High School Graduation, Completion, and Dropouts: Federal Policy, Programs, and Issues

High School Graduation, Completion, and
Dropouts: Federal Policy, Programs, and Issues
Updated March 21, 2008
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division



High School Graduation, Completion, and Dropouts:
Federal Policy, Programs, and Issues
Summary
This report discusses federal policy, programs, and issues related to high school
graduation, completion, and dropouts. The discussion covers the provisions enacted
in federal law that govern the definition, calculation, and reporting requirements of
these critical high school outcomes. (Note: this report does not address the issue of
academic achievement among high school graduates.) The report then looks at
historical data as well as the most recent indicators of these outcomes. That analysis
is followed by a description of the federal programs designed to help youth who have
dropped out, or who are at risk of dropping out, in completing high school or an
equivalency certificate program. Finally, the report discusses issues that may arise
as Congress considers reauthorizing the laws that pertain to this topic.
The United States has made great strides in secondary school participation
during the last century. Yet more than one-quarter of first-year high school students
do not receive their diploma in four years. By age 24, more than one in 10 still do
not have a high school degree or its equivalent. During the 2003-2004 school year
alone, nearly 5% of students dropped out of high school. In addition, dropout rates
vary significantly by race/ethnicity and immigration status, with very high rates
among Hispanics and new immigrants.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left
Behind Act, authorizes several dropout prevention programs and contains the main
federal requirements that stipulate how graduation, completion, and dropout rates are
to be calculated and reported. Additional dropout prevention programs are authorized
in the Higher Education Act and the Workforce Investment Act. These programs
may be categorized as having: (1) the primary purpose of helping students complete
high school, (2) multiple purposes, at least one of which is targeted toward dropout
recovery or dropout prevention, or (3) broad purposes not explicitly encompassing
dropouts but whose funds may be used at local discretion to help students complete
high school.
Each of these acts is likely to be considered for reauthorization in the 110th
Congress. Several issues may be debated as Congress considers reauthorizing some,
and perhaps all, of the federal programs and provisions pertaining to high school
graduation, completion, and dropouts. These issues include program coordination,
targeting, and effectiveness; the quality and reporting of data required to assess high
school outcomes; whether the federal effort should focus on “at-risk” students or
“out-of-school” youth; and whether recently enacted testing and accountability
requirements have the perverse effect of increasing high school dropout rates.



Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Federally Mandated High School Indicators.............................2
Graduation Rate...............................................3
Adequate Yearly Progress...................................3
Title I Impact Assessment...................................3
Dropout Rate.................................................3
Dropout Prevention Program.................................3
NCES Event Dropout Rate..................................4
CPS Completion Rate..........................................4
Education Sciences Reform Act..............................4
Average Freshman Graduation Rate...............................5
Published Indicators of High School Outcomes..........................7
Historic Rise in Educational Attainment............................7
Rates of High School Completion.................................7
NCES Event Dropout Rates......................................9
National Dropout Rate......................................9
Dropout Rates by State.....................................9
Estimating the High School Graduation Rate.......................11
Average Freshman Graduation Rate..........................11
Federal High School Dropout Prevention Programs......................13
Primary Purpose Programs......................................14
Dropout Prevention Program................................14
Neglected and Delinquent Program...........................14
Migrant High School Equivalency Program....................14
Multiple Purpose Programs.....................................15
Talent Search............................................15
Upward Bound...........................................15
GEAR UP..............................................15
Adult Education and Literacy State Grants.....................15
Youth Activities..........................................16
Job Corps...............................................16
Migrant Seasonal Farmworker Program.......................16
YouthBuild ..............................................16
Broad Purpose Programs.......................................17
Title I-A LEA Grants......................................17
Migrant Education Program.................................17st
21 Century Community Learning Centers.....................17
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities..................18
Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions......................18
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.....................18
Reauthorization Issues.............................................19
Program Coordination.....................................19
Program Effectiveness.....................................19



Data Quality and Reporting.................................20
Program Targeting........................................20
At-Risk Versus Out-of-School Youth.........................21
Unintended Consequences of Testing.........................21
List of Figures
Figure 1. Rate of Secondary School Attainment, 1910-2005................7
List of Tables
Table 1. Four Indicators of High School Outcomes.......................6
Table 2. Completion Rates by Student Characteristics, October 2004.........8
Table 3. Event Dropout Rates by State, Selected Years...................10
Table 4. Graduation Rates by State, 2002-2003 School Year...............12



High School Graduation,
Completion, and Dropouts:
Federal Policy, Programs, and Issues
Introduction
The United States has made great strides in secondary school participation
during the last century. Yet more than one-quarter of first-year high school students
do not receive their diploma in four years. By age 24, more than one in 10 still do
not have a high school degree or its equivalent. During the 2003-2004 school year
alone, nearly 5% of students dropped out of high school. In addition, rates of
graduation, completion, and dropping out vary significantly by race/ethnicity and
immigration status with very high rates among Hispanics and new immigrants.1
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA, P.L. 107-110), contains several
provisions pertaining to the issue of high school graduation, completion, and
dropping out. The law authorizes several programs and activities intended to prevent
students from dropping out or to encourage non-completers to reenter school or
enroll in a high school equivalency program. The law also contains requirements for
state and local education agencies that stipulate how graduation, completion, and
dropout rates are to be calculated and to whom they must be reported.
Two of the three federal programs whose purpose is primarily intended to
prevent students from dropping out of high school are authorized in ESEA, Title I,
Parts D and H. Both Part D, the Neglected and Delinquent program (N&D), and Part
H, the Dropout Prevention Program (DPP) have dropout prevention as their primary
purpose. The third federal program with dropout prevention as its primary purpose
is the Migrant High School Equivalency Program, authorized in Title IV, Part A of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended by the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244).
The federal government supports additional programs that have dropout
prevention as one of several purposes. These include some of the Trio programs and
the GEAR UP program (authorized in Title IV of the HEA) as well as several
programs authorized in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220).2


1 This report distinguishes between graduation, those who finish high school with a regular
diploma, and completion, those who obtain a high school credential either through
graduation or completion of a high school equivalency program.
2 For additional information on the Trio and GEAR UP programs, see CRS Report RL31622,
(continued...)

Support for dropout prevention is also part of the broad array of programmatic
purposes covered by large federal programs such as the ESEA, Title I-A, Program of
Education for the Disadvantaged.
Each of the act’s authorizing the major federal dropout prevention programs is
likely to be considered for reauthorization in the 110th Congress. Passage of the
NCLBA authorized the ESEA programs through FY2007. A one-year automatic
extension, through FY2008, is provided under the General Education Provisions Act
(Title IV of P.L. 90-247, as amended). Authorization for the HEA programs is
extended through June 30, 2007, under the Third Higher Education Extension Act
of 2006 (P.L. 109-292). Authorization for WIA programs expired on September 30,
2003, although annual appropriations have continued funding for WIA through
FY2007.
It is likely that the 110th Congress will consider reauthorizing some, and perhaps
all, of the federal programs and provisions pertaining to high school graduation,
completion, and dropouts. This report will provide background on high school
graduation, completion, and dropout rates in the United States. First, it will discuss
the NCLBA provisions related to the calculation and reporting of these indicators.
Second, the report will present the latest data on high school outcomes. The third
section of the report will describe the federal programs designed to improve these
outcomes. And finally, the report will discuss and analyze issues that may arise as
Congress considers the reauthorization of these programs and provisions.
Federally Mandated High School Indicators
The NCLBA contains a handful of provisions that require the calculation and
reporting of high school outcomes.3 Graduation rates are among the indicators states
must report under the NCLBA Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) provisions. Dropout
rates must be reported by states as a condition of their participation in the N&D and
DPP programs. In addition to these ESEA provisions, the Education Sciences
Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-279) charged the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) with compiling rates of high school completion. A fourth measure
of high school outcomes discussed in this section (although not statutorily mandated)
is what NCES calls the “average freshman graduation rate.”


2 (...continued)
Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi. For additional
information on WIA programs, see CRS Report RL33687, The Workforce Investment Act
(WIA): Program-by-Program Overview and FY2007 Funding of Title I Training Programs,
by Blake Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman.
3 Prior to the NCLBA, the ESEA, as amended by the Improving America’s Schools Act of

1994 (IASA, P.L. 103-382), was silent on the measurement of high school outcomes.


Section 403(b) of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994, enacted along with the
IASA, simply charged the Education Department with implementing “a definition and data
collection process for school dropouts in elementary and secondary schools.”

Graduation Rate
Adequate Yearly Progress. Through passage of the NCLBA, high school
graduation rates were added to existing Title I, Part A, requirements for
state-developed standards of AYP.4 That is, in addition to assessments of academic
achievement in mathematics and reading, state AYP standards must also include at
least one additional academic indicator. Public schools and local educational
agencies (LEAs) must meet state-specified levels on this indicator in order to make
AYP. In the case of high schools, this additional indicator must be the graduation
rate.
The NCLBA defines the graduation rate as “the percentage of students who
graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of
years” (ESEA, Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vi)). The standard number of years is
determined by each state and is generally based on the structure of schools, usually
three or four years. The NCLBA does not require a minimum graduation rate or that
states increase their rate over time. The law also does not require states to report
graduation rates to the Education Department (ED); it simply requires each state to
place the statewide graduation rate on its report card to the general public.5
Title I Impact Assessment. The NCLBA also charged the Secretary of ED
with assessing the impact of Title I on states, districts, schools, and students (ESEA,
Title I-E). A portion of this research is to be “an independent study of assessments
used for State accountability purposes and for making decisions about the promotion
and graduation of students” (ESEA, Section 1503(a)). The statute goes on to specify
that the research should address the effect of assessment and accountability systems
on, among other things, changes in the graduation rate. The Secretary was given
authority to award a contract to an independent research entity and not more than five
years to complete the study.6
Dropout Rate
Dropout Prevention Program. The NCLBA authorized the DPP (ESEA,
Title I-H) and stipulated the method to be used in calculating the high school dropout
rate. The provision states that,


4 More information on AYP and related reporting requirements is in CRS Report RL32495,
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, and CRS
Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title
I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, both by Wayne C. Riddle.
5 The contents of the annual state report card, including the graduation rate, are given in
Section 1111(h)(1). The contents of the annual state report to the Secretary of Education,
which do not include the graduation rate, are given in Section 1111(h)(4).
6 To date, the Secretary has released two reports from this assessment (available at
[http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1interimreport/index.html]). Neither of these
reports has discussed graduation rates.

For purposes of calculating an annual school dropout rate under this subpart, a
school shall use the annual event school dropout rate for students leaving a
school in a single year determined in accordance with the National Center for
Education Statistics’ Common Core of Data [CCD]. (ESEA, Section 1829)
The NCES defines an event dropout rate as the percentage of students who were
enrolled in grades 9 through 12 during a given school year, were not enrolled in
school during the following school year, and had not earned a high school diploma
or completed a state- or district-approved education program.7
NCES Event Dropout Rate. The NCES calculates an event dropout rate in
the following manner:
The denominator of the rate is the October 1 membership count for the grades
for which the dropout rate is being calculated. For example, the dropout rate for
grades 9 through 12 would use a denominator that equals the October 1
enrollment count for grades 9 through 12.
The numerator (dropouts) is all individuals who:
!were enrolled in school at some time during the previous school
year;
!were not enrolled on October 1 of the current school year;
!have not graduated from high school or completed a state- or
district-approved education program; and
!do not meet any of the following exclusionary conditions:
transferred to another public school district, private school, or state-
or district-approved education program; temporary absence due to
suspension or school-approved education program; or death.8
It is important to note that this method does not include individuals outside of
the public school system nor individuals who may have dropped out during a
preceding school year. For the 2001-2002 school year, NCES was able to calculate
rates for 45 states and the District of Columbia (this is the most recent school year
for which data have been made available). Five states did not follow the NCES
reporting rules that year; consequently, NCES could not calculate a national event
dropout rate using the CCD.
CPS Completion Rate
Education Sciences Reform Act. The Education Sciences Reform Act of
2002 (ESRA) reauthorized the NCES and charged it with collecting, compiling, and
disseminating statistics on secondary school completion, among other data. Put
simply, the NCES high school completion rate, “is based on CPS [Current Population
Survey] data and represents the percentage of 18- through 24-year-olds who are not


7 U.S. Department of Education, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2004, November 2006.
8 Ibid.

enrolled in high school and who have earned a high school diploma or equivalent
credential, including a GED.”9
The NCES high school completion rate differs from the Title I graduation rate
(discussed above) in three key respects:
!Unlike the Title I-A graduation rate, the NCES completion rate
includes all those with a high school credential. That is, whereas the
graduation rate stipulated in the NCLBA includes only those
obtaining a regular diploma, the high school completion rate
includes those obtaining an equivalency certification, such as a
district- or state-sponsored General Educational Development
(GED) certificate.
!The NCES completion rate is not restricted to those completing high
school in a standard number of years. Rather, it is restricted to those
in a specific age group — that is, those 18 to 24 years old — and is
simply the proportion of the group who hold a high school
credential.
!Whereas the Title I-A graduation rate is tabulated by each state
(from district-reported administrative data), the NCES completion
rate is estimated using survey data from a large, nationally-
representative sample.
Average Freshman Graduation Rate
In addition to the previously described high school outcomes required by the
ESEA and ESRA, NCES has recently begun calculating a fourth high school
indicator: the average freshman graduation rate (AFGR). Similar to the Title I
Graduation Rate required by the NCLBA AYP provisions, the AFGR is an estimate
of the percentage of public high school students who graduate on time with a regular
diploma. In estimating the AFGR, NCES uses statistical averaging to stabilize the
denominator — that is, the number of enrolled students. According to NCES,
The Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate provides an estimate of the percentage
of high school students who graduate on time by dividing the number of
graduates with regular diplomas by the size of the incoming freshman class 4
years earlier, expressed as a percent. The rate uses aggregate student enrollment
data to estimate the size of an incoming freshman class and aggregate counts of
the number of diplomas awarded 4 years later. The size of the incoming
freshman class is estimated by summing the enrollment in eighth grade in one
year, ninth grade for the next year, and tenth grade for the year after and then10


dividing by three.
9 Ibid.
10 U.S. Department of Education, The Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate for Public High
Schools From the Common Core of Data: School Years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, July
(continued...)

The counts of enrollments by grade and graduates for the AFGR are taken from
the CCD subfile called the State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary
Education. Graduates include those students who are reported as diploma recipients
and do not include GED recipients except in states that have in-school GED
programs that lead to a regular diploma. Although enrollments are reported by grade,
some states report ungraded students. NCES adjusts for this by redistributing these
students across grades in proportion to the graded enrollment of the state.11
Table 1 summarizes the four high school indicators described above. Each of
these rates provides a different perspective on high school outcomes and applies to
different policy issues. The Title I Graduation Rate mandated by the NCLBA is
intended to be part of a larger school, LEA, and state accountability system. With no
statutory requirement that this indicator be reported to ED or Congress, this rate is
mainly intended to shed light on school performance and enhance public notification
on the state and local level. The Event Dropout Rate has historically been NCES’
best attempt at producing a national standard for measuring high school outcomes.
Although data reporting has improved in recent years, this indicator continues to fall
short of consistency and completeness. The CPS Completion Rate has long been the
most straight-forward, consistent, nationwide estimate of the nation’s educational
attainment; however, it cannot (and was never intended to) be used for accountability
purposes. Finally, the Average Freshman Graduation Rate is the recent culmination
of a major undertaking by NCES (along with a body of expert researchers) to produce
a national estimate of high school completion (like the CPS rate) using data derived
from the local level (like the Event Dropout Rate) to produce an accountability-
friendly indicator (like the Title I rate).
Table 1. Four Indicators of High School Outcomes
Title IEvent DropoutCPSAverage
Graduat i on Rat e Completion F reshman
Rat e Rat e Graduat i on
Rate
DefinitionPercent ofPercent of studentsPercent ofPercent of a
students whoenrolled in grades 9-persons age 18freshman
graduate with12 in October in ato 24 notcohort for a
a regulargiven year whoenrolled ingiven year
diploma in thewere not enrolledschool and inwho graduate
standardand did not possesspossession of awith a
number ofa diploma or itshigh schoolregular
yearsequivalent in thediploma or itsdiploma four
following Octoberequivalentyears later
DataState-Common Core ofCurrentCommon
sourcecollectedDataPopulationCore of Data


Survey
10 (...continued)

2006.


11 Ibid.

Published Indicators of High School Outcomes
Historic Rise in Educational Attainment
As clearly seen in Figure 1, the United States has achieved a dramatic increase
in secondary school participation since the beginning of the twentieth century.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1910, only 13.5% of the adult population
had completed secondary school. By mid-century, one-third (34.3%) of the
population had completed 12 years of school. And by century’s end, 84.1% of the
adult population held a high school diploma.
It is important to note that the completion rates displayed in Figure 1 are not
calculated in the same manner as the NCES completion rate described in the previous
section. These historic rates differ from the NCES rate in two critical ways. First,
the rates in Figure 1 prior to 1993 are for those completing 12 years of schooling,
rather than those obtaining a high school diploma. Second, the population base for
the rates in Figure 1 are those 25 years old and older; as opposed to the NCES rate
which is based on the population between 18 and 24 years old.
Figure 1. Rate of Secondary School Attainment, 1910-2005


90%


84.1% 85 .2%

80%


77 .6 %
68.6%70%

60%


55 .2 %

50%


41.1%40%
34.3%30%
24 .5 %20%
16.4% 19.1%10%
13 .5 %

0%


1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics, 2005, Table 8.
Rates of High School Completion
According to NCES’ most recent estimate, the high school completion rate was
86.8% in 2004 — as compared to 85.2% in 2004 calculated by the Census Bureau
and shown in Figure 1). The NCES estimate represents the proportion of all persons
between 18 and 24 years old who held either a high school diploma or its equivalent
in October of 2004. The data used to estimate this estimate, as well as those in Table

2, are taken from the October supplement to the CPS.



As seen in Table 2, this rate varies somewhat by student characteristics.
Females are slightly more likely to finish high school than males. Older persons are
slightly more likely to have completed high school than younger persons. However,
the most striking differences in the table are those that show completion rates by
race/ethnicity and immigration status.
Hispanics are far less likely to have obtained a high school degree by age 24
than all other racial/ethnic groups. In 2004, only 69.8% of Hispanics between the
ages of 18 and 24 had completed high school; compared to 91.7% for white, non-
Hispanics, 83.4% for black, non-Hispanics, and 95.1% for Asian, non-Hispanics.
Table 2. Completion Rates by Student Characteristics,
October 2004
CharacteristicCompletionRatePopulation (thousands)Completers(thousands)
To tal 86.8 26,476 22,991
Sex
Male 84.9 13,201 11,205
Female 88.8 13,275 11,786
Race/Et hnicity
White, Non-Hispanic91.716,53715,162
Black, Non-Hispanic83.43,4902,912
Hisp anic 69.8 4 ,633 3,234
Asian/Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic95.11,1771,120
More than one race93.1445414
Ag e
18 - 1985.96,4285,521
20 - 2187.27,8506,846
22 - 2487.112,19910,625
Recency of Immigration
Born outside the 50 states and the District of Columbia
Hisp anic 54.7 2 ,002 1,095
No n-Hisp anic 91.0 1 ,553 1,413
First generation
Hisp anic 80.8 1 ,462 1,181
No n-Hisp anic 95.9 1 ,411 1,353
Second generation or higher
Hisp anic 82.0 1 ,169 958
No n-Hisp anic 90.0 18,879 16,991
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2004, November 2006,
Table 9.



The lower high school completion rate among the nation’s Hispanic population
is due in large part to the fact that over 40% of those in this group are immigrants
born outside of the United States. The rate of high school completion among 18- to
24-year-old, foreign-born Hispanics in 2004 was 54.7%. The rate of high school
completion for 18- to 24-year-old, native-born Hispanics is much higher: 80.8%
among the first-generation and 82.0% among the second-generation and higher.
NCES Event Dropout Rates
As discussed earlier, states participating in the DPP are to provide dropout data
to the Secretary in accordance with NCES requirements for reporting to the CCD.
Even though fewer than half of the states have participated in the DPP since it was
authorized for FY2002; currently, all but five states are reporting appropriate dropout
data. While only a small number of states continue to report data incompatible with
CCD requirements (and many fewer states than just a few years ago), this prevents
NCES from estimating a national dropout rate based on data from the CCD. This
section presents dropout data from the only annual source of national estimates, the
CPS, followed by state-level dropout data for the states that properly report data
meeting the CCD criteria.
National Dropout Rate. As stated above, the event dropout rate is the
percentage of public school students who left high school between the beginning of
one school year and the beginning of the next without earning a high school diploma
or GED. Based on CPS data, the NCES estimates that, between the 2003 and 2004
school years, 4.7% of students dropped out of high school. That year, Hispanic
students were more likely to drop out (8.9%) than black, non-Hispanic students
(5.7%), white, non-Hispanic students (3.7%), and Asian, non-Hispanic students
(1.2%). NCES analysis also found that low-income students were more likely to
drop out (10.4%) than middle-income students (4.6%) and high-income students12
(2.5%).
Dropout Rates by State. The NCES event dropout rates by state for selected
years in the past decade are contained in Table 3 (2001-2002 is the most recent year
reported).13 The table shows data for states that reported in accordance with CCD
requirements; dashes are shown for states that did not report such data in a given
year. The table reveals a trend toward more comprehensive state reporting over the
decade. Five states did not report according to NCES guidelines for the 2001-2002
school year; the number of states that did not do so for 1999-2000 was 13 and the
number for 1993-1994 was 17.


12 U.S. Department of Education, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2004, November
2006. NCES analysts did not run event dropout rates by recency of immigration as they did
with the completion rates discussed earlier in this report. “Low-income” was defined as the
lowest 20 percent of all family incomes, “high-income” as the top 20 percent, and “middle-
income” between 20 and 80 percent of all family incomes. In 2004, low-income families
included those with $16,333 or less in family income, while high-income families included
those with $77,235 or more in family income.
13 NCES reports the state event dropout rate for public school students only.

For the 2001-2002 school year, the event dropout rates ranged from 1.9% in
Wisconsin to 10.5% in Arizona. In all, event dropout rates for public school students
were lower than 3% in nine states: Wisconsin (1.9), North Dakota (2.0), Indiana
(2.3), Iowa (2.4), New Jersey (2.5), Connecticut (2.6), Maine (2.8), South Dakota
(2.8), and Virginia (2.9). Nine states had event dropout rates of 6% or more:
Delaware (6.2), Illinois (6.4), Nevada (6.4), Georgia (6.5), Louisiana (7.0),
Washington (7.1), New York (7.1), Alaska (8.1), and Arizona (10.5).
Table 3. Event Dropout Rates by State, Selected Years
State 1993-94 1995-96 1997-98 1999-2000 2001-02
Alabama 5.8 5.6 4.8 4.5 3.7
Alaska — 5.64.65.58.1
Arizona13.710.29.4 — 10.5
Arka nsas 5.3 4.1 5.4 5.7 5.3
California — — — — —
Colorado — — — — —
Connecticut 4.8 4.8 3.5 3.1 2.6
Delaware 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.1 6.2
District of Columbia9.5 — 12.87.2 —
Florida — — — — 3.7
Georgi a 8.7 8.5 7.3 7.2 6.5
Hawaii — — 5.25.35.1
Idaho8.58.06.7 — 3.9
Illinois 6.8 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.4
Indiana — — — — 2.3
Io wa 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.4
Kansas — — — — 3.1
Kentucky — — 5.25.04.0
Louisiana 4.7 11.6 11.4 9.2 7.0
Maine 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 2.8
Maryland 5.2 4.8 4.3 4.1 3.9
Massachusetts3.73.43.23.5 —
Michigan — — — — —
Minnesota 5.1 5.2 4.9 4.3 3.8
Mississippi 6.1 6.2 5.8 4.9 3.9
Missouri 7.0 6.5 5.2 4.4 3.6
Montana — 5.64.44.23.9
Nebraska 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.0 4.2
Neva da 9.8 9.6 10.1 6.2 6.4
New Hampshire — — — — 4.0
New Jersey4.34.13.53.12.5
New Mexico8.18.37.16.05.2
New York — — 3.24.17.1
North Carolina — — — — 5.7
North Dakota2.72.52.82.72.0
Ohio — — — — 3.1
Oklahoma 4.6 5.7 5.8 5.4 4.4
Oregon 7.3 7.0 6.8 6.2 4.9
Pennsyl va nia 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.3
Rhode Island4.94.64.94.84.3



State 1993-94 1995-96 1997-98 1999-2000 2001-02
South Carolina — — — — 3.3
South Dakota5.35.73.13.52.8
T e nnessee 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.2 3.8
Texas — — — 5.03.8
Utah 3.1 4.4 5.2 4.1 3.7
V e rmont 4.8 5.3 5.2 4.7 4.0
V i rginia 4.8 4.7 4.8 3.9 2.9
Washington — — — — 7.1
West Virginia3.83.84.14.23.7
Wisconsin 3.1 2.4 2.8 2.6 1.9
Wyoming 6.5 5.7 6.4 5.7 5.8
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2004, November 2006,
Table 5.
Estimating the High School Graduation Rate
Both of the graduation rates described above — the Title I-mandated rate and
the NCES average freshman graduation rate — define this rate as the proportion of
students who enter high school and finish on time with a regular diploma. As
mentioned earlier, states are not required under the NCLBA to report their graduation
rates to ED; they need only include them in report cards to the public. State report
card data on graduation rates for the 2002-2003 school year were compiled by the
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center (see Table 4).14
In addition, NCES convened a task force of education research experts to
determine the best method for estimating state-level, on-time graduation rates with
currently available data reported to ED. The AFGR was chosen after a technical15
review and analysis of a set of alternative estimates (see Table 4).
Average Freshman Graduation Rate. The AFGR was 74% in 2002-2003
(the most recent year for which all necessary data were reported by all states). This
means that just under three-quarters of the students entering high school in the fall
of 1999 finished in four years with a regular high school diploma.
As shown in Table 4, the state with the highest AFGR in 2002-2003 was New
Jersey at 87%. Four additional states had rates of at least 85%: North Dakota (86),
Wisconsin (86), Iowa (85), and Nebraska (85). The District of Columbia had the
lowest AFGR in 2002-03 (60%). The state with the lowest AFGR that year was
South Carolina at 60%. Seven additional states had rates at or below 65%: Georgia


14 Education Week, Diplomas Count: An Essential Guide to Graduation Policy and Rates,
June 2006.
15 For technical documentation of this review see, U.S. Department of Education, Users
Guide to Computing High School Graduation Rates, Volume 1: Review of Current and
Proposed Graduation Indicators, August 2005; and U.S. Department of Education, Users
Guide to Computing High School Graduation Rates, Volume 2, Technical Evaluation of
Proxy Graduation Indicators, August 2005.

(61), New York (61), Mississippi (63), New Mexico (63), Tennessee (63), Louisiana
(64), and Alabama (65).
The far-right column in Table 4 displays the difference between the state-
reported (i.e., Title I) graduation rate and the AFGR. The range of differences
between these estimates is quite large — 22 states differ from the AFGR by 6% or
less, while five states differ by 18 percent or more.
Table 4. Graduation Rates by State, 2002-2003 School Year
AFGR - state
StateState reportedgraduation rateAverage freshmangraduation ratereported graduation
rate
United States — 74 —
Alabama — 65 —
Alaska67681
Arizona74762
Arkansas8277-5
California 87 74 -13
Colorado8476-8
Connecticut 89 81 -8
Delaware8373-10
District of — 60 —
Columbia
Florida66671
Georgia6361-2
Hawaii8071-9
Idaho81810
Illinois8676-10
Indiana9176-16
Iowa9085-5
Kansas8677-9
Kentucky7972-7
Louisiana — 64 —
Maine8776-11
Maryland8579-6
Massachusetts 95 76 -19
Michigan8574-11
Minnesota8885-3
Mississippi 81 63 -18
Missouri8478-6
Montana8481-3
Nebraska8685-1
Nevada7572-3
New Hampshire8578-7
New Jersey8987-2
New Mexico7663-13
New York9761-36
North Carolina9170-21
North Dakota84862
Ohio8479-5
Oklahoma 8 6 7 6 -10



AFGR - state
StateState reportedgraduation rateAverage freshmangraduation ratereported graduation
rate
Oregon8174-7
Pennsyl va nia 87 82 -5
Rhode Island8178-3
South Carolina7860-18
South Dakota9683-13
T e nnessee 76 63 -13
Texas8476-8
Utah8580-5
Vermont84840
Virginia8281-1
Washington66748
West Virginia8376-7
Wisconsin9286-6
Sources: Education Week, Diplomas Count: An Essential Guide to Graduation Policy and Rates,
June 2006. U.S. Department of Education, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2004, November
2006, Table 13.
Federal High School Dropout Prevention Programs
A number of programs are administered by ED and other federal agencies to
help dropouts (and students at risk of dropping out) complete their secondary
education. The major federal dropout prevention programs are briefly described16
below, along with each program’s FY2008 appropriations level. Generally, federal
programs for high school dropout prevention may be categorized as follows:
!programs with the primary purpose of preventing students from
dropping out and/or helping dropouts re-enter and complete high
school or an equivalency program,
!programs having multiple purposes, at least one of which is targeted
to dropout recovery or dropout prevention, and
!programs with broad purposes not explicitly encompassing dropouts
but whose funds may be used to help individuals complete high
school.
The extent of dropout and potential dropout participation in the latter two
categories is unknown. However, these programs may reach more dropouts or
potential dropouts than the explicitly focused programs in the first category,
particularly given that their funding levels are generally higher. For example, the


16 A few minor programs are not discussed in this report. For example, the ESEA provides
minimal support for dropout prevention under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, the
Women’s Educational Equity Act, the Rural and Low-Income School Program, the Alaska
Native Education Act, and the Indian Education Act. Two Department of Justice programs
receive a small amount of earmarked funding for dropout prevention — the Truancy
Reduction Demonstration Program and Youth Crime Watch.

FY2006 appropriation for ESEA Title I-A grants for local educational agencies
(LEAs) was $12,713,125,000. If only 0.04% of these Title I-A funds were used for
dropout programs, they may have served more students than the DPP, which received
$4,851,000 in FY2006.
Primary Purpose Programs
Dropout Prevention Program. The DPP, ESEA Title I, Part H, provides
support for ED to coordinate a national strategy for reducing dropout rates.17 The
DPP also authorizes grants to state educational agencies (SEAs) and LEAs to
establish programs for early prevention, to identify and prevent potential dropouts
from leaving school, and to encourage dropouts to reenter and complete school.
Authorized activities include professional development, reduction in pupil-teacher
ratios, counseling and mentoring for students at risk of dropping out, and
implementing comprehensive school reform. At appropriation levels of $75 million
or less, the Secretary makes competitive awards to SEAs and LEAs that serve
students in grades 6 through 12 and have annual dropout rates above the state
average. If the appropriation level exceeds $75 million, grants would be awarded on
a formula basis. The appropriation for the DPP was $0 in FY2008. FY2006 was the
last year this program received funding; that year the appropriation was $4,851,000.
Neglected and Delinquent Program. The N&D, ESEA Title I, Part D,
provides grants to SEAs and LEAs for instructional services for youth in delinquent,
community day, or correctional institutions as well as youth at risk of dropping out
of school. Subpart 1 grants are awarded to SEAs for services provided to those in
institutions under state jurisdiction. These grants are awarded on a formula based on
the number of youth in state-operated institutions and per-pupil educational
expenditures for the state. Subpart 2 grants are for services provided to youth in
schools and institutions under local jurisdiction. Each SEA is required to reserve
funds for Subpart 2 from its Title I-A allocation and award grants to LEAs based on
the number of children in locally-operated institutions. The FY2008 appropriation
for Subpart 1 grants was $48,927,000.
Migrant High School Equivalency Program. The migrant High School
Equivalency Program, HEA Title IV, Part A, Subpart 5, provides five-year
competitively awarded grants to institutions of higher education and other public and
private nonprofit organizations to support educational programs designed for migrant
students ages 16 and up. Grantees operate residential and commuter projects that
provide academic and support services to help migrant students obtain their high
school equivalency certificate and move on to employment or enrollment in higher
education institutions. Appropriations for FY2008 were $18,226,000.


17 The DPA revived the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program authorized by
the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (unfunded since the 1995 fiscal year) and was
first funded in FY2002.

Multiple Purpose Programs
Talent Search. Talent Search, HEA Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 1,18
is one of several federal Trio programs that provides grants to programs sponsored
by institutions of higher education, public or private agencies or organizations, and
in some cases, high schools. Talent Search programs provide services to
disadvantaged youth such as academic, personal, and career counseling with the goal
of increasing the number of youth who complete high school and enroll in
postsecondary education. Talent Search also serves high school dropouts by
encouraging them to reenter the educational system and complete their education.
Participants must be between the ages of 11 and 27 and have completed the fifth
grade. Talent Search received $142,884,000 of the total Trio appropriation, which
was $828,178,000 for FY2008.
Upward Bound. Upward Bound, HEA Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter
1, is one of the federal Trio programs that provides grants to programs operated by
institutions of higher education, public and nonprofit agencies, and occasionally
some high schools. Upward Bound projects provide residential programs for
disadvantaged students between the ages of 13 and 19 to improve their academic
skills and motivation to complete high school and enroll in postsecondary education.
Upward Bound received $303,928,000 of the total Trio appropriation, which was
$828,178,000 for FY2008. Upward Bound was further appropriated an additional
$57,000,000 through an earmark in the FY2008 appropriations bill (P.L. 110-161).
GEAR UP. Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
Programs (GEAR UP), HEA Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 2, awards grants
on a competitive basis to states and eligible partnerships to increase high school
completion and postsecondary enrollment. Grantees provide continuous mentoring,
counseling, outreach, and support services to cohorts of disadvantaged students
beginning in 7th grade, through high school completion, and into postsecondary19
enrollment. FY2008 appropriations were $303,423,000.
Adult Education and Literacy State Grants. The Workforce Investment
Act of 1998 (WIA), Title II, Subpart A, Chapter 2, authorizes grants to states for
increasing adult literacy, obtaining employment skills, helping adult parents to
become active participants in their children’s education, and helping adults complete
their secondary education.20 Eligible participants are between the ages of 16 and 61,


18 For additional information on Trio, see CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR UP
Programs: Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
19 For additional information on GEAR UP, see CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR UP
Programs: Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
20 For additional information on WIA programs, see CRS Report RL33687, The Workforce
Investment Act (WIA): Program-by-Program Overview and FY2007 Funding of Title I
Training Programs, by Blake Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman. While most programs
authorized by the WIA are administered by the Department of Labor, the Adult Education
and Literacy Act programs are administered through ED. For information on this program,
see CRS Report RL32867, Adult Education and Literacy: Overview and Reauthorization
(continued...)

beyond the compulsory school attendance age under state law, have not obtained a
secondary education degree or equivalent, and are not enrolled in a secondary
completion program. FY2008 appropriations for this program were $554,122,000.
Youth Activities. The Youth Activities program (WIA Title I, Subtitle B,
Chapter 4) awards formula grants to states that provide eligible youth assistance in
achieving academic and employment success, effective and comprehensive activities
which include a variety of options for improving educational and skill competencies
and provide connections to employers. At least 30% of the funds currently allocated
to local areas have to be spent on activities for out-of-school youth. An eligible
youth is defined as a low-income individual between the ages of 14 and 21 and who
is one or more of the following: deficient in basic literacy skills; a school dropout;
homeless, a runaway or a foster child; pregnant or a parent; an offender; or, requires
additional assistance to complete an educational program or secure and maintain
employment. A three-part formula is used to make allocations to states based on the
number of disadvantaged youth and unemployed persons.21 Dropout prevention and
secondary educational completion programs are included in the list of allowable
activities. The FY2008 Youth Activities appropriation was $924,069,000.
Job Corps. Job Corps (WIA, Title I, Subtitle C) provides residential
education and training programs for disadvantaged individuals between the ages of
16 and 24, meeting at least one of the following criteria: basic skills deficient; high
school dropout; homeless, a runaway, or foster child; a parent; or an individual who
requires additional education, vocational training, or intensive counseling and related
assistance, in order to participate successfully in regular schoolwork or to secure and
hold employment. Among other things, Job Corps centers — located in all 50 states
— are to provide opportunities for participants to receive high school equivalency
certificates. The program appropriation for FY2008 was $1,528,427,000.
Migrant Seasonal Farmworker Program. This program (WIA, Title I,
Subtitle D) awards competitive grants to entities having a significant understanding
of the problems faced by migrant and seasonal farmworker families, familiarity with
the service area, and capability to provide workforce development and other related
services to migrant families. Funded projects carry out workforce investment
activities and other related assistance which may include dropout prevention
activities, English literacy, and education assistance, among others, for economically
disadvantaged migrant farmworkers and their dependents. In FY2008 the program
appropriation was $79,668,000.
YouthBuild. YouthBuild was originally authorized under the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550), which added YouthBuild as


20 (...continued)
Proposals of the 109th Congress, by Paul Irwin.
21 The term “disadvantaged youth” is defined as an individual between the ages of 16 and

21 who received an income (or is a member of a family that received a total family income)


that, in relation to family size, does not exceed the higher of either the poverty line or 70%
of the lower living standard income level. WIA §127(b)(2)(C). For detailed information
on formula allocations to states see WIA § 127(b)(1)(C)(ii).

a subtitle in the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (P.L.
101-625). By FY2008, the Department of Labor (DOL) will have assumed full
administrative responsibility for this program from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD).22 YouthBuild awards competitive grants to public and
private non-profit organizations to assist disadvantaged young adults with education
and employment skills. In these programs, low-income young people ages 16-24
work toward their GED or high school diploma while learning job skills by building
affordable housing for homeless and low-income people. For FY2008, YouthBuild
was funded at $58,952,000.
Broad Purpose Programs
Title I-A LEA Grants. The ESEA Title I-A LEA grant program provides
assistance to state and local educational agencies for the education of disadvantaged
children. Grants are used to provide supplementary educational and related services
to low-achieving children attending schools with high concentrations of children
from low-income families. The FY2008 appropriation for Title I-A LEA grants was23
$13,898,875,000.
Migrant Education Program. The Migrant Education Program (MEP),
ESEA Title I, Part C, provides grants to SEAs to assist in the education of migratory24
children between the ages of 3 and 21. These formula grants are awarded based on
the number of migratory children in the state and per-pupil educational expenditures
for the state. FY2008 appropriations were $379,771,000.
21st Century Community Learning Centers. The 21st Century
Community Learning Center program, ESEA Title IV, Part B, supports the
establishment of centers in inner-city and rural public school buildings to provide
educational, recreational, cultural, health and social services to persons of all ages in
the surrounding community. Program funds are targeted to communities with low
achieving students and high rates of juvenile crime, school violence, and student drug
abuse that need resources to establish an after-school center. FY2008 appropriations25
were $1,081,166,000.


22 The President’s FY2007 request and both of the Appropriation Committees’ reports
included funding for YouthBuild, contingent on passage of pending legislation for
transferring the YouthBuild Program from HUD to DOL as a program under WIA. The
transfer proposal was recommended in 2003 by the White House Task Force for
Disadvantaged Youth and was included in the budget request for FY2006, but no action was
taken at that time. The YouthBuild Transfer Act was signed by the President on September

22, 2006 (P.L. 109-281).


23 For detailed information on the Title I-A program see CRS Report RL33731, Education
for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left
Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.
24 For more detailed information on the MEP, see CRS Report RL31325, The Federal
Migrant Education Program as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, by
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
25 For additional information on the 21st CCLC see CRS Report RL31240, 21st Century
(continued...)

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities. The Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and Communities state grants program, ESEA Title IV, Subpart 1,
provides support for comprehensive, integrated approaches to drug and violence
prevention. States award sub-grants to parent and community groups and other26
organizations for local drug and violence prevention activities. Priority for funding
goes to programs and activities serving: (1) children and youth not normally served
by state or local educational agencies, or (2) populations needing special services,
including school dropouts. Appropriations for FY2008 were $294,759,000.
Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions. HEA Title V, Part A awards
five-year competitive grants to Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs)27 to assist them
in planning, developing, undertaking and carrying out programs to improve and
expand the institutions’ capacity to serve Hispanic and other low-income students.
Among the authorized activities is establishing community outreach programs to
encourage elementary and secondary school students to develop the academic skills
and the interest to pursue higher education. Priority for assistance goes to HSIs that
enter into collaborative agreements with at least one LEA or community-based
organization to provide them assistance in reducing dropout rates of Hispanic
students, improving rates of academic achievement among Hispanics, and increasing
the Hispanic enrollment rate into institutions of higher education. Appropriations for
FY2008 were $93,256,000.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as amended by the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005, authorizes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF). TANF provides cash assistance to low-income families with children and
requires that recipients work within 24 months of first receiving assistance.
Recipients who lack a high school diploma may engage in two educational activities
to meet the work participation requirement — education directly related to
employment and attendance at a qualified secondary school — either of which should
lead to a high school diploma or its equivalent. FY2008 appropriations were $17.05028


billion.
25 (...continued)
Community Learning Centers: Background and Funding, by Gail McCallion.
26 For more detailed information on this program see CRS Report RL30482, The Safe and
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program: Background and Context, by Edith Fairman
Cooper.
27 For more information on HSIs and institutional aid in the HEA see CRS Report RL31647,
Title III and Title V of the Higher Education Act: Background and Reauthorization Issues,
by Charmaine Mercer.
28 For additional information on TANF, see CRS Report RL34206, Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF): Issues for the 110th Congress, by Gene Falk.

Reauthorization Issues
Each of the act’s authorizing the programs discussed above is likely to beth
considered for reauthorization in the 110 Congress. This section discusses several
issues pertaining to dropouts that may arise as these Acts are considered for
reauthoriz ation.
!The ESEA is currently authorized through FY2008 as a result of an
automatic one-year extension provided by the General Education
Provisions Act (P.L. 90-247).
!The funding authorization for the HEA programs discussed above is
extended through June 30, 2007, under the Third Higher Education
Extension Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-292).
!The authorization for WIA programs expired on September 30,
2003, although annual appropriations have continued funding for
WIA through FY2007.
Program Coordination. Would the various dropout programs be more cost
effective and better serve students through additional coordination? The three
primary purpose programs in ED — DPP, N&D, and the Migrant High School
Equivalency Program — are administered by three different offices within ED. The
degree of coordination between these offices is not clearly apparent. Moreover, these
programs serve similar students as several of the multiple purpose programs; many
of which are further administered by separate offices in ED and DOL. In its FY2006
and FY2007 budget requests, ED proposed eliminating some of the current programs
(specifically, DPP, Talent Search, Upward Bound, and GEAR UP) and replacing
them with a new high school reform program which, among other things, was
intended to improve graduation rates. The high school reform proposal was not made
in the FY2008 budget request. ED maintains that eliminating the four programs in
favor a single program under one office would improve program coordination.
The Dropout Prevention Act authorized the Secretary of ED to establish an
interagency working group to, “address inter- and intra-agency program coordination
issues at the federal level with respect to school dropout prevention” (ESEA, Section
1811(a)(4)); however, this group has not been set up. In its recommendations for
ESEA reauthorization, the Aspen Commission on NCLB urged Congress to improve
federal, state, and local dropout prevention coordination.29 Congress may consider
requiring the Secretary to establish the working group or some other coordinating
body and may also debate whether students are best served by the current array of
decentralized programs.
Program Effectiveness. How effective have current federal programs been
at promoting secondary degree completion among dropouts or potential dropouts?
Findings from evaluations of federally supported local dropout programs show that
most programs did not reduce dropping out by statistically significant amounts, but


29 The Commission on No Child Left Behind, Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our
Nation’s Children, the Aspen Institute, Washington, DC, February 2007.

that some programs did improve some outcomes.30 Research on programs funded at
the district and school levels have produced more promising results.31 Determining
the degree to which dropouts or potential dropouts have been served, as well as the
effectiveness of services offered, may help Congress determine a course of action
regarding dropouts or youth at risk of dropping out; these locally-successful models
may enlighten that effort.
Data Quality and Reporting. Should states be required to report
graduation rates to ED along with its annual report on academic assessments?
Should Congress require consistent and better quality graduation, dropout, and
enrollment data reporting from states to NCES? And should ED be required to
disseminate these data to Congress and the public in a timely manner? The
reporting of data appears to have improved as a result of the NCLB amendments;
however, a few gaps in the data remain. A handful of states continue to report
dropout data incompatible with NCES guidelines. Further, inconsistent reporting and
missing data require NCES to undertake substantial data manipulation to estimate the
AFGR. In its suggestions for reauthorizing the NCLBA, ED argues that “States must
demonstrate real progress in accurately reporting and improving high school32
graduation rates. Several other groups have also advocated for more accurate
reporting and better data quality.33 ED and the Aspen Commission joined the
National Governors Association in calling for data reporting on high school
outcomes to be disaggregated by student subgroups similar to the AYP requirements.
Since the strength of the ESEA accountability system depends on accurate data
reporting, Congress may consider strengthening the requirements around reporting
of high school outcomes.
Program Targeting. Are current programs well targeted in light of their
objectives? The data presented in this report indicate that, for white non-Hispanics,
high school attainment has become nearly universal in the last two decades. These
data further suggest that perhaps the educational system is reaching something like
a “ceiling effect” — making further progress toward 100% high school completion
increasingly difficult. At the same time, the data in Table 2 show that certain groups
in the population still have a way to go. Hispanic immigrants have, by far, the lowest
rates of high school completion, but Hispanic, non-immigrants and black, non-
Hispanics also have rates significantly lower than whites and Asians. Few of the
programs described above are targeted to serve students by race/ethnicity. It is not


30 These evaluations were funded under the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance
Program authorized by the Improving America’s Schools Act. For more information on this
evaluation, see the final report, Mark Dynarski, Making Do With Less: Interpreting the
Evidence from Recent Federal Evaluations of Dropout-Prevention Programs, Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., December 2000.
31 Martin, N., & Halperin, S., Whatever It Takes: How Twelve Communities Are
Reconnecting Out-Of-School Youth, American Youth Policy Forum, Washington, DC, 2006.
32 U.S. Department of Education, Building on Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening The
No Child Left Behind Act, January 2007.
33 These groups include the Aspen Commission, the Education Trust, the Center for
American Progress, the National Governors Association, the Data Quality Campaign, and
the National High School Alliance.

clear that existing programs are optimally targeted to at-risk individuals in these
groups. Some argue that our level of knowledge about the risk factors associated
with dropping out could provide for a much more precise targeting of the federal
effort. 34
At-Risk Versus Out-of-School Youth. Should the federal effort to
encourage high school completion and prevent dropouts be divided between those
at risk of dropping out and those who have already dropped out? Some argue that
DOL programs should focus on those who have already left school and the ED
programs should focus on retaining at-risk students who haven’t dropped out yet.
While this may seem to be a logical programmatic organization, others argue that this
view of the dropout problem fails to recognize that youth do not cleanly move from
being students to being dropouts. An underlying issue pertains to whether one
believes dropouts are more indicative of problems with the educational system or
family and economic hardships. The latter may be more difficult to address with
discrete dropout programs.
Unintended Consequences of Testing. Do NCLBA assessments and
accountability provisions encourage students to drop out of school? Some argue that
more frequent and early testing of students may cause some to avoid the shame and
discouragement associated with poor performance. Such students may also be subtly
encouraged to leave school by administrators and teachers whose attention is focused
on meeting AYP targets. The Aspen Commission report calls attention to this
problem and argues that schools must be held accountable for graduation rates as
well as student achievement to avoid the problem of “pushing out” low-performing
students to raise assessment scores.35
As mentioned earlier in this report, the NCLBA required the Secretary of ED to
conduct a national assessment of the Title I programs and their impact on SEAs,
LEAs, schools, and students. Two preliminary reports have been released but neither
have discussed the effect of assessments on dropouts. Congress may call for
additional information on this issue as it considers amending the current ESEA
assessment and accountability provisions.


34 For a recent review of research on these risk factors see, Robelen, E., “Detailed Dropout
Studies Guide Policy in City Schools,” Education Week, vol. 26, no. 12, (November 15,

2006).


35 The Commission on No Child Left Behind, Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our
Nation’s Children, the Aspen Institute, Washington, DC, February 2007.