Latest News and Comment from Education

Show All

Thursday, May 14, 2015

2015 Building a Grad Nation Report | GradNation

2015 Building a Grad Nation Report | GradNation:



2015 Building a Grad Nation Report

PROGRESS AND CHALLENGE IN ENDING THE HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT EPIDEMIC
Released annually, by the Alliance for Excellent Education, America’s Promise Alliance,, Civic Enterprises, and the Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University, shows detailed progress toward the GradNation goal of a national on-time graduation rate of 90 percent by 2020.


Release Date: 

05/12/15
Introduction
According to the 2015 Building a Grad Nation report the national high school graduation rate hit a record high of 81.4 percent, and for the third year in a row, the nation remained on pace to meet the goal of 90 percent on-time graduation by 2020.
This sixth annual update on America’s high school dropout challenge shows that these gains have been made possible by raising graduation rates for groups of students that have traditionally struggled to earn a high school diploma.
The report also includes a comprehensive look at the  student groups and geographic areas that contribute to this progress and that will be key in meeting the 90 percent goal.
Continuing a pattern seen in earlier years, rates of improvement among states and large districts varied considerably between 2011 and 2013. Some districts, including those with a majority of low-income and minority students, made big improvements, while others lost ground.
This pattern indicates that high school graduation rates are not increasing because of broad national economic, demographic, and social trends. Rather, the constellation of leadership, reforms, and multi-sector efforts at state, district, and school levels drove this progress, and shows that with focus and concerted effort, graduation rates can be increased in every part of the country.
The 2015 Building a Grad Nation: Progress and Challenge in Ending the High School Dropout Epidemicreport is co-authored by John Bridgeland, Jennifer DePaoli and Erin Ingram of Civic Enterprises; and Robert Balfanz, Joanna Hornig Fox and Mary Maushard at the Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Education in partnership with John Gomperts and his team at America’s Promise and Bob Wise and his team at the Alliance for Excellent Education. The 2015 report is presented by lead sponsor AT&T, with supporting sponsorship from Target.
The GradNation campaign, led by America’s Promise, seeks to raise the national on-time graduation rate to 90 percent by 2020 and increase postsecondary enrollment and completion.
National Picture
The nation’s quest to achieve a 90 percent high school graduation rate by 2020 can be broken down into four quarters, with each five-year segment from 2001 to 2020 representing one quarter. During the current third-quarter (2011-2015), the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR)[1] became available for nearly all states, and it has been instrumental in showing where progress is being made and where challenges still exist.
2013 Overall Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) Map
Hover over any State for additional information.
Map Key


Though the challenge may seem large, to get to a 90 percent graduation rate for all students, the nation will need just 310,000 more graduates in the Class of 2020 than in the Class of 2013, which based on third-quarter progress, is obtainable.
As the third quarter comes to a close and the fourth and final quarter begins, the nation will need to double down on its efforts to increase graduation rate outcomes for low-income, minority, and special education students, and continue driving progress in big states and large school districts, where the majority of the country’s student population resides.
  • The latest state level 2012-13 Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) data revealed that 29 of the 50 states equaled or exceeded the national average of 81.4 percent and six states were within two percentage points of reaching the 90 percent goal. Fourteen states, with graduation rates between 69 and 78 percent, still have much further to go.
  • Hispanic/Latino and African American students are starting to close the graduation rate gap with their White student peers. Hispanic/Latino students – the fastest growing population of students – have made the greatest gains in the ACGR reporting era, improving 4.2 percentage points from 2011 to 2013. African American students also experienced significant improvement, rising 3.7 percentage points, from 67 percent in 2011 to 70.7 percent in 2013.
  • One reason for the continuing improvement in graduation rates among Hispanic/Latino and African American students is the decline in the number of high schools with low graduation rates, often referred to as “dropout factories.” There are now fewer than 1,200 of these schools nationwide and 1.5 million fewer students attending them, and the number of African American and Hispanic/Latino students in these schools has dropped below 20 and 15 percent, respectively.
  • Despite improvements, unacceptably low levels of minority, low-income, English-language learners, and special education students are graduating from high school.
  • Ten states increased their graduation rates by four percentage points or more from 2011-2013, while another 22 states made gains of 2 to 3.9 points. Unfortunately, 10 other states gained less than one percentage point or lost ground over the past three years.
Driver 1: Low-Income
The opportunity gap is real. Low-income students are graduating at a rate 15 percentage points behind their more affluent peers. The growth and spread of concentrated poverty in our schools and neighborhoods has enormous consequences for the nation’s most disadvantaged students.
Graduating on time is the norm for middle- and high-income students, but not for their low-income peers. In 38 states, 85 percent or more of middle- and high-income students graduate high school in four years, but only two states graduate 85 percent or more of their low-income students on time.
Some states and districts have been able to close or almost eliminate the opportunity gap. Kentucky stands out as a beacon to all other states. Its graduation rate for low-income students is 85 percent, nearly identical to its graduation rate for middle/high-income students and well above the national average for all students.
Connecticut, which led the nation in closing the opportunity gap between 2011 and 2013 with a 6-point decline, shows that rapid improvement is possible, through concentrated effort. The gap between graduation rates for low-income and middle/high-income students narrowed in 28 states, but got larger in 18, with North Dakota seeing the largest increase of 7.6 percentage points.
With low-income students now a majority in America’s public schools and income inequality and concentrated poverty on the rise in our neighborhoods and schools, the nation must redouble efforts to close the opportunity gap and ensure these students have the resources and supports they need to stay on track to graduation.
Driver 2: Minority Students
Nationally, Hispanic/Latino and African American students are starting to close the graduation gap with their White peers. This tells us that those who have historically been viewed as underserved can make tremendous progress when given the right resources and time.
Since 2006, graduation rates for students of color have significantly improved, with a 15-percentage point gain for Hispanic/Latino students, and a 9-percentage point gain for African American students. Yet even with this progress, Hispanic/Latino and African American graduation rates (75.2 percent and 70.7 percent, respectively) are still lower than rates for White (86.6 percent) and Asian (88.7) students.
Seven states – Michigan, New York, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, California and Illinois – educate about 40 percent of the nation’s African American students. All of these states either have graduation rates in the 60s for African American students, or have recently experienced significant declines. Unless these states start to experience significant improvements, the recent progress made in raising African American graduation rates will stall.
One reason for the national improvement in graduation rates among students of color isthere are now fewer high schools with low graduation rates, often referred to as “dropout factories.” While there were 2,000 such schools in 2002, there were fewer than 1,200 of these schools nationwide and 1.5 million fewer students attending them in 2013. The most recent data indicates acceleration in this improvement.Between 2012 and 2013 the number of high schools with low graduation rates declined by more than 200.
Six states collectively educate more than 70 percent of the nation’s Hispanic/Latino students. Of the six states with the highest numbers of Hispanic/Latino enrollment, only three have graduation rates above the national subgroup average of 75.2 percent. In New York, the graduation rate for Hispanic/Latino students is nearly 20 points below the national average for all students.
Five states collectively educate more than one-third of the nation’s African American high school students. However, four out of these five still have graduation rates for Black students in the 60s.
Roadblocks to graduation for students of color include: “toxic stress” from living in high-poverty neighborhoods; a rise in exclusionary discipline practices, particularly in secondary schools; disparities in academic opportunities, such as access to challenging classes and coursework that will help to prepare students for college and career; as well as lack of support for English-language learners. 
Enrollment of students of color is growing rapidly across the country. It is essential that states focus on improving graduation rates for these increasingly majority populations.
Driver 3: Students with Disabilities
Students with disabilities, specifically those students receiving special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), make up approximately 13 percent of all public school students nationwide.
The percentage of students identified for special education varies greatly from state to state, ranging from less than 9 percent of public school students in Texas to more than 17 percent of the students in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Students with disabilities constitute significant portions of K-12 public school enrollment, so driving improvements will rest heavily on raising their graduation rates.
The graduation rate for students with disabilities hit 61.9 percent in 2012-13, an increase of 2.9 percentage points since 2010-11, but still nearly 20 points behind the national average. Estimates show that the graduation rate gap between students with disabilities and students in the general population ranges across states from 3.3 percentage points to 58.8 points.
State variations of ACGR data, coupled with variation in state allowances for special education guidelines, contribute to the disparities keeping special education students from reaching their full potential. In addition chronic, negative misperceptions and disciplinary disproportionalities add to the challenge of keeping these students in school and on track to graduate.  
It is estimated that 85 to 90 percent of special education students can meet regular diploma requirements with the right supports.
Driver 4: Big Cities/Big Districts
There are 500 public school districts with K-12 enrollments of 15,000 students or more that collectively educate 40 percent of all public school students, 58 percent of the nation’s African American and Hispanic/Latino students, and 47 percent of its low-income students.
Nationally and in most states, these larger school districts are the inflection points in raising high school graduation rates as well as those of low-income and minority students.
The largest 500 districts are, in many cases, leaders in productive innovation. Some have accomplished exemplary results to date and serve as magnets for organizing community resources and ideas.
  • One-quarter (124/500) of these districts had graduation rate gains of more than 6 percent in this time period (averaging 8.4 percent, triple the national average). These districts are 61 percent low-income and educate 10 percent of the nation’s public high school students.
  • One-sixth (88/500) of these districts had graduation rate improvement gains of four percentage points (one percentage point over the national average).
  • On the other end of the spectrum, there are a combined 169 districts (one-third) that made little to no improvement or lost ground. Some of these are high-poverty, high-minority districts. Others, with lower poverty rates and minority student populations, had high initial graduation rates but have recently stagnated.
The significance of the 500 largest districts can be seen when the rate of improvement among them is examined by state. Here, some clear patterns and explanations emerge. For example, the decline in graduation rates in Arizona was experienced by all of its major districts, suggesting in this case, that perhaps some state-level variables played a role.
By contrast, overall improvement in California resulted from more of its large districts being on the positive than the negative side of the ledger, but with highly variable improvements across its major districts. This likely indicates that its overall improvement was driven more by the aggregation of district actions than state initiatives.
A similar pattern is seen in Texas. There, however, more districts made modest improvements or retreated than demonstrated significant improvement, reflecting the overall slowing of Texas’s progress. Finally, the recent backsliding in graduation rates in New York and Illinois is at least in part the result of four large districts in each state that saw their graduation rates decline.
While the nation’s larger districts navigate enormous complexities, from student composition and population shifts to state regulations and funding, substantial progress is being made and continued improvement in these districts is possible.
Driver 5: Big States
Fifty-five percent of America’s public high school students live in just 10 states – California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina. These Big States are home to nearly 8.5 million of the nation’s 14.7 million public high school students.
The most recently reported Average Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) for these states ranges from 71.7 percent in Georgia to 88 percent in Texas, with six states already above the national average of 81.4 percent.
  • The rate of increase for these states also varies widely. Florida and North Carolina, for instance, show nearly 5 percentage point increases from 2011 to 2013, while Illinois and New York posted decreases.
  • California and Texas account for more than half of the growing Hispanic/Latino high school student population, and one-fifth of all students in the nation’s public schools.
  • California increased its graduation rate by 4.4 percentage points from 2011 to 2013, and has become a key driver of national improvement in Hispanic/Latino graduation rates.
  • Although Texas is nearing the 90 percent goal, its growth stagnated over the past two years at 88 percent.
  • North Carolina posted an increase in its cohort graduation rate from 68.3 percent in 2006 to 82.5 percent in 2013.
As these Big States seek to raise graduation rates for their students, many are putting innovative policies and programs in place -- for example, the use of data to identify and provide supports to struggling students, the remodeling of school funding streams to allocate more resources to high-needs communities, and a focus on rigorous academics through early college programs and investment in professional development for teachers and staff.
Policy Recommendations
The full report includes policy recommendations for change at the local, state and federal level. Here are a few:
  • Eradicate zero-tolerance discipline policies since students who are expelled or suspended become far more likely to drop out of school completely.
  • Expand the use of early-warning indicators so educators can intervene at the earliest and most critical times to help students succeed.
  • Make state funding more equitable so low-income students have the same opportunities as their more affluent peers.
  • Establish a standard diploma that is available to all students, which limits exit options that prematurely take students with disabilities off track to graduating on time with a standard diploma.
  • Increase the use of consistent and comparable data that holds states accountable for graduation rates as an important and necessary measurement tool for determining where the challenges exist.
Resources
Join the Conversation
For the release of the Building a Grad Nation report, we are encouraging conversation about the progress we are making and the urgent work that remains. Please join the conversation by using the hashtag #GradNation and download the partner and community social media guide.



Help spread the word about the 2015 Building a Grad Nation report (just click to launch and edit it in Twitter):



Download the 2015 Building a #GradNation Report & learn more about high school grad rates. http://bit.ly/1m18i8I #GradNation
Posted by at

No Child Left Behind Overhaul Needs to Fix Education Funding - US News

No Child Left Behind Overhaul Needs to Fix Education Funding - US News:

Education Funding Fails the Test

Congress' No Child Left Behind overhaul needs to fix how schools are funded.





Right now, it often seems like the national education debate is dominated by a single topic: Tests. Should parents opt-out their kids? Should teachers be evaluated on student test scores? Will the new Common Core exams be better than those in the past?
These questions are all important. Clearly, we must take steps to overhaul the way that children are assessed. But the testing debate often overshadows other much-needed reforms, most notably improving the nation's education funding system. And as Congress turns its attention to reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act, we need to do more to ensure that education spending works to help all students.
School funding reform should be at the top of the national education agenda. In too many areas, there are deep fiscal inequities between the schooling haves and the schooling have-nots. In Illinois, for instance, a recent research report by the Education Trust found that wealthy districts land over $2,500 more per student.
In some areas, the problem lies with statehouses; almost half of the states have funding systems that supply fewer resources to high-poverty districts, according to the U.S. Department of Education. There are also issues within districts, with some high-wealth schools landing an additional $670,000 in funding, according to a recent analysis by my colleagues at the Center for American Progress.
Such limited fiscal support can keep schools from performing. A major federal commission argued a few years ago that inequities have helped to cripple academic outcomes. The "American education system is failing too many of its children," the commissioners wrote. At the same time, the research base on the benefits of school funding is growing, and a 2014 analysis found that increases in education funding helped boost outcomes in Massachusetts.
Still, Congress has not taken action, even though it has been recently been looking at reforming No Child Left Behind. Most federal K-12 education dollars flow through the law, and the current version of the statute has not been reauthorized since the band Nickelback was at the top of the pop charts – and the law often seems just as tone-deaf to current educational realities.
There's been progress in addressing a few of the law's fiscal shortcomings. Last month, a Senate committee signed off on a bill, which included a provision that would improve fiscal reporting. That bill is supposed to reach the Senate floor soon, maybe even within the next few weeks.
But the Senate bill does not do enough to address the nation's funding system, and my colleagues have recently developed a number of proposals to address this problem. One idea, dubbed the "Fair Funding Incentive Grants," would use the $1 billion included in the president's budget request to encourage more equitable school funding.
More specifically, states with progressive funding programs would receive the extra federal dollars, according to the proposal. States that did not have progressive funding systems would have to "match" state dollars to federal ones in order to receive the money, and thus the program would serve as an incentive for states to take action.
Another option would be for Congress to require states to have progressive funding programs in order to receive federal dollars, or for Congress to allow more flexibility under the law in exchange for more equitable state funding systems. Whatever the case, all of these proposal would require states to target more of their funds to high-poverty schools.
Improving school funding isn't just about equity, though, and any fix to No Child Left Behind should also address how well schools spend their dollars. To improve educational productivity, Congress could make a simple change and allow states to use a portion of their federal dollars to fund support teams that would help districts build fiscal capacity.
As governor of Virginia, Mark Warner established a similar fiscal assistance program called " School Efficiency Reviews." The initiative posted some clear successes and the senator himself is pushing for a change to the law. "As governor, I was proud to establish a program that encouraged school systems to conduct efficiency reviews to identify how we could better allocate limited resources to get the maximum impact in the classroom," Warner says in an email. "This commonsense best practice should be available to school districts nationwide that are seeking more efficient ways to use existing resources."
When it comes to reforming the nation's education system, there are a lot of other things than matter beyond money or tests. But No Child Left Behind gives Congress an important opportunity to address some pressing fiscal issues and ensure that school funding is both productive, and progressive, for all students. No Child Left Behind Overhaul Needs to Fix Education Funding - US News:
The Education Trust

School funding reform should be at the top of the national education agenda. In too many areas, there are deep fiscal inequities between the schooling haves and the schooling have-nots. In Illinois, for instance, a recent research report by the Education Trust found that wealthy districts land over $2,500 more per student.

Our heartfelt thanks to:

 Laura & John Arnold Foundation
Bloomberg Philanthropies
Carnegie Corporation of New York
The College Board
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Joyce Foundation
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
The Kresge Foundation
Lumina Foundation
State Farm Companies Foundation
The Wallace Foundation

The Walton Family Foundation

One Size Does Not Fit All

The No Child Left Behind rewrite should take steps to ease the tensions between accountability and personalized learning

After years of stalled efforts to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Congress may have its best shot yet at rewriting the primary federal law governing K-12 education. A bipartisan reauthorization bill passed the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions with unanimous support earlier this month, and a survey of Washington insiders found that 60 percent believe the law will be reauthorized by the end of President Barack Obama's administration.
The current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as No Child Left Behind, has been the law of the land for nearly fourteen years. During that time, the education landscape has evolved dramatically, in ways no one imagined in 2001. States developed Common Core standards. The number of students enrolled in charter schools has risen more than fourfold. Pre-K programsexpanded dramatically. A major economic recession took a toll on education spending. Federal stimulus funds enacted in response spurred changes in state data systems and education policies. Technological innovation has also driven changes in education.
If history is any guide, both education and technology will experience even greater changes before the next Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization rolls around. Yet current reauthorization proposals seem to be driven much more by reaction to the issues and debates of the past decade than a desire to equip schools to meet the challenges of the next one. Without a clear forward-looking vision, policymakers may inadvertently enact policies that will hamper, rather than support, promising education innovations.
Personalized learning offers a case in point. Increasing numbers of schools and districts are using technology and staffing in new ways to personalize learning to students' needs. These models, which fundamentally change how children engage with content and how teachers do their jobs, have the potential to significantly enhance student learning – but many are still in their infancy.
As Anne Hyslop and I explained in a recent paper, these personalized learning models are increasingly coming into conflict with state accountability systems and policies. Personalized learning is rooted in the expectation that students should progress through content based on demonstrated learning, not seat time. To facilitate this, personalized learning models differentiate content based on students' current skill level and provide multiple, real-time opportunities to demonstrate mastery of specific knowledge and skills. In contrast, standards-based accountability systems are rooted in the expectation that students should learn specific, grade-level content, and demonstrate their knowledge in a single, summative assessment, typically at the end of the school year. Although both personalized learning and standards-based accountability seek to enable all students to attain college and career readiness, differences in underlying assumptions can create tensions between the two in practice.
For example, most states evaluate schools based primarily on the percentage of students achieving proficiency on the state assessment. But the grade-level assessments that most states use to measure student achievement may not provide an accurate picture of how much students in personalized-learning contexts are learning – particularly those who start out far above or below grade level. Personalized learning enables children who lack the foundational skills to master grade-level content to go back and learn those foundational skills before progressing to grade-level lessons. Over the long 

One Size Does Not Fit All

Posted by at

The Perfect Lobby: How One Industry Captured Washington, DC | The Nation

The Perfect Lobby: How One Industry Captured Washington, DC | The Nation:

The Perfect Lobby: How One Industry Captured Washington, DC



This article is adapted from David Halperin's new e-book, Stealing America's Future: How For-Profit Colleges Scam Taxpayers and Ruin Students' Lives, available at Amazon.


Many of America's for-profit colleges have proven themselves a bad deal for the students lured by their enticing promises—as well as for US taxpayers, who subsidize these institutions with ten of billions annually in federal student aid.
More than half of the students who enroll in for-profit colleges—many of them veterans, single mothers and other low- and middle-income people aiming for jobs like medical technician, diesel mechanic or software coder—drop out within about four months. Many of these colleges have been caught using deceptive advertising and misleading prospective students about program costs and job placement rates. Although the for-profits promise that their programs are affordable, the real cost can be nearly double that of Harvard or Stanford. But the quality of the programs are often weak, so even students who manage to graduate often struggle to find jobs beyond the Office Depot shifts they previously held. The US Department of Education recently reported that 72 percent of the for-profit college programs it analyzed produced graduates who, on average, earned less than high school dropouts.
Today, 13 percent of all college students attend for-profit colleges, on campuses and online—but these institutions account for 47 percent of student loan defaults. For-profit schools are driving a national student debt crisis that has reached $1.2 trillion in borrowing. They absorb a quarter of all federal student aid—more than $30 billion annually—diverting sums from better, more affordable programs at nonprofit and public colleges. Many for-profit college companies, including most of the biggest ones, get almost 90 percent of their revenue from taxpayers.
So why does Washington keep the money flowing?
It's not that politicians are unaware of the problem. One person who clearly understands the human and financial costs of the for-profit college industry is President Obama. Speaking at Fort Stewart, Georgia, in April 2012, the president told the soldiers that some schools are "trying to swindle and hoodwink" them, because they only "care about the cash." Speaking off the cuff last year, Obama warned that some for-profit colleges were failing to provide the certification that students thought they would get. In the end, he said, the students "can't find a job. They default…. Their credit is ruined, and the for-profit institution is making out like a bandit." And, he noted, when students default on their federally backed loans, "the taxpayer ends up holding the bag."
On March 14, the administration released its much-anticipated draft "gainful employment" rule, aimed at ending taxpayer support for career college programs that consistently leave students with insurmountable debt.
This rule would have a real impact: it would eventually cut off federal student grants and loans to the very worst career education programs, whose students consistently earn far too little to pay down their college loans, or whose students have very high rates of loan defaults.
But advocates believe that the standards in the proposed rule are too weak; they would leave standing many programs that harm a high percentage of their students. The rule, they argue, doesn't do enough to ensure that federal aid goes only to programs that actually help students prepare for careers. But it isn't soft enough to satisfy APSCU, the trade association representing for-profit colleges, which denounced the rule as the flawed product of a "sham" process. The administration gave the public until May 27 to comment before issuing a final rule.
APSCU and other lobbyists for the for-profit college industry are now out in full force, hoping to extract from the gainful employment rule its remaining teeth. Supporters of stronger standards to protect students from industry predation—among them the NAACP, the Consumers Union, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Service Employees International Union and others (including, full disclosure, myself)—will push back, but they have far fewer financial resources for the battle. This is a crucial round in a long fight, one in which the industry has already displayed a willingness to spend tens of millions to manipulate the machinery of modern influence-peddling—and with a remarkable degree of success.
Because most of this lobbying money is financed by taxpayers, this is a story of how Washington itself created a monster—one so big that it can work its will on the political system even when the facts cry out for reform and accountability.
An Industry Buys Friends
Back in 2009, the Obama administration began its efforts to issue a rule that would finally implement a 1965 law stipulating that federal money go only to those career education programs that actually prepare students for "gainful employment." Despite ample evidence of their decades of abuses with taxpayer dollars, the for-profit colleges did not accept reforms. Instead, they hired the most well-connected establishment figures to The Perfect Lobby: How One Industry Captured Washington, DC | The Nation:
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)