point, I’m not really sure what you’re objecting to. Dropouts have been historically underreported. When we look at numbers that are closer to reality, they’re unacceptably high, across all subgroups but especially for Hispanic students.

I hope you’re not suggesting that our response should be, “no problem, they must have all gone back to Mexico.”

The new method relies on data that simply wasn’t being collected before, so there’s no way to develop comparable numbers for prior years.

The headline and the text make it clear that the reason the *reported* dropout rate has soared is that the reporting system has changed. Jonathan worked hard to place the CUSD numbers in the state & county context to make certain it was clear that this is not a strictly local problem.

However, there is an open question as to why CUSD’s historical reported rate was half that of San Mateo County generally, when the new, more accurate numbers show that its dropout rate is exactly the same as the county’s.

I agree with Darin that the next questions are, “Why is this happening and what do we do about it?”

>>The headline and the text make it clear that the reason the reported dropout rate has soared is that the reporting system has changed.<<

But my point is that the *graphic* is not clear and is, perhaps, misleading.

The problem’s root is a confusion over language. We are using “dropout rate” in a sort of common English usage way and then using it again to refer to not one but two different statistical indices.

If you name the indices differently—call the earlier one “Bayless rates” and the new one “Gaskill Rates” then the issue becomes clear—putting a Bayless rate next to a Gaskill rate on a bar graph does not imply that anything has soared or changed—they are different measures.

Yes, you can read the text to see what the chart is *supposed* to be showing—but then what is the point of the chart?

As Jonathan points out in his comment:

>>The new method relies on data that simply wasn’t being collected before, so there’s no way to develop comparable numbers for prior years.

Which is exactly my point. The numbers are not comparable. But yet they are being compared.

As for the larger issues, I’ve tried again and again to flesh out specifics when these discussions have come up over the years with little luck.

I would love to know from CUSD critics and political opponents what *exactly* they feel is being done incorrectly—teaching methods? Poor management (in what way)? Or what?—that is leading to these outcomes.

It would also be nice to hear specific suggestions for change to address these problems.

As it stands (putting the graphic aside) the article only goes as far as to say something akin to “CUSD has long underreported dropout rates—now the truth is revealed”—which I’m not sure gets us very far in terms of an action plan.

—Darin

I encouraged Jonathan to post this because I wanted to start looking at the demographics and data on the Coastside generally, and this was a good opportunity to get started.  We’re a long way from a complete analysis, and if we waited for one, nothing would happen. This is the beginning of a long conversation.

This dropout rate is [roughly consistent with the US average][1], according to the US Dept of Ed:

In 2007, some 87 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds had received a high school diploma or equivalency certificate. This rate has remained between 85 and 88 percent over the last 30 years.

However, I would expect California’s rate to be at or below the US average and our relatively affluent county to be better than that. I’m not certain whether I’d expect CUSD to beat the county.


  [1]: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2008/section3/indicator25.asp#info

This seems like a really tough issue to deal with and something way beyond the level of our school board.  There are social issues and parenting issues at work here.

My main involvement over the past 12-15 years has been as a parent.  I’m surprised to hear all the knocks against the school board but all my attention has been with the teachers for my 2 boys who graduated in 01 and 05. 

I have been really impressed with the quality and caring nature of the teachers.  Some have been outstanding.

My only dealings with the administrations have been at back to school nights and graduations so you can’t get anything from that.

What would be interesting and would get to the root of the problem would be to interview students and teachers to find out why this is happening. Then we can find make adjustments and solve the problem.

I would venture to say that if the parents take interest in their kids,  they will do well and prosper.

It would also be nice to focus on the positive aspects cause many kids do well here and the teachers are great.

Steve Hyman:

What would be interesting and would get to the root of the problem would be to interview students and teachers to find out why this is happening. Then we can find make adjustments and solve the problem.

That, I think, is the real value of getting these numbers right. As long as they were being swept under the rug, there was little incentive to fix the problem. As the old B-school adage goes, you can’t manage what you don’t measure.

I’m not too worried about focusing on the positive aspects; the district itself has always done a fine job of getting that word out.

There’s one positive aspect that I do think is worth focusing on, and I hope the district is doing so. El Granada’s English-language learners have been performing substantially better on their English language arts tests than have those at Farallone View or Hatch. Do we know why? Is it something the other sites can learn from and replicate? I have no idea, but I hope that the question is being urgently asked over on Kelly Ave.

As a product of the local school system… from what I observe and observed, is the dropouts came/come from lack of family value/ethics/discipline/etc… not nickel and diming on English scores and math competency, and “what have you done for my kid lately Mr District Superintendent”. Economic and language barriers is just folly, nee the Southeast Asian families of San Jose of 5 years or less in the US, or the plethora of Indian and Pakistani families in South Fremont.

Poor management? Teaching methods??... lordy. Look at the spectrum and evolution of education methodologies and programs in place nowadays vs the 60s and 70s,... are you kidding me?

Stop looking to the government/the system to fix everything and quit armchair quarterbacking them at every detail, ... unless you want the socialist/communist literacy and success rates of China or Cuba (wouldn’t shock me that Coastal socialism isn’t a stretch round these parts).

Catcher in the Rye, Pi-R-squared, The Maginot Line, a 50-yard dash, the atomic number of Beryllium, playing nice at recess, ROYGBIV… has all this changed on me????

>>I would venture to say that if the parents take interest in their kids, they will do well and prosper.

Steve…agree, but it is more than a “venture”... it is PARAMOUNT.

The solution is in the community and family hood, not with tweaking and constant auditing of the monolithic educational systems, strapped by the protectionist unions and the CTA.

It’s not armchair quarterbacking for district residents—or parents like you and me, Kevin—to keep on top of what’s happening in the district.

It’s the knowledge that this information is being shared and discussed in the community that keeps the board and its superintendent on their toes.

“El Granada’s English-language learners have been performing substantially better on their English language arts tests than have those at Farallone View or Hatch. Do we know why? Is it something the other sites can learn from and replicate? I”

It is not as simple as test scores by school.  Farrallone View has the newcomer’s class, a class set up because of Proposition 227, where you get only one year to learn English before you are mainstreamed.  Those kids take the state tests in English, even if they don’t understand a word of it.

Hatch used to have a bilingual program(not sure if they still do).  The ESL kids there are mostly from Moonridge (across from the gated community) and many are/where in this program.  So they start school in Kinder learning both English and Spanish.  Again, kids take tests in English and may not understand much of what they read.  Trust me, I have seen this.  The fact that we make kids take a test in English, especially if they can’t read a word of it, is just absurd.  Even a genuis will fail a test if it is in a different unknown language.

As to drop out rates…Why do some have to always say that CUSD is doing worse.  I mean some of you can’t EVER find anything positive to say about the school district.

And from a parent perspective, former sub, and former student teacher, the staff and parents hardly have anything to do with the board.  Teachers teach state standards, use books authorized by the state, and grade based on state standards.  The board really has nothing to do with this.  They decide where some money goes, but most of it has already been designated by the state for specific things.  The only school board member I saw was Ms. Shears because we have kids the same age.  She was very involved, much more than many of those who like to bash her and the other board members.  She was always at Back to School night, Open House, etc. etc.

You are all judging from afar and it is very frustrating.  How many of you actually work or volunteer at the schools?  Bunch of armchair quarterbacks!

I agree that the school board deserves little credit or blame for academic performance in the district; it’s largely a function of staff and state law, and the board doesn’t have much to say about it.

The point of the dropout rate reporting reform is that school districts, including (especially, it seems) CUSD, have been underreporting dropouts. Hopefully that’s fixed (the reporting, that is, not the rate, which obviously isn’t fixed).

I think you’re mistaken, Aime, on the question of FV’s mainstreaming. The tests I’m referring to are for ELA (English Language Arts); they’re administered to all students in English—of course. It has nothing to do with mainstreaming. The point is that EG’s English learners have been doing remarkably well on the ELA tests, and I think it’d be useful to find out why. You may believe that the EG staff doesn’t deserve credit for their remarkable progress, and you may be right, but I think it’s worthwhile to find out.

WOW Thanks for putting words in my mouth!  Where did I imply that, “the EG staff doesn’t deserve credit for their remarkable progress.”

Having student taught AT El Granada and probably having spent far more time there than you I am fully aware of how hard the teachers work! 

My point was the differences in communities.  Those who post here don’t seem to be at all aware of the actual groups of children who go to these schools.  EG has a different group of ESL students than the other schools.  Less newcomers, more bilingual students.  Just as Hatch has more newcomers because the students at that school are often students of farm workers.

As to drop out rates, that is a state wide problem in statistacal reporting. But as to why kids drop out - different reasons.  The class of 2008 (my son’s) had a lot of kids drop out, drugs, poor grades, etc. “It seemed like there wasn’t enough kids who wanted to be there,” said my kid.  This group of students was proud of their lack of spirit.  They even joked about it at graduation. 

I think that drop out rates will change, year to year, depending on the group of students.

My point was the differences in communities. Those who post here don’t seem to be at all aware of the actual groups of children who go to these schools. EG has a different group of ESL students than the other schools. Less newcomers, more bilingual students. Just as Hatch has more newcomers because the students at that school are often students of farm workers.

That’s interesting to hear, and I’d like to follow it up. Can you point me, please, to the data you’re using? I’ve been trying to find data like that, and haven’t been able to come up with anything but different observers’ hunches and intuitions. I’d be very glad to see something more concrete.

One reason I find it such an interesting story is that, until 3-4 years ago, El Granada’s ELL ELA proficiency was the worst of the three sites. Since then, EG has made a lot of progress, but the other two sites have remained essentially flat. So you must be saying that the demographic differences at EG appeared only in the last 3-4 years.

As for your words-in-my-mouth question, I think you might be trying to have it both ways. If you’re suggesting that the difference in performance between the schools is explained by demographics, then it seems to me that you’re discounting the possibility that the staff might have found a better way.

It might be that my conclusion is over-optimistic, and that nothing the staff tries will make any difference, compared to demographic influences. I’d like to think not.

You could be right about year-to-year variations in dropout rates; however, the graduation numbers have been fairly consistent, year to year, so I’m a little doubtful on that score.

Jonathan,
Great first step in dispelling the myths and lies promulgated by CUSD.

Now determine the true picture.

It has been entertaining to hear CUSD blame CDE, California Department of Education, for ‘reporting excesses’. The truth is that CDE has been brought forward kicking and screaming since NCLB was passed to provide accurate reporting. Finally, CDE was threatened with withholding all Federal Funds, the State is somewhat coming around - it is still severely under reporting the problem!

It has been no secret nationally of the Dropout Crisis. See “Dropouts in California: Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis” Civil Rights Project at Harvard [now at UCLA] in 2005. Or Rand: “California Lags Nation in Tracking Students’ Educational Progress” 2008 etc.

As you accurate conclude, CUSD has been one of the most egregious in underreporting! “The most egregious in underreporting” translates to non-pc as lying!

You wrote:
“Not all the missing graduates dropped out; some simply failed to meet their graduation requirements, including the required exit exam, and some of those may yet graduate.”

I understand your desire in your article to be fair to CUSD, in spite of their efforts to misinform the public, yet

If you consider that ‘kindly ole Superintendent Bayless’ recommended that no fifth year, an additional year of high school, be offered to complete requirements, and the School Board agreed - the students ‘disappeared’.  Apparently they put all their belongings on their bicycles and snuck over the border then snuck back into the US and reappeared in HMB. Add Bayless’ statement that all the students who were to take the exit exam passed it. I think you can conclude that not too many “may yet graduate” and the dropout rate is closer to a 23.6% rate than to the stated 15.7% rate!

If you look at the ‘exit codes’ and the number of students and then imagine that there is no verification of most of them; it is easy to imagine how a system might be manipulated.

A point to consider:  South San Francisco Unified has fewer dollars per student and a more challenging demographic and yet they have half of the CUSD dropout rate!

Ken Johnson

Kevin Lansing,

Thanks. Stories you can’t read in the Review.

It was difficult to get the attention of Bayless and the elected CUSD trustees about the dropout problem when they simply didn’t give a damn about the kids.

Anyone out there understand why CUSD is still paying Bayless nearly a year after he resigned and left?

Ken Johnson

Darin Boville,

You are ‘nitpicking’ Jonathan about chart appearance and ignoring the information. I am surprised, after CUSD destroyed your credibility, that you are still an apologist for them.

” Video: Farallone View not in Program Improvement”
OR
Other discrepancies in presentation.

The truth - Farallone View Elementary: “PI Status:  In PI - Year 1” according to California Department of Education.

Did you ever question your favorite FV Principal any where as intensively as you criticized Jonathan about her numerous erroneous statements she had made on the tape?? WHY NOT?
I am not yet blaming your favourite Principal - I would like to know where she got her erroneous information before judging!

MYTHS:
You keep referring to “immigrant”; let’s look at the real numbers:
” English Learners Enrolled in School in the U.S. Less Than 12 Months”
2007 grades 2-11 = 27 students or 1%
as this accounts for ALL non English speaking immigrants in 2007 this means that the “new” Latinos to CUSD were less than or equal to 27
- hardly an impact upon the district. Our “English learners” are primarily born here. The children of former CUSD students?

In 2006, CUSD finally ‘improved’ to 50% [how sad is that?] of our local
“English learners”, students who had attended CUSD K-11, were classified FEP, Fluent English Proficient!

The Coastside has the least effective ESL programs in the County.

Ken Johnson

Steve Hyman,

WHAT - of course the School Board is responsible! They decide on the final school budget, how money is spent and the priorities, hired the new superintendent who has no background in his CV for our district’s needs, “Cunha [non]  Plan”, politicizing the school board, disinterest in academic achievement, etc…

You must be expecting a great payday from commissions selling off CUSD property to cover their fiscal mismanagement.

otoh, we do agree that we have some great teachers - fewer each year, as they get tired of the ‘Kabal’

Ken Johnson

The Graduation Rate Crisis is a tragedy. Not simply for the kid, or their parents but for society in general.

Beyond all the usual social costs, from reading the comments by others, there is a lack of appreciation that it is the highest group within the ‘gifted’ that are most likely to dropout - especially in a district like CUSD. They will be ‘diagnosed’ as ADHD or simply as disruptive. The truth is that they ARE BORED - sometimes, literally to the point of screaming out.

It is not likely, among the 1%, is another Dr. Stephen Hawking but then again…

Ken Johnson

>>I am surprised, after CUSD destroyed your credibility, that you are still an apologist for them.<<

My credibility has not suffered at all, Ken. I’m surprised at your zealotry and your personal attack.

—Darin

About a week after Jonathan’s story ran, I got a call from Superintendent Rob Gaskill. He was apologetic for being so late to call, but it turns out it had the wrong number.

Superintendent Gaskill told me that it has been CUSD’s practice to interview all students leaving school and that when they give the name of the school they will be attending or ask to have their transcripts mailed, they are treated as transfers. This isn’t an unreasonable assumption, but it turns out to be wrong.

Superintendent Gaskill says that the district “has to do a lot more when a student says he’s moving to another district”

I think CUSD (and other districts) suspected the dropout rates were too low, based on the declines they would see in class size from freshman to senior year, but didn’t have a lot of incentive to figure out why this was happening.

Darin,

Maybe my comment was ‘excessive’; yet

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”  [Goldwater’s 1964 Acceptance Speech]

Statement of facts:

Children were denied legally mandated support services at Farallone View last year!

You aired a “video, shot on October 2nd at out local [Farallone View] PTA meeting” on your site erroneously explaining the justification.

31Oct07 CDE confirmed:  Farallone View Elementary: “PI Status:  In PI - Year 1”

04 Nov 2007 - You put on Coastsider: ” Video: Farallone View not in Program Improvement”

05 Nov 2007 8:21am [on your thread] I commented on the factual inaccuracies in the video with a   link to:

05 Nov 2007 08:41am [on a parallel thread] I commented in detail on the factual inaccuracies in the video providing links to CDE FACTUAL information that refute the video’s content.

Apparently you AGAIN missed the questions above: Let me repeat:

Did you ever question your favorite Farallone View Principal, any where as intensively as you criticized Jonathan, about her numerous erroneous statements she had made on the tape?? WHY NOT? I am not yet blaming your favourite Principal - I would like to know where she got her erroneous information before judging!

Farallone View has some great teachers who deserve support.

I am still waiting, since 5 November 2007, for some explanation of your ‘disinformation’ campaign!

My intention is not a “personal attack” - it is a friendly ‘intervention’, to get you to face your problem with factually recognizing CUSD’s shortcomings.

Ken Johnson

Barry,

Thanks for the information. There is hope that Superintendent Gaskill will be more forthcoming than former Superintendent Bayless.

Bayless claimed he had confirmed what had happened with every departing student—he never claimed he had accurately reported it to the State.

Ken Johnson

>>I am still waiting, since 5 November 2007, for some explanation of your ‘disinformation’ campaign!

My intention is not a “personal attack” - it is a friendly ‘intervention’, to get you to face your problem with factually recognizing CUSD’s shortcomings.

Ken Johnson<<

Ken,

I don’t have time to get in a pissing match, nor the interest. You seem convinced that you are the one and only bearer of the truth and yet I’m puzzled that I don’t see you making more use of this gift outside of the chat boards.

I also remain puzzled why you have taken this hostile and inappropriate tone toward me—it certainly falls well below, in my opinion, the standards of behavior promoted by Coastsider.

Finally, readers will want to include in Ken’s “timeline” at least two more data points near to the point of the video.

First is the public announcement (a few days before the video) by the principal at Farallone View that the school was not in Program Improvment:

http://www.cabrillo.k12.ca.us/faralloneview/API_AYP.html

Second is the report in the HMB Review that Farallone View had successfully appealed its designation as being in Program Improvement—this was published a fews days after the video:

http://hmbreview.com/articles/2007/10/18/news/local_news/story10.txt

Thus, as can easily be seen, in the real world the sequence of events and perhaps much else is more complicated than Ken would have us believe.

—Darin

Darin,

That you took it personally is sufficient for me to offer an apology to a friend.

I feel passionately about education and a dropout as a tragedy for all!

As the majority agrees that there is a problem in the dropout rate of CUSD, it is time to look to solutions for me. When I did ‘turnarounds’, I never bought into the ‘not invented here’ philosophy. Identify what is working and where things were not working look to resources to change it.

As I wrote earlier: South San Francisco Unified has fewer dollars per student and a more challenging demographic and yet they have half of the CUSD dropout rate! And it seems like everyone not on the coastside has a more effective ELL program.

More later,
Ken Johnson