• Common Graduation Rate Calculations in Danger - What We Should Do
• Some Ed Data Problems Can Only Be Solved by the State
• The Flashlight Shines on Education Data

• College and Career Readiness (16)
• Data Flash (10)
• Data for Action (10)
• Data Literacy (2)
• Early Childhood (2)
• Federal Policy (7)
• Five Challenges (5)
• Governance (1)
• Graduation Rates (3)
• Local Data Use (6)
• Myth Buster (3)
• Postsecondary Success (1)
• Privacy Security and Confidentiality (6)
• P–20 Alignment (5)
• School Improvement (7)
• State Policy (6)
• State-District Roles (5)
• Teacher Effectiveness (8)

Tweets by @EdDataCampaign

• Eduwonk
• Flypaper
• Michael & Susan Dell Foundation
• The Quick and the Ed
• The SCORE Sheet

RSS Feed

• College and Career Readiness
• Federal Policy

An important piece of ensuring that students progress toward college and careers is providing accurate data on the number of students that complete high school each year. In recent years, state and federal policymakers have worked to adopt common methods of calculating graduation rates to provide stakeholders with clear, consistent, and comparable data. Recent developments, however, threaten to undermine this goal. Steps must be taken to make sure states stay on track toward meaningful graduation rate calculations.

Graduation Rates of the Past Were Misleading and Not Comparable

For decades, states and districts used a variety of methods to calculate their high school graduation rates. These techniques differed in their outcomes and the time period measured. As a result, the graduation rates that were publicly reported and used for accountability and school improvement decisions were often misleading and not comparable across districts and states. 

Seven years ago, state and federal policymakers began taking steps to address these issues. In 2005, the National Governor’s Association developed a common formula for graduation rates, and all 50 governors committed to report it. As DQC wrote in a 2007 publication, “governors undertook this commitment because they understood the imperative to gather more accurate, comparable data on how many of their students graduate from high school on time and ready for college, work, and civic life.”

In 2008, the US Department of Education (ED) took steps to reflect this state consensus in federal policy by requiring states to report and use for accountability a clearly defined adjusted cohort graduation rate, which provides clarity, consistency, and comparability. This method would calculate the percentage of students that entered as freshman and graduated from high school with a regular diploma within four years. 

Promise of Clarity and Comparability

These state and federal policies and commitment held the potential to provide fellow policymakers, school leaders, parents, and the public with clear, consistent, and comparable data about high school graduation. A common definition and formula would provide a clear picture of schools’ success in graduating students from high school on time with a regular diploma. A common metric would also mean the ability to make reasonable comparisons across states and districts. For example, parents and taxpayers could make important choices based on publicly reported graduation rates for schools in different districts. An accurate and easy to understand graduation rate would also help policymakers, school leaders, and educators use data to improve schools and ensure students complete high school on time with a regular diploma. 

Setback in Waiver Implementation

Unfortunately, ED’s approach to ESEA flexibility waivers permits states the opportunity to use alternative methods of calculating graduation rates in their accountability systems, undermining the goal of providing stakeholders clarity, consistency, and comparability. A group of prominent education organizations, including several DQC partners, have written a letter to Secretary Duncan describing their concerns (as did Rep. George Miller [D-CA], Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce). 

According to the group’s letter,

“Several states have received approval to adopt policies that mask their actual high school graduation rates by using a calculation that includes both the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and another measure that includes General Education Diploma (GED) recipients. One state even offers an alternative diploma, separate from its traditional diploma, and includes it in the calculation of the high school graduation rate, directly violating the 2008 regulations.”

To prevent this setback to clarity and comparability, ED and states both have a role to play in ensuring that the progress made since 2004 continues.

What ED and States Need to Do

Generally DQC doesn’t advocate for or defend specific calculation methods: no one method is perfect and no one metric tells the whole story. However, DQC is a strong advocate that stakeholders need access to clear, consistent, comparable data that helps inform their decisions. High school graduation rates are a fundamental indicator of school and system success, and stakeholders—including parents—need to be able to trust them, understand what they mean, and be able to use them to compare schools across districts and states. In 2004, governors came together around the principles of clarity, consistency, and comparability, and those principles are at risk.

To prevent this setback to clarity and comparability, ED and states both have a role to play in ensuring that the progress made since 2004 continues:

1. As ED and states move forward implementing ESEA flexibility waivers, they should stick to the spirit of the NGA-led efforts and 2008 regulations that led to adjusted cohort graduation rates. ED should require states to employ accountability policies that are consistent with the 2008 regulations.
2. ED and state leaders have a responsibility to educate the public and media on how to understand these new rates. As states unveil graduation rates produced using the new adjusted cohort graduation rate, they are likely to appear lower than in previous years. It is vital for leaders to communicate that there was a change in the formula and not necessarily that there are less students graduating from high school.
3. As with any data-related effort, it is critical to focus on data quality. It is vital that state and district leaders work with school-based staff and educators to ensure that student data are recorded and stored accurately to help ensure the production of accurate graduation rates.

It is important that leaders at all levels take steps to ensure that the graduation rate data remain clear, consistent, and actionable. In doing so, they will take an important step in helping students advance toward college and careers.