This is the first in a series of briefs examining the progress in raising high school graduation rates over the past decade. During this period, the prevailing belief has been that all students who wanted to or needed to graduate did so. However, it is now recognized that in every state there are too many communities and schools where high school graduation is not the norm. Moreover, a widespread national consensus developed that state and national graduation rates were far from where they needed to be to insure success in the 21st century. As awareness of the magnitude, scope and consequences of the nation's graduation challenge grew in the past decade, many states and communities responded with a call to action and a diversity of attempts to increase graduation rates. Has this made a difference? How far do we still have to go to graduate all students from high school prepared for college, career, and civic life? This first data brief looks at progress in raising graduation rates in the nation and its 50 states. It examines national and statewide progress in raising the high school graduation rate between 2002 and 2006. (Contains 3 tables.) [This document was produced by The Everyone Graduates Center, located at the Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.].

High school graduation and dropout rates have long been used as indicators of educational system productivity and effectiveness and of social and economic well being. While determining these rates may seem like a straightforward task, their calculation is in fact quite complicated. How does one count a student who leaves a regular high school but later completes a GED? How does one count a student who spends most of his/her high school years at one school and then transfers to another? If the student graduates, which school should receive credit? If the student drops out, which school should take responsibility? High School Dropout, Graduation, and Completion Rates addresses these issues and to examine (1) the strengths, limitations, accuracy, and utility of the available dropout and completion measures; (2) the state of the art with respect to longitudinal data systems; and (3) ways that dropout and completion rates can be used to improve policy and practice.

Graduation rates at public schools in the United States are not where they are supposed to be. The average national graduation rate is 84.6%. Public schools have struggled to raise graduation rates to 100% and to make sure students are getting the best education possible. High school dropouts usually have a difficult time finding a full-time job and earn considerably less in their lifetime than graduates do. As adults, they tend to need assistance with housing, food, and other vital necessities. Dropouts also tend to commit more crimes and have a higher chance of being incarcerated during their adulthood. Low graduation rates are attributable to factors inherent to students' socioeconomic backgrounds, behaviors, and choices, as well as challenges faced by the public school districts. The factors predicting academic failure among high school students are dynamically intertwined and co-dependent. Many policies have passed and failed or not done enough to raise graduation rates to the ultimate goal of 100%. This proposed study intends to shed light on the factors that affect graduation rates in the Los Angeles Unified School District and finding ways to improve the strategies that are currently being used to monitor and raise graduation rates. This paper will propose a two-phase mixed methods approach via an emailed or mailed survey to administrators, parents, and students querying their knowledge and opinion on the factors that affect graduation rates at their schools. Suggested improvements to strategies to raise graduation rates that are currently in place will be the result of the study.

The nation has achieved an 82.3 percent high school graduation rate--a record high. Graduation rates rose for all student subgroups, and the number of low-graduation-rate high schools and students enrolled in them dropped again, indicating that progress has had far-reaching benefits for all students. This report is the first to analyze 2014 graduation data using new criteria established by the "Every Student Succeeds Act" (ESSA) and the first to show the impact of additional time on graduation rates. The report provides a new national and state-by-state analysis of low-graduation-rate high schools; the number of additional students it will take for the country and each state to reach 90 percent; a look at the validity of graduation rates; and policy recommendations for change. Findings include the following: (1) Nationwide, there are four high-graduation-rate high schools (85 percent Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) and above) for every one low-graduation-rate high school (67 percent ACGR and below); (2) Twenty-four percent of all high schools were located in cities, but urban areas were home to more than half of 2014 low-graduation-rate high schools; (3) Forty-one percent of low-graduation-rate high schools were regular public schools (non-charter) in 2014; (4) 57 percent of alternative high schools nationwide were low-graduation-rate high schools, while only eight percent of alternative schools were high-graduation rate high schools; (5) Thirty percent of charter schools reporting ACGR in 2014 were low-graduation-rate high schools, and 44 percent were high-graduation-rate high schools; and (6) Roughly 87 percent of virtual schools were low-graduation-rate high schools in 2014. The following are appended: (1) Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates (ACGR), by State and Subgroup, 2013-14; (2) Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) Change from 2010-11 to 2013-14, by State; (3) Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) Gaps, by Subgroup and State, 2013-14; (4) Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) Gap Change, by Subgroup and State from 2010-11 to 2013-14; (5) Estimated Non-Low-Income Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), Low-Income ACGR, Gap between Low-Income and Non-Low-Income, and Gap Change, by State, from 2012-13 to 2013-14; (6) Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), by State, Percent Low-Income, ACGR Low-Income, ACGR Estimated Non-Low-Income, Gap between Low-Income and Non-Low-Income, and Gap Change, by State from 2011-2014; (7) Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR, 2013-14) for Students with Disabilities (SWD) versus Non-SWD; (8) Number of High Schools by Different Levels of Promoting Power, 2002-2014; (9) Change of High Schools with Promoting Power of 60 Percent or Less by Locale, 2002-2014; (10) Large High Schools and Students Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity with a 2014 Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) 67 Percent or Below, 2014; (11) 2014 State On-Pace/Off-Pace to 90 Percent ACGR by Class of 2020; (12) ESSA High Schools with ACGR 67 Percent or Below, by State and Type, 2014; (13) Number of Non-Graduates by State and School Type, 2014; (14) Number and Percentages of Regular High Schools by Type (District, Charter, Virtual), 2014; (15) Number and Percentages of Alternative High Schools by Type (District, Charter, Virtual), 2014; (16) Number and Percentages of Special Education High Schools by Type (District, Charter, Virtual), 2014; (17) Number and Percentages of Vocational High Schools by Type (District, Charter, Virtual), 2014; (18) Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) Data Links, by State; (19) Frequently Used Terms and Definitions; (20) Graduation Rate FAQ; and (21) Civic Marshall Plan Principles. [Data analysis for this report was performed by Vaughan Byrnes and Mark Pierson. This report was edited by Erin Ingram, Kathleen McMahon, Joanna Hornig Fox, and Mary Maushard. For the 2015 report, see ED556759.].

This study updates previous Education Trust briefs that looked at public, four-year colleges that successfully improved minority graduation rates and narrowed graduation-rate gaps. This new report examines which four-year, nonprofit colleges--public "and" private--have made the most improvements for Hispanic students. Because for-profit institutions are a distinct subset of colleges, the authors have explored trends in their outcomes in a separate report. In a companion brief, they profile colleges that have made the most progress for another important group of underrepresented students: African Americans. By highlighting this diverse set of institutions, they find that: (1) Institutions can benchmark their progress toward producing more degrees in two ways: Some colleges can focus on making gains in graduation rates for their Hispanic students, while others can focus on closing gaps between Hispanic students and white students; (2) The starting point doesn't matter: Progress is possible for all types of institutions. Some can start by making substantial gains in graduation rates, while others can sustain previous progress made; still others can narrow gaps between Hispanic students and their white peers even if they've had large gaps in the past; and (3) Only when colleges institutionalize the policies and practices that make programs for underrepresented students successful will they bring about a transformative process that benefits all students, and Hispanic students in particular. (Contains 5 figures, 6 tables and 22 notes.) [For related report, "Advancing to Completion: Increasing Degree Attainment by Improving Graduation Rates and Closing Gaps for African-American Students," see ED535504.].