Graduation rate proposals draw controversy
FROM ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENT EDUCATION--Diane Mc
Groups raise concerns about timelines, interim rate, and accountability
By Stephen Sawchuk
Education's heavy hitters -- the powerful Washington, D.C.-based interest groups, associations and lobbyists who influence much in the education policymaking world -- waited until the last moment to weigh in on the proposed Title I rules released by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.
Their statements revealed why: Most raised major concerns about the rules' far-reaching provisions requiring all states to transition to the National Governors Association graduation compact rate for both reporting and NCLB accountability purposes.
Groups agreed to the need for a clear, accurate and comparable state method for determining the scope of the high school dropout crisis, but the consensus stopped there.
Timing and categories
Many groups struggled with language in the rules permitting states to petition ED to count "limited categories of students" under an extended graduation rate more than the "standard" four years. Some advocacy organizations were concerned that the language would cause schools to predetermine a special, longer path for graduation for some students.
"Minority students, [English-language learners] and students with disabilities . . . would be placed in a slower academic track than their peers and be at a disadvantage when competing to get into postsecondary institutions," argued Janet Murguía, president of the National Council of La Raza.
The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, by contrast, felt the definition should be broadened to include students earning technical certificates, incarcerated youth, students with "serious injuries or illnesses," and dropout-recovery alternative high schools.
Accountability hawks argued a compromise position. The Education Trust urged ED to adopt additional provisions for extended-year graduation rates that would allow schools to receive full credit for graduating some students -- such as late ELL entries -- in more than four years and partial credit for struggling students who took longer than four years to earn their diplomas.
Though ED should not "open the door so far that pressure to improve four-year graduation rates is alleviated," EdTrust Vice President Ross Wiener wrote, "there is a real danger that if schools cannot get any credit under the accountability system for students who take longer than four years to graduate, then we will be undermining the education of struggling students."
Alliance for Excellent Education President Bob Wise suggested permitting states to report both a four- year and a "cumulative" graduation rate including all students. For the cumulative graduation rate to meet annual targets, a specific percentage of graduates -- perhaps 90 percent -- should be four-year graduates, he wrote.
Several stakeholders objected to the requirement for states to adopt an interim estimate, the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate calculation, until 2012-13, when all states must use the NGA rate.
"The practical impact may be to require states to revise their graduation rate definition three times in a period of 4 to 5 years," officials for the Council of Chief State School Officers wrote. "Multiple changes in graduation rates will also breed public and parental confusion and mistrust of these numbers."
The AFGR calculation is based on eighth-grade data, something most high schools don't have, argued EdTrust's Wiener. Omitting eighth-grade data would lead to inaccurate calculations and would not capture the large number of students who drop out their first year of high school, he wrote.
Both EdTrust and CCSSO encouraged ED to require states that have the technical capacity to report the NGA compact rate before 2012-13 to do so. That number is not insignificant: A 2006 NGA report found that all but a handful would be able to report the compact rate by 2011.
Grad-rate accountability
The rules' proposal to set higher graduation targets and require states to show annual progress, both in the aggregate and by subgroup, drew concern from the teachers unions and education associations, whose members are facing higher numbers of schools identified as "needing improvement" this year.
"Adding a new variable to the current scorekeeping matrix would expand the matrix from 36 cells to 45 cells, thus adding 9 new ways for schools to make" adequate yearly progress, wrote Bruce Hunter, associate executive director for the American Association of School Administrators.
By and large, these groups argued that the pressure of breaking data out by subgroups should be sufficient to evince change.
"It's one thing to identify which subgroups do not meet graduation rate requirements; it's another to attach sanctions to such identification, particularly when state and local resources are limited and federal resources are not forthcoming," wrote Michael Resnick, associate executive director of the National School Boards Association.
NEA Director of Policy and Practice Joel Packer argued that if ED persists with graduation rate accountability, it should expand the differentiated consequences pilot "so that interventions can be tailored to best respond to the causes of low graduation rates."
CCSSO officials urged ED to withhold addressing graduation-rate accountability until lawmakers can overhaul the accountability system as part of a full-scale reauthorization.
But as Spellings made clear in April, she rolled out the proposals precisely because reauthorization stalled in 2007. And she is well aware that the regulations could be stricter on accountability than the next iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
While ED must respond to the comments in the Federal Register, the agency holds the final say over the shape of the rules. The department is expected to issue final regulations by Nov. 1.
