[AAACE-NLA] Counting dropouts and graduates: still more people left behind

Thu May 8 17:17:09 EDT 2008

SC is a state where we struggle everyday to communicate the value of education, and adult education in particular.  In this ultra-conservative environment, the powers that be are generally reluctant to put funds in the direction of almost any human service, education in particular.  Daily we hear about "throwing good money after bad" because of the abysmal record of so many of our school districts.  Everyone thinks all  our schools are among the worst in the nation, and rarely is there any dispute of this myth.  The truth is, we have some of the worst, but also some of the best, depending on where you live. It is and always has been about a disparity in resource allocation.

I have a grave suspicion that defining the "drop-out rate" to exclude adult ed graduates will only entrench the nay-sayers further.  Currently, adult ed in SC can point to the large number of adult graduates who contribute to the calculation of the current drop-out rate, bad as it is.  (Recently, we are talking more about the "high school completion rate" instead, which is the percentage of freshmen who accomplish the goal in four years. This already eliminatges adult grads.)  If adult grads are taken out of the dropout calculations, SC will look even worse, perhaps even far worse. I fear this will only make advocacy for adult ed in our state even harder,  and further erode the dwindling support for public education in general.  (Our governor is crusading even now for vouchers for private schools.)    To some who WOULD agree to do more for education it is often an either-or effort, "because we are a poor state."  This could mean that if the graduation rate appears to be even worse than it is now, appears, some will only use it to justify concentrating on "prevention" (ie early childhood programs) because that is "where the fire is burning" and we "don't have the resources" to "throw money" at "people who have already had their chance."

I have been an education crusader here for more than 30 years, and I have learned that the conservatives can't be convinced .  Even if you talk dollars and cents (ie tie adult ed to workforce development) they don't want to hear about anything that costs money, or even saves money, only about things that make money    I decided long ago that the best we can do locally is not give the opposition any more ammunition than they already have. A higher "dropout rate" would play right into their hands. 

Which is not to say that national policy ought to be governed by the political environment of ultra-conservative states.  I offer these ideas only to point out a possible unintended consequence of redefining the dropout rate.  I wish it would go the other way:  one could just as easily show that adult ed is doing a good job if the dropout rates suddenly rises after adult graduates are dropped from the calculation.  But long experience tells me that here facts are often used to prove what people have already concluded.. But I live in a state where the state constitution charges state govenment only to "provide a minimally adequate education".  (The rest is left to the local districts, including the poorest parts of the state where there is virtually no tax base.)  

Deborah W. Yoho
director, Turning Pages
(formerly the Greater Columbia Literacy Council)
a community service of Volunteers of America Carolinas
803-765-2555 Fax: 803-779-1657
PO Box 1447 Columbia, SC 29202
yohogclc at earthlink.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: David Rosen 
To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE
Sent: 5/8/2008 10:04:24 AM 
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] Counting dropouts and graduates: still more peopleleft behind

Michelle and others,

People may look at the new policy in different ways, for example:

1. The policy would just make clear, and standardize, what is/isn't a dropout rate and would allow fairer comparisons between schools, districts and states. Now, because "dropout" isn't standardized, some school districts and states erroneously appear to have higher or lower dropout rates than others. 

2. Educators, policy makers and the general public will view this new clarity of definition as: on-time high-school graduation = success; dropout = failure; dropout + GED, EDP or ADP, or other program that allows attainment of standards within one or two more years, or more = second-class -- or for those who take longer, third class -- a begrudged acknowledgment of "equivalency" that, from the school system or state or federal government point of view, doesn't "count". This view, I think, will be reinforced by the clarity of "graduate" and "dropout". A "graduate"  may be viewed as only someone who completes high school graduation requirements on time. It undermines the notion of mastery with more time, and of lifelong learning. 

A possibly unintended outcome of the proposed policy, reflected in the second view, would be unfortunate, and would negate the efforts of adults and young adults who take more time to meet the standards required of high school graduates. It would not acknowledge and reward their slower or differently-paced attainment of high school graduation level competency.

I am also concerned,  if public school systems cannot "count" those who attain a GED or ADP as graduates, that they will be less willing to provide funding for such adult or equivalency programs. I wonder, for example, about the California adult schools -- public schools for adults funded largely with state dollars. Would this new policy affect funding for those schools? I am aware in my state, Massachusetts,  of a public school system that provides funding for its adult education program to work with young adult students who cannot pass the state high stakes test on time. The adult education program  has had some success with this, but it takes the student longer. Will this adult program still be funded if students who pass the high stakes test later, after their class has graduated, cannot be counted by the public school system as a graduate? 

I raise these issues now, before the new policy is adopted by the U.S .Department of Education, so that they might be anticipated and avoided.

I understand that the USDOE policy will be based on work done by the National Governor's Association. I wonder if anyone on this list is aware of an NGA position paper or proposed policy other than the July 18th 2005  "Graduation Counts" compact [ http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0507GRADCOMPACT.PDF ]. 
In that document I found the following:

With this compact, the undersigned commit to: 

 Take steps to implement a standard, four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. States agree to calculate the graduation rate 
by dividing the number of on-time graduates in a given year by the number of first-time entering ninth graders four years 
earlier. Graduates are those receiving a high school diploma. The denominator can be adjusted for transfers in and out of the 
system and data systems will ideally track individual students with a longitudinal student unit record data system. Special 
education students and recent immigrants with limited English proficiency can be assigned to different cohorts to allow them 
more time to graduate. 

 Lead efforts to improve state data collection, reporting and analysis, and link data systems across the entire education 
pipeline from preschool through postsecondary education. 

 Take steps to implement additional indicators that provide richer information and understanding about outcomes for students 
and how well the system is serving them. Additional indicators include five- or six-year cohort graduation rates, completion 
rates for those earning alternative credentials, in-grade retention rates, a college-readiness rate and a high school dropout 
rate. 

 Report annual progress on the improvement of their state high school graduation, completion and dropout rate data. 

I interpret this language to mean that on-time graduates "count", and that others who eventually graduate are of interest, but may not be counted. If that interpretation is correct I see this as a problem. I wonder if there are other NGA documents that make this proposed policy any clearer.

Do others on this list see potential problems with the proposed policy that might be corrected?

David J. Rosen
Adult Literacy Advocate
djrosen at theworld.com

On May 5, 2008, at 4:52 PM, Michelle Carson wrote:

Would such a regulation affect funding for adult education in your  
state? 

I'm not exactly sure how the regulation would affect funding for adult education in Kansas.  Would the increased number of students who dropout give cause for additional funding to adult education?  Or would it be more likely that the funding would go to secondary institutions to help improve them?  Whichever the case, I do believe the proposed formula would give a much better picture of the increasing numbers of potential students we are attempting to serve with the dollars we do receive.  Perhaps with the new formula, the number of adults who receive services from an Adult Education program and/or receive the GED would be properly accounted for and the credit given for reclaiming those students who were failed by the educational system.

Would it affect how people view the GED or an adult diploma  
awarded by a public high school?

I believe that not counting the GED achievers in the proposed formula actually is intended to give a clearer picture of how the educational system is performing (or not).   I don't think that the new formula should affect how the GED is perceived.  To me, the formula is not saying GED are not high school graduates, rather, it is making it clear that the traditional high school should not get credit for graduating a student who earns their GED through a non-traditional route and ultimately may have been served by an adult education or other literacy program.

Michelle

Michelle Carson, M.S.
Associate Director of Adult Education
Kansas Board of Regents
1000 SW Jackson, Suite 520
Topeka, KS 66612
phone:  785-368-7359
fax:        785-296-4526
e-mail:   mcarson at ksbor.org

David Rosen <DJRosen at theworld.com> 4/26/2008 3:29 PM >>>
Colleagues,

Under a new federal effort to standardize how high school graduation  
rates are calculated nationwide, students who leave school and later  
graduate from adult education programs will still be considered  
dropouts. "In an effort to get a true picture of the nation's high  
school dropout crisis, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings  
announced last week that she will require all states to use a single  
federal formula to calculate graduation and dropout rates, forcing  
some states to completely revamp their data processing systems.  
Spellings did not release the specific formula she will require but  
referenced the National Governors Association's graduation rate as a  
model...."

Would such a regulation affect funding for adult education in your  
state? Would it affect how people view the GED or an adult diploma  
awarded by a public high school?

This would increase the national dropout rate, reported recently in  
the America's Promise Alliance study as 30% on average, 50%  in  
cities. If GED and adult diploma holders are counted as dropouts that  
would increase the dropout rate more.

Several years of  "No Child Left Behind"  appear to be leaving many  
more people behind.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080407/ 
NEWS03/804070336

Short form of Web Address:
http://tinyurl.com/5xk7e2 

David J. Rosen
Adult Literacy Advocate
DJRosen at theworld.com 

_______________________________________________
AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org 
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla 
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org

<Michelle Carson.vcf>_______________________________________________
AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org

David J. Rosen
DJRosen at theworld.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/aaace-nla/attachments/20080508/160023fc/attachment.html>