Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Slide 1_6_

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 23

									Are We (Finally) Approaching a Consensus on Graduation Rates?
Making Sense of the Data

Christopher B. Swanson Director, EPE Research Center Presentation for the 2008 Kids Count Conference Leadership Counts: Envisioning the Future Baltimore, Maryland – September 25, 2008

Graduation in the United States
A Nation in Crisis

3 in 10 students will not graduate this year
2.95 Million Graduates in 2008

4.18 Million
9th Graders in 2004-05

         

       

  
1.23 Million Nongraduates in 2008

 = Approximately
42,000 students

National Overview
 National Graduation Rate, Class of 2005 ♦ 70.6%
Top States
80% or higher
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Iowa New Jersey Pennsylvania Vermont Wisconsin

DC

Bottom States
60% or lower ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ District of Columbia Georgia Louisiana Nevada New Mexico South Carolina
Graduation Rate Class of 2005
90-100% 80-90% 70-80% 60-70% 50-60% Less than 50%

Slow, Steady Progress
 Five-Year Trend (2001 to 2005)

♦ 2.6% increase nationally
Most improved
(gain more than 7%)
♦ Florida ♦ Tennessee

Sharpest decline
(drop more than 7%) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ District of Columbia Louisiana Nevada New Mexico
DC

Graduation rates improved in 35 states

Change in Graduation Rate
2001 to 2005
Decrease (16) Increase 0.1 to 2.5% (15) Increase 2.6 to 5.0% (11) Increase more than 5.0% (9)

States Facing Tougher Accountability for Graduation Rates

Movement to Improve Graduation Rates
 National Governors Association
♦ 2005 – All 50 governors signed Graduation Rate Compact ♦ States agreed to work toward a more uniform and accurate method for calculating graduation rates

 U.S. Department of Education Creates New Method
♦ National Center for Education Statistics stopped using Leaver Rate methodology (2005) ♦ Introduced Average Freshman Graduation Rate as tracking tool at state and national levels

 Individual States Improve Data Systems and Methods
♦ Many states developing student tracking systems ♦ Several states are implementing new graduation rate methods

Recent Federal Action
 In April, the U.S. Secretary of Education announced proposed changes to the Title I regulations governing graduation accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act
♦ Calculation methods ♦ Stakes attached to graduation rates

 Why did this happen?

 What does it mean?

Proposed Title I Changes
 Methods
♦ National Governors Association Compact by 2012-13 ♦ Average Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) in interim

 Goals:
♦ Need for higher goals implied

 Improvement:
♦ "Continued and substantial improvement" required

 Disaggregation for AYP
♦ Required for specified subgroups ♦ Will be phased in
• State and district – 2008-09 • School level – 2012-13

Motivation for Federal Action
 Criticism has been mounting for years about
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Inconsistency in calculation methods Inaccuracies in published rates, for many states Low bars set for graduation goals Low expectations for improvement

 EPE Research Center conducted an analysis of state NCLB accountability plans to gauge current condition of state accountability
♦ Current as of May 2008

State Calculation Methods

DC

State Calculation Method
Leaver Cohort Persistence Composite

Large Discrepancies Common
35 30 25 20
NV 20

Percentage point difference between state-reported and CPI graduation rates (2005)

+31%
NM 31 NC 28

Average state: 12 percentage points higher than CPI
MI IN 17 TX KS 16 CA 16 16 15 SD RI CT TN 13 13 14 MN HI DC MD OR GA KY WV OK 12 12 12 12 WA IL 11 11 11 11 11 12 ID ME OH 10 11 NY MT MO NH 10 10 10 9 NE 9 9 9 NJ AR FL WI IA PA WY ND 8 8 8 8 8 8 VA VT 7 CO 7 7 7 7 6

SC 21

MS DE 23 24

15

10
5 0 -5 -10
AK -6

AZ 2 UT 3

-6%

Three states with no reported rate: Alabama, Louisiana, Massachusetts.

Graduation Targets (2007-08)

DC

Graduation Target for 2007-08
100% (0 states) 81-99% (16) 66-80% (24) 50-65% (8) No target (3)

100 80 60 40 20 0

95 50

IN TN NM ID AL SC UT MD MO MI FL KY NE CA WI DE WY WV SD PA NC MT MN HI RI AR NH KS IL OH ND VT MS AZ TX GA CT WA OR OK ME LA VA CO AK NY MA NV NJ IA DC

Final Graduation Targets (2013-14)

DC

Graduation Target for 2013-14
100% (5 states) 81-99% (19 states) 66-80% (18 states) 50-65% (5 states) No target (4 states)

Annual Improvement (2007-08)

DC

Improvement to Make AYP
Any improvement Uniform increase Based on AMO No decline N/A

Number of states

40 30 20 10 0

29 2
N/A

3
No decline

5
AMOs

12
Uniform increment Any improvement

Implications of Changes
 Methods
♦ Substantial change over current practice, likely to affect states significantly

 Goals
♦ States still choose targets ♦ Impact will depend on enforcement

 Improvement
♦ Regulatory language unclear ♦ Impact will depend on enforcement

 Disaggregation
♦ New requirement, significant impacts likely

Case Study - Indiana
 State law required adoption of new method for calculating high school graduation rates (2003)
♦ Based on student level data (cohort tracked over time) ♦ New rate incorporated into Annual Performance Reports starting with class of 2006

 Historical Method (1989-2005)
♦ Persistence Rate

HSPR y  1  DR y 3,9 * 1  DR y  2,10 * 1  DR y 1,11 * 1  DR y ,12











where:  New Method
♦ Four-Year Rate

DRyg 

Dyg E yg
ontime Gy

GRy 

9 E y first  ( In  Out) 3

Graduation Trends - Indiana
New method introduced

Case Study - Mississippi
 The state is working to phase in a new graduation rate calculation  Current method (aka "Traditional" rate)
♦ Based on aggregate-level data NOT student-level data ♦ Similar to Basic Completion Ratio but makes some adjustments for aggregate transfer and retention

 New Method (aka "Cohort" rate)
♦ Will be based on data from individually-tracked students

 Sufficient data are available to calculate the "Cohort" rate. However, the state continues to employ its "Traditional" calculation for accountability reporting
♦ (i.e., 2006-07 AYP Reports use Traditional method

Alternative Results - Mississippi
 The state education agency has released results of internal analyses showing differences in these two calculation methods

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center
 Diplomas Counts 2008
♦ Graduation policies for 2008 ♦ www.edweek.org/go/dc08

 Online only: National and State Graduation Reports
♦ www.edweek.org/go/dc08/sgb

 EdWeek Maps
♦ maps.edweek.org

 Education Counts
♦ www.edcounts.org

 Webinar and Chats
♦ Archives available online

Contact the EPE Research Center

Christopher B. Swanson
Director, EPE Research Center

By email: rcinfo@epe.org By phone: 301-280-3100

DIPLOMAS COUNT 2008

School to College
Can State P-16 Councils Ease the Transition?

with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation


								
To top