Study: High school graduation data exaggerated

[Judi Lynn]

Posted 12/22/2003 8:06 PM

Study: High school graduation data exaggerated
By Fredreka Schouten, Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — Many states dramatically overestimate the number of students who graduate from high school, a study by an education advocacy group reported Monday.

North Carolina topped the list of states that the Education Trust says overstated graduation rates. The state told the federal government that more than 92% of its public school students graduated in 2002. The Education Trust says fewer than two-thirds of the state's students graduated.

States also reported wide variations in graduation rates, from a high of 97% in South Dakota to just 63.7% in Nevada.

All 50 states had to report graduation rates to the U.S. Department of Education this year under the requirements of a sweeping school-reform law that President Bush signed in January 2002.
(snip)

(snip) "Many states are severely underreporting the number of students who are not successfully graduating from high school, and this undermines their ability to address the problem," said Kevin Carey, a senior policy analyst with the Education Trust, which lobbies on behalf of poor and minority children.
(snip/...)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-12-23-graduation-usat_x.htm

[izzie]

1. Where is the data? I was looking for this a week or so ago.

I read in the paper that Maine had the highest rate and this is a poor state and I wondered about this. It also said that in college education we were with the NE states but way down in the North of the State. So that must mean the Southern part is very high to bring up the ave. And of course young people leave Maine for better pay.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. And you're forgetting

those who graduate but didn't learn anything. My dear husband, who is quite smart but was a troublemaker who questioned authority, was told by one teacher, "Don't waste my time and yours. Stay away from class and I'll give you a D." The only thing he learned was that the system was corrupt.

[MrPrax]

3. Is this because of the 'business' approach

Isn't one of the 'target-goals' of the No Child Left Behind program. Place incentives into the 'model' to graduate (give them a piece of paper) the kids, in order to keep funding and to keep from losing funding...

OTOH, not graduating really destroys a young person's self-confidence and let's face it, do you really need your HS to work a fryer or a gas pump?

The problem is systemic...

[salin]

4. States and districts have long had problems reporting dropout/grad

data. There is no consistency in reporting. Some include those who drop out and later get a GED as "graduating" - even though earning wise those who earn a GED over a life time mirror more closely those who drop out than the earning patterns of those with a high school diploma.

Many other 'tricks' used, including keeping kids who stop attending officially enrolled (but failing) until the end of the school year... then just not enrolling them the next year with 'status unkown' ... and ONLY counting kids who actually come in and officially "drop out" (eg paper work) as actual dropouts.

[jmcgowanjm]

5. I'm an adult educator (or was, state budget cuts)

GED's were the tests that would be administered
to HS seniors to show they had mastered
curriculum.

Also SpecEd teachers are under intense pressure
to "graduate" students.

[salin]

6. The two are distinct

two types of adult ed... earning credits and a diploma (night school) or the short-cut of basic mastery = GED; which is different than state tests now required for students to pass to graduate. The former requires more broad knowledge, more time, etc than the latter. The former is more frequently an avenue to higher education (adult students come back, get the credits not previously earned, earn diploma, go on to college - often on a part time basis.) The latter often segues into some training vocational program, but I believe the rate of four year degrees is very low. To count the two options as the same, or as "high school graduation" does both the students, and the education institutions trying to determine 'success' (and areas to invest more energy/$ into for improvement), a disservice.

I have worked with dropouts, with students about to dropout, and externally with those working in adult education. The difference is the individual educators in GED programs that are most successful - where the instructors work with students to increase aspirations and work to actualize the accomplishment as a stepping stone to higher education. It does happen, but often due to the individuals working the program rather than the GED itself (eg the GED as an end does not equate to better employment/career or educational opportunities.) This is borne out to be true in life-times earning studies that look at the earnings over a life time of dropouts, GED earners, high school graduates and college graduates. The little discussed thing is that GED earners earn - over a lifetime - much more like drop outs (just a tad more) than they do like high school graduates. This is likely for the reason stated above - that alone the degree/certification does not open doors. Only those programs that intentionally work with its students to open the doors upon earning the GED - lead to greater opportunities.

For states to mask dropout rates by including GED earners (as they do in my state of Indiana), is to grossly hide the real picture. Some districts and schools work to encourage students they find hard to educate (either discipline wise, or low motivation or low skills) to drop out and reenroll in a GED program. But the 'alternative' service (the GED) while it makes the schools' job easier, does not provide the same end results to the student. There was a terrific book written by Michelle Fine that demonstrates along with "dropout" their are often mechanisms in schools to intentionally pushout students.

No Child Left Behind will do nothing but escalate the desire of schools to do more of this - as it will remove students thought to lower test score averages from the general school testing population. It serves us all poorly in the long run.

I applaud your work. I do not mean to demean alternative programs (having been an alternative educator myself.) Sometimes it is the only option available to individuals - and with the right teachers the programs can change lives. My beef is with the institutions which treat these avenues as equal in terms of making their 'statistics' look good, but in doing so - limit the educational opportunities and possibilities for some of its students.

I agree the NCLB also puts pressure on Special Ed programs that can lead to educational decisions that do not serve the long-term educational interests of each child. Such a misnomer for that ugly piece of legislation.

I am sorry to hear about your job. It is hard to watch public policy drift to where the first cuts tend to be those in the greatest need.

[tsakshaug]

7. Depends on how to count

Different states count graduation rates differently and have done so historicaly. A tradional method was to not count a student until they entered 10th grade, an age at which students would drop out in agricultural communities. Some states continue this. More states, with pressure from NCLB are counting from 1st grade, which really changes up the numbers.
Not all states count special ed studetns in their graduation rates, some do. Then the question is what level do you not count the student?
Some allow, as has been noted, counting students that have reiceved GEDs as graduates.
The numbers can be moved around any way you want them to be.