Discussion Draft Review: Graduation Rates

The Title I discussion draft contains a new Section 1124, entitled Graduation Rates. It is part of the draft’s considerable new focus on high school accountability. The section defines the graduate rate calculations and the terms used in the definition; the graduation rate reporting requirements; the allowable additional complementary indicators for reporting how to handle data anomalies; the monitoring of data collection; and how schools, districts and states must use the data for accountability under Title I.

According to the discussion draft, the term “graduation rate” includes an adjusted cohort rate and an extra year adjusted cohort rate. The law defines the “exit year” to be the school year at the end of which that cohort would be expected to complete the exit grade, assuming the cohort completes one grade per school year (which would be 4 years most often). The term “extra year” means the school year after the exit year (or, most commonly, 5 years). The draft describes the graduation rate formulas.



The data must be disaggregated by school, local educational agency (LEA) and state educational agency (SEA). It must also be parsed by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migratory status, English proficiency and economic disadvantage status. As it is used for meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP), the data must meet the same “N” size and reporting requirements of Section 1111.

The draft includes two exceptions to the graduation rate formula. First, a state that does not have a state wide longitudinal data system with individual student identifiers may use an interim graduation rate that meets specified requirements until the 2013-2014 school year. Those requirements will compare the number of students in the entry year to the number of students receiving a standard high school diploma in the exit year, will not use dropout data, will disaggregate the data and the data may be used to determine rate of growth toward graduation objectives. The interim plan must be part of the state plan and approved by the U.S. Secretary of Education.

Second, state plans may include graduation timeline exceptions for alternative educational settings. The draft defines those settings as programs that are designed for students who have dropped out of secondary schools or are one or more years behind the expected accumulation of credits or courses toward an on time graduation and will receive a regular high school diploma upon completion of the course of study in the setting.

The discussion draft includes specific flexibility for special education students. Up to 1% of students in an LEA or SEA with significant cognitive disabilities, who are assessed using alternative assessments using alternative achievement standards and who receive a regular high school diploma or a state defined alternative diploma in accordance with IDEA, could be counted as a graduate with a regular high school diploma.

Critically, the graduation rate data is required in order for secondary schools and LEAs to make AYP. This is a two part analysis. First, the graduation rate for all subgroups defined in section 1111 must be not less than 90%. Second, the graduation rate must increase an average of 2.5 percentages points or 3 percentage points depending on the chosen baseline. What baseline? There are three baseline options as set by a 2007-2008 school year calculation: the adjusted cohort rate (which requires 2.5 percentage points of growth per year), the extra year adjusted cohort rate (3%) or the alterative expected completion rate (2.5%). The calculation of these rates is illustrated above. Fully meeting the growth target will provide credit for up to 15% of a subgroup’s objectives. The baseline may be adjusted when an SEA moves from an interim rate to an individual student identifier longitudinal data system.

The draft also allows for alternative growth targets upon conditions. The alternative SEA program must be peer reviewed and approved by ED. It must include annual growth targets for all subgroups based on closing the gap between baselines for each subgroup and 100% graduation rate in substantially even increments over time. Finally, it must require that all subgroups will achieve at least 90% graduation rate by 2019-2020.

This new section has been well received, generally. The National Governors Association, which has led the advocacy for uniform graduation rate calculations, applauds the section for its transparency and fair flexibility. Yet, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) does not support the section because the five year graduation rate calculation could provide the incentive to not emphasize the importance of on-time graduation in high schools. Despite ED’s concerns, it is very likely that a reauthorized law will contain these or very similar provisions.

Author: DAD