Since July 2005, all 50 state governors have signed the National Governors Association's Graduation Counts Compact on State High School Graduation Data. 30 states have now received Honor States grants, for which implementation of the Graduation Counts Compact is a core requirement. This is a significant step forward, but much work remains to be done. The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices is working with governors, their advisors, and other state officials to ensure timely and effective implementation of the compact. The NGA Center will also assist states in assessing their progress toward full implementation, and will work to assess implementation progress in a manner that is both the least burdensome and most accurate. (This document includes a framework for state implementation of the Graduation Counts Compact.).

In 2005, the governors of all 50 states made an unprecedented commitment to voluntarily implement a common, more reliable formula for calculating their state's high school graduation rate by signing the Graduation Counts Compact of the National Governors Association (NGA). Five years later, progress is steady. Twenty-six states say they have reported, or will have reported by the end of 2010, their high school graduation rate data using the Compact formula. Nineteen additional states plan to report the Compact rate by the end of 2011, and three more states plan to report this rate by the end of 2012. Two states received a waiver from the U.S. Department of Education to report the Compact rate after 2012. In total, 48 states will report the Compact rate for the cohort graduating in 2011. Eighteen of the 26 states reporting the Compact rate also say they use the Compact rate to meet the graduation rate requirements for adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. Up by seven since 2009, 49 states now report they have the data systems needed to track individual students and more accurately calculate the high school graduation rate using the Compact rate. Not all of these states have tracked a cohort the full five years from eighth grade through high school graduation. Twenty-one of the 26 states reporting the Compact graduation rate also report additional indicators of student outcomes. One additional state plans to do so in the future. All 26 states report or plan to report disaggregated graduation rate data for different student subgroups, such as minority students, disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities. Twenty-one states have set graduation rate goals at 90 percent or higher. Appendices include: (1) State Policies to Measure High School Graduation; and (2) Ten Essential Elements of Longitudinal Data Systems: State Status. (Contains 5 notes.) [For the 2009 report, see ED507634.].

In 2005, all 50 state governors made an unprecedented commitment to voluntarily implement a common, more reliable formula for calculating their states' high school graduation rates by signing the National Governors Association (NGA) Graduation Counts Compact. Four years later, progress is steady. Twenty states now report that they use the Compact formula to calculate their high school graduation rate and publicly report the data. Five more states plan to report the Compact rate later in 2009, eight more in 2010, and 12 more in 2011. Three additional states have not indicated to NGA a date by which they will report using the Compact rate, but will presumably meet a new federal reporting deadline of 2011. Two others have requested a waiver extending the federal deadline beyond 2011. Twelve of the 20 states reporting the Compact rate also report that they use the Compact Rate to meet the graduation rate requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Up by six since 2008, 42 states now report they have the data systems needed to track individual students and more accurately calculate the high school graduation rate using the NGA Compact rate. Not all of those have tracked a cohort the full five years from eighth grade (which identifies first-time ninth graders) to high school graduation. Eighteen of the 20 states that are reporting the Compact graduation rate also report additional indicators of student outcomes. Nineteen of the 20 states report disaggregated graduation rate data for different student subgroups, such as minorities, disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities. Two appendices are included in this report: (1) State Policies to Measure High School Graduation; and (2) Ten Essential Elements of Longitudinal Data Systems: State Status. (Contains 6 notes.).

"A Brookings Institution Press with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Center for American Progress publication America's fragmented, decentralized, politicized, and bureaucratic system of education governance is a major impediment to school reform. In this important new book, a number of leading education scholars, analysts, and practitioners show that understanding the impact of specific policy changes in areas such as standards, testing, teachers, or school choice requires careful analysis of the broader governing arrangements that influence their content, implementation, and impact. Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century comprehensively assesses the strengths and weaknesses of what remains of the old in education governance, scrutinizes how traditional governance forms are changing, and suggests how governing arrangements might be further altered to produce better educational outcomes for children. Paul Manna, Patrick McGuinn, and their colleagues provide the analysis and alternatives that will inform attempts to adapt nineteenth and twentieth century governance structures to the new demands and opportunities of today. Contents: Education Governance in America: Who Leads When Everyone Is in Charge?, Patrick McGuinn and Paul Manna The Failures of U.S. Education Governance Today, Chester E. Finn Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli How Current Education Governance Distorts Financial Decisionmaking, Marguerite Roza Governance Challenges to Innovators within the System, Michelle R. Davis Governance Challenges to Innovators outside the System, Steven F. Wilson Rethinking District Governance, Frederick M. Hess and Olivia M. Meeks Interstate Governance of Standards and Testing, Kathryn A. McDermott Education Governance in Performance-Based Federalism, Kenneth K. Wong The Rise of Education Executives in the White House, State House, and Mayor's Office, Jeffrey R. Henig English Perspectives on Education Governance and Delivery, Michael Barber Education Governance in Canada and the United States, Sandra Vergari Education Governance in Comparative Perspective, Michael Mintrom and Richard Walley Governance Lessons from the Health Care and Environment Sectors, Barry G. Rabe Toward a Coherent and Fair Funding System, Cynthia G. Brown Picturing a Different Governance Structure for Public Education, Paul T. Hill From Theory to Results in Governance Reform, Kenneth J. Meier The Tall Task of Education Governance Reform, Paul Manna and Patrick McGuinn"