Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attendance Incentive topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears proposal to pilot 'Rain' incentive program to boost attendance; questions about $58,000 Title I cost
Summary
Administrators proposed a Rain positive behavior incentive system to lift attendance, describing vendor claims of attendance gains and an annual district cost of about $58,000 to be paid from Title I; board members requested vendor data and sustainability details.
Administrators presented Rain, a vendor-built positive behavior incentive platform that syncs to district data and offers student rewards, as a low-lift way to encourage attendance and behavior.
According to the presenter, vendor materials claim an 8% year-over-year attendance increase and a 7% reduction in chronic absenteeism among partner schools. The vendor’s pricing described at the meeting totaled about $10 per student plus $5,000 per school; the presenter estimated an annual district cost of roughly $58,000 for a universal rollout and described potential student-facing incentives with a combined market value the vendor characterized as up to $630,000.
Board members asked whether the program would tie rewards to attendance only or include grades, how a digital storefront and drawings for event tickets would work, and whether the district could sustain annual costs. One board member said, "The cost is what I'm concerned about. $58,000." The presenter said the district planned to use Title I funds for the pilot year and agreed to ask the vendor for detailed pricing breakdowns, evidence of local (Chicagoland) usage and data on program longevity and outcomes.
Members also discussed targeting rollouts by grade and whether universal rollout might be preferable to avoid perceived inequity between classes. Staff agreed to return with vendor-specific details, comparisons with local schools that have used Rain, and clarification of Title I eligibility for the expenditure.
No vote was taken. The board asked staff to obtain additional vendor information and cost/impact analyses before a decision.
