Upper Darby reviews district-supported dual-enrollment options from NEON and Delaware County Community College

A committee meeting of the Upper Darby School District Education and People Service Committee heard on a pair of proposals aimed at expanding access to college credit for high school students.

Mr. Finch, the district presenter, said dual enrollment is credit-bearing college coursework that recent studies associate with higher college enrollment, persistence and completion, and framed the district’s goal as shifting from an open, family-paid model to district-supported options that reduce costs for families and broaden participation. "Dual enrollment changes how a student sees themself," Mr. Finch said, arguing the experience can make college feel attainable for students who might not otherwise consider it.

Two implementation models were described. Steve Sandak of the National Education Opportunity Network (NEON) presented a blended model that embeds full university syllabi and recorded lectures into high-school classes. NEON’s model pairs a local co-teacher (a district educator who facilitates in-person sessions) with a university teaching fellow who joins virtually; NEON reported that about "80% of our scholars will pass their courses and earn those official transcripts." Sandak said NEON charges a per-student-per-course fee that districts pay and that the program emphasizes co-teacher professional development and scaffolded supports.

Delaware County Community College (DCCC) manager of admissions Isabelle Wadow described three DCCC approaches: open dual enrollment (student-initiated), college-in-the-high-school (local faculty hired as adjuncts) and structured pathway cohorts. DCCC’s structured pathways pair guaranteed classes with dedicated advising and can lead to certificates, associate degrees or transfer credits. Wadow noted a discounted rate for Upper Darby students of $72 per credit and said certain pathway slots can be grant funded through local Delaware County Council grants, though not all courses will be covered by grants.

Board members pressed presenters on funding, modality and student supports. On funding, NEON said districts typically draw on local sources such as Title funds to cover NEON fees and explicitly said the per-student fee is not intended to be passed to families. On modality, Sandak clarified NEON’s approach is blended—recorded lectures plus in-person co-teacher facilitation and scheduled live virtual sessions with a teaching fellow—and that district co-teachers and NEON provide supports intended to drive the program’s reported pass rate.

Enrollment thresholds and cohort sizes were also discussed. NEON reported a maximum class size of 30; district scheduling rules set a practical minimum of about 25 students per section, producing a 25–30 window for NEON courses in Upper Darby. DCCC said structured pathways typically run with minimum cohorts around 12 and can combine partner schools to meet numbers. Panelists and district leaders warned that accurate cost projections depend on final course mix and student interest to be measured during the high school course selection process.

Speakers also addressed transferability and special education access. Presenters said DCCC credits are generally transferable and that structured pathways can yield certificates or associate degrees; they distinguished this from career-technical programs that may grant credentials but not college credit. For students with IEPs or gifted programs, DCCC and NEON described coordination with the district’s IEP teams and college disability services; DCCC said dual-enrolled students are treated as college students and therefore have access to college tutoring and accommodations.

District next steps are data-driven: the administration will work with NEON and DCCC to finalize potential course offerings, gauge student interest during course selection, produce enrollment projections, and develop cost estimates and an implementation plan for the 2026–27 school year. Mr. Finch said the district will not finalize funding decisions until it has clear student-interest numbers and scheduling alignment.

The presentation was informational; no action was taken. Board questions focused on ensuring equitable access, clarifying the distinction between program types, and confirming guidance counselor professional development and family outreach would accompany any rollout.