This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-879 
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Education Could Do More to Help 
States Better Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about 
Intervention Strategies' which was released on September 21, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

September 2005: 

No Child Left Behind Act: 

Education Could Do More to Help States Better Define Graduation Rates 
and Improve Knowledge about Intervention Strategies: 

GAO-05-879: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-879, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

About a third of students entering high school do not graduate and face 
limited job prospects. The No Child Left Behind Act requires states to 
use graduation rates to measure how well students are educated. To 
assess the accuracy of states’ rates and to review programs that may 
increase rates, GAO was asked to examine (1) the graduation rate 
definitions states use and how the Department of Education (Education) 
helped states meet legal requirements, (2) the factors that affect the 
accuracy of states’ rates and Education’s role in ensuring accurate 
data, and (3) interventions with the potential to increase graduation 
rates and how Education enhanced and disseminated knowledge of 
intervention research. 

What GAO Found: 

As of July 2005, 12 states used a graduation rate definition—referred 
to as the cohort definition—that tracks students from when they enter 
high school to when they leave, and by school year 2007-08 a majority 
plan to use this definition. Thirty-two states used a definition based 
primarily on the number of dropouts over a 4-year period and graduates. 
The remaining states used other definitions. Because the cohort 
definition is more precise, most states not using it planned to do so 
when their data systems can track students over time, a capability many 
states do not have. Education has assisted states primarily on a case-
by-case basis, but it has not provided guidance to all states on ways 
to account for selected students, such as for students with 
disabilities, thus creating less consistency among states in how 
graduation rates are calculated. 

States’ Planned Definitions by School Year 2007-08: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure]

The primary factor affecting the accuracy of graduation rates was 
student mobility. Students who come and go make it difficult to keep 
accurate records. Another factor was whether states verified student 
data, with fewer than half of the states conducting audits of data used 
to calculate graduation rates. Data inaccuracies can substantially 
raise or lower a school’s graduation rate. Education has taken steps to 
help states address data accuracy issues. However, Education officials 
said that they could not assess state systems until they had been in 
place for a while. Data accuracy is critical, particularly since 
Education is using state data to calculate graduation rate estimates to 
provide consistency across states. 

Many interventions are used to raise graduation rates, but few are 
rigorously evaluated. GAO identified five that had been rigorously 
evaluated and showed potential for improving graduation rates, such as 
Project GRAD. In visits to six states, GAO visited three schools that 
were using such interventions. Other schools GAO visited were using 
interventions considered by experts and officials to show promise and 
focused on issues such as self esteem and literacy at various grades. 
Education has not acted on GAO’s 2002 recommendation that it evaluate 
intervention research, a recommendation the agency agreed with, and has 
done little to disseminate such research. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends Education provide information to all states on ways to 
account for different types of students in graduation rate 
calculations, assess the reliability of state data used to calculate 
interim rates, and establish a timetable to implement the 
recommendation in GAO’s 2002 report to evaluate research and also to 
disseminate such research. Education agreed with GAO’s recommendations 
on accounting for different types of students and the need for 
research. On GAO’s other recommendation, Education noted steps it was 
taking to assess data reliability though it is unclear that such steps 
address data to be used for interim rates. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-879. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Marnie S. Shaul at (202) 
512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Many States Moving toward Using A Definition That Follows Students over 
Time; Education's Guidance Regarding NCLBA Requirements Is Limited: 

Several Factors Affected the Accuracy of Graduation Rates, and Data 
Quality Remains a Key Challenge: 

Few Interventions Have Been Rigorously Evaluated, and Education Has 
Done Little to Evaluate and Disseminate Existing Research: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Bibliography: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Number of States That Allow Schools to Maintain Previous 
Year's Rate or Show Progress toward Graduation Rate Targets to Make 
AYP, as of July 2005: 

Table 2: Number of Interventions Visited by School Level and Type: 

Table 3: Key Features of the Check and Connect Model: 

Table 4: States Selected for Site Visits and Phone Interviews by 
Purpose: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Student Mobility and Graduation Outcome for a Hypothetical 
High School Class: 

Figure 2: Cohort Formula Definition: 

Figure 3: Departure Classification Definition: 

Figure 4: Definitions by State, as of April 2005, and Planned to Use by 
State, School Year 2007-08: 

Figure 5: State Graduation Rate Targets, as of July 2005: 

Figure 6: Estimated School Graduation Rates under Varying Assumptions 
of Errors in Counting Dropouts: 

Figure 7: Project GRAD Structural Model: 

Figure 8: Aviation High School Presentation by the Blue Angels: 

Abbreviations: 

AYP: Adequate Yearly Progress: 
GED: General Education Development: 
ESOL: English for Speakers of Other Languages: 
HOSTS: Help One Student to Succeed: 
IASA: Improving America's Schools Act of 1994: 
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics: 
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
Project GRAD: Project Graduation Really Achieves Dreams: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

September 20, 2005: 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Lamar Alexander:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Patty Murray:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe:
United States Senate: 

About one third of students who enter high school do not graduate and 
face limited job opportunities. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 
(NCLBA) was passed in part to increase the likelihood that all of the 
48 million students in our nation's public school systems will graduate 
and requires states to use high school graduation rates, along with 
test scores, to assess how much progress high schools are making in 
educating their students. Graduation rates--used in conjunction with 
test scores--provide a more complete picture of school performance than 
test scores alone, because a school's test proficiency rate will be 
higher if low-performing students drop out and do not have their scores 
included with their peers. Graduation rates are used as part of the 
determination about whether schools meet federal requirements for 
school progress. If schools do not meet such requirements, their 
students may be eligible to transfer to another school or receive 
tutoring. Currently, the Department of Education (Education), National 
Governors Association, and several national education organizations and 
foundations are working on high school reform initiatives to address 
issues, such as school structure and curriculum, which may help low- 
performing students and increase the likelihood of graduation. In 
addition, our 2002 report on high school dropouts identified the need 
for better information on the success of interventions designed to 
increase the likelihood of students staying in school until they 
graduate.[Footnote 1]

NCLBA defines graduation rates as the percentage of students who 
graduate from high school with a regular diploma in the standard number 
of years. Education's regulations do not permit states to count an 
alternative degree that is not fully aligned with the state's academic 
standards, such as a certificate of attendance or a General Educational 
Development certificate (GED). Each state has flexibility, however, in 
determining how its graduation rate will be specifically calculated as 
long as the rate is, as the law requires, "valid and reliable."

In response to congressional requests, we are providing information on: 
(1) the definitions states have developed for graduation rates and how 
Education supports states in meeting the law's requirements for 
defining and measuring graduation rates; (2) the factors, such as 
student mobility, that affect the accuracy of the data used to 
calculate graduation rates for all students and those in designated 
groups, and what Education does to ensure accuracy of rates reported by 
states; and (3) what is known about the success of interventions with 
the potential to increase graduation rates and how Education has 
enhanced and disseminated knowledge about these practices. 

To address these objectives, we used a variety of methodological 
approaches. We analyzed the plans states were required to submit to 
Education to identify the graduation rate definitions states used and 
graduation rate goals set by states, reviewed updates to plans through 
July 2005, and letters from Education to states regarding its decisions 
about state plans and updates. We also surveyed officials in 50 states, 
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico[Footnote 2] to obtain 
information about the extent to which states verify school and district 
data used to calculate high school graduation rates and use unique 
student identifiers. We selected and contacted 20 states for further 
analysis. States were selected to capture variation in high school 
graduation rate definitions, geographic location, and types of 
interventions with the potential to increase graduation rates. We 
conducted a case study in 1 state to calculate graduation rates; site 
visits in 3 states to review data accuracy; site visits in 6 states to 
observe interventions and interview staff at 16 schools; and phone 
interviews in all 20 states to obtain information on definitions used, 
implementation status, and guidance provided. To identify which 
interventions have the potential to increase graduation rates, we 
reviewed the research on interventions and interviewed Education 
officials and dropout prevention experts. We also reviewed available 
evaluations of the types of interventions we observed to assess their 
findings and methodological approaches. To determine how Education 
assists states, we reviewed Education regulations, guidance, and other 
documents and interviewed Education and state agency officials. We also 
interviewed Education and state officials to determine the degree to 
which Education has enhanced and disseminated knowledge about 
interventions. To determine the extent to which reported dropout rates 
may be understated, we interviewed experts in this area and reviewed 
research on the topic. Finally, we interviewed officials from the 
National Governors Association, national education organizations, and 
other experts in the area of high school graduation rates and reviewed 
related research to obtain an understanding of the issues surrounding 
these rates and high school reform efforts to address them. For a more 
detailed explanation of our methodology, see appendix I. We conducted 
our work between September 2004 and July 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

A majority of states used or planned to use a graduation rate 
definition, referred to as the "cohort" definition, which follows a 
group of students over time from when they entered high school until 
they left. Education has assisted states; however, it has not provided 
guidance on ways to account for certain students. The cohort 
definition, used by 12 states as of spring 2005, compares the number of 
12th grade graduates with the number of students enrolled as 9th 
graders 4 years earlier, while also taking into account the number of 
students who left the school, such as those who transferred in and out. 
Thirty-two states used a definition of high school graduation rate 
based primarily on the number of dropouts over a 4-year period and 
graduates, referred to as the "departure classification definition." 
The remaining eight states used a variety of other definitions. Many 
states using the departure or other definitions are planning to move to 
the cohort definition by school year 2007-08 or when their data systems 
can accommodate its use. This definition may help schools provide more 
precise graduation rates; however, it requires data systems that can 
track students or groups of students over time. Most states used these 
definitions to set graduation rate targets (for example, 80 percent a 
year). Although states generally set numerical targets, many considered 
a school as meeting state graduation rate requirements if the school 
showed progress toward these targets. The progress states allowed 
generally ranged from any progress up to 1 percent, with two states 
allowing schools to maintain the graduation rate of the previous year. 
Education has supported states' efforts to develop definitions that are 
intended to produce more precise results, developed some guidance, and 
provided support such as on-site peer reviews, conferences, and 
information on its Web site. Education also commissioned a task force 
that published a report identifying the advantages and disadvantages of 
different definitions. States also encountered challenges in resolving 
common issues, such as how to account for students with disabilities 
who graduate with a regular diploma in more than the standard number of 
years based on their Individualized Education Plans. Education has not 
provided guidance to all states on how to account for students in such 
programs; instead, Education's approach has been to provide such 
information to states on a case-by-case basis. As a result, some states 
were not aware of the modifications available to count such students in 
their graduation calculation, and there is less consistency among 
states, even those using similar definitions, in how their rates are 
calculated. 

Difficulty tracking mobile student populations was the primary factor 
affecting the accuracy of graduation rates; while Education has taken 
some steps to help states address this challenge, concerns about data 
accuracy still exist. According to state, school district, and school 
officials and experts we interviewed, the more that a school's students 
come and go, the more challenging it is for a school to maintain 
accurate records on whether students leave school by transferring or 
dropping out. Other factors--such as the degree to which states verify 
school and district data--also affect the accuracy of graduation rates. 
For example, fewer than half of the states reported conducting audits 
that verify these data. Data inaccuracies, such as miscounting the 
number of dropouts, can significantly raise or lower a school's 
reported graduation rate. Because most states were in the process of 
adopting a different graduation rate definition, Education officials 
told us that they could not examine the reliability of the data used to 
calculate such rates until after the new definitions had been in place 
for multiple years. Such time would allow them to determine if the 
rates produced consistent results. Also, Education enhanced its state 
monitoring by adding a review component to examine data states used for 
graduation rates, among other aspects of states' participation in the 
Title I program. Furthermore, in response to recommendations from GAO 
and Education's Inspector General, the agency contracted with a firm to 
develop a guide by the end of 2005 to help states improve data 
collection processes. In July 2005, Education announced that it planned 
to calculate and report interim graduation rate estimates for each 
state to provide a nationwide perspective. However, in our review we 
found that data problems exist, and it is unclear whether the 
department's monitoring efforts are sufficient for states to provide 
accurate data for Education's estimates. 

Few of the interventions that states and school districts have 
implemented to increase high school graduation rates have been 
rigorously evaluated, and Education has done little to evaluate and 
disseminate existing knowledge about effective interventions. We 
identified five interventions that had been rigorously evaluated and 
showed potential for improving graduation rates. In our visits to six 
states we visited three schools that were using such interventions. For 
example, Check and Connect, an intensive mentoring program, showed 
increased levels of educational attainment for students with emotional 
and behavioral disabilities. Another program, Project GRAD, a 
comprehensive kindergarten-to-12 reform program, demonstrated some 
promise in improving test scores and graduation rates. In addition to 
the programs we visited, recently completed rigorous evaluations of two 
other programs, the Talent Development High School Model and First 
Things First, suggest that these interventions may also increase 
graduation rates. Most other programs we visited fell into one of three 
categories--restructuring schools, providing supplemental services, 
such as tutoring, and creating alternative learning environments-- 
similar to findings in our 2002 report on high school dropouts. While 
these had not been rigorously evaluated, research and program officials 
noted some promising results that may lead to improving student 
outcomes including high school graduation. With the NCLBA requirement 
that interventions be research-based, there is a need in the education 
community for additional scientifically based research. However, 
Education's efforts to evaluate and disseminate existing knowledge on 
interventions have been minimal. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of Education develop approaches 
to provide information on how to account for different types of 
students to all states rather than providing this information on a 
state-by-state basis and assess the reliability of data submitted by 
states that Education plans to use to develop interim graduation rates. 
We are also recommending that the Secretary establish a timetable to 
carry out the recommendation in our 2002 report regarding evaluating 
research on dropout interventions, including those that focus on 
increasing graduation rates, and that the Secretary disseminate 
research on programs shown to be effective in increasing graduation 
rates. In comments on a draft of this report, Education concurred with 
our recommendations about accounting for different types of students 
and the need for evaluating and disseminating research on dropout 
interventions. On our recommendation to assess the reliability of data 
submitted by states, Education noted that it was taking steps to assess 
data reliability; however, it is not clear that these steps apply to 
data that Education plans to use to calculate interim rates. 

Background: 

Despite the increasing importance of a high school education, only an 
estimated two thirds of students graduate from high schools nationwide. 
Students in certain subgroups, such as the economically disadvantaged 
and certain racial and ethnic groups, have historically graduated from 
high school at substantially lower rates than their peers. Students who 
do not graduate from high school are at a serious disadvantage compared 
to their peers who do. They are much less likely to obtain good jobs or 
attend college. The NCLBA includes several requirements for states to 
improve school and student performance, including measuring high school 
graduation rates. 

NCLBA Requirements: 

NCLBA expanded the requirements of the Improving America's Schools Act 
of 1994 (IASA) for states, school districts, and schools to demonstrate 
that their students are making adequate progress toward their state's 
academic goals. IASA required testing in each of three grade spans to 
determine whether a school made adequate yearly progress (AYP). NCLBA 
requires, by the 2005-06 school year, that annual tests in math and 
reading be administered to students in grades 3 through 8 and once in 
high school; by 2007-08, students must also be tested in science. In 
order to make AYP, schools are to show that increasing numbers of 
students reach the proficient level on state tests and that every 
student is proficient by 2014. NCLBA also designated specific groups of 
students for particular focus. These four groups are students who (1) 
are economically disadvantaged, (2) represent major racial and ethnic 
groups, (3) have disabilities, and (4) are limited in English 
proficiency.[Footnote 3] For a school to make AYP, its student body as 
a whole and each of the student groups must, at a minimum, meet the 
state targets for testing proficiency. 

Under NCLBA, schools must also use at least one other academic 
indicator, in addition to annual tests, to measure AYP. High schools 
must use graduation rate as one of their other academic indicators. The 
law defines graduation rate as the percentage of students who graduate 
from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of 
years. Education officials told us that standard number of years is 
determined by a state and is generally based on the structure of the 
school. For example, a high school with grades 9 through 12 would have 
4 as its standard number of years while a school with grades 10 through 
12 would have 3 as its standard number of years. 

NCLBA regulations specifically require a high school, in order to make 
AYP, to meet or exceed its other academic indicators, including what 
the state has set as the graduation rate for public high schools. NCLBA 
does not specify a minimum graduation rate that states must set. States 
have used a variety of methods to measure AYP on their graduation rate 
indicator. For example, states have set graduation rate targets or 
goals or have allowed schools to show progress toward a target or goal 
as a way for schools to meet the graduation rate indicator requirement. 
The law does not require states to increase their graduation rate over 
time. 

The law requires states to demonstrate that their definitions produce 
graduation rates that are valid and reliable. A valid rate would be one 
that measures what it intends to measure. A reliable rate is one which, 
with repeated data collections and calculations, produces the same 
result each time such collections and calculations are performed. A key 
aspect of the reliability of graduation rates is the quality of the 
data used to calculate them. The National Center for Education 
Statistics (NCES), Education's chief statistical agency, has funded a 
document that describes the following dimensions for ensuring that data 
are of high quality: 

* Accuracy. The information must be correct and complete. Data entry 
procedures must be reliable to ensure that a report will have the same 
information regardless of who fills it out. 

* Security. The confidentiality of student and staff records must be 
ensured and data must be safe. 

* Utility. The data must provide the right information to answer the 
question asked. 

* Timeliness. Deadlines are discussed, and data are entered in a timely 
manner.[Footnote 4]

This document suggests that school staff members are responsible for 
entering data accurately and completely and maintaining data security. 
It provides ideas for assisting staff to accomplish these tasks, such 
as sharing best practices with a peer and implementing school-district 
policies on data security, such as changing passwords frequently. 

If schools receiving funding under Title I, Part A of the act do not 
make AYP--including meeting the state's requirements for graduation 
rates--for 2 consecutive years or more, they are "identified for 
improvement." They must take certain actions such as offering parents 
an opportunity to transfer students to a school that had made AYP 
(school choice). If these schools continue not to make AYP, they must 
take additional actions, such as providing supplemental services to 
students--including transportation, tutoring, and training.[Footnote 5] 
States and school districts are required to provide funding for such 
actions up to a maximum specified in law. However, according to 
Education officials, most high schools do not receive Title I funding, 
and therefore, if these schools do not make AYP, they are not required 
to take improvement actions, such as offering school choice or 
supplemental services. However, NCLBA requires each school district 
receiving Title I funds to prepare a report card that must contain 
graduation rates for high school students and is available to the 
public. 

Education's Responsibilities: 

Education has responsibility for general oversight of Title I of NCLBA. 
As part of its oversight effort, Education has implemented the Student 
Achievement and School Accountability Program for monitoring each 
states' administration of Title I programs. This monitoring effort was 
designed to provide regular and systematic reviews and evaluations of 
how states provide assistance in terms of funding, resources, and 
guidance to school districts to ensure that they administer and 
implement programs in accordance with the law. Monitoring is conducted 
on a 3-year cycle and addresses high school graduation rates among 
other requirements. Teams of federal officials visit state offices, 
interview state officials, and review documentation on how states 
comply with federal law and regulations. NCLBA also requires the 
Secretary of Education to report to the Congress annually regarding 
state progress in implementing various requirements, including the 
number of schools identified for improvement. Education has required 
states to report their graduation rates for the state as a whole and 
for designated student groups. 

All states submitted plans to Education as required under NCLBA, which 
were to include their definitions of graduation rates. By June 2003, 
Education reviewed and approved all state plans, including their 
definitions of graduation rates and their statements regarding how such 
rates were valid and reliable. Education provided many states with 
approval to use a definition of their choosing until they are able to 
develop ones that better meet the law's requirements for defining and 
measuring graduation rates. Education has also reviewed and approved 
many amendments to plans submitted by states, including those that make 
changes to the state's definition of its graduation rate. 

Additionally, NCES commissioned a task force to review issues about 
definitions, data, and implementation. In its report, the Task Force 
discussed the data challenges faced by states in calculating their 
graduation rates.[Footnote 6] Regarding data used to measure student 
performance generally, GAO and Education's Inspector General have 
commented on the importance of data accuracy.[Footnote 7]

Dropout Prevention: 

To attempt to improve graduation rates in high schools or keep students 
from dropping out of school, Education, state governments, school 
districts, schools, and foundations have funded or implemented various 
interventions to address the educational needs of students. Such 
interventions are based on the idea that many factors influence a 
student's decision to drop out of school, such as low grades, socio- 
economic challenges, and disciplinary problems. These factors may be 
evident as early as elementary school, and therefore some interventions 
are designed for these students. 

During the late 1980s and through the mid-1990s, Education supported 
dropout prevention programs across the country. In an attempt to 
determine which programs effectively reduced the drop out rate, 
Education conducted several evaluations of these programs. The largest 
of these was the evaluation of the second phase (1991 to 1996) of the 
School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program. This evaluation looked 
at more than 20 dropout prevention programs including school within a 
school, alternative middle and high schools, restructuring initiatives, 
tutoring programs, and GED programs. While two of these programs showed 
promise in reducing dropout rates--alternative high schools and middle 
schools--the major finding was that most programs did not reduce 
dropping out.[Footnote 8]

In our 2002 report, we identified three intervention approaches to 
prevent students from dropping out of school:[Footnote 9]

* Restructuring schools. This approach modifies a school or all schools 
in a district through such initiatives as curriculum reform or dividing 
schools into smaller, more individualized learning communities. 

* Providing supplemental services. This approach provides additional 
services such as tutoring or mentoring in language and math; 
interventions attempt to raise student academic achievement and self 
esteem.[Footnote 10]

* Creating alternative learning environments. These interventions 
target at-risk students and attempt to create personalized learning 
environments, such as career academies that focus the entire school 
around a specific career theme. 

However, our 2002 report found that additional research was needed to 
document which interventions were particularly successful for certain 
groups of students. Education agreed that additional rigorous evidence 
is needed and that it would consider commissioning a systematic review 
of the literature. 

Many States Moving toward Using A Definition That Follows Students over 
Time; Education's Guidance Regarding NCLBA Requirements Is Limited: 

A majority of states used or planned to use a graduation rate 
definition based on the group of students entering high school who 
graduate on time, referred to as the cohort definition. Education has 
assisted states, approved their graduation rate definitions, and given 
some states more time to develop planned definitions intended to 
produce more precise results. However, states faced challenges in 
resolving common data issues and in providing information on how to 
modify definitions to better account for certain students, such as for 
those with disabilities. 

A Majority of States Used or Planned to Use a Definition That Follows 
Students over Time: 

According to state plans, 12 states used a definition that followed a 
group of students over time from when they entered high school until 
they left--referred to as the cohort definition. An additional 18 
states using other definitions planned to adopt the cohort definition 
no later than the 2007-08 school year.[Footnote 11] The cohort 
definition compares the number of 12th grade graduates with a standard 
diploma, with the number of students enrolled as 9th graders 4 years 
earlier, while also taking into account those who left the cohort, such 
as those who transferred in and out.[Footnote 12] A study commissioned 
by NCES found that a cohort definition designed to track individual 
students over time--from when they enter high school until they leave-
-could result in a more precise high school graduation rate than one 
calculated with other definitions.[Footnote 13] The data in figure 1 
show a hypothetical high school class from the time students enrolled 
in 9th grade until they graduated with a standard diploma, including 
those who dropped out, transferred, received alternative degrees, 
continued in school, or took 5 years to graduate. 

Figure 1: Student Mobility and Graduation Outcome for a Hypothetical 
High School Class: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

If the school was in a state that used the cohort definition and 
considered 4 years to be on-time graduation, its graduation rate would 
be 60 percent. The 60 percent figure comes from using the number of 
students who started (100), the net number of transfers over the 4 
years, and the number who graduate in 4 years (60).[Footnote 14] Figure 
2 shows the formula of the cohort definition. The year students in the 
cohort graduate is denoted by "y," while "T" signifies the net number 
of students who transfer in and out in any given year. The cohort 
definitions actually used by states may vary somewhat from the basic 
definition. For example, Kansas used dropout and transfer data in its 
definition. Additionally, some states track individual students, while 
others track groups of students based on the entering 9th grade cohort. 

Figure 2: Cohort Formula Definition: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

According to state plans, 32 states used a definition of high school 
graduation rate, referred to as the departure classification 
definition, based primarily on the number of dropouts over a 4-year 
period and graduates. Essentially, this definition looks back from a 
12th grade class at those who (1) graduated (regardless of when they 
started high school), (2) dropped out in 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th 
grades (including those who enrolled in GED programs) and (3) did not 
graduate, but received some form of alternative completion 
certificate.[Footnote 15] So, using this definition, the data from the 
high school shown in figure 1 would result in a graduation rate of 65 
percent. The 65 percent figure comes from using the number of students 
who graduated (65), the number who received an alternative certificate 
(5), and the number who dropped out (30), as shown in Figure 3. Unlike 
the cohort definition, this definition does not take into consideration 
the number of students entering high school 4 years earlier. As noted 
earlier, some of these states (13) planned to adopt the cohort 
definition by school year 2007-08. 

Figure 3: Departure Classification Definition: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The departure classification definition includes students who drop out. 
Each of the "D" designations refers to the number of dropouts during 
one year. For example "D y-2g10" stands for the number of students who 
dropped out in the 10th grade. 

Prior to NCLBA, many states had been using a similar version of this 
formula, which NCES developed in collaboration with several states. 
However, earlier definitions used by states may have also included as 
graduates those who receive GED certificates. Under NCLBA, Education 
required states to modify the formula so that GED recipients were not 
counted as graduates. 

Different data systems accommodated the use of different definitions. 
The departure classification definition allowed many states to continue 
using existing data systems, according to Education officials. Such 
systems generally collect aggregate data, rather than data at the 
student level. The cohort definition generally requires states to 
implement a state-level student tracking system, often with a mechanism 
that can uniquely identify each student. Such a system identifies 
students in the 9th grade and tracks them throughout high school, 
indicating whether they graduate, transfer or drop out. This system 
also allows for students who transfer into a school to be placed in the 
proper cohort. 

The more specific information required by the cohort definition may 
result in the calculation of more precise graduation rates than those 
produced by the departure classification definition. Since the cohort 
definition follows students entering high school, either by individual 
students or groups of students, it can better be used to include only 
on-time graduates. However, how it is implemented may affect the level 
of precision of the rate calculated. Tracking individual students may 
result in a more precise rate than tracking groups of students. 

In our analysis of one state's school year 2002-03 data, we found that 
the variations in data collection and calculations between the two 
types of definitions, produced different graduation rates. Our analysis 
showed that the departure classification definition produced a 
graduation rate that was 12 percent greater than when we used the 
cohort definition.[Footnote 16] Because the departure classification 
definition does not track the entering cohort, it does not account for 
students who were held back, and therefore differences may result. Our 
findings are consistent with observations made by other researchers 
that show differences in graduation rates based on the definition 
used.[Footnote 17] In addition, NCES plans to complete a study this 
year that examines high school graduation rate definitions and how 
rates differ depending on the definition used. 

According to state plans, the remaining eight states that did not use 
either a departure classification or cohort definition used a variety 
of other definitions. Five of these states plan to adopt cohort 
definitions no later than 2007-08.[Footnote 18]

Figure 4 shows the definitions each state used as April 2005 and 
planned to use by school year 2007-08. 

Figure 4: Definitions by State, as of April 2005, and Planned to Use by 
State, School Year 2007-08: 

[See PDF for image]

Panel A: Definitions by State, April 2005: 

Panel B: Definitions by State, Planned for School Year 2007-08: 

[End of figure]

Most States Allowed Schools to Show Progress toward State Graduation 
Rate Targets in Order to Meet Graduation Rate Requirements: 

Most states set graduation rate targets, and many allowed schools to 
show progress toward these targets as a way for schools to make AYP. 
NCLBA requires that states set a graduation rate indicator. Most states 
have set such rates to help determine which schools make AYP. 
Additionally, many states allow schools to make AYP even if their 
graduation rates are not as high as the state's required rate, so long 
as the school shows progress toward the required rate. States' 
graduation rate targets ranged from 50 percent in Nevada to 100 percent 
in South Carolina, with about half at 80 percent or greater, as shown 
in figure 5. 

Figure 5: State Graduation Rate Targets, as of July 2005: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: These state graduation rate targets were drawn from state plans 
on Education's Web site 
(http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html) as of 
July 7, 2005, for all states except Arizona, Colorado, District of 
Columbia, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Puerto Rico. Education provided 
information on these states. 

This figure includes only those states that were using graduation rates 
at the time of our review. States that used other rates, such as 
dropout rates, were not included. These states are Arkansas, Indiana, 
Louisiana, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Florida is also not included 
in this chart because its requirement is that schools show a one 
percent annual increase in their graduation rates. 

[End of figure]

Valid comparisons of graduation rate targets across states cannot be 
made, in part, because of differences in rates used. For example, 
Alabama and North Carolina both had targets of 90 percent graduation 
rates. However, Alabama arrived at its target by using a departure 
classification definition that accounted for dropouts, while North 
Carolina used a definition that did not account for dropouts. 

According to state plans, 36 states considered their schools as meeting 
their graduation rate requirements if the schools increased their 
graduation rates from the previous year, known as "showing progress." 
In addition, two states allowed their schools to meet such requirements 
if they maintained the previous year's rates. A majority of states that 
allowed progress as a way for schools to demonstrate they met state 
graduation rate requirements had set no minimum rate of progress. We 
found instances in which very little progress, less than 1 percent, 
enabled a school to meet such requirements. Table 1 shows the number of 
states that allow schools to show progress toward the state goals as a 
means of meeting state graduation rate requirements, for all states as 
of the time we completed our review. 

Table 1: Number of States That Allow Schools to Maintain Previous 
Year's Rate or Show Progress toward Graduation Rate Targets to Make 
AYP, as of July 2005: 

Number of states[B]; 
Maintain previous year's rate: 2; 
Any progress allowed: 28; 
Progress must be of a specific amount: 0.1 percent: 3; 
Progress must be of a specific amount: 1 percent: 4; 
Progress must be of a specific amount: Other[A]: 1; 
Total: 38. 

Source: State plans on Education's Web site as of July 7, 2005, with 
exceptions (see note). 

[NOTE: This information was drawn from state plans found on Education's 
Web site. 
(http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html) as of 
July 7, 2005, for all states except Arizona, Colorado, District of 
Columbia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Puerto Rico. Education 
provided information for these states. 

[A] Reduce the difference between the actual and target rate by 10 
percent over a 2-year period. 

[B] This table does not include 14 states--the 5 states that did not 
use a graduation rate (but instead used a different rate, such as a 
dropout rate), and the 9 states that did not allow schools to show 
progress toward the state graduation rate target to make AYP, but 
instead required the schools to meet the target. 

[End of table]

By showing progress toward state graduation rate targets, schools can 
still make AYP even though they do not meet target rates.[Footnote 19] 
For example, our analysis of one state's data from the 2002-03 school 
year showed that 46 out of 444 high schools made AYP by increasing 
their graduation rates toward the state graduation rate target of 66 
percent rather than by meeting or exceeding this target. Specifically, 
these schools met or exceeded the state's requirement for 1 percentage 
point progress in increasing the graduation rate, even though the 
schools were below the 66 percent target. Another 232 schools made AYP 
for the year by meeting or exceeding the target of 66 percent. 

In addition, allowing schools to use progress as the NCLBA graduation 
rate indicator could result in schools making AYP annually, while not 
meeting state graduation rate targets for decades, if at all. For 
example, a hypothetical school with a graduation rate of 56 percent can 
meet the state high school graduation indicator by increasing its 
graduation rate by 0.1 percent each year. At this rate, the school 
would not make the state graduation rate target of 66 percent for 100 
years. 

Education's Guidance Did Not Specify Modifications Available to Account 
for Certain Students: 

Education provided states with assistance with their graduation rate 
definitions; however, Education's guidance did not specify 
modifications available to account for certain types of students. To 
help states with their definitions, Education developed some guidance 
and provided support such as on-site peer reviews, conferences, and 
information posted on its Web site. Education also commissioned a task 
force that published a report identifying the advantages and 
disadvantages of different definitions. In addition, Education 
officials told us they granted states time to develop definitions that 
met the law's requirements better for defining and measuring graduation 
rates. 

Education has provided information on how to account for students in 
special programs and students with disabilities to states that have 
requested it. Education's approach has been to provide such information 
on a case-by-case basis rather than to all states. Education officials 
stated that they preferred to work with each state's specific 
circumstances. However, we found that issues raised, such as students 
enrolled in 5-year programs, were common to many states.[Footnote 20] 
States varied in how they included students enrolled in these programs 
in their graduation rate definitions. For example, one state counted 
students in 5 year programs who graduated as dropouts until it received 
approval to count them as graduates. Another state planned to count 
such students as graduates without requesting approval to do so. 
Officials in that state said that since it was unclear what the actual 
requirements for counting graduates were, they were doing what they 
believed was allowable under the law. Without guidance on how to 
account for students in special programs and students with 
disabilities, there is less consistency among states in how students in 
these programs are included in graduation rates. 

Education also has not provided information to all states on how their 
definitions can be modified to better accommodate students with 
disabilities. State plans in 16 of the 52 states indicated that 
Education approved these states to allow students with disabilities 
more than the standard number of years to graduate based on the number 
of years in their Individualized Education Plans.[Footnote 21] In the 
20 states we contacted, we found that they varied in whether they 
sought approval from Education on how to include students with 
disabilities in their graduation rate definitions. For example, six of 
the states we contacted had sought approval from Education to include 
students with disabilities who need more than the standard number of 
years to graduate in their graduation rate definitions. In contrast, 
officials in seven other states contacted told us they did not seek 
approval for the same issue. Officials in the remaining seven states 
provided no information on this topic or said it did not apply to them. 

Several Factors Affected the Accuracy of Graduation Rates, and Data 
Quality Remains a Key Challenge: 

State, school district, and school officials and experts we interviewed 
reported several factors that affect the accuracy of data used to 
calculate graduation rates, especially student mobility. While 
Education has taken steps to assist states and districts in improving 
the quality of their data, the Department has not reviewed the accuracy 
of all states' data, because, at the time of our review, many states 
were in the process of implementing new definitions, data collection 
strategies, or both. 

Several Factors, Especially Student Mobility, Compromise the Accuracy 
of Data Used to Calculate High School Graduation Rates: 

Officials in six schools, three school districts, and three states we 
visited and several experts we interviewed cited challenges in tracking 
student mobility, the key factor in calculating accurate high school 
graduation rates. Some inaccuracies may lead to the reporting of lower 
graduation rates, such as recording all students with "unknown" status 
as dropouts or counting students who drop out, return to school, and 
then drop out again as a dropout each time, as may happen in schools in 
states that use the departure classification definition. Other 
inaccuracies may lead to the reporting of higher graduation rates, such 
as schools' recording students who drop out as transfers. This may 
occur when school staff record such students as transfers before they 
receive documentation that the student actually enrolled in a different 
school.[Footnote 22] Since the number of dropouts counts against a 
school in calculating its graduation rate in many states, schools that 
record such students as transfers--because they were unaware that the 
students had actually dropped out--may be reporting inflated graduation 
rates.[Footnote 23]

A second factor that affects data accuracy is how staff members 
understand and follow policies and procedures for recording students as 
transfers to other schools. For example, staff members in schools in 
two states reported that they electronically record a student as having 
transferred to another school on the day that student withdraws from 
their schools. However, the policy in these states is that a student is 
to be recorded as having transferred only upon receiving a request for 
records from the school to which the student transfers. In one of these 
schools, staff assigned to record student data reported contradictory 
practices and beliefs about state policy regarding when to record a 
student as a transfer. One staff member stated that the policy and her 
practice was to record the student as a transfer upon receiving the 
records request while another staff member said that no such policy 
existed and that she recorded the student as a transfer on the day of 
withdrawal. Therefore, how a student transferring out the school was 
counted depended on which staff member recorded the student's data. 

The accuracy of data may be further compromised when schools have large 
numbers of students who transfer in a given year because the more 
students come and go, the more difficult it is for schools to 
accurately account for them. Some schools are in areas where families 
tend to move more frequently. For example, officials in one school we 
visited near an Army base reported that their school had an enrollment 
of about 1,200 students and that 187 students had left the school by 
December of the academic year. The status of 19 of those 187 students 
was recorded as "unknown" because of difficulty in maintaining contact 
with these families. The policy in that state was for students whose 
status is "unknown" (because they could not be contacted) to be counted 
as dropouts, even if, in fact, the student had transferred to another 
school. Staff in another school reported the presence of several 
children from another country. Their experience has been that these 
particular students report plans to return to their country of origin, 
but they often do not know the status of these students once they leave 
the school. The school's procedure is to record such students as having 
an "unknown" status, and these are eventually counted as dropouts, 
unless another school requests their records. Research has shown higher 
mobility rates among certain subgroups of students compared to all 
other students, including those who are African-American, Hispanic, 
Native American, and those classified as having limited English 
proficiency and as children from migrant families.[Footnote 24] 
Consequently, schools with higher concentrations of these subgroups 
would likely report less accurate graduation rates. 

Another factor affecting the accuracy of graduation rate data is the 
absence of state audits or verification checks. For example, in our 
survey of state officials, over half (27) reported that their states 
did not audit the data received from local officials that the state 
used to calculate high school graduation rates. The lack of such 
auditing or verification implies that states were likely to be unaware 
of the extent of certain errors in data--such as students' indicating 
they were transferring to another school but not actually doing so--and 
consequently were unable to ensure that data they received from schools 
and districts were accurate. Officials in only one of the six schools 
we visited reported that their data on student transfers had been 
audited or verified by an outside party, leaving the accuracy of 
transfer data in the other schools uncertain. 

A fourth factor that contributes to challenges in assuring accurate 
data is the lack of a unique identifier for each student. In our 
survey, officials in 22 states reported that their state did not have a 
unique identifier for each of their students. Concerns about using 
student identifiers include the cost of implementing data systems that 
support such identifiers and privacy issues. The lack of a unique 
identifier for students made it difficult to obtain accurate data. 
Officials in one state that did not use unique identifiers stated that 
they had to compute graduation rates based on aggregating student data 
and as a result, they could not track on-time graduates. Officials in 
another state estimated that they were only 90 percent accurate in 
identifying students, because, without a unique identifier for each 
student, they had to use other information. Using this information, 
such as the student's name or birth date, can lead to identifying more 
than one student with the same characteristics, resulting in inaccurate 
data used in calculating graduation rates. 

A fifth factor we found that may affect data accuracy is variation in 
security and accountability practices. For example, we found that while 
some schools restricted the ability to change student enrollment 
information (such as transfers) to one or two people in the building 
(e.g., a registrar), others allowed many staff members to do so. 
Further, while some schools' data systems kept a record of each person 
who accessed a student's record and the changes made, other systems did 
not maintain such information. Without sufficient security and record 
monitoring, there is a greater risk of inaccurate data being entered 
and used to calculate graduation rates. 

Data Inaccuracies May Affect Schools' Meeting State Graduation Rate 
Goals: 

We analyzed data from one state to estimate the effect of errors of 
various sizes in reporting dropouts on school graduation rates and 
found that such errors could raise or lower a school's graduation rate 
substantially. This state used a high school graduation definition that 
incorporated the number of graduates and dropouts in calculating its 
graduation rate. For example, its median high school in school year 
2002-03, with 924 students, reported 41 dropouts and had a graduation 
rate of 75 percent.[Footnote 25] We re-estimated its graduation rate 
after assuming that the school had more dropouts, up to twice as many 
more than reported.[Footnote 26] In this case, if the school had 82 
dropouts, its graduation rate fell to 64 percent. We also re-estimated 
its graduation rate after assuming that it had fewer dropouts, as few 
as half as many dropouts as reported. Thus, if it had 21 dropouts, its 
graduation rate rose to 88 percent. Figure 6 shows how the estimates of 
graduation rates were affected by assumed errors in counting dropouts 
for this school. 

Figure 6: Estimated School Graduation Rates under Varying Assumptions 
of Errors in Counting Dropouts: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Our analysis was performed for all high schools in the state. As 
expected, when we assumed the number of dropouts was higher than what 
schools reported, their estimated graduation rates decreased. 

Our analysis also found the extent to which schools miscount their 
dropouts affects their likelihood of reaching the state's graduation 
rate target. We estimated that an additional 70 of 444 high schools in 
the state in school year 2002-03 would not have reached the state 
target if they were in fact reporting only half of their dropouts. On 
the other hand, an additional 77 high schools would have reached the 
state target if in fact their dropout counts were overreported at twice 
the actual level. According to the NCLBA, high schools that do not meet 
the state's requirements for its graduation rate are designated as not 
making AYP. Such designations if made for 2 or more consecutive years 
would result in the district's providing technical assistance to 
schools that receive Title I funding. Thus, schools that undercount 
their dropouts may be precluded from receiving the attention and 
assistance from the state they need to improve students' school 
retention and graduation while those with over counts may receive such 
services unnecessarily. 

Education Has Taken Some Steps to Help States with Data Issues, but 
Data Accuracy Remains a Key Challenge: 

Education has taken steps to help states address data collection 
issues. First, Education helped states prepare information to address 
how their graduation rate definitions were valid and reliable. 
Education gave instructions in its regulations and in a template given 
to each state to help states prepare the accountability plans they were 
to submit to Education for approval in 2003. Education also worked with 
states on an as-needed basis when state officials had questions about 
what information the Department needed to review. Education officials 
indicated that they reviewed information in each state's plan when they 
conducted site visits to states as part of the state plan approval 
process. According to Education, most states were in some stage of 
transition in calculating their graduation rates: some were 
implementing plans to transition from their current definition to a 
cohort indicator; others were improving their data systems; and some 
were collecting information on designated student groups for the first 
time. For these states, Education reported that it was unable to 
meaningfully examine the reliability of data used to calculate the 
graduation rate because such definitions of such rates had not been in 
place for a sufficient number of years necessary to determine whether 
the rate would produce consistent results. 

Second, Education, as part of its state monitoring, introduced a data 
review component to examine data states used for graduation rates, 
among other aspects of their participation in the Title I program. As 
of August 2005, Education had monitored and reported on 29 states, and 
expected to monitor the remaining states by the end of fiscal year 2006 
as part of its 3-year monitoring plan. This monitoring consisted of 
broad questions intended to collect information about how states 
corrected or addressed errors in student data received from districts 
and schools, including data used to calculate graduation rates. The 
monitoring was also designed to identify written procedures states used 
to confirm the accuracy of their data, the extent to which these 
procedures were communicated to districts, and how data validity issues 
related to schools and districts have been addressed. According to 
Education officials, their reviews of the nine states identified no 
significant problems with data systems these states used to calculate 
high school graduation rates. 

Third, in response to recommendations from GAO and Education's 
Inspector General, Education contracted with a firm to develop a guide 
to help states improve data collection processes. According to 
Education officials, this guide is to consist of three parts. One part 
is designed for state officials and is to focus on the design and 
implementation of data systems. A second part, which focuses on data 
management issues such as methods for verifying the accuracy of data, 
is designed for district and school officials. A third part summarizes 
the first two parts and is to be suitable for oral presentation to 
state, district, and school officials. According to department 
officials, this guide will be issued by the end of 2005.[Footnote 27]

Although Education monitors states to determine if they have written 
procedures for ensuring data quality and have methods to address data 
quality issues, it does not evaluate other methods of ensuring data 
accuracy. For example, it does not assess whether states ensure that 
districts and schools have effective controls to accurately record 
student status, including transfers. Further, Education's monitoring 
approach does not capture whether states ensure that schools have 
computer controls that allow only authorized staff to make changes to 
student data. Department officials said that the guide it is developing 
is planned to address these issues. 

However, departmental efforts have not resolved immediate data accuracy 
problems. In July 2005, Education announced that it planned to 
calculate and report interim graduation rate estimates for each state 
to provide a nationwide, comprehensive perspective. Education stated 
that the interim rate that it developed, based on data NCES collects 
from states, will provide more accurate on-time graduation rates. Some 
states' graduation rates rely on the same data reported to NCES, while 
other states rely on different data. However, these states also provide 
data that are requested by NCES. The quality of the data states provide 
to NCES varies across states depending, in part, on the extensiveness 
and rigor of their internal controls and other data verification 
checks. Because Education plans to rely on state-reported data to 
calculate interim graduation rates, the accuracy of such data is 
critical.[Footnote 28]

Few Interventions Have Been Rigorously Evaluated, and Education Has 
Done Little to Evaluate and Disseminate Existing Research: 

While states and school districts have implemented numerous 
interventions designed to increase high school graduation rates, few of 
these programs have been rigorously evaluated, and Education has done 
little to evaluate and disseminate existing research. Several of the 
interventions that have been rigorously evaluated have shown potential 
to increase graduation rates. In addition to these interventions, 
schools are trying other approaches to enhance students' chances of 
success, though the effectiveness of these approaches has not been 
demonstrated. 

About one third of students who enter high school do not graduate and 
are likely to earn less money, are more frequently unemployed, and are 
more likely to receive public assistance compared with those who 
graduate from high school. In response, some schools and districts have 
implemented programs to address the factors that influence a student's 
decision not to complete high school. 

Research has shown that a student's decision to leave school may be 
affected by experiences that begin as early as elementary school. For 
example, studies have shown that students who are not at least 
moderately skilled at reading by the end of 3rd grade are less likely 
to graduate from high school.[Footnote 29] Besides basic literacy 
skills, there are a variety of other academic and family-related 
factors that contribute to whether a student graduates. For example, 
poor grades and attendance, school disciplinary problems, and failure 
to advance to the next grade can all gradually lead to disengagement 
from school and result in a student not finishing high school. In 
addition to these academic factors, students from low-income 
backgrounds, students with low levels of self esteem, or students with 
a learning or behavioral disability drop out at a much higher rate than 
other students. 

Schools and districts have implemented a range of interventions to 
address these factors and they vary in scope from redesigning the 
structure of an entire school to an individual school's mentoring 
program. While there is variability among interventions, most generally 
fall into one of the three following categories that we identified in 
our 2002 report[Footnote 30]: (1) school wide restructuring efforts; 
(2) alternative forms of education for students who do not do well in a 
regular classroom; and (3) supplemental services, such as mentoring or 
tutoring services, for at-risk students. While most of the schools we 
visited used interventions from only one of the three categories 
identified above, some schools combined aspects of these categories. 
(See table 2 for a complete list). 

Table 2: Number of Interventions Visited by School Level and Type: 

Number of schools visited: 

1 Elementary schools; 
Supplemental services: 1. 

1 Elementary/middle school; 
Supplemental services: 1. 

2 Middle schools; 
School restructuring efforts: 1; 
Supplemental services: 1. 

1 Middle/high school; 
Supplemental services: 1. 

9 High schools[A]; 
School restructuring efforts: 4; 
Alternative learning environment: 7; 
Supplemental services: 1. 

2 Elementary/middle/high schools[A]; 
School restructuring efforts: 1; 
Alternative learning environment: 1; 
Supplemental services: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of interventions visited. 

[A] One of these schools/programs used more than one approach. 

[End of table]

Few Interventions Have Been Rigorously Evaluated, Though Some Showed 
Potential to Increase Graduation Rates: 

Several of the programs at schools we visited have conducted 
evaluations of how they affect high school completion, while others are 
reporting positive results on other outcomes such as attendance or 
academic performance. We identified and reviewed five intervention 
evaluations that used a rigorous research design and have shown 
potential to increase graduation rates. We visited schools that had 
implemented three of these programs.[Footnote 31] In addition, we 
visited other schools that were trying other interventions that experts 
and Education officials noted were promising for improving high school 
graduation rates. While the effectiveness of these approaches to 
increase graduation rates had not been demonstrated, research does 
point towards the possibility that these interventions may help 
increase high school completion. 

The three schools we visited whose programs displayed positive results 
all used a rigorous research design. However, evaluations of the 
effectiveness of these interventions are not as strong as they need to 
be for results to be conclusive. For example, design limitations or 
data collection concerns were evident during our review of these 
evaluations. It is worth keeping in mind that research of this nature 
is limited in the education field due to a variety of factors, and 
these studies represent some of the most promising research on 
graduation rate interventions available. 

Promising Approaches: Check and Connect, Project GRAD, Help One Student 
to Succeed (HOSTS), Talent Development, and First Things First: 

In our visits to 16 school programs in 6 states, we observed 3 
interventions where research has indicated potential for improving high 
school graduation rates. These interventions addressed a variety of 
student risk factors and provided services to students in elementary 
through high school. 

One school we visited in Minneapolis, Minnesota, had implemented the 
Check and Connect program which provides mentoring services in an 
alternative-learning environment. The program began in 1990 with a 
model developed for urban middle school students with learning and 
behavioral challenges. It has since been expanded to serve additional 
at-risk populations as well. This intervention is designed around a 
mentor who acts as both an advocate and service coordinator for 
students who have been referred into the program due to excessive 
absences combined with poor academic performance and behavioral 
problems. Program officials noted that the mentors offer around-the- 
clock services including monitoring school performance, regularly 
checking student data (attendance, grades, and suspensions), and 
identifying and addressing out of school issues. The mentor also 
regularly communicates with the student's parents or relatives to 
ensure that the whole family is engaged in the student's education. 

The mentoring is built into a program model that relies on several 
inter-related features including relationship building, individualized 
and timely intervention, and long-term commitment. A complete listing 
of program features can be seen in table 3. 

Table 3: Key Features of the Check and Connect Model: 

Feature: Relationship building; 
Definition: Mutual trust and open communication, nurtured through a 
long-term commitment that is focused on student's educational success. 

Feature: Routine monitoring of alterable indicators; 
Definition: Systemically checking warning signs of withdrawal 
(attendance, academic performance, behavior) that are readily available 
to school personnel and that can be altered through intervention. 

Feature: Individualized and timely intervention; 
Definition: Support that is tailored to individual student needs, based 
on level of engagement with school, associated influences of home and 
school, and the leveraging of local resources. 

Feature: Long-term commitment; 
Definition: Committing to students and families for at least 2 years, 
including the ability to follow highly mobile youth from school to 
school and program to program. 

Feature: Persistence plus; 
Definition: Refers to a persistent source of academic motivation, a 
continuity of familiarity with the youth and family, and a consistency 
in the message that "education is important for your future."

Feature: Problem solving; 
Definition: Designed to promote the acquisition of skills to resolve 
conflict constructively and to look for solutions rather than a source 
of blame. 

Feature: Affiliation with school and learning; 
Definition: Facilitating student's access to and active participation 
in school-related activities and events. 

Source: Check and Connect Web site, 
http://ici.umn.edu/checkandconnect/. 

[End of table]

The school we visited in Minneapolis had 220 students in the program 
during the 2004-05 school year. Program officials noted that students 
in the program were divided among four mentors and had two separate 
classrooms they could use to meet with their mentor or to study between 
classes. The program had no set schedule for the student--it was the 
responsibility of the mentor to make sure they followed up with the 
students, parents, teachers, courts or counselors on a regular basis. A 
student in the program noted that Check and Connect helps because it 
"provides someone who cares how you do and keeps after you about coming 
to school and doing well academically."

A school official remarked that both attendance and retention rates had 
improved significantly since the program was implemented. An evaluation 
of program impacts on students with emotional and behavioral 
disabilities showed that students participating in Check and Connect 
were more likely than students not participating to have either 
completed high school, including GED certification, or be enrolled in 
an educational program.[Footnote 32] While graduation rates are not 
available yet for the first Check and Connect cohort at the school we 
visited, a teacher at the school commented that the staff knows that 
the program is working "because the students are coming to class 
everyday." School officials noted that the program is funded through a 
renewable grant from a private foundation. 

Another program we visited, Project GRAD (Graduation Really Achieves 
Dreams), seeks to ensure a quality public education for students in 
economically disadvantaged communities through school restructuring, 
curriculum reform, and social services. The goal of the program is to 
increase high school graduation rates in Project GRAD schools to at 
least 80 percent, with 50 percent of those students entering and 
completing college. 

Originally established in 1989 as a scholarship program, it has since 
developed into a replicable and comprehensive k-12 school reform model. 
The reform design relies on two components--a structural model and an 
instructional model. Structural components include an independent local 
organization to provide implementation oversight, and community 
involvement such as mentoring, tutoring, and financial support. Figure 
7 shows Project GRAD's structural components. 

Figure 7: Project GRAD Structural Model: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Local Project GRAD sites--such as one located in Atlanta--also used the 
instructional component of the model, which emphasizes specific reading 
and math programs for students in kindergarten through 8th grade. 
Program officials commented that this component also incorporates 
campus based social services (which focus on dropout prevention as well 
as family case management), classroom management techniques, and 
college scholarships to all high school students who qualify. 

In 2004, the local Atlanta site served 29 schools and approximately 
17,000 students in the inner city. Officials at one of Atlanta's 
schools noted that the program provided additional outreach staff to 
advocate on behalf of students and address other issues that may 
interfere with a student's ability to attend school and learn. Students 
at the school, commenting on the program's effect on their lives, noted 
that the program should be expanded to all of the schools in the 
district because of the opportunities it offers students. Project GRAD- 
Atlanta officials noted that the effectiveness of the program has been 
demonstrated through higher test scores and increased college 
attendance since implementing Project GRAD in these schools. 
Additionally, the results of an independent evaluation of Project GRAD 
also suggest an increase in students' test scores and graduation 
rates.[Footnote 33] However, aspects of the study's design may limit 
the strength of study findings. 

The Project GRAD--Atlanta model relies on a mix of public funding and 
private local fundraising. As of school year 2003-04, Project GRAD had 
also been replicated in feeder systems in Akron, Ohio; Brownsville, 
Tex; Cincinnati, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Houston, Tex; Kenai Peninsula, 
Alaska; Knoxville, Tenn; Lorain, Ohio; Los Angeles, Calif; Newark, N.J. 
and Roosevelt, N.Y. 

We also visited a school that had implemented the language arts 
component of the HOSTS program, an intervention focused on literacy, an 
area that research has linked to students' graduating. This program is 
a structured tutoring program in reading and language arts that targets 
low performing elementary students whose reading skills are below grade 
level. School officials at the elementary school we visited noted that 
they had been using the program for 7 years to increase at-risk 
student's reading scores as well as raise their self esteem. The 90 
students in the program worked individually with a tutor 4 days a week 
for 30 minutes each day. School officials considered the program a 
success because of the number of students who successfully transitioned 
into grade level reading in the regular classroom. The program, which 
has been replicated in schools or districts in 12 states, was cited in 
the report language of the NCLBA as a scientifically based intervention 
that has assisted schools in improving student achievement. A recent 
study of the program in nine Michigan elementary schools suggests 
reading improvement for students at schools participating in HOSTS 
programs.[Footnote 34] While this study displayed some promising 
results for elementary literacy, students were not tracked over time to 
determine its effect on high school graduation rates. 

Two recently completed rigorous program evaluations also displayed 
promising results for increasing graduations rates. These two programs, 
the Talent Development Model and First Things First, are both 
comprehensive school reform initiatives with numerous components. 

The Talent Development program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is 
designed to improve large urban high schools that face serious problems 
with attendance, discipline, achievement scores, and graduation rates. 
The program has been implemented in twenty districts nationwide and 
consists of several different components including a separate career 
academy for all 9th graders, career academies for students in 10th 
through 12th grades, block scheduling (4 courses a semester, each 80-90 
minutes long) and an after hours program for students with attendance 
or behavioral problems. An evaluation of the first five schools in 
Philadelphia to implement the Talent Development program suggest that 
it may have contributed to increasing the graduation rate for two high 
schools compared with other high schools in the district that did not 
implement the program.[Footnote 35]

The First Things First program was first launched in Kansas City, 
Kansas, and has since been tested in 12 middle schools and high schools 
in four additional districts. The program has three central components: 
small learning communities of up to 350 students, a family advocate 
system that pairs students with a staff member who monitors their 
progress, and instructional improvement that aims to make lessons more 
rigorous and better aligned with state and local standards. A recent 
evaluation in Kansas City schools suggests that students in the four 
high schools with First Things First had increased reading and math 
scores, improved attendance, lowered dropout rates, and increased 
graduation rates compared with schools that did not participate in the 
program.[Footnote 36] For middle schools in Kansas City, the study 
found increased reading and math scores and somewhat improved 
attendance compared with other scores. However, the research did not 
show significance differences in the First Things First schools when 
compared with other schools in two other school districts. 

Approaches Selected Schools Are Trying to Enhance Students Chances for 
Success: 

In addition to the 3 school programs we visited whose rigorous 
evaluations displayed potential for increasing graduation rates, we 
also visited 13 other school programs which experts, Education 
officials, and evaluations noted were promising. While the 
effectiveness of these approaches has not been demonstrated, research 
points toward the possibility that these interventions may help 
increase high school completion. These other school programs generally 
focused on one specific approach which generally fell into one of three 
categories--school restructuring, alternative learning environment, and 
supplemental services. Selected programs that illustrate these 
approaches are discussed below. 

School-Restructuring Efforts: Making Schools Smaller: 

Schools and districts used schoolwide restructuring to change a school 
or all schools in the district to provide a more personalized education 
and increase graduation rates. Schoolwide restructuring efforts are 
generally implemented in schools or districts that have a history of 
high dropout rates. 

One restructuring approach is to create many small schools from larger 
low performing schools. For example, the New Century High Schools 
Consortium for New York City is a New York Public School's small 
schools initiative that is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates 
Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Open Society 
Institute. School officials commented that the project began in the 
Bronx with the conversion of six low performing high schools that 
served between 1,500 and 3,000 students each. This intervention began 
in 2001 and, as of September 2004, New York City had created 77 small 
schools. 

One of those schools, Morris High School, has been a part of this 
program since the small schools program begun in 2001. School officials 
noted that the school has been divided into several small schools 
including the Bronx International High School and the Bronx Leadership 
Academy, which serve 300 and 252 students respectively. While housed in 
the same building, each school has a different curriculum and student 
population. For example, the Bronx International High School provides 
an intensive English language program for recent immigrants while the 
Bronx Leadership Academy offers a science-based curriculum for college 
bound students. The core concepts for both these programs are the small 
school size, team approach to teaching, and school-based learning that 
also has relevance within their community. A student at the school 
noted that the small groups they work in allow students to help and 
support each other, something that did not happen in junior high 
school. School officials commented that teacher investment in the 
school is expected and is often displayed by working overtime, serving 
as counselors to students, and participating in school governance. 
Additionally, the project-based curriculum is developed by teacher 
teams who work collaboratively to plan activities for incoming 
students. 

School officials did not indicate a plan for a formal outcome-based 
evaluation of the schools; however, they did consider the intervention 
a success based on positive improvement in a number of areas including 
higher percentages of students meeting state standards, higher 
attendance rates, and higher passing grades. The New York City 
Department of Education reported similar results for small schools 
throughout the district including more students advancing from 9th to 
10th grade and higher attendance rates. While these results provide a 
snapshot of some possible benefits of New York's school reform 
initiative, it is still too early to look at student outcomes. The 
Gates Foundation has commissioned an 8-year evaluation of the small 
schools program. 

Alternative-Learning Environment: Providing Individualized Education: 

States and school districts are also using alternative learning 
environments for students at risk of school failure. These 
interventions are designed to foster a supportive school environment 
through small enrollments, one-on-one interaction, flexible schedules, 
and structures, and a curriculum that appeals to students' 
interests.[Footnote 37] Often, enrollment is limited and the programs 
are tailored to individual students' needs to ensure that they 
graduate. 

One type of alternative learning environment, the career academy, is 
focused on keeping students in school by providing an interesting 
curriculum focused on a specific career theme. For example, Aviation 
High School in Washington State is an aviation-themed public high 
school housed at a local community college. School officials noted that 
the school addresses a range of student risk factors, including those 
related to academics (learning and literacy), social issues (attendance 
and behavior), and family (counseling and strategies for living with 
drug addicted family members). With a 2004 enrollment of only 103 
students, Aviation High School offers small class sizes, aviation 
themed curriculum, and mentoring opportunities. (See figure 8 for an 
example of a school event focused on aviation). 

Figure 8: Aviation High School Presentation by the Blue Angels: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Additionally, school officials report that each teacher at the high 
school serves as a student advisor who assists students with academic, 
social, and emotional development. Students noted that while 
transportation to the school was challenging due to its distance from 
their home, they still selected the program because of the aviation 
curriculum, the personalized attention they received, and the highly 
motivated students at the school. 

Aviation High School officials indicated that it is too soon to tell 
the impact of the program, but they noted that the school will be 
included in a national evaluation to be conducted by the Gates 
foundation. Research on career academies has demonstrated positive 
gains for employment and earnings for graduates, but also found that 
high school completion rates of career and non career academy students 
were not significantly different.[Footnote 38]

Alternative learning environments may also allow students to tailor 
their learning experience to individual needs that are not being met in 
traditional schools. For example, we visited an alternative high school 
in Atlanta, Georgia, that uses a computer-based instructional program 
designed for students to learn the state-certified curriculum at their 
own pace. Students rotate through classrooms, each of which contains a 
different computer module for the particular subject being taught. 
Students received assistance from teachers as needed. According to 
officials, the school is made up of a team of 6 teachers and 75 at-risk 
11th and 12th grade students (for the 2004-05 school year). The 
school's enrollment is composed of students who were referred to the 
school either through other schools, court tribunals, or parents. 
School officials noted that the program also includes a motivational 
component. For example, each school morning begins with an assembly 
where students discuss the obstacles they have had to overcome and the 
people who have helped make a difference in the world. After the 
assembly, students get up and shake hands with each other and then move 
to their first hour class. School personnel stated that this allows 
students to begin each day with confidence and prepares them to learn. 
School officials noted that the school's graduation rate, which they 
stated was consistently over 90 percent, indicated that the program was 
effective. 

Research on alternative programs in general has shown some promising 
outcomes. For example, an evaluation of 8 middle school dropout 
prevention programs showed some positive impacts on dropout rates, 
grade promotion, grades, and test scores for students in alternative 
programs.[Footnote 39] The same study also looked at five alternative 
high school programs and found limited evidence that these programs 
reduced dropout rates, but did note that alternative programs oriented 
toward GED certificates experience were more effective than those 
oriented toward high school diplomas.[Footnote 40]

Supplemental Services: Targeting Literacy and Self-Esteem: 

Several schools we visited used targeted supplemental services to 
provide at-risk students with extra help. These services aim to improve 
students' academic performance, acclimate them to a new culture, or 
increase their self-esteem. Supplemental service programs are offered 
at all grade levels, with research showing the importance of building 
academic and social skills at an early age. 

Supplemental services can focus on the needs of a specific group of 
students, such as immigrant students or students with limited English 
proficiency. One such intervention we visited in Georgia was designed 
to provide educational and cultural services to immigrant students with 
low level English skills and limited formal schooling. These 
interventions, often referred to as "newcomer" models, provide 
intensive language development courses and may also offer a cultural 
orientation component. Newcomer programs can take place within a school 
or at a separate site and vary in the amount of time a student is 
enrolled. The benefits of the newcomer program is supported by research 
on English language learners that notes one major factor that decreases 
risk of dropping out of school is level of understanding and mastery of 
the English language.[Footnote 41]

At the program we visited, international students who were new to the 
district were registered, tested, and placed depending on their skill 
level. Students with no English language skills were placed in an 
intensive 3 - to 6-week English program that helped ease the transition 
into school. Students who were 14 years or older and had fewer than 7 
years of formal schooling in their native country were placed in the 
English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) lab program. School 
officials noted that the lab served 132 students in school year 2004-05 
and is designed to help students achieve grade level proficiency within 
3 years. The ESOL lab focused on listening, speaking, reading, and 
writing English in addition to other core high school courses such as 
math, science, and social studies. Additionally, several district 
schools have added Saturday school tutorials for parents and students. 
Students can study language arts while their parents attend citizenship 
classes, orientation, and career awareness sessions. School officials 
noted that they believe the number of ESOL students graduating has 
increased, based on state-reported rates as well as the numbers of 
students who pass the ESOL tests and exit the program. 

Other supplemental services incorporate cultural elements as a means of 
addressing student self-esteem. For example, a k-8 school located on 
the Arapahoe Indian reservation in Wyoming offers all students services 
that include after-school academic programs, drug awareness events, and 
a 2-week summer cultural camp focusing on Native American traditions. 
School personnel emphasized that the path to high school graduation 
begins with helping students address their self-esteem issues. School 
officials mentioned that students already have a mindset that they are 
not going to graduate from high school and do not have a future on or 
off the reservation. The cultural element of the school's programs is a 
significant component of building up the student's self-esteem and 
instilling a pride about their Native American identity. Students 
commented that they participated in the program because of the Native 
American cultural activities offered, including clogging, dancing, and 
drumming. Program officials noted that since implementing interventions 
designed specifically to address the issues of Native Americans, they 
have noticed general improvement in student attitudes and performance. 
While studies suggest that self-esteem affects dropout rates,[Footnote 
42] a study over time of the intervention programs used by the Arapahoe 
school would be needed to determine its effectiveness. 

Education Has Done Little to Evaluate and Disseminate Knowledge about 
Interventions: 

Graduation rates have become increasingly important since the passage 
of NCLBA, but Education has done little to evaluate and disseminate 
knowledge about interventions that could help increase such rates. The 
increased interest in high school reform by the National Governors 
Association, combined with concerns about low graduation rates, have 
set the stage for designing strategies that encourage more students to 
graduate. While many types of interventions are available for school 
districts, most have not been rigorously evaluated, and there is little 
information on which are successful and for what student subgroups. 
Most officials from the 20 states we included in our study told us that 
such information would be useful. For example, one school official 
noted that little information exists on what interventions increase 
graduation rates among Native American students and that such 
information would be helpful in designing interventions. 

Education has made some efforts to address the problem of high school 
completion by sponsoring research and disseminating information through 
conferences and on its Web site. For example, Education officials noted 
that Education's Office of Special Education Programs has supported 
research papers on dropout interventions for youth with disabilities. 
These studies are currently being completed and will be available in 
late 2005. In terms of dissemination, Education's 2nd Annual High 
School Leadership Summit held in December 2004 included sessions on 
dropout prevention and recovery as well as strategies for creating 
higher-performing schools. Additionally, Education's Office of Vocation 
and Adult Education has dedicated a part of its Web site to the High 
School Initiative. The pages on the Web site contain information on 
high school reform models, adolescent literacy initiatives as well as 
information on research based practices that may help high schools. 

While Education has made some efforts to help states and districts 
address the dropout problem, the agency has not acted on its commitment 
to implement the recommendation, contained in our 2002 report on 
interventions, that Education evaluate results from research. Agency 
officials have commented several times that they plan to evaluate the 
research on dropout prevention efforts and then disseminate the results 
through the agency's What Works clearinghouse. However, the Web space 
for this effort still contains placeholder information.[Footnote 43] 
Agency officials indicated that reviews of other topics, such as 
elementary reading and math, have come before the reviews necessary for 
the dropout section of the Web site. 

Conclusions: 

The nation's public school systems are responsible for educating 48 
million students, the majority of our future workforce. Providing them 
with the skills needed to succeed is vital to the nation's economic 
strength and ability to compete in a global economy. NCLBA was passed 
to ensure that all students have access to a high-quality education and 
to increase the likelihood that these students will graduate. In 
particular, the act seeks to make significant changes in public 
education by asking federal, state, and local education officials to 
reconsider how they assess the academic achievement of the nation's 
students. NCLBA specifies that states must set high school graduation 
rate indicators as an additional benchmark, along with test results, 
for measuring schools' progress. However, increasing and accurately 
calculating graduation rates have been formidable challenges for many 
states and districts. Many states have used flexibility to define their 
indicators as both numerical goals as well as progress toward those 
goals, where progress has generally ranged from no increase to a 1 
percent increase from the previous year. Therefore, some states have 
set expectations that their schools may not graduate many more students 
than previously. 

Education has addressed these challenges by developing some guidance 
and providing support such as on-site peer reviews, conferences, and 
information on its Web site. However, because Education's approach has 
been to provide guidance on how to deal with specific student 
circumstances on a case-by-case basis, not all states have received 
such guidance. Without guidance, state officials may not appropriately 
include students in these specific circumstances in their graduation 
rate definitions, resulting in graduation rates that may be inaccurate. 
Such inconsistent calculations raise questions about the quality of 
graduation rates reported by states. 

A key challenge for states is to ensure that student data used for 
calculating state graduation rates, as well as data provided to NCES, 
are accurate and that state systems have the internal controls and data 
verification checks to promote data reliability. As some states 
transition to new graduation rate definitions, it is important that 
they ensure that such controls are part of new student data systems. 
Student data accuracy is particularly important because Education plans 
to use those state data reported to NCES to develop interim graduation 
rate estimates, which are intended to promote consistency across states 
and provide a nationwide perspective. 

Finally, little is known about the success of interventions that are 
designed to increase high school graduation rates. While some programs 
have shown potential to increase such rates, few have been rigorously 
evaluated. Some interventions have conducted limited evaluations of a 
variety of different outcomes (attendance, test scores, job 
attainment), but more comprehensive evaluations are necessary to 
understand programs' effects on graduation rates. As a result, schools 
and districts may not be using the most effective approaches to help 
their students stay in school and graduate. Education could play an 
important role in evaluating existing research, which was a 
recommendation we made in our 2002 dropout report. Although Education 
agreed with this recommendation, the agency has not established a clear 
plan or timetable for carrying it out. Additionally, Education should 
disseminate the results of research, since such information will be 
critical as high school reform moves forward. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To assist states in improving their definitions of high school 
graduation rates and enhancing the consistency of these rates, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Education make information available to 
all states on modifications available to account for students in 
special programs and students with disabilities in their graduation 
rate calculations. This information could include fuller explanations 
or examples of available flexibilities. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Education, before developing interim 
graduation rate estimates, assess the reliability of data submitted by 
states used for this purpose. This assessment could include specific 
criteria that demonstrate that states' data systems can produce 
accurate data. 

We recommend that the Secretary establish a timetable for carrying out 
the recommendation in our 2002 report that Education evaluate research 
on dropout interventions, including those interventions that focus on 
increasing graduation rates. In addition, we recommend that the 
Secretary disseminate research on programs shown to be effective in 
increasing graduation rates. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. 
In its letter, Education concurred with two of our three 
recommendations: (1) about making information available to all states 
on modifications available to account for students in special programs 
and students with disabilities in their graduation rate calculations 
and (2) about evaluating research on dropout interventions and 
disseminating such research on those programs shown to be effective in 
increasing graduation rates. Regarding our recommendation that that the 
department assess the reliability of data submitted by states that it 
plans to use to develop interim graduation rate estimates, Education 
noted that it has taken a number of steps to conduct such reliability 
assessments. However, it is not clear whether these efforts include 
those data that Education will be using to develop interim graduation 
rate estimates. Although data submitted to Education are publicly 
available and have been reported by states for years, their reliability 
has not been determined. We believe that Education should take 
additional steps to ensure the reliability of these data before they 
are used in calculating such estimates. Education officials also 
provided technical comments that we incorporated into the report where 
appropriate. Education's written comments are reproduced in appendix 
II. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, 
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We 
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 
the report will be made available at no charge on GAO's Web site at 
http://www.gao.gov. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any 
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Other contacts and major contributors are listed 
in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Marnie S. Shaul, Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

To address the objectives of this study, we used a variety of 
methodological approaches. We analyzed the plans states were required 
to submit to Education to identify the graduation rate definitions 
states used and graduation rate indicators set by states, reviewed 
updates to plans submitted through July 2005 and reviewed letters from 
Education to states regarding its decisions about state plans and 
updates. 

As part of another GAO review, we surveyed officials in 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to obtain information about two 
issues--the extent to which (1) states verify school and district data 
used to calculate high school graduation rates and (2) have unique 
student identifiers. The surveys were conducted using self-administered 
electronic questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web. We sent e-mail 
notifications to all 52 state Performance Based Data Management 
Initiative coordinators (50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico) beginning on November 15, 2004. We closed the survey on 
January 13, 2005, after the 50th respondent had replied. Washington 
state and the District of Columbia did not complete the survey in time 
to be included in our analysis. 

We selected 20 states for further analysis. States were selected to 
capture variation in high school graduation rate definitions, 
geographic location, and types of interventions with the potential to 
increase graduation rates. We conducted: 

* a case study in 1 state (Washington state) to calculate graduation 
rates;

* site visits in 3 states (Georgia, North Carolina, and Washington) to 
review data accuracy;

* site visits in 6 states (Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, 
Washington, and Wyoming) to observe interventions and interview program 
staff; and: 

* semi structured telephone interviews in all 20 states to obtain 
information on definitions used, implementation status, and guidance 
provided by Education. 

See table 4 for a list of states selected for site visits and phone 
interviews based on the research objective we studied. 

Table 4: States Selected for Site Visits and Phone Interviews by 
Purpose: 

To address the first research question regarding data definitions and 
calculations: Washington[A]; 

To address the first research question regarding rationale for 
selecting definitions: 
California; 
Colorado; 
Connecticut; 
Delaware; 
Florida; 
Georgia[A]; 
Illinois; 
Indiana; 
Kansas; 
Massachusetts; 
Minnesota; 
Mississippi; 
New Hampshire; 
New Mexico; 
New York; 
North Carolina[A]; 
Pennsylvania; 
Washington[A]; 
Wisconsin; 
Wyoming.  

To address the second research question regarding data accuracy: 
Georgia[A]
North Carolina[A]; 
Washington[A].  


To address the third research question regarding interventions: 
Georgia[A]; 
Illinois[A]; 
Minnesota[A]; 
New York[A]; 
Washington[A]; 
Wyoming[A]. 

Number of states: 
To address the first research question regarding data definitions and 
calculations: 1; 
To address the first research question regarding rationale for 
selecting definitions: 20; 
To address the second research question regarding data accuracy: 3; 
To address the third research question regarding interventions: 6. 

Source: GAO Analysis. 

[A] States where GAO team conducted site visits. 

[End of table]

In our case study we used student data from Washington state for the 
2002-03 school year, the most recent school year for which data were 
available at the time of our review. Using these data, we conducted an 
analysis comparing the results of calculating the high school 
graduation rate using two different graduation rate definitions--the 
cohort definition and the departure classification definition. 
Washington state used a modified cohort formula that was based on 
tracking student dropouts rather than on tracking student 
transfers.[Footnote 44] It also required all students with "unknown" 
status to be reported as dropouts. We also used these data to analyze 
the effects of allowing schools to make progress toward the graduation 
rate target as a means of making AYP and using an estimated miscount of 
the number of dropouts on the graduation rate. We interviewed experts 
to determine reasonable rates at which dropouts may be in error. We 
analyzed data using a set of 444 out of 547 of the state's high 
schools. The 103 high schools that were not included in our analysis 
were those with graduation rates of 10 percent or less. These were 
generally alternative high schools, such as those designed to serve 
students who had committed serious crimes. We also interviewed a state 
official who confirmed our understanding of the omitted schools and 
agreed with the reasonableness of the criterion. 

Although our analyses were based on a 4-year period, we used the 1 year 
of student data and estimated information for the 3 prior years. We did 
not obtain student data from prior years because state officials told 
us that data accuracy had improved significantly in the 2002-03 school 
year. We assessed the reliability of the Washington state data by (1) 
performing electronic testing of required data elements for missing 
data and for obvious errors, (2) reviewing existing information about 
the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing 
Washington state officials knowledgeable about the data. However, we 
did not check the data to source information. We determined that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

To identify interventions with the potential to increase graduation 
rates, we used a "snowballing" approach. Using this approach, we 
reviewed the literature on interventions and interviewed Education 
officials and dropout prevention experts and reviewed Web sites, such 
as the National Dropout Prevention Centers Web site 
(http://www.dropoutprevention.org/), to identify those that have the 
potential to increase high school graduation rates. Based on the 
research we reviewed and on recommendations from experts, we selected 
several interventions at various locations around the country. For 
those interventions we selected to visit we reviewed available 
evaluations, including the findings related to outcomes, such as 
increased graduation rates and improved literacy. We also assessed the 
methodological approaches of these evaluations. Based on our review, we 
identified 3 interventions that had been rigorously evaluated and have 
shown potential to increase graduation rate and visited 3 schools that 
had implemented these programs. (Rigorous evaluations of 2 other 
interventions which showed promising results were released subsequent 
to our field work. We reviewed the results of these evaluations and 
reported their findings.) We also visited schools that had implemented 
13 other interventions that experts and research showed promise in 
affecting factors that may improve grad rates. However, rigorous 
evaluations on these programs had not been done at the time of our 
review. 

To determine how Education assists states, we reviewed Education 
regulations, guidance, and other documents and interviewed Education 
and state agency officials. We also interviewed these officials to 
determine the degree to which Education's actions have enhanced and 
disseminated knowledge about interventions. Finally, we interviewed 
officials from the National Governors Association, national education 
organizations, and other experts in the area of high school graduation 
rates and reviewed related research to obtain an understanding of the 
issues surrounding these rates and high school reform efforts to 
address them. We conducted our work between September 2004 and July 
2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education: 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION:

August 25, 2005:

Ms. Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income: 
Security Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Shaul:

I am writing in response to your request for comments on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report (GAO-05-879), dated September 
2005, and entitled "No Child Left Behind Act: Education Could Do More 
to Help States Better Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge 
about Intervention Strategies." I appreciate the opportunity to comment 
on the draft report and provide insight on actions the Department of 
Education is taking to help States better define graduation rates and 
improve knowledge about intervention strategies.

Governors and education leaders across the country have acknowledged 
the need for a more accurate graduation rate across the States. As 
Deputy Secretary Raymond Simon stated at the National Governors 
Association meeting in June 2005, "There is no doubt that this nation 
needs a better way to get a handle on how many students graduate from 
high school. Right now, each state calculates and reports graduation 
rates differently, which prevents us from seeing the big picture of the 
country's education level." For this reason, the Department will 
calculate the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate for each State and 
report this rate alongside the graduation rates reported by the States. 
I believe that by using this approach the nation will achieve a more 
comprehensive and accurate assessment of the percentage of students who 
graduate from high school in four years. Improving the accuracy of our 
graduation rate statistics will allow the Department, States, and 
school districts to better target resources and modify instructional 
practices for children who might otherwise become school dropouts.

Regarding the recommendations contained in the draft report, I provide 
the following responses:

GAO Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Secretary of Education 
provide information to all States on ways to account for different 
types of students in graduation rate calculations.

We agree with this recommendation and will work with various offices in 
the Department to provide additional policy guidance to States on ways 
to account for different types of students in graduation rate 
calculations. We initiated this discussion with the States during the 
first round of accountability system plan peer reviews conducted during 
the spring of 2003. During those reviews, Department staff and peer 
reviewers discussed with each State which students should be included 
as graduates for NCLB accountability purposes as States developed their 
NCLB accountability system plans.

In addition, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education has 
incorporated several measures in its Title I monitoring process to 
address this concern. Our Title I monitors, during their State 
monitoring visits, collect evidence on whether a State has established 
clear criteria and quality control mechanisms for collecting data from 
schools and school districts that are used for accountability purposes. 
Department staff specifically focus on the graduation rate indicator in 
the accountability section of the Title I monitoring instrument to 
determine how States are calculating the graduation rate and to ensure 
that, as required by NCLB, dropouts and students who earn equivalency 
and special diplomas are not counted as regular diploma graduates.

The Department is also working with States to consolidate and 
streamline State data collections and to establish a set of common 
definitions across many of the programs we fund. Although not yet 
operational in every State, we believe the Performance Based Data 
Management Initiative will greatly improve data collection and result 
in significantly improved, more consistent data. I believe that the 
efforts undertaken by the Department reflect our leadership in 
addressing data quality concerns that are raised by your draft report.

GAO Recommendation 2: We recommend that the Secretary of Education, 
before developing interim graduation rate estimates, assess the 
reliability of data submitted by states for this purpose. This 
assessment could include specific criteria that demonstrate that states 
'data systems can produce accurate data.

We believe that the Department's decision to calculate the Averaged 
Freshman Graduation Rate for each State and to report this rate 
alongside the graduation rates reported by the State will help to 
enhance the reliability of the graduation rate data reported. We agree 
with the recommendation of the National Institute of Statistical 
Sciences (NISS)/Education Statistics Service Institute (ESSI) Task 
Force on Graduation, Completion, and Dropout Indicators, that the most 
accurate measure of an on-time graduation rate is a cohort rate that is 
computed from a student record data system that includes verified data 
on the status of individual students. Data from such a student record 
data system could also be used to calculate five-year graduation rates, 
and rates that allow time accommodations for students with 
Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) that specify longer than 
four years for the student to complete a high school program. At the 
present time several States have student record data systems up and 
running and many more States are in the planning and development stages 
for student record systems. To assist in these development activities, 
the Department will be awarding grants to States this year under the 
new Statewide Data Systems program, for which Congress provided $24.8 
million.

By definition, a cohort rate for a four-year on time graduation rate 
requires four years of data. Because some States are still in the early 
planning stages, it will be some years before cohort graduation rates 
will be available for all States. There is some variability in what 
States have been approved to report in the NCLB accountability reports 
as their data collection efforts in this area evolve. However, in the 
interest of having a common metric to use across States, the Department 
turned to an analysis conducted by NCES to select an interim graduation 
rate that would be independent of the graduation rates States calculate 
for determining adequate yearly progress. That analysis examined the 
range of alternative proposed graduation rates using publicly available 
data from the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD), and using data provided 
by two States that have had student record data systems in place for a 
number of years. The results of the analysis pointed to the Averaged 
Freshman Graduation Rate as the best available graduation indicator 
that can be computed on an interim basis using cross-sectional data 
currently reported in CCD.

The Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate uses the State's report of 
regular diploma recipients in the numerator, and the denominator is the 
average of the number of 8THgraders five years earlier, 99THraders four 
years earlier, and 1010 graders three years earlier. One of the 
positive qualities of this interim measure is that it relies on basic 
data elements that have been reported to NCES for the CCD for a number 
of years. This measure does not require the use of dropout data, and 
thus avoids the problems that GAO, NCES, and others have identified 
with unverified dropout data. GAO also points to possible differences 
in definitions of graduates across States resulting from the continued 
use of existing data collection systems. The Department agrees with the 
NISS/ESSI Task Force recommendation that new energies should focus 
primarily on the development of student record data systems in the 
States as opposed to efforts to retool or improve existing systems; 
however, in the interest of transparency, NCES is currently conducting 
a review of the individual State's reported practices for identifying 
and categorizing regular diploma recipients and other types of high 
school completers. This information will be provided with the interim 
rates to ensure that any definitional differences are available.

Additionally, the Department has taken a number of steps to assess the 
reliability of data submitted by States, including a review of the data 
elements contained in State information management systems. The 
Department's Strategic Accountability Service office conducted a review 
of the characteristics of individual States as related to their 
technological readiness for participation in the pilot of the 
Department's Performance Based Data Management Initiative in 2003 and 
again in the Spring of 2004. We learned through the site visits to the 
50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico that State 
education agencies (SEAs) are moving steadily toward automated data 
collections at the individual student (and staff) level. However, major 
hurdles must be overcome that affect the accuracy and reliability of 
the data collected, which include building and maintaining the 
technical infrastructure of hardware, software, networks, and staff, 
and facilitating the inclusion, education, and reassurance of 
stakeholders about the controls that can exist within an automated 
system.

During the SEA site visits, teams composed of Department staff and 
consultants provided technical assistance to the SEAs on the 
Department's efforts to streamline its data collection efforts. We also 
collected information on State information system data element 
definitions as a part of the process of learning how States define such 
data elements as graduation rate. and how they ensure via the data 
collection process that the data they are collecting are accurate.

In our Title I, Part A Report Card Guidance, issued during September 
2003, the Department provided information on State and school district 
responsibilities for ensuring that the information on report cards, 
including graduation rates, is statistically reliable and does not 
reveal personally identifiable information about individual students. 
The Report Card Guidance also presents information regarding how States 
and local educational agencies can ensure the accuracy of report card 
data. In response to the September 2004 GAO report (GAO-04-734), 
entitled "No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's 
Process for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions," the 
Department initiated a contract task order to develop data quality 
guidelines for States and school districts that will provide guidance 
and suggestions for improving their internal quality control systems to 
reduce errors and increase reliability, as well as improve data quality 
monitoring procedures. The Department will disseminate this guide to 
States, along with a Power Point presentation that States can use to 
train district and school personnel on the application of information 
contained in the guide.

GAO Recommendation 3: We recommend that the Secretary ofEducation 
establish a timetable for carrying out the recommendation in our 2002 
report that Education evaluate research on dropout interventions, 
including those interventions that focus on increasing graduation 
rates. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary disseminate 
research on programs shown to be effective in increasing graduation 
rates.

We agree with this recommendation and began, in April 2005, through the 
IES What Works Clearinghouse, to review and identify research on 
effective intervention strategies for dropout prevention. The review, 
Interventions for Preventing High School Dropout, is examining 
secondary school (middle, junior, and high school) interventions 
designed to keep students in school and contribute to high school 
completion, and will address the following questions:

* Which dropout prevention programs are effective in keeping students 
in school and helping them progress in school?

* Are some components and types of dropout prevention programs more 
effective than others?

* Are some dropout prevention programs more effective for some types of 
students, such as minority students or special education students?

The Clearinghouse has developed drafts of the protocol, coding guide, 
and intervention list that are initial steps in the review process. A 
preliminary literature search for this review has yielded more than 
1700 articles and, of those articles, 1038 studies have been identified 
as meeting initial relevancy for inclusion in the review. So far, the 
review team has identified approximately 15 - 18 potential 
interventions. The first release of reports on Interventions for 
Preventing High School Dropout is planned for the early part of 2006 
for dissemination on the What Works Clearinghouse website. The 
completion date for this review is contingent on the final number of 
interventions that have studies that pass the Clearinghouse's evidence 
standards, but the Department is projecting completion by the end of 
2006.

The Department continues to provide guidance and technical assistance 
to States that are refining their graduation rate definitions. We are 
also reviewing information that will provide States with best practices 
for intervening with students at risk of dropping out of school. The 
Department acknowledges that there is still much work to be done in 
increasing the accuracy of graduation rates and to improve 
instructional practices that will promote school completion. We look 
forward to continuing to work with States as they refine their 
graduation rates and implement programs that will keep at risk students 
in school. The Department will also continue to support States in their 
efforts to improve data quality and accountability. Thank you again for 
the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson: 

[End of section]

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Marnie S. Shaul, (202) 512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director), Julianne Hartman Cutts (Analyst- 
in-Charge), and Jason Palmer (Senior Analyst) managed all aspects of 
the assignment. Dan Klabunde made significant contributions to this 
report, in all aspects of the work. In addition, Sheranda Smith- 
Campbell, Nagla'a El-Hodiri, and Greg Kato provided analytic 
assistance. Jean McSween, Karen O'Conor, and Beverly Ross provided 
technical support. Jim Rebbe and Sheila McCoy provided legal support, 
and Corinna Nicolaou assisted in the message and report development. 

[End of section]

Related GAO Products: 

No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process 
for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734. 
Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on 
Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909. 
Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2004. 

Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed 
among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher 
Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004. 

Student Mentoring Programs: Education's Monitoring and Information 
Sharing Could Be Improved. GAO-04-581. Washington, D. C.: June 25, 
2004. 

Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information 
Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington, 
D.C.: May 8, 2003. 

Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States' Scoring of Assessments. GAO-
02-393. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2002. 

School Dropouts: Education Could Play a Stronger Role in Identifying 
and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies. GAO-02-240. 
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002. 

Elementary School Children: Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming 
Their Education. GAO/HEHS-94-45. Washington, D.C.: February 4, 1994. 

[End of section]

Bibliography: 

Burns, Matthew K., Barbara V. Senesac, and Todd Symington. "The 
Effectiveness of the HOSTS Program in Improving the Reading Achievement 
of Children At-Risk for Reading Failure." Reading Research and 
Instruction, vol. 43, no. 2 (2004): 87-103: 

Dynarski, Mark, Philip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, and Robert Wood. 
Impacts of Dropout Prevention Programs, Final Report. Princeton, New 
Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1998. 

Dynarski, Mark, Philip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, and Robert Wood. 
Impacts of School Restructuring Initiatives, Final Report. Princeton, 
New Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1998. 

Dynarski, Mark and Philip Gleason. How Can We Help? What We Have 
Learned From Evaluations of Federal Dropout Prevention Programs? A 
Research Report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance 
Program Evaluation. Princeton, New Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research, 
Inc., 1998. 

Gingras, Rosano, and Rudy Careaga. Limited English Proficient Students 
at Risk: Issues and Prevention Strategies. Silver Spring, Maryland: 
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1989. 

Greene, J. P. and Marcus A. Winters. Public School Graduation Rates in 
the United States (New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, 
2002), http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_31.pdf (accessed June 
21, 2005). 

Kemple, James J. Career Academies: Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes and 
Educational Attainment. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research 
Corporation, December 2001. 

Kemple, James J., Corinne M. Herlihy, and Thomas J. Smith. Making 
Progress towards Graduation: Evidence from the Talent Development High 
School Model. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 
May 2005. 

Kerbow, David. "Patterns of Urban Student Mobility and Local School 
Reform." Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. vol. 1, no. 
2 (1996): 149-171. 

Lehr, Camilla A. and Cheryl M. Lange. "Alternative Schools Serving 
Students with and without Disabilities: What Are the Current Issues and 
Challenges." Preventing School Failure, vol. 47, no. 2 (2003): 59-65. 

Opuni, K. A. Project GRAD Newark: 2003-2004 Program Evaluation Report, 
Houston, Texas: Center for Research on School Reform, February 2005. 

Quint, Janet, Howard S. Bloom, Alison Rebeck Black, LaFleur Stephens 
LaFleur, and Theresa M. Akey. The Challenge of Scaling Up Educational 
Reform: Findings and Lessons from First Things First, New York: 
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, July 2005. 

Rumberger, Russell, and Scott Thomas. "The Distribution of Dropout and 
Turnover Rates among Urban and Suburban High Schools." Sociology of 
Education, vol. 73, no. 1 (2000): 39-69. 

Sinclair, M. F., S. L. Christenson, and M. L. Thurlow. "Promoting 
School Completion of Urban Secondary Youth with Emotional or Behavioral 
Disabilities." Exceptional Children, (in press). 

Snow, Catherine E., M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin, Eds. Preventing 
Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, D.C.: National 
Academy Press, 1998. 

Swanson, Christopher B. Keeping Count and Losing Count: Calculating 
Graduation Rates for All Students under NCLB Accountability. 
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2003, 
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410843 (downloaded June 21, 2005). 

Shannon, Sue G., and Pete Bylsma. Helping Students Finish School: Why 
Students Drop Out, and How to Help Them Graduate. Olympia, Washington: 
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2003. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 
National Forum on Education Statistics. Forum Guide to Building a 
Culture of Quality Data: A School and District Resource. NFES 2005-801. 
Washington, D.C.: 2004. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 
National Institute of Statistical Sciences/Education Statistics 
Services Institute Task Force on Graduation, Completion, and Dropout 
Indicators. NCES 2005-105. Washington, D.C.: 2004. 

Wagner, Mary. Dropouts with Disabilities: What Do We Know? What Can We 
Do? A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special 
Education Students. Menlo Park, California: SRI International, 1991. 

FOOTNOTES

[1] GAO, School Dropouts: Education Could Play A Stronger Role in 
Identifying and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies. GAO-02-
240 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002). 

[2] Hereinafter, the term states will refer collectively to the 50 
states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

[3] Students with disabilities refers to students covered under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, the 
primary law that addresses the unique educational needs of children 
with disabilities. 

[4] U.S. Department of Education. National Forum on Education 
Statistics, Forum Guide to Building a Culture of Quality Data: A School 
and District Resource, NFES 2005-801 (Washington, D.C.: 2004). 

[5] Schools designated as in need of improvement under the IASA had 
their designation carry over after NCLBA took effect. Also, schools 
receiving students through the school choice option must not be 
identified for improvement. 

[6] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics. National Institute of Statistical Sciences/Education 
Statistics Services Institute Task Force on Graduation, Completion, and 
Dropout Indicators, NCES 2005-105 (Washington, D.C.: 2004). 

[7] GAO, Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States' Scoring of 
Assessments, GAO-02-393, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2002) and Title I 
Program: Stronger Accountability Needed for Performance of 
Disadvantaged Students, GAO/HEHS-00-89, (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 
2000). U. S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, 
Department of Education Management Challenges (November 2004). 

[8] Dynarski, Mark and Philip Gleason, How Can We Help? What We Have 
Learned from Evaluations of Federal Dropout Prevention Programs? A 
Research Report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance 
Program Evaluation (Princeton, New Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research, 
Inc., 1998). 

[9] The following two approaches we identified--restructuring and 
supplemental services--do not refer to the specific restructuring and 
supplemental services provisions in the NCLBA. Instead, these 
approaches include those that are more diverse and include a variety of 
different intervention practices that states and districts are 
attempting. 

[10] These included literacy programs, which, although not specifically 
discussed in our 2002 report, are also examples of how these approaches 
can be implemented. 

[11] In July 2005 governors of 47 states signed a compact agreeing to 
adopt the National Governors Association's recommended cohort-based 
graduation rate formula in order to develop a comparable graduation 
rate definition. However, our analysis was based on the state plans 
rather than on this agreement. 

[12] States may either track individual students from a 9th grade 
cohort or approximate a cohort, such as by estimating the number of 
students who enter the 9th grade and who transfer in and out. 

[13] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics, National Institute of Statistical Sciences/Education 
Statistics Services Institute Task Force on Graduation, Completion, and 
Dropout Indicators, NCES 2005-105 (Washington, D.C.: 2004). 

[14] For the purposes of simplifying this example, we set the number of 
net transfers over the 4-year period at zero. We recognize that cohorts 
likely would have some number of net transfers. 

[15] Ten of these states consider students receiving alternative 
certificates separately from dropouts, while the remaining 22 states 
count them as dropouts in their definitions. NCES calculates a high 
school graduation rate using only diploma recipients as graduates and 
excluding other high school completers, such as those who earned a 
certificate of attendance and GED certificates. It also calculates a 
"high school completer rate" using diploma recipients and other high 
school completers, except GED recipients, as completers. 

[16] We followed the state's version of the cohort definition, which 
used dropout rates and not transfers. The basic cohort definition (fig. 
2) accounts for the original number of students in the cohort plus 
transfers, while the state's version accounts for dropouts. 

[17] See for example, Greene, J. P. Public School Graduation rates in 
the United States (New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, 
2002), http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_31.pdf (downloaded 
June 21, 2005); and Swanson, Christopher B. Keeping Count and Losing 
Count: Calculating Graduation Rates for All Students under NCLB 
Accountability (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2003), 
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410843 (downloaded June 21, 2005). 

[18] For example, one state's graduation rate definition divides the 
number of graduates by the number of 12th graders at the beginning of 
the school year. This definition does not take into consideration the 
number of students who dropped out in earlier years, resulting in a 
higher graduation rate than would have been produced using a definition 
that considered such students. In contrast, 2 states used a dropout 
rate definition that divides the number of dropouts in grades 9 through 
12 by the number of students enrolled in those grades for the current 
year. 

[19] These schools would make AYP, assuming they also met the testing 
requirements. 

[20] This issue is relevant because the number of states that had such 
a college component is growing. For example, 19 states had Early 
College High Schools as of September 2004 and 25 were projected to as 
of 2005. These high schools are designed so that students can receive 2 
years of college credit at the same time as they earn a high school 
diploma--up to 5 years after starting 9th grade. 

[21] As of July 2005, Education stated that it had received requests 
from 5 additional states to consider those students with disabilities 
who receive a regular diploma as graduates, but take additional years. 
Education also received requests from 4 states for similar 
consideration for Limited English Proficient students. The remaining 
plans did not include or did not address this topic. 

[22] For example, research has shown that this is particularly true for 
students with disabilities. See Wagner, Mary, Dropouts with 
Disabilities: What Do We Know? What Can We Do? (Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI 
International, 1991), a report based on the National Longitudinal 
Transition Study of Special Education Students. According to the 
author, a second phase of the study is under way, and data collected as 
of June 2005 have shown that this continues to be the case. 

[23] States were required to provide an assurance that students who 
drop out would not be counted as transfers. 

[24] Rumberger, Russell, and Scott Thomas, "The Distribution of Dropout 
and Turnover Rates among Urban and Suburban High Schools," Sociology of 
Education, vol. 73, no. 1 (2000): 39-67. Kerbow, David. "Patterns of 
Urban Student Mobility and Local School Reform." Journal of Education 
for Students Placed at Risk, vol. 1, no. 2 (1996): 147-169. GAO. 
Elementary School Children: Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming 
Their Education,. GAO/HEHS-94-45 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 1994). 

[25] The median high school in this example is the school in the middle 
of all the state's schools when they were rank-ordered according to 
their graduation rates. 

[26] Experts we interviewed said that the hypothetical error rates 
chosen were reasonable given the quality of dropout data typically 
maintained by schools and school districts. 

[27] The National Forum on Education Statistics issued a similar guide, 
Forum Guide to Building a Culture of Quality Data: A School and 
District Resource, NFES 2005-801 (Washington D.C.: 2004). 

[28] Education will calculate the rate based on the number of high 
school graduates receiving a regular diploma in a given year divided by 
the average number of students enrolled in 8th grade 5 years earlier, 
9th grade 4 years earlier, and 10th grade 3 years earlier. 

[29] See, for example, Snow, Catherine E, Susan M. Burns, and Peg 
Griffin, Eds. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children 
(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998). 

[30] GAO-02-240. 

[31] Two of these evaluations, the Talent Development Model and First 
Things First, were released after we had completed our fieldwork. 

[32] Sinclair, M.F., S. L. Christenson and M. L. Thurlow, "Promoting 
School Completion of Urban Secondary Youth with Emotional or Behavioral 
Disabilities." Exceptional Children (in press). 

[33] Opuni, K.A., Project GRAD Newark: 2003-2004 Program Evaluation 
Report (Houston, Texas: Center for Research on School Reform, February 
2005). 

[34] Burns, Matthew K., Barbara V. Senesac, and Todd Symington, "The 
Effectiveness of the HOSTS Program in Improving the Reading Achievement 
of Children At-risk for Reading Failure." Reading Research and 
Instruction, vol. 43, no. 2 (2004): 87-104. 

[35] Kemple, James J., Corinne M. Herlihy, and Thomas J Smith. Making 
Progress Towards Graduation: Evidence from the Talent Development High 
School Model (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 
May 2005). 

[36] Quint, Janet, Howard S. Bloom, Alison Rebeck Black, LaFleur 
Stephens, and Theresa M. Akey, The Challenge of Scaling Up Educational 
Reform: Findings and Lessons from First Things First (New York: 
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, July 2005). 

[37] Lehr, Camilla A. and Cheryl M Lange, "Alternative Schools Serving 
Students with and without Disabilities: What Are the Current Issues and 
Challenges," Preventing School Failure, vol. 47, no. 2 (2003): 59-65. 

[38] Kemple, James J., and Judith Scott-Clayton, Career Academies: 
Impact on Students' Initial Transitions to Post-Secondary Education and 
Employment (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 
December 2001). 

[39] Dynarski, Mark, Philip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, and Robert Wood, 
Impacts of Dropout Prevention Programs, Final Report (Princeton, New 
Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1998). 

[40] Ibid. 

[41] See for example, Gingras, Rosano, and Rudy Careaga, Limited 
English Proficient Students at Risk: Issues and Prevention Strategies 
(Silver Spring, Md.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 
1989). 

[42] See for example, Shannon, Sue G., and Pete Bylsma, Helping 
Students Finish School: Why Students Drop Out and How to Help Them 
Graduate (Olympia, Wash.: Office of Superintendent of Public 
Instruction, 2003). 

[43] The What Works Clearinghouse, funded by Education, has a Web site 
that will summarize evidence on the effectiveness of different 
programs, products, practices, and policies intended to improve student 
outcomes. The site is planned to include interventions in middle 
school, junior high school, or high school designed to increase high 
school completion including such techniques as the use of incentives, 
counseling, or monitoring as the prevention/intervention of choice. 

[44] Generally, cohort definitions are based on tracking student 
transfers. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: