Building a Grad Nation Progress and Challenge in Ending the High School Dropout Epidemic 79 REPORT BY WW Americas Promise Alliance CCJEF v MLead I Sponsor Supporting Sponsor Building a Grad Nation Progress and Challenge High School in Ending the Dropout Epidemic ANNUAL UPDATE 2015 A Report By Civic Enterprises Everyone Graduates of Education In Partnership at Center at the School Johns Hopkins University with Americas Promise Alliance Alliance for Excellent Lead Sponsor Supporting Sponsor ATT Target Written by Jennifer L DePaoli Joanna Hornig Fox Erin S Ingram Mary Maushard John Education M Bridgeland Robert Balfanz Data analysis by Mark Pierson Vaughan Byrnes 1 3 4 10 20 34 46 54 64 Table of Contents Letter from General and Mrs Powell Foreword Summary Executive The National Picture Driver 1 Driver 2 Driver 3 Driver 4 Driver 5 76 LowIncome Students Minority Students Special Education Students Big CitiesBig Districts Big States The Quest to 90 Looking across the A Two Tale of Students Policy Recommendations Acknowledgements Appendices Appendix A Number Appendix B Appendix C High Appendix and Appendix State G Appendix Adjusted by Gap Change ACGR Gaps Additional State Locale K12 Code and Graduates 94 Enrollment with Enrollment any Locale Code 201213 Appendix Public Availability K FourYear Appendix L Appendix Appendix Appendix May 2015 by State Building M Classes of Adjusted a Grad Nation for Schools within the Cohort Graduation Rate Key Programs District a City with ACGR Cohort Graduation Rate ACGR Frequently Used Terms and Definitions Graduation Rate ACGR 20112014 Data Links by State 116 118 FAQ N GradNation Campaign Letter on 0 Civic Marshall Plan Principles P Cohort Graduation Rate of Students Attending Schools with RaceEthnicity or More Year Adjusted Appendix Appendix iv J Four K12 and FourYear Adjusted Needed by Class of 2020 and Subgroup Percentages of ACGR AFGR 20032013 Appendix I Top500 Largest School Districts Adjusted Change Total 78 79 67 Percent ACGR Cohort Graduation Rates ACGR by State H Estimated Reach 90 Percent 77 90 2012 below Freshman Graduation Rate Averaged 74 96 114 120 126 and State 201213 Cohort Graduation Rate to 81 86 88 ACGR Cohort Graduation Rate and Subgroup 201213 Appendix 71 and Student Enrollment by RaceEthnicity with an from 201011 to 201213 F FourYear 70 Promoting Power of 60 Percent or Less Cohort Graduation Rate E Adjusted by Subgroup State Schools D Adjusted by Subgroup by High Schools with Cohort Graduation Rate Appendix Drivers High Schools by Different Levels of Promoting Power 20022013 20022013 by Locale Adjusted Change of of Five of the ESEA Reauthorization GradNation Campaign 124 128 22 25 26 35 36 Tables Table 1 ACGR Table 2 Table Table Gap Changes between Groups 20112013 Changes in Cohort Graduation the Adjusted ACGR Rate 3 Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate ACGR Change 4 Equity Path for Graduates Needed by Class of 2020 5 6 Table Table ACGR Cohort Graduation Rate Adjusted ACGR State Adjusted ACGR and NonLowIncome Estimated ACGR and Gap Change 20112013 7a State 2013 ACGR for NonLowIncome Table 7b State 2013 ACGR for LowIncome Table 8a State ACGR Leaders Table 8b State ACGR Laggards Table 9 Table 1 Oa State Table 1 Ob State Table 11 States Table 12 Adjusted versus NonSWD Table 13 Summary Percent of ACGR Laggards 14 Table Adjusted Students Top500 Students in 1 School Districts ACGR with Least at ACGR Gap Figure 2 ACGR Figure 3 Students with Disabilities SWD Terms of Total between 2011 K12 Enrollment and 2013 and 15000 Students ie Roughly 500 from 20112013 and Ranges by 65 58 Students enrollment on the Move 59 16 47 Cohort Graduation Rate State AFGR ACGR and by State 20022013 11 201213 Cohort Graduation Rate Adjusted in Averages and LowIncome Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate FourYear Adjusted for 201213 Terms of High School Student Enrollment 201213 Figures Figure 37 20112013 Districts Hispanic Black White States 201213 201213 15 Large Districts greater than 15000 K12 How They Will Influence State Rates 16 Top10 High School Students 201213 Black Students Cohort Graduation Rate Table Table 201213 Students HispanicLatino Black Students 201213 49 of the Cohort Graduation Rate Percent of 37 38 Students Cohort Graduation Rate 201213 Largest School 90 Percent 201213 Numbers of Black High School Students Students LowIncome 21 17 56 12 12 13 Leaders Average Adjusted a 15 by State Percent LowIncome Students HispanicLatino ACGR with Largest Reach Students Numbers of HispanicLatino with Largest to State NonLowIncome Gap between LowIncome Table States 20112013 19 LowIncome and Laggards Leaders by Subgroup from 201011 to 201213 by Subgroup per Cohort Graduation Rate ACGR LowIncome and 13 ACGR for Black Hispanic and White Students from 201011 to 201213 4 Figure Total of 60 Percent 5 Figure in Number or Less 6 Figure with a High Schools with of the Nations Percentage Schools with a of 20022013 Black a Promoting Power Hispanic and White Student Populations 14 Promoting Power of 60 Percent of Less 20022013 Change in Number of Students Enrolled in High Schools Figure 201011 7 to Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate 201213 by Figure 8 Black White Figure 9 Secondary Figure 10 IDEA State and All Students School Suspension Part B Child ACGR Juvenile Rates Change from Crime Rates by Ethnicity Count 2013 Ages 621 39 40 14 Promoting Power of 60 Percent or Less 20022013 19802012 197273 to 200910 Building a Grad Nation May 2015 v school High rates are graduation each year has increased college Mrs from General and Letter get across America The number of young rising over the significantly goal of critical graduation 90 percent ontime rates have come among numbers with large districts businesses leaders educators gaps in we need rates graduation by effort sound a to among the We and public stronger different officials We alarm student too many are poorly prepared must renew our recent with increasing efforts A a chance to climb the determine whether zeal their in the ladders and alone cannot schoolhouse important how of opportunity people remains disturbingly young door and as what happens in in must stay the course who and workplace As innovating to meet the Founding that others demanding increasingly D As Robert bullying in graduate we do old the let and skills L stress they will Putnam documents to Chair Americas need are well before essential young people USA Promise Alliance for further And let all of Alma have J as their ability to are unstable develop the a and for a high school competitive on time economy what works Let us be open to us be accountable children is sectors life education by the best evidence under which Ret in with all reach food insecurity poverty interfere succeed dream should of birth is more students graduate from that prepared us be guided to his every child and over the summer including that in children the American excellence What happens on weekends kinds all people workforce dreams that while educational coming years so and new challenges Powell of many in opportunity gap between widening realize their of children can of color those young and effort not the circumstances hours after school and a nation to create the conditions General Colin students the classroom Our Alliance partners and leaders from social and emotional and so that those high peers imperils equal access America in and school states substantial is for Even among disabilities and an Crisis the Ability in meet the many needs housing trauma violence We Some students running out of time to close large and lingering working together on the many challenges that children face academic on track to achieve the is paying off is and urgency higher income to campaigns broad coalition of nonprofit groups are college Americas Promise Alliance has long recognized schools a row America populations While progress for go on and strong supports from families and communities are essential to give education quality to opportunities by the Class of 2020 The greatest gains people with book Our Kids The American Dream from lowincome families and in and Hispanic GradNation students from lowincome families and young graduate year their graduate communities their graduation areas of the country the number of nongraduates who boosting who people lowincome students have made good progress showing of and sustained But this year of third American African too The focused civic the for school high decade last members a decent lob and be engaged years report to the nation shows that This Powell as individuals real chance for institutions a bright future Powell Chair Americas Promise Alliance Building a Grad Nation May 2015 1 Foreword school graduation Rising high millions of young both high school and left a hope spot rates are people For three decades dreams behind them their employment and communities from school In America and a the 1970s since critical Millions of for became disconnected people young grim consequences with out of poverty step first those rates flatlined as millions of students them to families the economy and cur nation We What asked are frequently track to finish serious challenges high school that helped to turn the tide What prepared remain where the problem was most severe national education reform legislation Awareness grew about the staggering was data showing graduating governors that tracked Research a compact created the of progress showed school out of high uncovered that and further demonstrated and other efforts Multisector need students at districts them In concert with these Still of efforts This sixth pace on who saw attention education at on movement to as the path to are all rate failing by 2020 critical to country of graduation who people young 15 percent just rates dropped nations schools of the of dropping and communitybased out These roles better We tutoring early warning systems and workoriented programming schools believe The evidence effort supports that school reforms turnarounds strategies into campaign emerged a civic and show graduate marshall also and shows improving for the real in failing so districts that that states graduation common the efforts meet could rates each unprepared schools or in year for in it goal of saw and a 90 regular be strengthened time that schools progress or graduating trapped first to set plan of action to and challenge law required graduate are of consequences school and sustained both progress to common measure performance college much of the marshaled not did federal to many areas engagement mentoring and played who districts over and states meeting goals and the demands college communities of iintergenerational too few ways out annual report to the nation highlights the significant progress that has been serious challenges tackling the challenge students epidemic rights civil from researchers in in evidencebased in culture did employment Too many students poverty all parent not for same period too many students with dropout challenge to provide the the GradNation graduation keep more students dropout its put focused those that have this from the The voices and economic social Investments counts remain accountable time During what are the most and what would have helped them were found dropouts and national service percent high school reports to of emerged that proposition schools public in behavior and course every student rise while efforts governors ensure each state had a the nation to on track and communities 5050 best a individual levels all to stay schools created an southern most could have graduated 50 percent the monitor attendance alternative on years of dimensions of the problem at to and closures highquality teaching that built suite of every student that awakened efforts work on states in their who a to work And of about the high school serious truly keep more students to districts states and the nation started to focus This opportunity better got new century when schools the turn of the and the challenges college for America working is that whom remain in closing gaping graduation gaps between key states and school districts and keeping Robert Putnam calls our kids have the made student various nations focus on an equal chance at the Building but also the populations ensuring American a Grad Nation that Dream May 2015 3 Executive Summary Summary Executive 2013 school percent In the national high high of 814 percent record row the remained nation and 2020 goal by the Class of the for pace on rate graduation hit year third a in meet the 90 to made a rates made have been these gains who students for earn a high school improvement percent diploma and focuses on the student a pattern seen those including minority made students school economic efforts rates can districts and others and shows be increased for lowincome minority and special social high Ten rates often now are referred fewer than 15 and them and million the number of students in 20 and 15 percent below Language Learners students are graduating from school increased states 22 another 10 other or point graduation by four rates more from 20112013 made states Unfortunately percentage their or points in every part of the country low levels of unacceptably English education percentage focus students all improvements because and school that with the number of in American and HispanicLatino Despite that leadership reforms district There in and African HispanicLatino schools has dropped significant from 67 improvement low graduation 2013 respectively while not increasing of these points these schools nationwide of to 2013 in the decline as dropout factories African and indicates it demographic at state drove this progress graduation because the constellation Rather and multisector levels improvements rates are graduation broad national trends big significant is Some and 2013 2011 is fewer students attending varied districts large a majority of lowincome with ground This and states considerably between of to rates of years in earlier among high schools with the 90 percent the continuing American students areas that both contribute percentage 707 to rates graduation 37 era reporting from 2011 points students also experienced rising for ACGR the in percentage 2011 in reason 1200 improvement among high One goal Continuing lost percent struggled to traditionally progress and are key to driving toward this that possible by raising have subgroups and geographic to shows dropout challenge gains American African graduation on Americas high school 42 improving annual update This sixth the greatest gains of points than one over the past three ground lost 39 less 2 to gained states while years The nations quest graduation rate to achieve a 90 percent by 2020 can be broken school high down into quarters with each fiveyear segment from 2001 representing one quarter During the 20112015 the Adjusted ACGR been became instrumental made and where The latest state Graduation percent and states level still to where rates much 29 that within being is states of 814 69 and 78 go rate HispanicLatino of 50 Fourteen goal further to population has two percentage between close the graduation of average and African American growing it Adjusted Cohort the national graduation have progress and exist still were 2020 Rate states all the 90 percent White student peers the fastest nearly 201213 six states HispanicLatino starting challenges reaching with percent showing exceeded or of in for to thirdquarter Cohort Graduation Rate data revealed equaled points available current four to a 90 percent graduation nation will need just 31 the gap with their students students 2013 Class of is attainable Though the challenge percent graduation need just in 310000 rate for than in the large to students all more graduates attainable is 0 000 more may seem the Class of 2013 which progress get to which based on thirdquarter progress than large rate for all students 2020 in the Class of graduates As the in get to a 90 the nation the Class of 2020 based on thirdquarter quarter third will comes to a graduation close and the fourth will need rate students are may seem the challenge Though to the and students large countrys final down on outcomes education states double and for efforts lowincome and continue school student quarter begins its districts population to increase minority driving the nation and special progress where the in big majority of resides have Building a Grad Nation May 2015 5 Summary Executive 1 Driver subgroup Though over the past The 201213 ACGR 733 up but percent years affluent lowincome percentage eight peers students reached from points behind points lowincome for student this more their for 33 more than still three behind lags well still have increased rates graduation students 201011 the national rate overall highincome The graduation national students lowincome Graduation 854 882 percent higher than the rate points students lowincome rates for percent middle and estimated at is almost 15 percentage for rate for to Kentucky in students range from 595 percent in Alaska highincome highincome Graduating on time students 38 states In the norm for middle and is but not 85 percent for two states but only lowincome their The graduation more or students graduate their of With gap between rate lowIncome public to 241 poverty on the rise points now a students schools and income more of lowincome in efforts 14 to and percentage in of and concentrated and schools rates students of states 814 However improved Minority for for African with a 15percentagepoint students HispanicLatino gain students of color have significantly 2006 since American Averaged Freshman progress HispanicLatino students as measured by the graduation rates 6 May 2015 752 percent Building Rate Yet even with this and African American and 707 percent a Grad Nation across on increasingly majority more than 70 percent four high school students has HispanicLatino national average for all percent more than onethird educate American out of these five school high students have graduation still Black students students continue off track including for of access to be successful in to 60s in face barriers to their discipline graduation to rigorous the language coursework college disparities that barriers that will push and lack enable them and career gain and a 9percentagepoint Graduation these rapidly focus academic rates for students but not for their 2 for for above the the nations African them rates growing is that states educate collectively success Graduation rates collectively graduation far lowincome peers Driver essential the nations HispanicLatino middleand income Is it and only one of these Texas of high students of color graduation Six states Americas Five Graduating of populations close the opportunity norm percent and students country and supports they need to stay on track to graduation is the 887 improving gap and ensure these students have the resources and on time 866 lower than rates for White still Asian the Minnesota majority inequality are Enrollment our neighborhoods In must redouble the nation or years students on time Kentucky In four in 85 percent nonlowincome students ranges from points peers middle and school high graduate lowincome respectively Enrollment of students rapidly across the that states focus of color is growing country and it is essential on impraving graduation rates for these subgroups Summary Executive 3 Driver The graduation rate gap between students The graduation rate 619 percent 201213 since points national in 201011 an but increase still disabilities 29 of 20 nearly percentage points behind the students with population points also graduate general population struggling to and students across states from in the general 33 percentage that 85 percent students graduate but the majority of states or more most states even 70 percent of the are ACGR disabilities are this ACGR section these wide also examines data problematic and crossstate describes disabilities some for currently state making comparisons of In the greatest face in graduation rate variations make broad assumptions addition this challenges school that section students with including chronic negative misperceptions and disciplinary disproportronaiities add which students in school to the challenge and on track to of keeping graduate these points 500 of more or school public all school public districts that collectively 58 students students the nations African American and Hispanic and 47 percent students and Nationally the are graduation data on students with are enrollments of 15000 40 percent of districts examining for K12 educate Latino students disparities useful United States there the percent of their disabilities Though In percentage 4 Driver with show 33 in the general 588 points gap between rate points These estimates consistently the graduation disabilities ranges 588 to that students population ranges from to show and with disabilities hit average Estimates with students with for inflection rates of lowincome its most states these In in points as well as those raising larger school school high lowIncome and of minority students The Top 10 school more than to highly urbanized K12 185000 serve from and vary from students and high poverty Many urban than each districts million 1 more suburban to are key to driving their states rate graduation The Top 200 each K12 more than 31000 serve minority students with and Include and highminority highpoverty Boston Milwaukee and urban needs such as districts Newark Nashville San Francisco St Louis and Seattle Many are districts overall state the largest and lowincome The Top 500 in Include Ohio 8 districts the includes RI that large which for In This in productive organizing plus these small latter group Includes have profound a large state states like It also Providence rates state districts Innovation results with districts students the collectively rates of impact accomplished exemplary magnet 200 size the largest 500 leaders of help drive others are key while 15000 K12 districts similarly will Of whatever cases the Top on the graduation effects will students but seven states all and improvements for minority rate enrollments of at least found rates graduation graduation to driving their state in most districts highpoverty of as well as more typical students Atlanta suburban large numbers growing to are Some date in many have and serve as a community resources and ideas Building a Grad Nation May 201 5 7 Summary Executive 124500 Onequarter of gains of more than rate six 61 lowincome percent the nations public districts of these districts points nearly two On the end other 169 over the national points the spectrum of districts average there are made onethird that ground Some little a no to highpoverty improvement or lost highminority lower poverty had high these Others with districts are relatively graduation rates but have recently The 2013 composition funding evident is is that while and population substantial improvement In the the nations larger districts enormous complexities from student navigate in shifts progress these districts 15000 percent or of with more all is being districts United States school to state is regulations made and 12 continued possible there are I and 500 The rate percentage while these states national Illinois that collectively educate California public school students growing HispanicLatino increased key driver of national to nearly 2013 to more than half of school student students the nations in an increase percent improvement Big students funding in 44 HispanicLatino nearing the 90 percent is in in report this cohort graduation 825 to seek States many place goal over the past two years its 2006 in in by rate 2013 and has become a rates North Carolina a feature supports percent to raise are putting in its 88 percent at showed rate from 683 2013 graduation innovative rates policies for and the use of data to identify and provide to struggling students remodeling of school streams to allocate more resources communities and a focus a Grad Nation widely decreases graduation its points from 2011 programs Building high all varies show percentage California their May 2015 of percent from 2011 York posted and onefifth also Instance for 717 with six states schools public As these 8 million students 814 of states for and Texas account growth stagnated 4D Florida 85 ranges from average increases New and school Texas in these for point Athough Texas enrollments of to nearly high 88 percent increase of public and North Carolina Florida five for to above the already graduation public home are million ACGR Georgia In population What students New York percent the nations 147 the stagnated school high Texas Ohio Michigan Georgia and North Big States and minority student populations rates initial of public California Pennsylvania Carolina These of had graduation Americas 10 states in just Illinois of combined percentage live of percent Fiftyfive are 10 percent and educate gains of four percentage rate more points high school students 88500 Onesixth These 5 Driver from points percentage the national average triple had graduation districts percentage 84 2011 to 2013 averaging than these on rigorous early college programs and investment development for teachers and staff to highneeds academics through in professional Executive Fftyf ve school percent of Americas students live in just Big States are home the nations 147 1 D to nearly Summary public high states These 85 million of million public high school students We also provide end of each federal of and policy recommendations section state and have compiled a policy recommendations list at at the of further the end the report Building a Grad Nation May 201 5 9 The National Picture The National Picture Overview of National Progress in Adjusted Cohort Graduation Over the past dozen years and districts have states high school boosting graduation increased has seen reforms lowperforming or cohort on time this and students progress and challenge to chart an emerging goal to by fostering students on to an into a school rate state could that crossing threshold nation ensure AFGR more Center graduate took an important step forward the 80 percent for the time ever first points from the beginning trajectory of 2013 as the of high school remained For the graduation up about rate year third In hit progress means that over the more students graduated last by A method for Averaged school in the continued 18 decade by the National NCES Statistics panels of experts after make to in the rates strategy absence calculate of data systems based on individual student graduation AFGR The Dropout Factories in reported high a row the nation 12th or less than This goal Rate to does account not for A school in grade enrollment which the 60 percent is enrollment three the 9th grade years earlier million For a full discussion L and FIGURE another transfer transfers in or out than dropping out rather who developed Education identifiers rate a record on pace to meet the 90 percent to students about the most effective The upward rates graduation transfer ACGR recommendations 10 percentage the decade of graduation national 814 percent school high within three or Averaged Freshman Graduation Nation Remains on Pace to Reach 90 2012 the grade 10th die or convening In for 10th take that to awareness reforms the and accountability track accounts or adjusts would that ambitious graduation 2020 and of interventions stay set school high 90 percent by the Class goal seriously institutions campaign the national to raise and of leaders group become the GradNatron ie or years with a regular diploma The four 2006 In a group enter high school ninthgraders ontime and graduate data and stronger better who of students ACGR tracking for graders in schools that begin in for accountability struggling method as firsttime together educational more support schools or cohort rate schools of attention During rates more evidencebased the nation in numbers growing focused A Rate M list of of frequently used terms and the graduation rates as definitions referenced in this well as an indepth report please see appendices 1 Freshman Graduation Rate AFGRJ and Four Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate ACGR 20022013 85 80 75 Key _ 70 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 AFGR ACGR 2013 YEAR Sources Stetser 201112 and Statistics M 201213 UB Stillwell First Department R 2014 Look of Public Provisional Education High School Data 2013 LACES Provisional FourYear 2014391 Data File OnTime US Graduation Department SY201213 of FourYear Rates and Event Education Dropout Washington Regulatory Adjusted Rates DC School Years National Center Cohort Graduation Building for 201011 Education Rates a Grad Nation May 2015 11 The National Picture FIGURE 2 ACGR Ranges by State 201213 ACGR Range 6069 7079 j 8089 No data reported The 201213 Cohort Graduation more states high school states the Five data revealed that than ever were primed to reach graduation by the Class of Twentynine national Rate of the 50 states 814 of average were rate equated and percent two percentage within or a 90 percent 2020 six points the those 29 of reaching of students percent goal additional states were 80 percent at rate of improvement Latino students goal with graduation not on pace accelerate to their Is tempered by the fact that 14 states between rates 69 and 78 percent 90 percent reach efforts nationally by In ACGR 2013 With an average percentage are the in points from 71 percentage percent of 21 gains population points onpace to ACGR for Hispanic reach the 90 2020 FIGURE 3 Cohort Adxusted good news 752 to the greatest 42 growing almost the national average This improving 2011 the fastest made have era in percent 90 percent reaching of reporting exceeded students HispanicLatino and White Students from see Appendix 201011 to Black Hispanic 201213 are by 2020 and must significantly Graduation Rate G 90 0 840 86 0 86 6 825 HispanicLatino and African American 710 7550 67 5 670 752 730 707 690 rool12 Evidence reported in the 2014 Building annual report showed that made a Grad Nation HispanicLatino and Graduation American rates students as measured Rate by the Averaged 15 and 9 percentage from 2006 to 2012 The similar trends May 20 15 the greatest over the Building a latest last gains Grad Nation 20102011 20122013 20112012 SCHOOL YEAR graduation Freshman Key _ white Hispanic _ Black points respectively national three in 600 African years ACGR data show Source National Center for Education Statistics NCES Retrieved from The National Picture percent American students also experienced African improvement 2011 in students of 707 to will 37 rising have in increase 2013 their east nine out of 10 at average annual rate point graduating are 2013 Though graduating students recorded years pace have of Gap Groups percent only by Cap in recent since 2011 and HispanicLatino AllLowIncome White students progress needs to National among gap between these student almost White students 2000 and African American students be made to to 2013 but much more advance In an equal number decline in 159 11 130 130 114 16 200 190 195 05 220 210 203 17 90 80 81 09 for Education Statistics NOES from Retrieved 11_ 2002 rates of students often high attending fell now 2002 in there of all decline American students African of were there are fewer than a more than 40 percent students HispanicLatino schools where graduation was not the numbers were more than cut dropping to under 20 percent and 15 percent there are dropout of of African in American students HispanicLatino Given that more than 15 factory historically high million schools fewer students in these high schools 2013 than in 2002 were attended almost exclusively by lowincome and minority students by more than them Whereas students half nearly • iir By 2013 these Overall 2012 and 2013 the these high schools declined • ip attending the factories and the number of them Between 200 and the number 170 representing students schools with low graduation attending of 170 and more than onethird xtti The 2013 data show an accelerated as dropout 201113 these high schools attended anatuaents to Center 300000 of 1200 half students 201213 hich norm referred 201112 shoolfdIII Source opportunity society of high Decrease 201011 Gap I• close from 2011 number Gap AllLEP Gap This exceed the 90 well Gap ItspanicWhite AllSPED 2020 populations the graduation to that the rates of progress result of continued ensure still United States would goal points rate for high rates White modest gains Percentage Point to 2020 by graduation traditionally percentage progress would across the As a 26 increasing at percent 2013 ACGR Gap by School Year BlackWhite 866 White students have an to American African progress by approximately one percentage ensure I ACGR Gap Changes between Groups 2011 points from 67 percentage percent to TABLE significant their by continued decline rates graduation is a clear driver of improvements these important for in subgroups FIGURE 4 Total Number of High Schools with a Promoting Power HIGH SCHOOLS WITH of PROMOTING 500 0 60 Percent or Less 20022013 POWER OF 60 PERCENT OR 1000 LESS N 2000 1500 2002 2007 2012 1359 2013 1146 Schools with Promoting Power of 60 Percent High Class Note of 2002 r Class The 2012 through Source US Department of 2012 2013 of Class numbers Education of or Less 2013 include National the District Center for of Columbia Educational all regular Statistics and vocational 19982014 schools Public with 300 or more students ElementarySecondary Building School Universe Surveys a Grad Nation May 2015 13 The National Picture FIGURE 5 of Percentage Student of to the Nations Black Populations 60 Percent or Schools in and White Hispanic trends longterm with a Promoting Power number 20022013 Less measure progress using both metrics of high which by state graduating 2012 Power 2013 1200 30 onethird at least _ 2W2 _ data on the are words other in rates those schools Promoting in Key 40 there examine schools with cohort graduation below 67 percent 50 C Appendix In to with or high schools and where the students are still not Currently whether the cohort rate used is primarily and minority students crisis of peers their graduating the dropout to drive norm the not is about by lowincome attended continue that remain there 20 12 10 11 All 5 4 0 Black All White Hispanic Note Figures include US Source 19982014 Department Public and regular of schools vocational Education National ElementarySecondary with Center School subgroups rates since RACEETHNICITY 300 or more students for Education 2011 American English Proficiency leading the way in and years Building A Universe Surveys Grad Nation report we making a transition Rate rather graduation to than rate high using the Adjusted Power Promoting ELLs schools we though are show however will and special from high school Cohort to identify graduation in HispanicLatino Indian Limited American students are African graduating gains Still at higher levels The most improvements recent data Statistics Graduation this made students have of education Graduation and ELL students remain low that these despite In students rates are for Latino graduating special 60s the very low low 70s for lowincome AfricanAmerican continue lowincome low levels of minority unacceptably In Many Subgroups Improving but education and in students FIGURE 6 Change in the Number Students of with a Promoting Power of 60 Percent Enrolled in High Schools or Less 20022013 STUDENTS ENROLLED AT HIGH SCHOOLS 500000 0 WITH PROMOTING 1000000 1500000 POWER OF 60 PERCENT 2000000 OR LESS N 2500000 2644000 2002 1409000 U 1128000 2013 Students Class of Note All Source 14 May 2015 Enrolled 2002 numbers US Building a at Class High Schools with Promoting of 2012 are rounded Department Grad Nation of to Class of Power of 60 Percent or Less N 2013 the nearest thousand Education National Center for Educational Statistics 19982014 Public ElementarySecondary School the and Hispanic Universe Surveys The National Picture TABLE 2 Changes in the National Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates ACGR ACGR by School by Subgroup 2011 2013 to Year Percentage Point Increase 201011 201112 201213 20112013 650 670 697 47 870 880 887 17 Hispanic 710 730 752 42 Black 670 690 707 37 White 840 860 866 26 LowIncome 700 720 733 33 Limited 570 590 611 41 590 610 619 29 790 800 814 24 RaceEthnicity American Indian AsianPacific Islander English Students with Proficiency Disabilities Average Source Center National Education for Statistics NOES Retrieved from wwwedcovlnewsprsssreleasesachievement napnarrowshighschoolThe because nations quest to achieve rate graduation a 90 percent school high by 2020 can be broken down into quarters with each fiveyear segment from 2001 one quarter representing 2011 to 2015 that data became of statelevel available in ACGR who had into during to states all between a good 2020 the thirdquarter Cohort Graduation nearly for changes us insight gives was It the Adjusted four An 2011 Rate analysis and 2013 thirdquarter and forecast who struggled 90 percent of in its how much which will tell and to into high school students improvement students us what our nations quest to graduate will This 2016 will with numbers and regions take from the current the fourthquarter reach 90 percent can also needed where and these Forecasting it is We at least 2020 to enable us thirdquarter for the nation to better target our efforts trends some most lost states Ten Had Good and Bad states a pattern improvement among 2011 that and 2013 This high school seen in earlier states is varied significant graduation years considerably between because rates are it Indicates not increasing in order of most significant their Missouri percentage these points states enrollments while others New graduation their more from 2011 are among Florida Jersey rates to by four 2013 Georgia and Four and those with the largest meaning the country gains Florida that they help the nations gain drive More than 39 in or California North Carolina Utah North Carolina increased California of social show and improvement Georgia half in outpaced points percent also the 22 states making of percentage 814 including gains the national of 2 to average Texas Pennsylvania and the top seven of high enrollment states greatest that rates of some at least Nevada the group gains Florida to drive significantly Within Continuing saw states data clearly more than others far Alabama New Mexico of States improved and demographic as the thirdquarter ground Ohio Which broad economic of Rather still four 10 states relatively and have progress to reach average registering the New Mexico Georgia Nevada have 78 percent of the national low graduation to accelerate rates their and 70 pace of 90 percent Building a Grad Nation May 2015 15 The National Picture FIGURE 7 ACGR Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Change from 201011 to 201213 by State •Wm00 WE HI ACGR Change in Points Percentage 4+ 20112013 from Categories Percentage Points 239 Percentage Points 119 Percentage Points 0 Percentage NonReporting or I Point or Less No Comparison i percentage 10 states Unfortunately or point gained the states that are closest of goal that made have recently as states approach becomes more less than one over the past three years ground lost progress little threshold this Many the 90 percent reaching to earlier that consistently the nation in the 2151 states individual in had is some the low for experience state with last the significant the lowest remaining the lowest through the graduation first graduation an 10 states had graduation of Georgia Oregon did improvements and became with rates decade rate ACGR rates in in the in 60s In not the and the the nation the was 2003 60s 16 May 20 15 the thirdquarter 13 percent Building a improvement the most of was that California the nations high school Grad Nation multiple putting Kentucky came to release that 2011 and 2013 As a threshold in for the result first both Alabama and North Carolina years of improvement with the both on pace 86 percent to reach 90 percent and Oklahoma as two of the the bench off cohort data graduation whose final 85 three states Both had strong starts posting rates above the national average Only Idaho cohort data are due next year has yet to get into game Worrisome for New York the educates in between rates 44 percent Finally which development national notable off gains significant terms of driving and saw a substantial of In of stagnating period around crossed the 80 percent also capped states and broke the 70 percent time By contrast first state that three New Mexico and had a strong thirdquarter threshold of 60s Nevada century notable increase it time It Among turned quarters point difficult it after California suggesting the challenge a significant percentage students combined high school first the nation Illinois educate the thirdquarter Washington about students decade is New After York 15 percent of considerable saw its performance and Arizona which the nations growth graduation during rate stall The National Picture TABLE 3 luation •o Rate Chancre from to 21 201213 by State m w U • 707 87 800 80 New 703 73 Utah 830 70 Georgia 717 47 Missouri 857 47 Florida 756 46 North 825 45 875 45 New Jersey 804 California o oc min Nevada Carolina • c Cia• Alabama Mexico o Q •c ryo 09 17 06 09 31 18 54 30 27 844 24 Maine 864 24 Ohio 822 22 Maryland 850 20 Massachusetts 850 20 Texas 880 20 Iowa 897 17 875 15 New Hampshire 873 13 Indiana 870 10 Wisconsin 880 10 Oregon 687 07 Mississippi 755 05 Washington 764 04 Tennessee 863 03 New York 768 02 827 03 866 04 832 08 Arizona 751 29 Wyoming 770 30 Oklahoma 848 Kentucky 861 Dakota Colorado 769 29 09 04 14 06 34 39 18 Minnesota 798 28 18 South Rhode 797 27 Vermont Kansas 857 27 Louisiana 735 25 Virginia 845 25 Connecticut 855 25 Nebraska 885 25 Delaware 804 24 Hawaii 824 24 03 10 14 25 11 06 03 04 Arkansas 849 39 Alaska 718 38 776 36 814 34 Michigan 770 30 Pennsylvania 860 30 South West Carolina Virginia Island Dakota Illinois min o Montana North 133 44 Go U • c C` 03 04 37 17 20 91 10 02 04 22 18 12 10 22 19 59 02 02 41 22 02 11 13 06 201011 ACGR Change 4+ in Percentage 0 Percentage DC therefore of high As as the 10th school high in is included values students in in included 9th this table from the United 8th divided in grade Percentage Points Secondary School US Change Point graduation rate Percent total 9th 10th of high number 11th of of 20112013 High School school students = the 201213 ACGR minus the Students in the US in the Nations Not including = the total Washington DC or 10th 11th and 12 grade for high schools that begin in students in this table however some schools may have had students and 12 school high from grade as well States Department Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates Percentage in by the the percent Regulatory Universe ACGR an increase enrolled to calculate eg 119 No Comparison or each state grade 20112013 Percentage Points indicate schools had students grades below Sources Reproduced not positive grade they were enrolled NonReporting Point or Less number long 239 Points Note Washington ACGR Points Categories from Percentage Idaho of Education Department of 2015 Education Provisional National Data Center Files for SY201011 Education and Statistics SY201213 FourYear 2013 Public Elementary Surveys Building a Grad Nation May 2015 17 The National Picture BlackWhite its from 2011 effort to 2011 to gap by graduation percentage five 2013 Connecticut launched to improve 2013 lowestperforming its the nation led points a concerted and from schools the graduation highincome gap between lowincome its reducing in and middle and students The FourthQuarter Challenge paths the nation There are multiple 90 percent high school aim to graduate highincome outcomes nearly graduation 100 percent of Or choose students of smaller subgroups Language against Americas creed and all We on the focuses rate ideal 2020 by on the such as students of however be opportunity path where a 90 percent could It middle and its not to focus of of equality students reach its graduation take to reach a Learners That would English This section could rate for all the nation school high 2020 by what stagnated education between the low in trend national and 2013 2011 80s and reported and lowincome the mid 70s in both states widening and students income peers Arizona saw by almost three Washington gap widened in lowincome both states mid70s the finding while no improvement The graduation for is rates between students evidence clear improvements in The states hardest and the which Kentucky state to effort can states have worked that have seen longest its the problem the improvement real schools and has almost no graduation their gap between and middle and highincome its sustained outcomes lowincome and both students groups graduation graduate at decadelong rates related to its 18 overall rates above the national effort to and a recent school transfers graduation May 2015 effort Building a to and better not rates significantly Grad Nation skills institute Alabama With a average improve reading race and English On each state only reporting improved but also narrowed would ethnicity language the learner Everyone forecasts 90 percent national for each students its or special status graduate the thirdquarter along we Here report the State with lay in Center website out the path examine will the assuming a students population the nation the Class of 2020 than in the nation to in need will high to school the Class of 2013 a 90 percent achieve lowincome its all 310000 more students earn a about among for high school diploma For of challenge constant have state the nation for Graduates which you can download Indices to take income j and fourthquarter rapid has had the longest arguably improve and lead to large of regardless it by having 90 percent goal this To get to 90 percent that and systematic efforts to improve educational outcomes have examined reach rate decline and middle and highincome The most heartening sustained graduation experienced State minority White and higher points to percentage the countering gaps between their its rate Illinois to rate graduation ACGR students current is 73 students about percent 275000 need or 80 percent be from of the additional subgroup For percent education graduates will with disabilities 122000 rate about in to to of achieve a 90 percent the additional the Class of 2020 be to American percent English need will students and 20 percent need Language graduation graduation graduates to or about and HispanicLatino high school this be 40 special 62000 would Learners For African students to achieve rate by 2020 a 90 they each The National Picture need would equal about onethird to or around graduates of 110000 students the additional TABLE 4 each Equity Path for Graduates lowincome This analysis makes clear and minority why we have education special 90 Percent identified students as well Estimated sections as the big states and larger districts of a 90 percent high we that follow of each of these on national to thousand students of or in rate of of growth spread what in improving graduation to districts understanding graduate the class of H those that have to figure of and not strategy the challenges our AsianPacific N Black White more Two 2020 than the then this is or work with to act Note by the Class based on a clear they face more than to greater are overlapping one subgroup estimates than 100 percent sum and a student to more than can be 310000 and many Identities N with Disabilities N 5824 N N English Proficiency times and percentages is of number 2020 ACGR was graduation US Department SY201213 District Rates FourYear for students the using needed to reach and each subgroup the aggregated statelevel cohort 201213 sizes and the rates of Level ACGR all Calculated ie state for 62450 graduates of additional rates file 122646 274495 Sources Level Because these groups 4739 72988 More 201213 file 8021 111903 The projected districtlevel N N Islander 90 percent graduation of their by Subgroup 309461 to that Reach to 2020 N N Limited districts Reach a 112936 Hispanic Graduation i Native of N LowIncome out the second improvement IndianAlaska Students Students the states and in by Class American a few to Needed Rate and down hundred obtainable The challenge has worked rate to broken progress shows that thirdquarter is improved is when All While the crisis just several 2013 See Appendix analysis have large cases each subgroup The help further sharpen will the challenge some in analyses detailed Graduates Additional Graduation the In as well as the challenges numbers can seem level more end the dropout to rate graduation provide drivers efforts the state class will ahead This opportunities focus school 90 Percent as the key drivers Needed Graduation Rate Per Subgroup Education 2014 FourYear Regulatory Adjusted Provisional Regulatory Adjusted data file Provisional SY201213 Cohort Graduation data Cohort State Rates ACGR in sum Building a Grad Nation May 2015 19 Driver 1 Low-Income Students DRIVER 1 To to live up there all our nations standard need will 201213 the 33 rate average gap holds major students as lowincome now students 20 percent 20+ but poverty Mississippi these in in like New households income percent least at neighborhoods Mexico and 50 percent Lunch Students if can free or receive receiving reducedprice meals SNAP for free a set of and reducedprice lunch is in in a familys In 2013 four in it is to total than the familys threshold every individual are considered vary by thresholds that and composition If qualify The Census Bureau uses money income poverty who enrollment counts school definition family size already is food stamps Students lowincome Poverty the family if lQ determine income that is family considered who Kentucky 854 861 55 407 852 880 60 369 Indiana 827 870 49 243 Nebraska 809 885 44 185 Tennessee 807 863 58 337 Iowa 804 897 40 145 Arkansas 803 849 61 394 Oklahoma 797 848 61 322 Hawaii 782 824 51 144 Missouri 780 857 45 278 Alaska 595 718 40 104 Oregon 604 687 49 285 Colorado 637 769 42 201 Minnesota 638 798 38 126 Georgia 638 717 60 365 Michigan 639 770 47 286 Nevada 640 707 51 270 Wyoming 640 770 38 99 New Mexico 647 703 68 493 Washington 650 764 45 202 and Sources US SY 201213 in poverty US Rates at closely rates lowincome have the states with the highest and lowest for is lowincome no direct students in link students between a state or the it becomes the percentage living in high cohort graduation students poverty neighborhoods and the rate for either Texas of percentage lowincome children Department District Census Education of and State Bureau Level through FourYear American provisional Regulatory Community data SY201112 of file Adjusted Cohort and Graduation 200913 Survey the poverty threshold for a family of clear that there of y Texas lowincome student populations percent graduation Q less was $23834 Looking 4C no greater than is 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines Additionally a child R a a` reported and reducedprice lunches qualify for free y F• defined New Hampshire in hover around Free and ReducedPrice their of highpoverty states rates LewIncome and Laggards 201213 Students and a majority of states in We of children free from a high of 71 varies data show that Additional for a low of 27 percent Mississippi to in eligible 2013 The percentage in Leaders short reducedprlce lowincome lunch ACOR State our nations given that majority by the number of students TABLE 5 up far still Students ACGR Rate but In Lowincome percent significance became schools 814 of made percent points from 201011 the national public 733 students reached percentage This owincome for opportunity Investments Cohort Graduation Adjusted lowincome for of providing be significant to the graduation to raise of to I all Arkansas students highpoverty the all neighborhoods states with graduation Wyoming the rates highest yet overall of children these states are student populations neighborhoods student but both graduation Building in among and lowincome 40 percent and fewer than 15 percent 10 for lowincome living and Conversely Alaska Minnesota have lowincome highpoverty or and Oklahoma and more than 30 percent 60 than greater below of children fall into the living in bottom rates a Grad Nation May 2015 21 DRIVER 1 1 LowIncome Students Fiftyone percent of the nations public school students lowincome were considered in the nation 2013 challenge This shows to that while schools across communities face even its poverty the lowest poses a states However tests greater more than a state reporting student population some the country much significant as lowincome it improvements lowincome of gap lowincome graduation addressing our highestneed When students students in will the challenges combined is rates with the public 90 percent and for four out of five of graduation overall of lowincome the students rate of For the 90 percent students to graduate who need will clear to be turned be lowincome percent of lowincome students four out of five of the students the size of the be turned from dropouts numbers system 1owincome an 90 percent and graduation rate of that not be of school an In order for the nation to reach quarter of the growing reach from dropouts to graduates educating driving possible without in to becomes the challenge students with evident is and of magnitude to overall for 90 graduate who need to graduates will students TABLE 6 Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate NonLowIncome ACGR by State Percent LowIncome ACGR LowIncome ACGR Estimated Gap between LowIncome and NonLowIncome and Gap Change 2011 R oC • 61 •C R JU C V v •o •M arti° O • l el v o iz i 274 855 368 933 721 21 207 873 296 922 757 165 42 Indiana 106 870 355 894 827 67 39 Minnesota 278 798 336 879 638 241 37 Pennsylvania 177 860 357 910 770 140 37 Nevada 172 707 504 775 640 135 37 Arkansas 121 849 498 895 803 92 30 Ohio 234 822 385 901 696 205 29 Alabama 197 800 514 887 718 169 28 New 164 703 590 783 647 136 27 199 814 563 913 737 176 22 West Virginia 2 62 215 850 416 931 736 195 20 Louisiana 141 735 523 799 677 122 20 Kansas 196 857 484 942 766 176 20 Rorida Massachusetts 179 756 463 830 670 160 19 Virginia 171 845 315 893 740 153 17 Wisconsin 180 880 309 931 766 165 15 New 159 875 288 917 771 146 13 Mississippi 125 755 531 815 702 113 12 Montana 187 844 438 921 745 176 11 22 Jersey May 20 15 Building a Grad Nation 4 E o m Jc••ao1 New Mexico 4 41 Connecticut Hampshire F ry • 1 Qm o• to 2013 to be DRIVER 1 Lowincome I Students TABLE 6 CONTINUED usted Cohort des ACGR Graduation Rate by State Percent LowIncome ACGR LowIncome ACGR Estimated Gap between LowIncome NonLowIncome and Gap Change 20112013 and NonLowIncome •Qe ory hoc cj • • • FS F• • c8•• Q v° o c`3 4 • 49 oFac Qp o F• Z3 o CSO 6F Utah Hawaii C 155 830 303 874 729 145 10 84 824 447 858 782 76 08 Wyoming 217 770 385 851 640 211 05 Iowa 155 897 380 954 804 150 05 117 825 433 87A 761 113 04 Tennessee 140 863 589 943 807 136 04 Delaware 124 804 492 864 742 122 02 North Carolina 155 804 636 902 748 154 01 Nebraska 119 885 361 928 809 119 00 Rhode Island 221 797 536 917 693 224 03 South Dakota 222 827 306 896 670 226 04 South Carolina 133 776 494 845 705 140 08 Georgia 150 717 507 798 638 160 10 Maryland 126 850 333 896 758 138 12 79 751 406 790 694 96 16 Texas 37 880 494 907 852 55 18 Alaska 183 718 389 796 595 201 19 98 857 396 907 780 127 29 147 832 421 906 730 176 30 132 768 438 840 675 165 33 163 866 417 949 750 199 36 Oregon 137 687 534 782 604 178 42 Colorado 191 769 434 870 637 233 42 Michigan 187 770 433 870 639 231 45 California Arizona Missouri Illinois New York Vermont I cohort Washington 174 764 482 870 650 220 46 Maine 134 864 479 951 769 182 48 North Dakota 134 875 261 930 720 210 76 Kentucky t 861 483 868 854 14 t Oklahoma t 848 436 887 797 90 t Idaho t t t t t t t Note level t = Not applicable for schools size within of all students with any Data are locale not code each state Estimated minus lowincome = the gap between the estimated expected in be reported to the sources below NonLowIncome within the cohort nonlowincome ie by the Percent ACGR using of SEA for SY201112 LowIncome = the estimated state and lowincome level graduates ACGRs Gap ACGRs from or Students SY201213 in from all students Change Between 201011 to This table is the Cohort 2013 201213 sorted minus the total lowincome NonLowIncome Therefore by = the number positive and of number graduates LowIncome values of K12 enrollment lowincome students indicate divided ACGR divided by the estimated Percentage at the district by the total cohort total Points 201113 gap closure and negative values indicate gap widening Sources US Department of Education through provisional data file of SY201112 and SY 201213 District and State Level FourYear Regulatory Adjusted Building Cohort a Grad Nation Graduation May 2015 Rates 23 DRIVER 1 In Most LowIncome 1 Students Gap Remains Large States the Opportunity between Lowincome students continue graduate to a at percentage lower far overwhelming than rate their middle and highIncome states The graduation majority of lowincome and nonlowIncome from a high of 241 percentage low of 14 percentage points 201213 in More than points In of states half gap above states that gap was over 20 points than greater 15 percentage in and ACGR in The shocking had students More points many 11 15 percentage Though several states rate However 21 17 states have above 85 percent national average story looks this three In 43 all for their ACGR Meanwhile of 17 states in result many states students For rates graduation different school remains is a given but for does not has found this way As a way to graduate noted both and middle and highincome students states moreover substantially closed graduation i NCES data 90 percent we 24 for gap between 2011 released in 201213 do not consider May 2015 them February 2015 However to have Building a the shows precise reached a rounded number for the 90 percent Grad Nation graduation the state mark for is or rate for 897 2013 that minority in in one Iowa in poverty in poverty rate students students in 21 lunch made up of school states lowincome numbers large In and nearly 15 America lived below the and over 4D percent of 2013 Educational eight of so Nearly which concentrations were achievement decades five American public plague public poverty schools was but by 2011 an one in five increase of the report Opportunity academic affecting to Poverty James Coleman published schoolbased as high poverty more percent school of public 80 percent Concentrated students continues lowIncome three child and reducedprice lowincome sociologist negatively at high rates Six and 2013 by industrialized the country with the of public it lowincome their in 1966 found before its among and has a lowincome are Equality from from certain have to stay last 40 and 49 percent students In Kentucky It far eligible states students are evident Growth realities lowincome students less than 50 percent seminal below 70 percent As a two very the these of these children lived in extreme poverty recorded middle and highincome students graduating high other poverty level three to for free just these lowincome and middle and experience were more 814 percent and in below lived Fiftyone percent of the nations public school highincome lowincome 19 or million children in one America rate poverty rate for in and over 40 percent poverty a above 80 percent poverty in extreme poverty meaning but at by the fact that so level child in between or above the lowincome students the nations public enrollment milestonei lowincome students Only for in percent Fifty high students 2013 in ranks second child these students for their more points or lowest points 90 percent states are at or than the national average an rates nonlowincome different far more reported students rates of graduation states are graduating higher four have live children million lived US states this went states becomes even more times higher than Finland six In none have reached states 20 over children level nations had middle and highincome students and their for another 2013 in 15 of when compounded the poverty The points a 90 percent are nearing school graduation greater was of percent fact that 51 those children and than half of states reporting 11 states that gap in of poverty in 10 percentage is greater than an income gap above and low gap between the by three students are lowincome troublesome nonlowincome 201213 gap increase graduation Nearly but seven states reporting more that is the other direction with nine states seeing school 10 reporting points lowincome reduction The bad news point a to but seven all six ranges Minnesota In is an income In all gap rate the gap between low and nonlowincome students percentage an in students Kentucky in points ACGR states reporting peers saw a which by Connecticut led points later for this schools deemed to poor and In problem 2000 be high schools was classified about 60 percent2 DRIVER 1 I LowIncome Students TABLE 7A 2013 ACGR State for NonLowIncome Students HI Rate for 79 and NonLowIncome Students 8084 8589 90 i below STATE NonLowIncome ACGR reported CO OR Oregon 782 UT NM New Mexico 783 NC AZ Arizona 790 MI AK Alaska 796 AL NonLowIncome ACGR STATE ABBREVIATION NonLowIncome ACGR 870 WV Utah 874 RI North Carolina 874 NJ Minnesota 879 MT Montana 921 Alabama 887 NH New 922 Colorado West 913 Virginia Rhode New 917 Island 917 Jersey Hampshire GA Georgia 798 OK Oklahoma 887 LA 799 VA Virginia 893 NE Louisiana MS 815 IN Indiana 894 ND Mississippi FL Florida 830 AR Arkansas 895 WI Wisconsin 931 840 MD 896 MA Massachusetts Maryland 931 845 SD South Dakota 896 CT Connecticut 933 851 OH Ohio 901 KS Kansas 942 902 TN Tennessee 943 VT Vermont 949 ME Maine 951 907 IO Iowa 954 910 ID Idaho t New South York Carolina Wyoming HI Hawaii 858 CA DE Delaware 864 IL Illinois KY Kentucky 868 TX Texas WAS Washington 870 MO MI Michigan 870 PA t = Not applicable district STATE STATE ABBREVIATION 775 WY level for total total data Nevada SC the No NV NY Note i STATE STATE ABBREVIATION or above cohort cohort Points schools of Data are with size within students all 201113 negative values Sources US any not locale code in to minus lowincome by the be reported NonLowIncome within the estimated the cohort ie nonlowincome 906 907 Missouri Pennsylvania SEA the sources below Percent each state Estimated = the gap between indicate expected California ACGR using and for of SY201112 LowIncome = the state level or SY201213 Students estimated in This table the graduates from ACGRs Gap Change lawincome ACGRs from 201011 is sorted Cohort 2013 all to North the total of of Therefore and positive K12 lowincome LowIncome values 930 Dakota minus lowincome graduates NonLowIncome 201213 number = the number students Between by 928 Nebraska enrollment students divided ACGR indicate at the divided by by the estimated Percentage gap closure and gap widening Department of Education through provisional data file of SY201112 and SY 201213 District and State Level FourYear Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates Building a Grad Nation May 2015 25 DRIVER 1 LowIncome 1 Students TABLE 7B 2013 ACGR State Rate for 70 and LowIncome _ 8084M STATE No _ data reported LowIncome LowIncome ACGR ACGR SC OR Oregon 604 AL CO Colorado 637 ND MN South Carolina Alabama Dakota North STATE LowIncome STATE ABBREVIATION ACGR 705 WI 766 718 ME Maine 769 720 PA Pennsylvania 770 Wisconsin Minnesota 638 CT Connecticut 721 NJ GA Georgia 638 UT Utah 729 MS Missouri 780 MI Michigan 639 IL Illinois 730 HI Hawaii 782 WY Wyoming 640 MA 736 OK Oklahoma 797 NV Nevada 640 WV 737 AR Arkansas 803 NM New Mexico 647 VA Virginia 740 10 Iowa 804 Washington 650 DE Delaware 742 TN Tennessee 807 670 MT Montana 745 NE Nebraska 809 670 CA California 748 IN 675 VT Vermont 750 TX Texas 852 677 NH 757 KY Kentucky 854 ID Idaho t Dakota South Florida New LA York Louisiana Rhode RI 696 NC North Carolina 761 702 KS Kansas 766 Ohio total cohort cohort Points schools of Data are with size within students all 201113 negative values Sources US any not locale in minus lowincome by the be reported NonLowIncome within the estimated 771 Jersey 827 Indiana SEA the cohort ie nonlowincome ACGR using and for of SY201112 LowIncome = the state level or SY201213 Students estimated in This table the graduates from 201011 is sorted Cohort 2013 from ACGRs Gap Change lawincome ACGRs I all students Between to by the total of of K12 lowincome minus lowincome graduates NonLowIncome 201213 number = the number Therefore and positive LowIncome values enrollment students divided ACGR indicate at the divided by by the estimated Percentage gap closure and gap widening Department of Education through Rates May 2015 to the sources below Percent each state Estimated = the gap between indicate expected code New 758 OH level for Virginia Maryland 694 t = Not applicable West MD Arizona Mississippi Massachusetts New Hampshire 693 Island AZ MS 26 or above 595 NY total 90 Alaska FL the 8589 Students AK SD district Students STATE WA Note LowIncome below ABBREVIATION N for Building a Grad Nation provisional data file of SY201112 and SY 201213 District and State Level FourYear Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation DRIVER 1 The growth reflective concentrated in Data collected from poverty in distressed rates of 40 percent living 20082012 measured rate our schools in demographics the changing of poverty All shows the concentrated by the share census tracts our nation of of poor majority more than percentage three these of more or poverty high 121 from 20002 points remain tracts up percent The the nations in areas but while the concentrated communities largest metropolitan remains highest rate poverty have experienced in the number of poor residents 2000 In one deemed growth concentrated in eight public schools be high poverty to of was in five schools was by 2011 but classified as high one and spread of poverty US concentrated poverty the nations most disadvantaged Census data from 20092013 in in high poverty more than greater of those states 30 percent3 than achieve at higher levels mean poverty that when they resources of that poses an not prepared large its further along with poverty additional of students poverty emergence challenge and the to deal with populations concentrated and come concentrated also are peers that in to in key social skill children lowpoverty wealth to The districts poverty The rise communities attainment and access to quality physical of early and mental score health highincome below far households children math early from children and vocabulary early in and on key social the readiness disparities to fouryearold children of socioeconomic A that 2011 study found a child 10 the skill only now a Quality is In in fact families difference child to of from a family 40 percent 2001 than among those the income achievement as large as the BlackWhite and academic youth family their linked to outcomes report having however youth status are family ie teachers group leaders social Both higher and a mentor within their in more positive the top quartile likely to of have more mentoring from someone and higher quality informal the in gap7 socioeconomic and youth 30 roughly almost twice lower income outside and a in in achievement achievement born children mentoring has been behavioral of children the income distribution born 25 years earlier is families from a family at the 901h percentile percentile among in are enrolled quintile 76 percent to quintile gap needs care and than their more words than poor children4 million also To add achievement level succeed 4 peers By age 50 percent lowest larger that presents in early vocabulary to from the top income at in parents educational prepared the family income suburban income described below measures academically between and economic our nations highest with lowincome for are development early math and on gap defined as the average Gap associated the to from poor families tend to arrive at school extended Various factors education literacy compared rises to children Opportunity access that preschool our neighborhoods and schools educating and the the burdens of educating suburban in a term below children from far income households about live are isolated challenge in Poor children score measures a in concentrated social into gap opportunity and experiences development children number greater by literacy outgrowth neighborhoods from higherincome redefined Several of these disparities children higherincome of children attend levels of their the past decade In the large disparities services resources Poor children poverty and more poor students that peers as an encapsulates higherincome our in shows poor Research but the increasing schools 20+ neighborhoods half shows more than 20 percent states majority of better hear nearly 30 consequences for and educators less and neighborhoods has enormous schools the achievement to lowincome students and gap has been achievement Children an increase of about 60 percent The growth to learn ability researchers this higher 2000 and 200820122 between poverty pace in living Students suburban big cities in the fastest between that persists childs contribute middle and highincome areas with poverty reached these factors together gap residents a can greatly impact services is LowIncome I family bottom socioeconomic coaches friends religious than those in quartile3 Building a Grad Nation May 2015 27 DRIVER 1 LowIncome I Students Amer1can Through GRADUATE Champions communities When graduation to rates behind students are lagging their peers in some communities and up percent access consistent to lowincome at less than 60 students also do not high quality mentoring Research affirms that when students have adult increases in academic support they experience engagement regardless yet one in three 19 without a informal to likely compared to media income of of has access to enroll in and graduate in their community a mentor those without is position an important partner in local helping to raise awareness about communities dropout who hold a school leadership regularly volunteer Public or family a mentoring relationship atrisk student more is from college and of race mentoring relationship formal or positive prevention through the American initiative Graduate Lets Make Working with stories of childs i life httpneweveryl disengagement leaders from business community faithbased champions for make a difference as an American Graduate in one Champion graduatesorgwpoontentuploads201203preventirigstudent pdf httpwwwmentoringorgmentoringaffectfactsheet iii httpwwwmentoringorgmentcringeffectfinfographic May 2015 are telling young people and ii 28 national American Graduate others to inspiring Happen organizations public media stations through the it local industry government and nonprofit From preschool through high school and a committed Building a Grad Nation Champion is caring adult helping a student classroom overcome challenges and out in American Graduate school resource officer to who have dropped out YMCA Eureka California a who return staffer who fund to encourage students in Nashville Tennessee high school and go on in Missouri in St Louis a college scholarship started of the Champions include school and graduate a Latino civic young people reach the age having any kind An and competence social inspiring is beyond helps students relationships achievement media an American Graduate more only 73 percent as a national Most lowincome average have to public help every child become an American graduate to affluent comes it American Graduate stories of to college who teaches finish to a millworker job skills to help students achieve after graduation in the work force a college student in Cleveland Ohio overcoming who is mentoring 8th graders about difficult obstacles on the path and a mayor to elementary in to graduation Kansas City Missouri who reads school students every week and shares with them the value of learning American Graduate featured onair Champion and online stories are in the community through forums events and partnerships help for all community members participation up as champions increase access for to the nations relationships and on the path graduate a clear path With more citizens stepping adults and ensure that learn find to all to youth we can with committed children are ready to become an American DRIVER 1 Lowincome I Students immediate Poor children more are also and longterm be born health born to mothers Children a low at birth to likely effects weight poverty of poverty in the experience more are them putting risk poverty motor and social longterm 2013 more In lived in everyone than 45 percent home the had access to for delays9 of children households foodinsecure Iin developmental to likely at in which in enough not food at times1 all increased has been linked to lower academic hunger Child achievement and social hospitalization intellectual and lunch programs inschool breakfast some help reduce can and impairments developmental Though problems behavioral and physical poor children food dont have still evenings weekends insecurity issues nutritious meals during and school households where many breaks go without food to experience In parents have enough ensure their children of having food insecure even can add to a parents stress despite their parents good childs Lowincome asthma children one risk the leading causes of absenteeism are at higher disease than the general chronic Children than children American than of 83 the access due to In million K12 not in 13 and teens in this health care effects more reports that 16 percent about who recognized toxic life 45 than in percent of children in at all in the households ha= had in to spending Inequitable problem taxes access times health to especially to the discovering effects with poverty a major impact naked that adulthood can help mitigate the This its negative However school in means enable to and experience unmet then they on our ability we if to will exert graduate of all of poverty are that especially widely the eye exposure on children that with Economic researchers are now In fact to toxic stress especially a for cannot rely schools poor additional higher in the earnings it on property local increased all Although A 2015 study found in the educational of has been shown children increase 12 years of public full solve poverty Research a 20 percent not that positive early is states in has long been a education in fund their public school funding associated but recent studies have shown stress associated obvious development early stress and trauma impacts of or tax the 14 foodinsecure negative can have poverty in a high and unyielding all in into be organized and succeed unacknowledged benefits The outward and adults caring live to thrive poverty elongated of our students do not have country with because the stress and trauma of poverty the health wellness leave the its schools and adults can students have health Additionally of and adolescence through relationships that brain Fortunately lead and learning behavior healthi51° the of in Funding Inequities which not everyone enough food poverty to children quality poverty lived likely Association enrollment 2013 more population12 Health Public to are less poverty in and mental and can disrupt brain development problems lifelong impacts insurance the childhood period school and deaths hospitalizations to plasticity more emergency and experience department visits of intentions developing for physical early the that for perpupil schooling year of completed of poverty Building in Bureau of each year for associated with education 25 percent and a 20 percentagepoint annual incidence have poor children funding is to National issues nearly reduction in adulthood17 a Grad Nation May 2015 29 DRIVER 1 LowIncome Students local percentages The 1 Title Act of 1965 Schools educational of provides assistance financial to and schools with high agencies that and Secondary the Elementary lowincome students shown have of provision I However gaps funding still exist recent studies that are seriously the most economically disadvantaged shortchanging schools rt Title data from the shows Statistics highest families that in have fewer state Nationwide the wealthiest receive 156 serving districts students from lowincome and local dollars to spend with districts Center for Education 23 states of percentage per pupil than districts National fewer students 25 percent in poverty students may help eliminate these these funds were that disparities intended with in higherincome their they need the extra resources with the distribution schools and are forced dollars use federal funds to to can no longer be used resources school specialists mentors materials that tutors but are a luxury for students to high make for nurses counselors teachers and uptodate are available up inequalities programs more and experienced and health poor funds When local to catch to not to offset peers of state ends meet those the additional school more funds from percent funds supplement state and local dollars and provide schools of I be noted should poverty Recent the Though curricular affluent in poor students state and local governments then the poorest 25 percent of school $1500 since This districts per student gap equal to approximately has increased by 44 percent 200102 Fund and support programs and policymakers Politicians Nationwide districts state 156 receive and local 25 percent percent more of school funds from governments then the poorest of school by 44 districts $1500 to approximately increased 25 percent the wealthiest This gap equal per student has percent since 200102 for poor children gap opportunity that help bridge the have long called alike for achievement expanding education early lowIncome for the time to commit to is evidencebased making highquality accessible the income With now the rise gap on early Census data show SNAP Supplemental Assistance Program kept poverty 2013 in education students Nutrition 48 million people 21 million children The including program has also been proven out of as one of the two most longterm effective programs at raising children poverty living below effects include half of for children better health line The SNAP receiving adulthood deep out of the poverty food stamps earnings percentage in and lower rates of welfare point who children should continue benefits It is to high high food higher women school to fully poverty stamps than Congress program and increase this families rate with children and state policymakers make insecurity and during school fund and an 18 graduation not receive food that federal critical limiting higher did for for on weekends poor children holidays and summer a priority privatelyfunded Right now this responsibility largely organizations Our Strengths No like Feeding Kid Hungry community and faithbased they work students should 30 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation but with the in be America allocated rising this numbers and the many with of government cause on America and Share initiative institutions greater to falls which lowincome resources DRIVER 1 Make and health of education For an integral part initiatives too long health have been treated and education sibs but is it impossible to cure one sector without addressing the other and coordinating services within health school the His Aligning and wellness programs and environments Is prepared the US to learn Whole are being The Whole met and they School are Whole Child model developed Centers for Disease by ASCD and Control and Prevention coordinated CDC school to better of children Fvidence is health approach the school increasingly model should this be environment competence21 including Social development gives students crucial social and emotional skills helps them challenges handle stress persist in and peers22 Social Improves academic potential to promotes adaptive in ways that relationships with adults performance emotional have a positive but also has the brain plasticity and cognitive lifelong Therefore it many policy into children the center Designate Impact22 funding periphery This is social and education of and local funding for districts beyond schools that educate for high state foundation outcomes to percentages funding districts of and lowIncome critical and students poverty in particular neighborhoods to students schools them to high poverty emotional funding high the lowperforming whole school student supports guided from federal activities provide and state needs students support high student supports to in systems support prevention poverty to combine evidencebased which to neighborhoods to enable reform efforts with enhanced by early warning live need supports and assistance in who access ensure resources these students of adults functioning and and with accountability integrated and move the conversation of Level the playing field of state high poverty schools poverty and perform academically important that states is in living Students and trauma that negatively learn emotional learning from the agencies and emotional learning not only reshape childrens stress Blend and leverage the face of tough and build positive great the way they affects Provide suggests that student success by a wider set of factors and emotional and address the health and wellness needs within affected and the structure with and of education211 objectives used a framework for aligning provides suffer for key to ensuring Community basic needs students important especially who reform for high poverty schools as separate of wellness LowIncome I early warning systems and a sufficient mentoring tutoring supports at the scale required to supply and social in high schools Building a Grad Nation May 2015 31 DRIVER 1 LowIncome 1 Students CASE STUDY McDowell Reconnecting When we about improving talk we students underprivileged When we education decades and rural schools equally the separate challenges they face difficult children County West and districts up growing in rural but For McDowell faced a bleak Virginia poor students we for forget about often reality underperforming and a The culture of rampant due someone abuse ranks heart disease pregnancy and more than dropouts with to alcohol and high drug overdose unemployment suicide school services McDowell poorest county in the state highest in teenage live drug and half of students its other than a biological parent circumstances such as the imprisonment of schools students often face dispersed to their of gym the or severe teacher the districts technology shortage and Inadequate transportation have often meant no afterschool extracurricular landscape is particularly challenging given the increasing evidence how important active programs or Internet access This activities that especially demonstrates extracurricular parents communitybased access activities networks and life are outcomes and technology to to the employment school president current longterm effort to fix 2011 with Manchin Teachers AFT leading the pushed for districts a comprehensive McDowells the schools In American and Governor way in the State Board of Education Gayle Manchin Federation of Earl Ray Tomblin the Reconnecting McDowell partnership initiative an unprecedented was born 32 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation equally difficult Because McDowells publicprivate and districts the take valuable education services students for technology transportation directs initiative and funding services business and labor nonprofits McDowell Reconnecting Now learning partners comprising government fixing communitywide sustainable solutions to the more than 120 for McDowell schools Reconnecting foundations the outcomes more than challenges that impede student with but separate educational will rural they face challenges children districts seeks improving education for often forget about improving into expertise and families their and housing jobs and economic development the state McDowell has Reconnecting priority and with local Working areas including stakeholders established making every county a community school and mental physical health high school in wraparound with services for students approved and families This 2013 when the vision The plan will moved forward community by the West in May plan was schools Virginia Board of Education bring community organizations and interventions agencies into schools to provide academic extended learning services of children After years of state intervention operation and countys warehoused being other classrooms because cafeteria In the parents or hospitalization schools the poverty economic decline understaffed and schools limited medical talk about parent tailored and and family of and early childhood social supports and and community engagement programs specifically to the the needs of each school serve the families they One health most significant challenges rural retaining school districts face is attracting highly qualified teachers trained of turnover to be a schools significant especially A 2013 in special education McDowell County and cited those state audit high employee issue for the district DRIVER 1 CASE STUDY CONTINUED shortage and counter To help remedy the teacher collaborative teacher McDowell County turnover in is district buttressing and mentor and teachers teacher village efforts to principals county The project available housing in the kiosks new the will teachers a collegiate create encourage them that will for the school districts most _ VHI handed at the internet home access in and giving children that many Americans A threeyear $300000 ATT laptops the county to use in Other major accomplishments granted families take for opportunities to McDowell found program including will the Broader Horizons student to Washington DC programs Save the Children emphasizing three elementary is visits operating literacy afterschool skills for students at schools _ Frontier Communications wired every county school with fiber optics to ensure students access SHENTEL have consistent Shenandoah Telecommunications Co now 10000 internet is homes rates to in working the county and offering to to juvenile the Book First open 10 to $30000 high drug court keeping them out in initiative and students provide is their the juvenile of school in still recognizes the importance to to be abusing drugs with treatment and system and Although the phases early its providing of it supports families in boosting school achievement outcomes Progress to This in 201112 staff to including Reconnecting full first year in rates increased 793 percent efforts by district in students McDowell resources to leaders coaches hiring graduation work with atrisk high school students its improvement comes following years sustained improvement and In fouryear graduation operation of in raising academic already being seen is 201213 Aspire contribution County high school each year through students a from 72 percent include mentoring internship and jobshadowing provide give issues the West Virginia Supreme truancy detention out personal middle school students and to instruments to one district support programs programs school of students especially those collegeprep career and technical education to all will Centers new band Court opened and retaining also plans to provide access to recently $50000 Save the Music Foundation provided worth of trained in special education and Book has given away 4500 books and _ To tackle rural significant challenges face is attracting collaborative development school highly qualified teachers The First Family Literacy county long term One of county early childhood _ Verizon donated stay in to Young Explorer Tykes initiative McDowell environment for Little away 18 more books per child over the span will leaders workspaces which Reconnecting hope _ of resemble a college dormitory with collaborative 10 programs better train address the lack that will help Students computer _ IBM provided the by building a LowIncome I and using reengage in their education example Lauded by educators the country of the and policymakers around Reconnecting power of addressing the needs McDowell collaboration of the child is an in holistically school and community wire reduced internet families Building a Grad Nation May 2015 33 I Driver 2 Minority Students DRIVER 2 American public schools are undergoing demographic shift driven HispanicLatino large part In a significant by and concurrent enrollment declines in White enrollment From 2001 82 from to million enrollment grew HispanicLatino 118 students million an increase decrease from 17 to 24 percent24 287 from period this White enrollment from 60 percent American 17 percent The that account for five In and 2023 by New Nevada of public Mexico last from enrollment school century Texas and American students a BlackWhite HispanicLatino above rising low graduation will students enrollment region is to 887 Asian 752 to points in 37 rising 2011 707 to ACGR and African American graduation redouble and states districts efforts their 866 to gains for all narrow and goal need will graduation rates percent To reach the 90 percent students 2020 many schools gaps by to while students the of of Florida in and enrollment ana Laggaras Leavers acate enrollment has begun 10 percent 2011 in improve 2013 as measured by HispanicLatino accelerating already the turn at ACGR a subgroup with historically continue rates the percentage points from 67 percent percentage in percent 42 in Texas Arizona climb surpassing Black enrollment to a gain of percent NCES Statistics California HispanicLatino the South from 71 rising 2013 in student growing African greater than 30 percent In African the greatest gains remain lower than the rates of White HispanicLatino 30 percent states while steady moving fairly Center for Education predicts a 16 percent to National million 52 percent to enrollment held 256 to million during fell era reporting percent 2011 to made population rising the fastest students HispanicLatino Students Minority I Students HispanicLatino TABLE 8A AC OR Leaders State Hispanic Latino 201213 Students in Georgia and North Carolina The 201415 school year was year that focus average on The the in American And closing 201415 first year schools must rates to drive gains have while that the gaps between student graduation a long way to still means distribution intensely minority first sChools25 changing This be the enrollment of minority students would total surpass enrollment of White students public to projected White and the national been made there is a go school year was projected to be that total enrollment of minority students would surpass enrollment of White students in American public schools 851 Utah + Vermont 830 Nevada +114 Indiana 825 Arkansas +110 Arkansas 820 New Mexico +90 West 820 Alabama +80 Tennessee 813 Minnesota +80 Maine 810 Connecticut +70 Missouri 810 Delaware +70 Iowa 800 Kansas +69 Virginia Sources Reproduced Provisional The rising national graduation rate has been since 2006 by a 15percentagepoint HispanicLatino for African students American measured by increase as measured by over the last three Data Files Graduation Education Statistics from the United States Department SY201011 Rates 2013 US and SY201213 Department Public of of Education FourYear Education ElementarySecondary Regulatory National School 2015 Adjusted Center for Universe Surveys for and a 9percentagepoint students That trend has continued Cohort driven 134 Texas gain AFGR years as ACGR Building a Grad Nation May 2015 35 DRIVER 2 Minority Students Nine states lead the nation with graduation 80 percent or higher of students HispanicLatino for rates enrollment As the state with the second the country in rates rising student largest Texas for Hispanic students strongly impacts not only that states Latino graduation national improvement rate HispanicLatino but also boosts the includes However See the majority of leading states Arkansas West A drives state their subset of states significantly has led the from 2011 to 2013 New Mexicos for way that 57 percent of nine 134 of public by Nevada percentage school rate points occurred points enrollment also is from 2011 and Kansas Delaware some +7 590 Maine 60 Oregon 608 Arizona 31 New 623 Wyoming 30 Georgia 626 Hawaii 20 Nevada 644 Vermont 10 Colorado 654 Illinois 07 Washington 659 New Sources of Hispanics all students Oregon which educate numbers about in its numbers the nation in and national school HispanicLatino Washington 10 percent hold back continued high of with have rates aiso students a 90 percent 70 percent York are of particular concern large 60s the of and these four the Hispanic their lagging rates progress towards Data Files Graduation Education SY201011 US Rates 2013 Statistics and Department Public a state with high rates of HispanicLatino enrollment 2011 and cost three 2013 This percentage is points concerning 36 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation of Education ElementarySecondary Education Regulatory National School 2015 Adjusted Center for Universe Surveys Six states collectively educate over 70 percent As seen of the nations HispanicLatino students Table in than 70 percent 9 six students and collectively educate more high students Outcomes vary widely across these states Indicating that different may for contribute to better state and local policies and worse graduation outcomes students HispanicLatino HispanicLatino In has states the nations HispanicLatino of school states six above the between as Arizona both high numbers of HispanicLatino of FourYear HispanicLatino Students with enrollment Arizona SY201213 States Driving the National Rate Of the rate graduation 07 York from the United States Department Reproduced high school When combined students subset saw and another New York +8 to where states also 2013 to Colorado and will in has rates well below still as they educate Latino IF the state in remains low even with still represent only a modest traction subgroup states 13 Cd Minnesota students account Improvements that significant subset of states fall 2012 Students If a gain of with the state for this Latino P Provisional Connecticut points A Laggards Hispanic rates for percentage Minnesota in A00R HispanicLatino percentage HispanicLatino graduation Its Latinos rates rate for graduation its students State Cohort show turn the nation Improvements these subgroup In the to regain order to raise graduation and students graduation increasing followed gain given though in 60s 8a points percentage notable of that of raised students by HispanicLatino 114 lost the in rates graduation Utah nor rates all has it this how consider carefully now students Tennessee Virginia Maine Missouri and Iowa This group neither ground these for enrollment this have low rates of HispanicLatino Vermont Table must Arizona for rate TABLE 8B rate graduation a graduation national New York students average is for the highest only three all have twenty students rate for points of graduation subgroup average the graduation nearly numbers of 752 rates percent HispanicLatino below the national DRIVER 2 TABLE 9 Arizona with Largest Numbers States 201213 High School Students decreases reported students between over eight educating lllinois nations HispanicLatino the HispancLatino of and in graduation and Students Minority of percent school students high 201011 I rates for these 201213 a 11 Ra c° IQ North Carolina and Tennessee Maryland m graduation IT educate rates about students 78 percent of 10 percent contributing 303 757 Texas 674204 200 851 Alabama and Mississippi Florida 225113 67 749 percentages 623 substantial 140011 42 689 138432 41 763 Arizona Illinois Totals Total Students US Source Public 57 192621 Department of ElementarySecondary Number = of Education School National Center for Statistics 2013 Universe Surveys Looking at graduation of TABLE IOA ACGR Students 201213 Ar m m possible is made subgroup statistics states In serve historically to rates numbers of between not that this subgroup Black students Black high school as well as those whose rates have and 2013 2011 i highiights three states OB Laggards Black Students 201213 + ry •m N high have for this the states with the lowest ACGR State 3 with concern TABLE Leaders Black progress have significant but also Education gains point 2013 These and have struggled only declined State 2011 great = 710 Percent states demonstrate between Cumulative 2388835 both progress Black student enrollment percentage Black the nations Black of F ie m•mc New York of have collectively towards national 1018454 California and I a Rt Q Texas 841 Nevada + 140 Oregon 570 Vermont 11 New Hampshire 820 Alabama + 110 Minnesota 578 Arizona 40 800 New Hampshire +90 Michigan 605 Montana 40 North Dakota Maryland 783 New Mexico +90 New 629 Illinois 31 Arizona 780 Utah +90 Ohio 630 Maine 20 Kentucky 780 Mississippi +88 Georgia 644 North Carolina 780 Pennsylvania +80 Florida 646 Tennessee 780 Wyoming +80 Sources Reproduced Provisional Cohort Data Files Graduation Education Statistics from the United States Department SY201011 Rates 2013 US and SY201213 Department Public of of FourYear Education ElementarySecondary Education Regulatory National School 2015 Adjusted Center for Universe Surveys York Sources Reproduced Provisional Cohort Data Files Graduation Education Statistics from the United States Department SY201011 Rates 2013 US and SY2C1213 Department Public of Education ElementarySecondary Building of Education FourYear Regulatory National School 2015 Adjusted Center for Universe Surveys a Grad Nation May 2015 37 DRIVER 2 Minority Students percent Ohio and Michigan have Black graduation the low 60s and together educate in the nations Black students of a both higher saw a Black graduation overall decline significant in over seven which Illinois rate at recent rates 709 has percent years Combined and California states either have states start to recent Driving National Progress Unless these improvements the significant Black graduation raising in have or rates Consequently these states must refocus stall will made progress seven of these 60s declines significant experience All the in Florida more than 40 educate rates graduation experienced recently Ohio Georgia York collectively Illinois nations Black students of the percent New Michigan students energy on helping more of their African American and attention school their high complete education TABLE 11 with the Largest Numbers of Black High School States Students 201213 There are many roadblocks s education me ova • 5 lc• as they seek to provide 4V district the as there to ability challenges are several for graduation schools to provide of every state and trends that national a highquality regardless of race or ethnicity every student 189515 79 644 Georgia 181940 75 644 Texas 179619 74 841 166598 69 629 suspended percent rising from one in York students with a strong their Florida New and schools and a clear path to high school While there are different school Z of states influence education •J• 63 a7 all facing Discipline Disparities The number of secondary school students by 40 or expelled has increased 197273 137417 57 681 North Carolina 122302 51 775 Illinois 117618 49 709 Maryland 94519 39 783 these suspensions are for nonviolent crimes Ohio 93125 38 634 such as truancy dress code Michigan 92431 38 605 89382 37 acting out in class Virginia 768 Pennsylvania 89019 37 726 Louisiana 88264 37 660 Alabama 82240 34 739 California Totals Total Students Source Public US Department of ElementarySecondary Number Cumulative of =1723989 Education School Percent National Center for = 714 Education Statistics 2013 Universe Surveys one 200910 in nine in Over the gravitated last decades four offenses school to tardiness or the influence sharp of rise of across that a subset of states they educate students A review of have considerable 38 May 20 15 large Building a drive numbers this work will the national rate given of African American groups shows that these states to do Grad Nation In that policies from school dress code for a wide a weapon to violations policies law enforcement schools discipline from bringing zero tolerance in to or violations American public students ranging variety and large increases Finally of of in The vast majority of zero tolerance towards mandate the removal The 13 can be seen presence outofschool in in schools suspension rates the country 199697 officers only stationed 19 percent in school had no law enforcement two out of security guards full high schools had time and more than presence every three public or of public high law enforcement at all26 By half 200708 schools had fulltime officers27 DRIVER 2 1 Minority Students FIGURE 8 and Black White All Students Juvenile Crime Rates Per 100000 10 Juveniles ages 17 19802012 to Key _ Black All _ Ory ti• O O O OR N ti I tie Ethnicities White 4 N ry YEAR Note Measure As a result this Source Online The number one 13 in National Center secondary school of 197273 in crimes to not is suspicion included in Effective the All nine in two suspended students in from rising 200910 is students are suspended only majority of crimes such or acting The out roots of million annually more than little from high school graduated The vast a secondary school As a three of point million students 20132$ in these suspensions as truancy are dress code for violations class In the rise the in zero tolerance juvenile can be traced back policies crime rates that began subsequent fear that young more dangerous discipline to policies in the 1980s people were and the need for harsher school prevent harm to other students or GunFreeSchools school personnel In Act education brought grounds 1994 Congress passed the states requiring funds to mandate had to expel for at least a weapon like to that that local received school one year any student school Violent Incidents the Columbine massacre in federal districts who on school 1999 caused presence many schools went beyond of to mandate the federal law enforcement the FBI no longer 16 2014 Juvenile Arrest These reported arrests for Rates by Offense Sex continued to policies school running and away Race the zero tolerance law and and to policies that to 1980s in grow and encompass more issues even discipline as juvenile the lowest reaching fall crime rates levels seen since 2012 Zero tolerance policies continued encompass more school to grow and discipline issues even as juvenile crime rates continued in 2D 12 Many of fallen disproportionately the effects more disciplined White In to reaching the lowest levels seen since the fall 1980s becoming to 2010 continued comparison nonviolent It in crimes category December for Juvenile Justice by 40 percent one some estimated that excludes offense group Available has increased or expelled of All of policies have students who zero tolerance on frequently minority and more severely are than their peers the 1 970s only six percent Black of K1 2 students policies were suspended compared White peers suspension nine with With the advent percentage rates for points to of 3 percent of their zerotolerance Black students rose by 15 percent White suspension rates gained less by 2006 while than 2 percentage points30 increase the security guards in schools Building a Grad Nation May 2015 39 DRIVER 2 These light Students even disparities are the population of districts For Minority with when starker considered FIGURE 9 in students within school of minority 197273 high suspension rates Black students make up 21 example but accounted youth in 2011 schoolrelated Florida referrals West Hartford Connecticut 46 percent for to percent of of percent 63 percent law enforcement 30 In 25 Black and Latino students of Black students with disabilities 200910 During the the population schoolrelated of school Black male students with fair year but more poorly even 36 percent at 20 arrests31 of enrolled disabilities were suspended school or high by Ethnicity 200910 to all experienced made up 24 Rates School Suspension Secondary in 15 all middle 10 once least 5 With the advent of zerotolerance rates for Black suspension nine percentage points to while White suspension 2 percentage schools students to belief are a twofold out rising schools has not resulted improved increase In ninth in from 16 percent 32 percent those for learning _ Black The discipline in last _ Latino Civil Indian Rights American Project those for who far shows grade is the likelihood for and focus who resort In to Los Angeles Unified School in California to defiance an anything on are34 are expelled become far cell more shows hold still their that being suspended is associated likelihood percent As evidence of dropping out rising from mounts improve school of students May 2015 grade suspended to 32 16 percent who are to 40 in ninth with a twofold increase in the for those not for those even once some that policies fail climate and endanger the futures school Building a districts Grad Nation are revising school their District became ban the use of suspensions for from dress code phones keeping them in education16 In violations class or disrupting alternative students accountable LAUSD saw term that can illdefined for school graduation poor behavior rise by 12 LAUSD options to discipline and moving rates to tacking Instead the two years since while forward this with change percent and suspensions drop by 53 percent In 2013 created Broward County the Broward Public Schools in Agreement on School Florida Discipline community The new discipline policy by school administrators zero tolerance in encompass first willful dropping those not suspended 2013 the associated of them as a students likely being that on working issues and keep underlying with and on track more drop out of school Research likely to Asian UGLA12 instead began implementing Students at White use suspension and expulsion to policies to resolve become Research suspended even once 200910 Key rates gained less than expelled drop out of school with 197273 15 percent by 2006 suspended33 are not who 0 suspending students and in that are safer or Students by Source misbehavior who students rose points Contrary to popular criminalizing policies partners was created and established and outofschool such as counseling collaboratively lawenforcement alternatives and to arrest suspensions for misdemeanors and mentorship36 DRIVER 2 2012 Chicago Public Schools created new code expulsion In named suspension and of discipline that as a last a announced York Citys Department a series of discipline DOE suspending students minor for students and eliminating infractions physical $12 also invest in grade third million $145 100 schools students disruptive $23 and another DOE insubordination for altogether to million DOE The will programs justice reduce 911 by properly training referrals school staff support courtinvolved to million in suspension for restorative in before approval any suspension involving for to obtain US The Opportunity of high schools of Black offer Algebra with and a II courses are considered with their them and earn college The US percent of fewer college to credits tuition Iin of third prepare percent and colleges college for of or a found that 25 contrast chemistry to I a full II AP honors courses or classes School identification and then geometry physics31 of 81 math Algebra to offer working districts can benefit the succeed to in close these to a range of reforms that include academically of preparation teachers funding rigorous for to expand opportunities students capable coursework during increase and professional their course offerings as the Advanced such Program have Incentive to capacity staff for Closing gaps in participation teacher counseling in rigorous White and minority requires a concerted part of school etluucities from benefit Montgomery County Public under the leadership of passing AP to of all or honors incentives offer the to the to identify students districts who can on effort and be successful classes significantly AP exams Schools improved for in Maryland former superintendent Jerry its rates minority of both taking students and Beginning beginning 2005 Weast plan that raised in II some helped also development and exam fees Weast percent range a concerted who ethniclties all and supports those students need in students and 71 courses Algebra biology In coursework rigorous incentives from students of to identify effort in those percentages necessary to career future Asian American and science in participation courses and then schools did not offer chemistry White students had access calculus in supports those students need schools with the highest those take saving time and advance were math course White and minority students requires students 38 Department of Education of high college apply to more selective Both of these courses are considered of prepare Black and Latino students do not offer Algebra and a Closing gaps districts students for scores indicated between Placement opportunities to courses that prepare them allow money on students AP an in course work between of minority populations large offer challenging succeed they could Federal or a future career for college PSAT out of the program40 left for Both of those to AP development the highest necessary they are Placement Black students and 66 percent of elementary and middle school that third of those did not offer chemistry career found and Latino students schools frequently that improved Department of Education Advanced in students whose Hispanic better ofAcademic percentages Schools 72 percent gaps have implemented 25 percent do not of those students37 Disparities scores indicate test well performing that that reforms including approval kindergarten principals to requiring when more basic into courses A recent study by the College Board found Education of courses to challenging capable of 2015 New access in students are often tracked courses even interventions In from gaps minority and behavioral counseling resort after Aside Students Minority I school of implemented a strategic academic standards for data driven students elementary school and continuing Under measures to this plan the identify district students Building utilized who would a Grad Nation into high a variety benefit May 2015 41 DRIVER 2 Students Minority AP courses incentives from increase rates This included PSAT of a concerted communications with parents meetings PSAT scores students highachieving upper into record students taking and earning a three or higher above and national state 66 and students some 20 with rates numbers more on than for HispanicLatino higher and the nation Jefferson policies PSAT the points While points to for pay classes for in PSAT scores Race who every sophomore More qualified the recently exam fees and professional development has put through participants end the to take of the their sophomore year so of AP that by the Broad Black students are improving enough to gain on their their found AP passing White peers School Unified Placement provided access funding for a school still A student schedules to ensure that continue will as populations supports struggle large to supports to for English populations have of public school is four estimated that by school 2025 students nearly will Learner 42 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation one out be an of English every In Massachusetts NCES schools grade of California many of ELL teachers barriers abilities making coursework lack of materials that and assessments that did in that schools continue teachers and on by 2025 track Learner to staff and supports to effectively English Language success to language classroom tailor students so that they remain is estimated that Hispanic measure ELL progress41 ELLS must ensure and a students students47 individual fairly nonELL nonELL textbooks or other teaching or reported a grade fourth variety to appropriately proper training It New York Texas in rise have the teach these academically nearly one out of every four public school students graduate public will numerous Jersey eighth a wide these Language It for help ELLs progress districts important students are New they experienced As the number Language students rise Without Southeast Asian students more than 5000 not accurately become more and more of minority difficult would Learners strong of that appropriate who Supports for English Language Learners Providing spoken languages students and ELL Hispanic and levels within an and district all challenges These included courses to rigorous survey found it counselor of students and ELL Hispanic federal The five ELL students 39point gap between rates tutoring ELL students included 29point reading gap between Program grant dollars to Incentive development for teachers professional manages used summer programs AP cover exam fees also District the top language populations of ELLs present significant academic levels43 participation in Illinois Hispanic while of 20092012 percentages high Rising that Advanced maintaining San Diego and students are free Foundation enrollment Asian Americans also proportion of significant two schools Minnesota Washington and courses junior and senior year An analysis district quickly with math courses by required school but are distributed across the country as well program that advances a fasttrack place in public Asian American for teachers for or California on their has used district the Top funds to cover to based of public percent These students students languages46 to AP provide to was 14 the most widely spoken is in by ELLs from changed Kentucky and require principals students all ELLs make up a federal students take Spanish among Maryland in school New Mexico Nevada Texas states Arizona Alaska and Hawaii Oregon 29 percent Nationwide Schools Public 1990s the students 7 and 14 percent California45 respectlvely42 County in percentage and 187 percentage four In and the states New York Kansas Carolina Florida of public constitute for African averages 12 in and California ELL enrollment American AP exams their North Illinois Colorado and AP posted In Utah ELL enrollment Columbia was between of Virginia counsel to level 2012 MOPS coursework41 of GPA combination with in oneonone and 200910 District Montgomery County used students with In inschool through takers to effort will be an DRIVER 2 courses available to discipline policies expulsion community members and and trends so that parents can readily view policymakers and monitor rates severity suspension and disparities or for For example the Move away from zero by suspension offenses such as willful and expulsion behavioral Provide last interventions challenging Schools as and ensure they and use resorts only have course among ensure after adults other to Particularly supports review course offerings in to caring coaches tutors majorityminority and schools guidance from from elementary through high and on to higher AP access from additional education Create opportunities to cover tests a complete course load that benefit as they navigate school to support systems the form of mentors students would adults challenging the supports available students increased minority in In in students have equal opportunity all counselors been implemented and should districts include defiance their disparities coursework and strengthen Provide for illdefined policies examine White and minority students Improved access t tolerance should unnecessary created online tool nte students partlcipatlon Schools Create transparency around school all Students and make challenging prepares students for college Discipline in schools Minority I costs of standardized and other exam fees CASE STUDY Re Thinking School creating justice Discipline Policies As noted zero tolerance our nations schools have school climate or raise programs focus on those who were harmed discipline policies failed to either academic in for improve achievement and many schools are seeking new the a positive school climate Restorative asks the offender damage done by then engages of restorative for justice back wrongdoer The US justice asks therefore this price the offender policies in schools are mindset with the goal being student sufficiently based around punish the so that the offense will not be repeated Restorative Justice RJ employed by school of is improving relationships parents teachers outofschool a discipline system districts with the goal between find a way RJ holds students their actions to to but also offers them the make amends and be welcomed in to the school community rather than suspension or expulsion must pay Zero to to and simply removing them through outofschool on the what crime was committed and what tolerance system focuses responsibility his or her actions stakeholders damage opportunity Theory take accountable repair the solutions all to students and administrators reducing The US justice wrongdoer therefore pay Restorative take what price justice or her actions way the for the asks the offender to damage done by and engages to repair the offender must programs focus on who were harmed responsibility find a the asks what crime was committed and those system focuses an his all stakeholders to damage suspensions and expulsions and Building a Grad Nation May 2015 43 DRIVER 2 Minority I CASE STUDY Schools Students CONTINUED seen implementing RJ practices have dropping out with suspension being a decreases in suspensions and expulsions improved between students and The increases relationships teachers student behavior and improved _ In 200809 Denver reduction in Public a 30 of in Minnesota public 50 percent reduction to 1998 and suspensions49 suspensions from in school year and serious incidents acts 200607 to 40 percent reduction 200708 in violent Oakland Oakland Unified School more than 45000 students in District serves 201213 OUSD school graduation 2012 Urban 626 vast discipline disparities between Black 17 percent boys comprised student population of but accounted A for One in in boys in elementary three in middle schools schools and one in 42 percent five in _ Fortyfour percent of Black defying males were one high suspended authority males were significantly compared of 44 May 20 to their off t 5 Building a track peers and more than Grad Nation were and outcomes half at risk for significantly most defiance 1050 at for its to OUSD In just 630 over the decreases significant suspended one year a decrease of with a RJ program have of for that 40 seen the absenteeism greatest cumulative at those schools change with chronic with a RJ program dropping by as compared saw chronic to nonRJ schools which absenteeism rise by 623 percent compared percent decline to just 25 in in that still RJ school dropout high for discipline to 19 in high schools go rates gap has decreased from 201213 may be on saw a 56 nonRI high schools This represents progress but the district while they far to 2013 17 percent 201112 significant males in middle schools Black from fell _ The BlackWhite academically _ Black 24 school year During American students or willful 24 percent were suspended annually solely for African _ Middle schools OUSD schools to has significant improvements declined _ Between 2010 and 10 Black OUSD percent OUSD54 suspensions _ number White and the for disruption showed African American students reported in at school in 2005 saw all and learn programs three years with the being percent53 Strategies Council report RJ discipline practices last reported a high rate of just of OUSD effort climate and ensure that during the 201314 _ Suspensions onethird African and more than 70 percent In students part of a largescale is from one time the students55 lowincome52 American reduce to implementation of restorative practices expanded Justice OUSD Unified School District OCR an agreement with schools of Restorative of voluntarily entered the district improve school this at 2012 in Implementation and serious review in response to these district students are able to thrive incidents in 20080951 Implementation a compliance from and an additional acts school into to in violent Office of Civil disparities the justice saw a 52 percent High School significant course of Education conducted The districtwide showed schools off discipline disproportionalities for Black 200150 _ West Philadelphia drop out of school OCR those of Department and saw a 68 given in schools police tickets a 40 percent drop _ Evaluations climates For example Schools US Rights percent in positive school 73 percent factor for acknowledges the right track there is DRIVER 2 CASE STUDY 1 Minority Students CONTINUED embrace justice Student and In 2014 staff staff OUSD surveyed over 200 teachers and about their experiences policies and 80 percent agreedstrongly continue agreed a new Teachers and to staff build communication and dialogue piece surveyed noted that they by the process felt actively and appreciated the of RJ the Those engaged chance have both sides of the story told and heard The successfully using RJ as a school discipline method including limited time to students in restorative practices engage and capacity culture than punitive echo those RJ practices55 testing to practices of other school 57 tolerance RJ offers a promising in is In alternative many improving school and on track RJ requires consistent from to be staff zero implementing districts violence is fully willing to needed for decreasing graduation and effectively zero tolerance the school mindset around what stay buyin takes time to Schools seeking expend the time and to shift to However implementation and administrators and move away from new to students are given the opportunity implement to surveys also revealed a number of challenges to districts and larger school Similarly students appreciated in shifting school challenges behavior students difficult These policies gave them with students and helped them connect with the community difficulty limited training restorative rather of those surveyed surveyed noted that RJ allowed them set of tools to handle and with restorative that their school should using RJ practices caring relationships needed followup experiences culture policies effort must that is and build a constitutes effective discipline policies and provide Building a Grad Nation May 2015 45 Driver 3 Students with Disabilities DRNER Students with disabilities receiving special those students specifically Together Individuals with education Education Disabilities 13 services under the IDEA Act disabilities make up school students ranging approximately nationwide The percent public all students identified for of percentage education special of from state to state varies greatly from less than nine percent school of public students Massachusetts in Texas to more than and Rhode constitute significant It K12 with in school public rest heavily will 85 90 percent to 62 73 percent served with autism Students I 84 with percent Disabilities intellectual and emotional disturbances percent comprise just over onefifth of students under IDEA Students with multiple disabilities hearing orthopedic impairments brain injuries 2 percent visual impairments and deafblindness or less of those impairments served traumatic each make up under IDEA disabilities on rates is estimated that education of improvements graduation their the students of Students Island portions enrollment so driving raising percent 17 students 3 FIGURE 10 IDEA Part B Child Count 2013 Ages 621 of special can meet regular diploma students requirements with the right supports It is estimated not come without that greatly education education of special concept impede practice Students will with misperceptions about their their success The as a whole incredible into challenges18 chronic population with this significant encounter disabilities plagued 90 percent but putting supports abilities to can meet regular diploma requirements with the students right 85 that special our country in is also from the disproportionalities overwhelming overidentification male and minority students to of disparities On top of states are taking and whether appropriate career can holes to in issues with state students with for our understanding graduate special they face disabilities of the education steps students these steps are holding these students to standards that prepare them Resolving students considerable are and definitions gaping leave the disciplinary actions this there all requirements that in with these issues disabilities earn a meaningful be will receive college to critical and ensuring education a quality school high for and to the 2013 IDEA and youth ages 621 Of these were students identified with percent a speech percent or nearly Child or services threequarters learning language other health 57 Count received a specific 84 Autism Intellectual million under IDEA of disability impairment impairments students 142 404 183 percent 73 62 Disability Emotional Disturbance diploma children According 0 Multiple Disabilities Hearing Impairment Orthopedic Visual 12 09 04 04 Impairment Impairment Traumatic 21 Brain DeafBlindness Injury 01 404 Speech Language Impairment 183 Other Health Impairment 142 Specific Learning Disability or Building a Grad Nation May 2015 47 DRIVER 3 Students with Disabilities 1 FourIn 201213 issues with the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Students with for T7icahi1itipc Most states 2013 the requirements set a standard with use of exit students to graduate for diploma through requirements available the and diploma options alternative exams It important to is students that there made the allowances in a standard to receive Reduced are significant education special for across variations diploma Allowances include requirements credit with national disabilities courses Lower Education second graduation graduation English performance across states percent rate assessments completing tests or different of lieu in or exit performancebased endofcourse state allowances for to receive a standard diploma makes variation disabilities in comparison This challenging disabilities federal graduation of that allow guidelines definitions for disabilities in with disabilities In high school IEP while with their of high school states an ACGR count to set their an own students define Education those by as students count as those only beginning Program exiting with IEP an throughout their four years IEP In long 2013 and provide a wide documents significant either well for issues with students in limits 20 are doing in Although national to at made in or ACGR an indicator graduating special of rates used to make The wide in and crossstate state that low of others that ACGR general all 30 is using 619 ACGR rates percent as a measure of can be it between and students with students disabilities Graduates Center students with the general percentage population points In also show graduating with is show disabilities range from a a high of to 588 points behind but disabilities their the majority of states that 85 percent students in or more so many graduate at of of their these 15 rates to peers addition There are for a handful of states students with the national average knowing education reporting disabilities for students all graduation that are within made students to receive range however more about how these determining the allowances Grad Nation graduation rate observations graduation populations points without Building a growth remain of May 2015 of students gap between in students states have rates 48 the of ACGR the by the Everyone 33 has states all are consistently education progress that in These estimates how comparisons some states and challenges useful population and students data are extremely valuable gaps some across the one it the least amount students with disabilities for variation the general the Adjusted disabilities points lower than the average of graduation 201011 disabilities hit the inadequacy Despite a low of to as meet the same standards as rigid of years with points points making all be will rate varies disabilities students with for graduation rate for exit there have the a lower at national average the nearly definitions and using the fouryear understanding graduation being disabilities a comparison measure states own allowances of students with students prepared their variety to set their Rate percentage for students evident as states are allowed all students with only Arkansas in Since Mississippi three first Estimates As percent subgroups showing over the students with complicated states Individualized who had those for further is ACGR Some others or only rates students get counted which with students with Of Center for disabilities graduating lower points National 58 percentage 804 exams crossstate The students students all students with for by nearly in 29 risen just student Passing with for ranging The graduation Cohort Graduation Extensions for rate with Proficiency rate 20 nearly rate students Statistics lowest Limited 225 criteria percent subgroups measured by the student from a high of Substitute graduation average 619 hit than the average on course policies endofcourse or note however states Students with Disabilities states are for their special a standard diploma DRNER 3 Students I with Disabilities TABLE 12 Cohort Adjusted Graduation Rate Percent with the 2013 2013 for all Kansas Montana t t 130 New Mexico 97 Arizona 157 115 164 146 141 Jersey Missouri Pennsylvania Ohio Illinois t 1 91 Utah 135 110 116 182 182 121 108 134 196 120 111 164 101 150 129 105 151 109 129 Iowa Dakota North Nebraska New Hampshire Maine Indiana California Wyoming Massachusetts Tennessee Wisconsin Vermont North Carolina West Virginia Connecticut Hawaii Delaware Washington Minnesota 87 98 South Dakota Colorado Rhode 217 115 123 Island Michigan Florida 97 Maryland 107 153 136 Alaska York Oregon 84 Kentucky 118 107 Virginia South Carolina 96 Louisiana ACGR 92 98 94 Texas Students Estimated Students 800 849 848 857 844 880 703 751 875 857 860 822 832 830 897 875 885 873 864 870 804 770 850 863 880 866 825 814 855 824 804 764 798 827 769 797 770 756 850 718 768 687 861 845 776 735 717 707 755 129 127 107 Oklahoma New within Cohort 72 99 Arkansas for SWD with Disabilities versus NonSWD Students Students Disabilities Alabama New of ACGR 201213 2013 1 U 1 NonSWD SWD ACGR 2013 Gap between ACGR ACGR 2013 802 854 857 868 854 891 718 764 897 873 883 844 853 846 924 897 908 909 901 894 826 798 892 889 904 903 848 848 886 849 840 791 830 849 794 854 800 789 877 752 821 736 892 889 817 774 762 752 813 769 804 785 778 760 778 601 633 759 734 740 692 701 674 727 700 710 710 700 693 619 590 678 673 687 680 623 621 647 610 600 546 582 600 538 590 536 523 600 430 33 50 4720c 349 t t NonSWD and Percentage SWD Points 72 90 94 113 117 131 138 139 143 152 152 172 197 197 198 199 201 201 207 208 214 216 217 223 225 227 239 239 240 245 248 249 256 264 264 266 277 322 372 520 515 432 367 351 264 225 364 372 374 365 407 Estimated 109 Georgia Nevada Mississippi Idaho Note level t = Not applicable Data are not expected ACGR listed below NonSPED ACGR cohort file ie estimated Sources using of Students = the estimated to be reported with level Department of Education Disabilities graduates ACGRs SPED ACGR ACGR minus the SPED ACGR state nonSPED US Percent through from = the provisional all by the within file for minus state level of SY201213 SPED ACGR SY201213 Total Cohort = the number the Cohort students actual data SEA graduates from District of Size SPED divided 201213 and State Gap Level by N = the students the sum 588 t of students all by total NonSPED FourYear 488 divided estimated between 411 cohort of SPED Adjusted the 9th grade cohort cohort the total and Regulatory in I all size within students 2013 ACGR minus SPED the district within the Points = the Percentage Cohort Graduation Building in each state Rates a Grad Nation May 2015 49 DRIVER 3 Students with Disabilities 1 it impossible to know is meet the education to Arkansas graduation graduation their students a disabilities plan raising but it rates of as the serves IEP award to as to students strides great students with disabilities at were raised disabled time that these this a way that requirements and that ensure education special recorded between reported graduation Eight states with 201011 troubling not clear is it 201213 and these if seven while ACGR education their special in low rates and recent maintaining because many face disability have risk for the For example Increased course failures issues many students track to in life that these of to their them However more to leading students many come at of the the form of low expectations and chronic In of certain a 2014 survey adults their general the public more severe Is at many or special education a misunderstanding about disabilities on the state of learning educators incorrectly intellectual deafness May 2015 Building a Grad Nation out encounter contributed which lives with expectations from the can lead students to cower from schools and disengage expectations to their above students lowered felt Enrollment and Discipline Disproportionalities with disabilities 13 percent of 58 make up the student population percent of those placed in linked disabilities and members of learning disabilities learning disabilities and autism disabilities with and 75 conf nament or involuntary of those physically restrained at school outcomes percent D ls proportional enrollment and graduation in ity students by discipline with disparities and HispanicLatino Despite 19 in just 2011 of disabilities This Is equally matched true especially 16 percent Black for school of public Black students students served all Is rate students up making percent made up under IDEA62 Prevention of 2009 found partners be diagnosed a be assigned to and their special likely to than HispanicLatino disability males but they White Dropout Disabilities Black males are no more that or Longitudinal a report by the National with to are significantly education more likely classes and have an IEP6 graduate 2013 leaver rate rate for with ways broken 50 while their perform well and to Center for Students with and four out of 10 associated blindness them expectations their In own Study obstacles continue will expected Using estimates from the High School seven out of 10 parents with €ow enrollment disciplinary keep many from achieving must overcome the nature they who dropped students not expect did often for at potential the biggest more than 75 percent believe parents drop out As cited to seclusion Chronic Misperceptions One parents decision disabilities adults they comprise disabilities and putting graduation59 of overidentification fullest with students encounter in their disproportionallties that their due simply absences and lower grades these of adults factors risk healthrelated off falling challenges hands inherent own do so60 to While students students are at a disadvantage education of IQ deal with postsecondary school to study revealed that just Special that or standards for students with disabilities their from their often disability also with While these trends are decreases are the result of these states raising students rates for 50 percent below disabilities decreases must 60 percent child A 2006 ACGR with aligned is being held to appropriately high standards are disabilities have shown students with a only about in students rates In are correlated expectations Past surveys incorrectly disabilities on from high school made be determined lowered with 43 percent found also that learning and members parents educators of public Many students of diploma for the general believe but according broad leeway leaving have states graduation cannot the accepts regular Similarly several 201213 in requirements graduation requirements the highest special reported rate what standards the state with ACGR That same survey rates graduation standards set by high example For these if how many a regular which down an estimated event calculations students with diploma vs allows for IDEA disabilities leaving school in other student data to be by raceethnicity shows that nationwide DRNER 579 548 American African percent standard diplomas at and HispanicLatino education students received lower rates than their White far 72 percent counterparts A 2014 special percent Civil disabilities school showed students with population discipline make up 13 percent of the student they comprise 58 percent of those placed seclusion of just reduce or restrained their That same report found are more than twice as more outofschool without move to ability school at immobilize to likely US clear definition students used In States by The Center for report that suspension rates are students with disabilities students with higher than shows that males 338 disabilities at rates Remedies Rights Civil for highest among students percent secondary at higher A 2011 rates than qualified school that nearly special for were suspended period During the study period identified 762 at percent one least compared of and juvenile justice records threequarters education 902 the students disabilities of who are Included ACGR category of the a establish in the be to states not individual school to disabilities they districts intend should to grant to and set students earn a standard diploma should to all establish students a standard and limit prematurely put students with with graduating a standard diploma that is options that exiting disabilities off track to diploma States are to report already required on discipline data by the federal for made government students with disabilities regulation and many have already discipline All data a requirement under states available reporting on should their state move and to make district disaggregated state this report law or data publicly cards one time the students of disturbance and students with a learning 55 percent should the study at least percent Education students of during or expelled disciplinary action to 232 percent are suspended an emotional as having males racialgender subgroups other of analysis Texas found all Black with disabilities 225 graduation in Address disproportionality issues two to three times peers The report also HispanicLatino C suspend and that schools nondisabled their and Black females who of of the allowances States percent in with all available found Department disabilities A 2015 A Limit exiting options as students suspensions The disabilities or F1 Disabilities state levels with one receive to z+ with rate data for students with disabilities at the federal clarify freely65 students with that in and 75 percent confinement or involuntary those physically them that while nne Students I Ensure consistency and comparability and snapshot on Data Collection Rights eCO Policy 3 during had disability the study period students with no recorded disability66 Students with disabilities are as likely to receive suspensions To be more than twice one or more outofschool as students without compliance with IDEA disabilities schools are required to appropriate in provide all students education with disabilities a free and and they must ensure not being suspended students are behavior caused showing significant special education or expelled by their disability However due to the data experienced disparities In disciplinary actions by these students puts schools are failing to meet this into question whether legal obligation Building a Grad Nation May 2015 51 DRIVER 3 Students with Disabilities 1 general dramatic education By any measure the graduation student the rate behind that of lags well disabilities and there population is students for peers their clear with rate the in evidence that allowances way M off falling states for be a students define them However track with without disabilities earn a standard to not serve as a changes to ACGR diploma the and comparable graduation reliable significant by concerted students so will for these result positive in students 90 percent efforts high to their academic graduation be special outcomes toward drive by rate Doing potential life and help the nation school to address the fullest and issues need also will it so many keeping from reaching these Resolving but step first disparities that are the and set these students for accompanied these students face put them at greater challenges risk for measure would a 2020 CASE STUDY Underserving Exiting Options for Special with Disabilities Education Students When When requirements it comes for students with disabilities with a are faced establishing graduation to succeed have chosen setting accommodations have the appropriate to states high while also ensuring these students expectations pathways challenge difficult handle to education State this dilemma and students for all and others in various for education For example states have students to only a standard their special diploma option 12 for while 16 states offer four or more routes requirements for students states are faced accommodations According to percent or many advanced students states includes this diploma which an honors raises the bar for several of the diploma options states lowering provide specifically may to students with disabilities have the unintended consequence standards for special education of students disabilities Multiple diploma options for are also problematic reasons 52 May 2015 students with for the following Grad Nation challenge while also have the and pathways a 2013 appropriate to succeed report from the National Outcomes 85 of students with 90 to disabilities should be requirements expected to meet the same graduation set for all students estimates most states have Despite these established pathways for either students with disabilities allowances for students with both education to Alternative earn a standard exiting pathways diploma of Certificates Achievement diploma for of or special an 1EPSpecial students include Attendance Education Certificates and some occupationaltechnical diplomas while allowances can involve granting extensions criteria eliminating and taking Building a with disabilities difficult setting high expectations disabilities for with a separate graduation graduation Though to establishing graduation Center on Educational moving toward multiple exiting options student populations comes it ensuring these students agencies ways with some leaning toward singular high standards Students lowering performance exit alternative exam courses requirements DRNER CASE STUDY disabilities of students whose diploma requirements alternative Attendance however Certificates of Achievement provide an appropriate many education special exit option students are unnecessarily tracked into lesser pathways that being lower the bar and and with the knowledge go fail to equip them they skills need will to and gain employment college to may seem students with disabilities they can also hurt students offer to diplomas can based students solely into less _ Alternative on perceived in or graduation diploma in their fouryear This means that states offering rate counts are students multiple diploma options ways effectively and rate in many lowering both their overall education standard to rates the graduation rate for their The cohort students advanced or to to keep students graduate with a diploma and provide for itself to achieve in terms of the little higher in the IEP teams institutions diplomas because substandard Additionally unfamiliar with alternative and thus unable to measured by them who are students is do not honor they are seen the parentsguardians to and skills an obvious special education choose a different path as most employers are applying for jobs with such Unfortunately graduation abilities disadvantage employers students are not always and made their high school three or more pathways 10 states with the lowest graduation students Carolina consequences with disabilities only _ Even more concerning states offer an IEPSpecial Education diploma paths _ Conversely rates for fewer options of to IEP teams to determine a diploma the states with the highest graduation students with disabilities half offer two or diploma options a direct correlation and graduation it is designed graduation for be firmly evident that as graduation special rates between diploma rates cannot pathways increase especially for South these lowperforming six of which allows a students alternative one fewer than three diploma options offers established aware can have these though often unintended after rates for Although who significant alternative degrees two or more diploma options and the diplomas and certificates determine This offer all _ Similarly of the stakeholder carry them out education 10 states with the lowest overall graduation majority offers school being to alternative students students graduating with a standard _ Of the place tracks high with are developed to ability course rigorous and are confusing expected that advancedhonors that The data speaks lead to early decisions diploma options many cases to include to consequences _ Alternative Many Rate only allows states them with the support they need postsecondary options _ Graduation Cohort the federal Adjusted definition with disabilities on track greater input By should act as an incentive pathways for = Lower Exiting Options special Although alternative often Disabilities calculation More Confusion flexibility More graduation Diploma Options More with Graduation Rates prevent them from meeting may pathways such as or Students I CONTINUED For the very small percentage standard 3 those specifically education and students students life outcomes are affected Building a Grad Nation May 2015 53 Driver 4 Big Cities/Big Districts DRIVER 4 School graduation state school public in where the are districts rates to and districts the United States there occurs that causes action and rise charter 500 are 14000 the Within fall public school districts each districts in more students or the nations quest to achieve these 500 Collectively school public percent in enrollment These 500 students districts in goals among which the of are all 58 and smaller of all the largest school the major city school which districts city lowincome its include districts the nation of are often districts among the suburban biggest districts districts are also less in populous suburban states or include of the outerring suburbs areas that have experienced these of increases rapid school 40 more or percent of 500 public school HispanicLatino its 58 much and philosophies embodied and policies and regulations codes be exerted should differ of graduation credit and course and assessment complicated are the also varies entities and funding policy that to support students public also publicly the national report is these graduation their districts rates Cohort Graduation Adjusted 814 percent of is of this The remaining and other religious accountable K12 for their and must students outcomes eg authorized although home schools charter private they educate about to tried central will Growing for choose to which a portfolio from certain on greater accountability and charter a common within teams planning have opted take school with accountability their school parents are the students school graduation rates need to struggling faced in to is combine the rapid with them best be assisted of how century have their population school shifts including the number of lowincome nonacademic needs students are the that Growing numbers of students poverty cultural the adults who English traditions that teach is Not since the waves changing 20th who succeeding students can the early in in living is such how an understanding with immigration is know who to are navigating districts them may while differ bring from those some may also be speakers parochial not 15 local and students and system population result of ACGR schools are tried efficiencies from immigrant and minority communities also of institutions privately also schools are encouraged and the growing based educational schools they it new nonnative i have schools are exempted which major increases upon which Rate In and how districts devising that of and build by experimenting example for the option student widely across while efforts decisionmaking local and supported improve schools and and implementing strategies It not and use for must navigate terrain economies and what some view as too much over schools businesslike requirements funding Much attend increase how much on accountability and data collection improvement School states Districts locally districts ones successful in between Another challenge curriculum influence administrative over the past 15 years has improvement and funding legislation over so activity schools operate district district in same schools regulations given over and frequent and the desire to personalize size will control churn less a balance innovative students have only so district relationships local decisionmaking States reform district strike approach and 47 percent students lowincome the and almost the hallmark of big are days though of districts percent of the nations African American markedly Simultaneously and engagement of community partners of students has shrunk numbers public that collectively educate all is that districts districts matter more and more At the to reorganizations these autonomy K 12 enrollments with districts 15000 there are 117000 the of the number of time superintendent authority United States students yet the number of public improve has escalated to come has counterbalance over the past decade In the K12 million II schools has grown Increasingly poverty in but a fraction size of in major metropolitan in is 193940 As pressure of substantial War organization to As such they capture areas within their boundaries most Some of nearly double that of preWorld in the nations African American and Hispanic of students and 47 percent Latino critical 40 percent educate US the prove will graduation its districts students that 50 existed Todays districts 15000 educating Districts Big CitiesBig 1 publicly percent of ii Digest of Education Statistics 1995 Table 38 Retrieved from the population Building a Grad Nation May 2015 55 DRIVER 4 Districts Big CitiesBig J A few leadership most states the In inflection in point school larger public raising the national rate graduation especially particularly Even small lowincome for though of portion and minority these large nationally the number total school of a large number of Americas educate The top 10 14000 school a students districts of percent eight full Almost have all 38 in million into fall students our countrys total number students school of nearly The top 500 than two percent of the percent four of to more than New 1 serving students each million Fla MiamiDade County 185000 County and Fla County County Fla Orange County Houston A Independent Hawaii Department of Education Fla Several are more suburban few others are highly urbanized meeting the public perception of innovation than with the networking of University Research School Chicago collaborations Chicago particularly New York by exemplified for that districts are both although the in decade last have and 10 and highminority New as urban Newark Nashville the to National Digest Education of Statistics Selected Core Most Data of Students in percent The number Membership with by State and that there are 289 locales 116 in of and Percentage Jurisdiction percent town of Statistics School Year students and locales enrolled 254 in rural the for City Suburban Common Town and of distribution 20112012 in the locales city 34 locales competition ii its The Broad Prize disadvantaged Visions is suburban in Schools Membership average national 20112012 School Year Elementary Rural Public of in with Paul City Memphis Fresno Louisville MinneapolisSt The clusters Baltimore Atlanta are density population metropolitan include districts with Some populations on based are part of greater according Currently i Chicago Consortium on Likewise some Milwaukee collaboration are laboratories the and and big districts of students Birmingham City Boston highpoverty urban Prize emblematic of urban needs are districts urban needs Nev Hillsborough Broward and to as large urban districts for Philadelphia the Top of not classified see Appendix I Clark and Maryland student outcomes several memory and 100000 moved out York City Los Angeles Unified Chicago Public Schools and Texas the total Other giants exist highpoverty of Urban and lowincome public Detroit nearly lost students wellknown are sizes all California numbers category So do highpoverty The Top 10 of Many winners and runnersup Broad Foundation in example million Americas students of 518 districts of 14 educate districts onethird 40 percent educate less districts 185000 and North Carolina increasing minority this enshrined The top 200 prevalent in are rate 31000 districts Nevada in improvements nowpaused the of graduation but also Georgia minority students fraction tiny states their ones most large Florida they districts educate nationally a students representing a districts with are districts such as Clark County each Suburban students students American and HispanicLatino African Department of Educations The Top 200 serve between by students 2020 key to driving the are districts NYC Schools and the Public and provide for the nations seeks students public to to reward districts showcase incentives best for districts schools For more that are improving achievements practices to of successful improve information and restore districts public levels of create confidence in visit TABLE 13 Summary of ACGR Rate School Districts in Terms 2011 and 2013 and Percent of LowIncome Top500 the Districts Total K12 Average N Students in of Total ACGR K12 Enrollment Average Students Average 201011 in Adjusted Cohort Graduation 20112013 ACGR Average 201213 ACGR Percentage through 56 LowIncome Students Points 3789381 70 74 35 G5 11200 10811845 77 81 31 55 201500 6698839 79 83 33 52 21300065 78 82 33 53 500 The average Sources Average Top10 All Note Change 201113 between US ACGRs Department provisional May 2D 15 data file and change of Education of between National SY201112 Building a and 201113 Center SY201213 Grad Nation are weighted for Education District Level per districts Statistics within 201213 FourYear each grouping Public ElementarylSecondary Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation School Rates Universe Surveys US Department of Education DRIVER 4 Likewise In Road Map group this are seven of southern of Seattle in common career readiness home and and developing rates in category this to and Eranclsco NE Oakland Omaha and Lncoln St Louis and State In rates graduation improvement Among Others are key minority for 610 of medium and In may NCLB in The Top 500 enrollments return to driving and lowincome CORE for include plus 15000 students three to Youngstowni into for and waivers state steps districts located with all Iin The Ohio group and this 8 from an are highpoverty how of example and fall a few districts with concentrated minority students can strongly influence progress or decline Top 500 show progress years Each Los Angeles For more ii Seven Oakland information states Sacramento on North Dakota Kentucky and based on early reporting City Clovis Fresno San Francisco Garden Grove Sanger and Santa Beach Long Ana Unified visit districts enrolling South Dakota Oklahoma Akron Canton Youngstown CORE have no Montana iii include did not report more than Vermont and 15000 K12 Wyoming students Three ACGR for the years covered US Department of Education in Main states this Idaho in reveal more deeply efficiently rorwaru aiiun clearly that graduation these larger of districts in has not size district school high grouping a threepoint gain rates recent in averaged districts doing driver of Behind these average rates of A over the past three years school rate have improvements there is subgroup of the large rates of Some so Iin districts improvement significant experienced districts and average recent graduation a more complex pattern largest that are majority the national demonstrates that the 500 largest been a over the past rates graduation in student populations with This exceeds improvement 124 of the top 500 saw improvements more percentage largest percentage points In districts points and on average more than three the aggregate these and 61 districts collaborating by state will lowincome about gained of six or 84 times the national districts lowIncome percent average are majorityminority Collectively these districts majority about students The 10 progress of 10 the Top 200 and the remaining Big educate i graduation determined The two years a not yet reporting over states time span under consideration Akron students accountability 200 the Top of at least seven states with specific state most their 3xamining Graduation Rate the graduation Districts than rather district in small drive large districts that applied as a group received the particularly Washington Iin the largest that are districts these are the California collaboration but are and those with low enrollments states from and Tacoma Seattle and which state their group this Portland San lcne i iriving to RI are also be explored can that at panorama state districts and solutions arrived and solutions to similar that influence the at a seeking such as Providence needs local minority is both with and without districts Looking 500 the Top and move from home that district of states smaller in across state district some with all understanding data college to A number and the districts State This group problems such as students familiesiv the in educational impact lowincome of Washington approach districts Schools Public numbers the highest students the King County collaboration of of a collective Project67 half most Districts Big CitiesBig 1 10 Another of minority percent 88 of the nations high school large districts and lowincome gains of about four 200plus districts large percentage also with students a saw average points Together these were among the main engines report waivers from the Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton City Toledo and iv For more htto information on Road Map Project and Building its regional work a Grad Nation visit May 2015 57 DRIVER 4 Districts Big CitiesBig I TABLE 14 Largest School Districts with at Least from 2011 Gap Averages 2013 and Students Percent of Z tp• y CJ to 15000 ie Students <5i e b ACGR Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate and LowIncome Black White Hispanic O 500 Roughly c 4 c s> 6 or 124 5439240 700 785 85 302 254 360 610 Change 459 88 3411942 768 813 45 342 176 396 562 Change 239 127 4771725 804 829 26 292 169 437 507 Change 119 58 2038625 880 890 10 274 139 469 424 52 2058572 828 828 00 277 136 463 479 2845393 795 782 33 321 179 382 531 49476346 790 814 24 2430 1570 5100 5090 Change More Change 0 69 Less then 0 National Totals US Sources through of Department provisional recent data of Education of file progress lowincome improving in Center for SY201213 Education District graduation 500 of the top saw districts and and HispanicLatino Black Some 124 National SY201112 201213 FourYear among rates students six or percentage points and on average percentage paints gained B4 69 students saw three or that their lost ground On average rates decline graduation percentage so large however points districts that modest gains below the by a were there owincome a majority of minority and with these to more than little saw no improvement national and on average student Overall largest 58 somewhat average 100 very or These districts May 2015 initial graduation smaller minority rates and populations deeper analyses school higher districts Building a of the progress show a Grad Nation pattern falling progress rapid when made similar to by the what student quite Department Education of no broad trends Instead composition outcomes different and others improvements back in US among the states have outsized or Surveys Rates size or district some with lagging This demonstrated that large and improving graduation leadership district community supports rates is Infrastructure indeed and over a sustained are aligned period time largest of Districts on State Graduation Rates Influence insights final into the significance of the 500 patterns can be seen when districts the middle were another In somewhat have districts Some districts lowincome tended on similar of the other end of the spectrum districts based possible than three times the Graduation has been observed behind national average At Cohort Adjusted making more School Universe ElementarySecondary Public Regulatory largest school improvements of more Statistics Level among them is examined and explanations in is graduation major districts some state overall its rates of across districts the its by state Here some emerge suggesting in in this played California clear For exampie the decline Arizona was experienced variables improvement large side level in the rate of improvement case that by all of perhaps a role By contrast resulted from more of being on the positive than the negative ledger but with highly variable major districts This likely improvements indicates that its r DRIVER 4 TABLE 15 i of Larger c nnn n of Districts 1Ia1 of Larger 11 Big CitiesBig Districts RA of Larger 1 of Larger Larger of of Larger Larger 1 2 1 4 2 Michigan 1 Missouri Nebraska Nevada 1 New New 1 Ohio 4 Oregon Rhode 1 South 4 Tennessee 1 Virginia West 1 > State 6 Percentage Points Alabama Improvement between Districts 459 239 1 1 6 Arizona between Districts between Districts Districts 129 between and 1 19 Districts with Zero Change Districts Negative Arkansas 2 1 1 d 1 0 10 0 1 Connecticut ice 2 Hawaii Illinois 2 California j Colorado DC 23 18 21 2 4 6 3 1 s 13 9 13 J with Change 9 1 r 1 • 1 Delaware Honda Georgia 13 9 8 10 8 2 2 Indiana Kansas Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 5 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 T 1 2 2 1 •l 7 7 8 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 1 1F York Pennsylvania 1 j j 2 1 Hampshire 2 1 1 1 1 North Carolina 1 1 j New Mexico 1 3 6 Jersey 3 1 3 Mississippi 3 4 • Minnesota 1 2 1 Iowa 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 Island Carolina Washington Texas 8 14 Utah 6 1 2 1 4 3 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 21 16 16 8 10 1 546 2 2 4 1 1 5 1 Virginia Wisconsin Note States that do not have districts in the Top 500 are not 2 included in this table Building a Grad Nation May 2015 59 DRIVER 4 improvement was driven more by the aggregation overall of is Districts Big CitiesBig J actions district seen Texas in than state Texas progress graduation rates in New York and part the result of four large saw their largest into shows districts Illinois districts is at least each in in state in that graduation that big rates the 500 in performance district Is boundaries whatever their urban and poverty highly dependent on the of state those district In itself that are districts improving In continued requires is that improvement the ability of and large students districts preferred and among will depend that are energy and attention a redoubling is a common future is directions clear however the nation to reach a 90 percent rate overall lowincome administrative students its minority on continued already improving and gains for renewed from those that are leveling off and of efforts and additional that are struggling support for those May 2015 Building a train and to formatively performance of and schoolwide subgroups In and students regarding all Review and rewrite attendance codes district behavior jeopardy is that conflate provisions conduct of and course best practices That performance eliminate tardies double attendance baseline minor discipline Allocate to Fund a funding above the supplemental that students defined will position educate ABC by data strategies teachers of data propositions description for and administrators guide interventions Embrace the concept Provide who and Intervention effectiveness so that interest required is factor to translate educators and commitment to data interpretation to of atrisk Interpreter the principal and to monitor and improve Expand the job district numbers as well as demographic with actionable Into large per school work sidebyside ABC and suspensions referrals schools both skills and use of data for hiring counseling of distributed professional development and technical assistance for to understand strategies Grad Nation infrastructure Individually intervention 60 organize use data to enhance constructively for and enable policies district district district understanding of statebystate analysis What graduation those A deep districts size stressed but not extremely so Using data to guide the path forward thread as well as There are clear and every level the within by the community set success stories at every particularly characteristics and expectations regulations informally Write to reflect a deeper dive Overall backsliding decline rates graduation made the overall slowing the recent Finally similar pattern districts than demonstrated or retreated improvement reflecting significant of more There however modest improvements A initiatives to teams ABC of schoolbased data to implement intervention monitor effectiveness strategies educators as needed and to redesign DRIVER 4 Way on Larger Districts Lead the A California leader Graduation CORE Map and the Road California Washington State are among multi Districts in the concept CORE driven Districts RMP and highminority diverse student populations Both have Two solutionoriented School District and Tacoma RMP experienced ups and are also profiled here in COREs original Public Washington State just to the Inspired by work Tacoma collective for idea What was to south RMP of and has recently built it five on districts that have on school improvement for districts and been working a considerable time graduation Both have districts rates substantially particularly for raised lowincome and demonstrates minority students which compellingly that economically learn at high levels when poor children in supportive of color school novel a pioneer is characteristic of all these examples the use of data as a structuring element at understand all grade and organizational levels to nonacademic children and schools from both and academic perspectives to for greater CORE school wasnt a years before between was target COREs first new way to Fresno index gained Waiver and has the to No This an exemption Child Left Behind engage parents and more deeply communities the SQII Index districts potential commitment look at children School Quality Improvement CORE reform The in school feature is an emphasis among low and highperforming on learning collective flyers schools except for schools that are similar performance High across districts priority and which are paired flyers will the teach low schools as defined by the federal government the ingredients right proportions lead to that combined success in while also peermentoring deepening environments A distinctive formed from a partnership lessons second important highminority of crossdistrict readiness Both Fresno and Tacoma are highpoverty County districts and networking collective formed an informal regional education Pierce further relentless cycle collective from the requirements of with neighboring undertake and Long Beach Unified their CORE member Schools to California and college established for 10 effort accountability new approach Fresno Unified an Two years ago success but both hold great promise districts a continuous and a visionary serve lowincome downs and monitor gains in new often developing community by shared vision and drawing on contributors strengths The needs the solutions into education transposed action of to to improvement collective They embody ones efforts RMP Project West Coast the interventions problem Two solvable collaborations the district in a is remarked recently Districts Big CitiesBig 1 their knowledge The imperative disproportionate through underlying number of youth CORE is the and in poverty participating English Language districts Californias Learners all of served by whose success is key to future Building a Grad Nation May 2015 61 DRIVER 4 Districts Big CitiesBig I LARGER DISTRICTS LEAD THE WAY ON THE WEST COAST CORE backed by nine is John W Gardner Center and Their Communities indicators In and validated developed leading and a databased partnership with foundations Stanfords of Californias Youth the SQII metrics tailored to Californias is intended give a picture to as measured growth by the high school and social as measured by parent chronic Learner expulsion thrive and motivating in their learning the it acknowledges them In the last year the school pairing variant of a strategy for also a learning community and sharing schooldeveloped expertise improvement Schools New efforts and New by school employed also such as North Carolina Visions for Public New Schools in CORE results are promising include releasing formats that parents SQII results in can understand lowperforming and that will social push schools students to increase outcomes through community expectations CORE member Fresno an original increased 62 May 2015 its worker and the district and encouraging schools have a supports a catalog in need of credits more students to to of graduate graduate A college G attending and career ready by meeting Californias course minimum requirements requirements fouryear public on Superimposed this that not only keeps is to for colleges and universities a of cycle school reviews school leaders on their toes administrators but also invites collaboration Farther north in Map now also graduation Building a heads CORE rate from Grad Nation whose has 69 percent Washington Project serving southern with district set a goal students on college is State the Road south King County and the highpoverty Schools in superintendent identified Next years innovative efforts will to together with and shares learning among principals York City Early is nonacademic students to needs Targeting students an building now that being extended required CORE process present interventions interesting professional began toward SQII and academic the be engaged to with a view an Early Warning System Carefully attending and suspension CORE components into lower grades and also being folded and student of giving students the skills importance to so In doing rates down the in constantly being refined emotional rates it success of conditions Using data with absenteeism English redesignation nearly four years ago on the whole child and tracking focus trajectory changing rates but also staff intensive students rates of learning perceptions An that Others break districts and by four five and school climate a village takes and which has now been shared among not only of sixyear high school graduation the it as base This index began lunch Some price approach children readiness to in a of the children are and reduced improvement 201314 in which 85 percent in attribute by academic performance and middle school students of district 79 percent to using academics evidence well as to the national 20092010 eligible for free CORE year first its for in CONTINUED to area of Seattle Public double track to graduate the ready number for Top RTT success and career by 2020 Launched 2010 and aided by a $40million Race award RMP collaboration has focused and networking on among of to in the collegial districts DRIVER 4 LARGER DISTRICTS LEAD THE WAY ON THE WEST COAST Systems and building Early Warning college and career readiness raising a new Setting model led by the Community Center is Education nine such variety CCER Results Educational improvement the for PSESD in the state districts of school that deliver including service one and helping lead implementation of childhood Early Warning Systems RMP work and effort brings together early regions and funders to improve outcomes 121000 students lowincome of partners for this which 59 percent are twothirds of color and 16 percent Learners English Language The road has sometimes been bumpy years only a few who collaboration up as originally signed remain in office and of the the use of different complexity data systems across Yet true to contributes districts original college goals by the Class of 2013 th 1 I and 12th grade more advanced Curriculum of RMP had taken one students courses to readiness 58 percent AP IB or or Cambridge and African American students percentage increased their AP participation by 9 points The data systems are advancing and some Systems districts to are extending the early grades to Early Warning provide a long view of needs and progress Most importantly remained accomplishments the vision has collaborative have gained enough four Pierce Clover Park with PSESD Warning County districts Franklin Pierce facilitation needs them for to the dropout Johns Hopkins Three years list Center Universitys Today the 78 percent is the Washington ago high factory Social Organization of Schools rate Eight Tacomas comprehensive of were named at and high expectations State superintendent named Tacoma Zone Innovation improvement the Schools adopted different practices and there enrollment throughout district first is now open There has the county been a keen emphasis on motivating and After five of the superintendents members all graduation school leaders members community school board ago developed the and students child students in achieving schools RTT TPS Schools supporting as well as setting years a facilitating of the Fresno Tacoma Public on the whole for with the Puget Sound Service District CONTINUED focuses Like collaboration national RMP Districts Big CitiesBig 1 Local notice that including Bethel and Tacoma have supporting students in going to college The supports College Bound program which has seventh free It and eighthgraders and reduced the class above for price of lunch or in foster 2014 the graduation lowincome students who did Bound an important with a for care who graduate those for eligible rate was percent compared with 62 percent 81 College Tacoma flourished in promises financial aid For a statewide Scholars program 27 Likewise recruiting Pathways a score higher on each section of the SAT higher on the ACT to Promise strategy gives students GPA or higher not register for acceptance to of 480 or a 21 or or area fouryear colleges recognition In 2015 12 Tacoma schools received as some of the in Washington highest performing schools State organized around Early Systems work Building a Grad Nation May 2015 63 Driver 5 Big States DRIVER 5 We in Americas of percent Fiftyfive 10 states just Carolina These and without meet York Florida public and North 85 to nearly school high million students progress the nation percentage York Texas in of average these states and North Carolina with 814 six states percent The instance showing for already rate of nearly the graduation In States in Terms of High School h nationally urban 1 California 2077291 Texas 1397282 8 Michigan 9 Georgia 480340 10 North Carolina 453950 8494762 55 New 3 906805 York 4 Florida 853342 5 Illinois 634355 6 Pennsylvania 7 598873 565173 Ohio 527351 Totals This each state total enrollment as students student Source in in the of total eligible number for United States order from the the United States high free of high for These respectively Columbia The percentage enrollment states York Florida Illinois Georgia and or all high schools do figures nation school students to for within each student largest to smallest for the topten each subgroup percent largest This table of high states divided in school terms is its that districts but many of in large Ir it New will these highneeds hit be increases York and for difficult goal rate districts and have by the recession in below rates well true is their 90 percent graduation were hard challenge concentrated compounded is poverty Pennsylvania in formula As one of only three districts in andor those the state leaves with group by have elimination of and others who in guidance often the direction Governor its with by its states Tom the require to stay issues budget brought the librarians office staff the services highneeds in school the state legislature Wolf more challenged few years counselors can provide of Severe last for many highneeds poorest fewer resources Philadelphia students of more money a formula that provides districts calculated state reach which students racialethnic lunch were reducedpriced school students above little lowerincome the District each for have three All The same more progress of without the United States within not include ranging from a rates have graduation still average school funding At Figures include number 10 over the past decade 13 9 6 6 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 descending the smaller public high Given the size of these states experienced in Americas progress districts national many total seen highpoverty substantial without total percent percent Michigan and Ohio experienced on average the the the states Ohio Michigan graduation Illinois well 768 into these in New in their the dividing 832 over the past decade has not spread Texas Pennsylvania made as 08 and improvements Student 201213 to within while North Carolina Enrollment and 02 York City have students live in just California five TABLE 16 Note rate of rate of rates districts percent of Fiftyfive Pennsylvania TopTen a New Chicago and momentum school widely with Florida also varies 2013 States remains above Illinois a graduation lagging with is urban highpoverty ranges from 717 percent these states above the national for average New respectively with to decreases of posted Illinois points from 2011 Big significant but for York and national increases point Interestingly Cohort Graduation reported Average recently ACGR increase New but not will percentage gains Georgia to 88 percent in home students 2020 goal its The most Rate million continued their New Ohio Michigan Georgia Big States are the nations 147 of school high Texas California Pennsylvania Illinois public I a revised funding and thrive and Pennsylvania formula is under consideration by the sorted student of high school enrollment US 1201213 Education National ElementarySecondary School Department Public of Center for Universe Education Statistics Surveys Building a Grad Nation May 2015 65 DRIVER 5 Big States 1 Additional the nations public than enrollment become the 90 percent points rates of in the same period made but last its improvements graduation 47 years by and has rate enabled graduate in the top 10 of the percentage gain points the making their sheer size themselves Many these of to raising their innovation students all lowincome of minority They as well as those for toward and whom school rates and the students not their native from the public practices causes Pennsylvania readiness innovation In these that is States Big catching is the effective and across rates and support data to identify students and influence struggling Child W George Left programs and policies Bush Behind Act signed in early 2002 into the for law by President time required first performance all states districts accurately and schools student to report and by subgroups Subsequent federal nonprofit investments in state longitudinal and warehouses 35 Data Quality Campaign the operations schools also features that of their data systems databases By 2015 according paid off states data systems69 had underlying empowered educators not only who was in but also who was heading trouble at for the to end trouble to the had streamlined Many capabilities Building a Grad Nation analytic patterns number indicator of states and data available to increasingly to active New data to drive school New and student improvements York State and the state at York City and Chicago have Illinois have been less level Increased for of districts real know attention at to data and the creation students and time a glance a grading period in need of data of additional support have been major contributors to North Carolinas Public growth rate graduation Instruction In 2006 rate to for the time at first 25 to 2009 the but also graduation 683 state 4 percentage its cohort graduation by 2013 percent has seen it was up annual increases range point taken a rate approach holistic attacking at in Over those years has espoused not only effective North Carolina data reported While progress was slow and steady percent since Superintendent of June Atkinson North Carolina the 825 said State use of to raising its the problem from many fronts contributors with efforts to the large rising and small Among the major graduation rate Greater focus on ninth grade Atkinson where lists data showed most students drop out and the implementation atrisk of ninthgrade academies in the mostchallenged schools Development of a software ninthgraders based May 2015 Georgia applying elementary eighth 66 recently to establish field in success and challenges warning early secondary schools their first The No health has joined the growing making that are one the country on and improving graduation use of good More approach student of systems for identifying and career and college graduation right and time became subgroups education is ABCs using policy and are special by committed the of patterns performance at improvement an epidemiological adopted all have including English rate graduation states graduation their navigator programs to move language the national at 10 states Texas was an early leader Big datadriven although drive by looking later and course students to identify dashboards and reports were developed schools as well Big 10 states Warning Early a possibility used The educators years behavior and identify the largest percentagepoint three rate students Hispanic Georgia has the lowest over the to likely attendance Among graduation its a key driver of national graduation goal 2012 and 2013 both in meanwhile increased percentage not known as getting help to the right person over the past two years with an 88 cohort rate California states and more students Analytic nearing is stagnated percent 44 onefifth HispanicLatino burgeoning Texas Although growth school high Systems which high schools public in the of half more than for became use of data This and Texas account California of include highlights grade system that on students identifies performance in DRIVER 5 comprehensive on career and Emphasis Prominent in as well as highly specialized schools high education technical centers technical history Career and College Promise a program that gives helping students an qualifying credits or technical to opportunity to earn college certifications after grade 1011 a seamless transfer from high school provide to community college reductions Significant RTI creation School but to enhance schools Placement students their offerings noted without districts needs and date to that adequate and teachers North Carolina salaries average out of 50 states in slightly requirements resources to help their of credits Despite these changes schools but diploma of college them while diplomas high a high school prepares credit school credit or careers for left dozen public Carolina and partners private the University of North Community College practices high program has expanded schools and spread the state according of president North for principals and coaches instructional the program provides classrooms of in culture and best Angela Quick senior Through and professional approaches across consistent Instruction a highlyqualified both urban and its New Schools Carolina that aligns collegegoing to into teachers rural districts in in about 80 the states counties an economic $9500 about North Carolina in 20141568 Board of Education number generation first year Per pupil spending also this the state State a network is early college two years that System the New Schools schools funding putting in the federal government development in four Carolina and the North trainings funding funds to many remain for their high not only certificate more than including vice shifts political school seen with graduate across decrease not Carolina as early college schools that give an associates degree percent the state have of below the national dropped this Schools that started Carolina students but rates North the opportunity to earn college comprehensive more in students Many pockets recovery and reduced legislature Atkinson highest 42n11 courses enrolled have influenced that 2010 the new districts many With Advanced with technology capabilities has seen economic a 10year Public 100 courses the superintendent said over this period In also New in many North are only graduation Carolina small collegegoers North with and growth 140 schools schools usually and mortar brick and credit recovery elective North Carolina high innovation not change North more than to Intervention Virtual more than 500000 students have than of an affecting is a professional the North Carolina of not to supplant traditional sharpen as Response Behavior that educational and beyond In PBIS Support The and Positive also group of high achievers New Schools completing both short and longterm In programs such suspensions through Interventions Carolina this in States Big I required to addition In increased the the graduate North Carolina schools continue Superintendent to post rising rates graduation Atkinson a cited in culture many switch districts from emphasizing statewide dropouts to emphasizing graduates others to do likewise encourages students honors in the culture shift is part a of campaign The Message Graduate graduation which The and encouraging all citizens to do their part keeping in school Atkinson districts and schools with the highest annually recognizes and cohort September graduation rates ago she recalled When honoring 2013 she honored nearly 420 high this celebration 10 began 10 to 12 schools districts and 46 five years In of the states schools Building a Grad Nation May 2015 67 DRIVER 5 New Big States 1 Schools has an impressive percent schools of in record network its 2014 88 In had graduation The graduation rates lowincome above the national 863 males was average students in The New Schools of the states of New are in Schools takes schools for adopt often many far is the program comprehensive in continues project model the grants expand especially areas of North Carolina and recently New into rural retaught and even reaching network said schools outside Edna Wallace and Partnerships for program as Duplin County where the New moving all into When she was first superintendant in is It South including whole Schools Carolina such preK even spreading also second its districts the schools Schools practices states other is Through challenges The use to four and Mississippi problems Getting difficult comes that milestone I am Atkinson said she 85 percent into districts for of several states improve school profile that are funding California now new policies to and management rollout match money attempt how to to The formula foster 68 Formula need and let youth May 2015 in targets and improving particularly English Building a a bold families decide and student performance72 lowincome language Grad Nation is districts best allocate dollars and to involve stakeholders other to there more at learners districts proved input school engage fully formula budgeting however has an time to meet these is California difficulties school state funding resources distribution of equitable this taking is the most support with a students needing process that moves communities It indeed is and noble an agenda power from the state to local as ambitious a grand vision as any state has set 1171 systems Georgia Attempting 2007 to give requiring local communities and school the Georgia every passed a law legislature choose to district quo the status Maintain one of three students who make the current within operating system and practices regulations of the an Investing charter freedom exchange The in Excellence a moderate degree Become a in system for of with it that makes a fiveyear waives in effect system its will is state Education flexibility greater and flexibility a charter a system district contract with If be terminated will these are not A is not chooses this the state regulations federal and together they measures performance charter most in higher performance goals department explains remain for Georgia Department Education option Funding so early to combine a step which Control some resources to about little a system of charter schools74If California Californias Local lacked the plans decisionmaking to of and Georgia two implementing that its first for community significant The funding goalsetting7° with ahead we submitting the for challenges mechanism or Become Looking hold management systems by June 15 2015 Even as view she conceded not satisfied with that goal year was not without first communities that knew in set a graduation goal of its timeline greater voice elected state 2D05 just taking is plans was short the state regulations aimed Senior Director of Policy New Schools grant the New the formula this funding many areas and in bold been taught and standards have coaching its measure progress will it 2013 in And despite program to more students want to offer the Principals how law into eightyear states other into plan use the money to improve student will and services their submit a threeyear to required it for these three of were delayed and the template caused addition In Innovation to high the school throughout use the early college Investing Signed Quick When programs best practices With two federal said said into how million concentrations high supplemental grants is six percent five than the number greater district detailing our schools instance teachers districts Schools its Each with receive groups the states more than of Districts outcomes no more than graders every year Atkinson the impact who students Black for for schoolssg partner graduate 1211 Nevertheless rate percent and 934 percent students73 up 63 percent set laws improved met key component the of this widespread community input on the vision schools DRIVER 5 The Georgia effort new too is gauge to implement monitor and improve on impact its making schools Fulton in students County letters As choices March 2015 28 of 24 another of intent the states 180 now districts one strategic Concentrate on relevant instruction and Through of more than 100 leaving working still wholeschool toward the June deadline72 early themed moves toward the nation 2020 percent graduation rate in major challenges 90 a one of and school antheground infrastructure goad data to translate rate graduation building will in 2020 one and school district of its into ontheground student improvements in Few schools allot if and any state formulas funding position a of organizer This analyze schoolwide would students within and beyond if any demand an infrastructure to to adults support to using while from know how a school accomplish and improve these efforts plans required accountability and schools other the classroom data to monitor and continually Few position and gradelevel trends team and organize the leadership these while districts students With data create place states Better learning networks school graduation rates position in schools At all in individuals past and current and work with a new fully schools need levels fulltime responsibilities patterns for ABC norm and school of tailoring and structures outcomes different are all for students critical to more dreams across to be developed Each proximate to create which similar states of are not the Big 10 Currently states for example has something states and multiple things it are only regional As a can to offer learn associations result there is the other from them or national no established forum important Ohio to learn from Georgia or Florida from California across high choice for state learning state and share networks would and innovations regional provide valuable an lessons borders districts funded a person aim to understand school in increasing by urging and expecting and schools to make provisions whose systems out lessons learned always geographically outlet to data and early warning their mechanisms need Creating can go a long way toward and innovations organizations tasks manager longitudinal the schools Create networks for similar states to share for ABC is it High expectations achieving there will expected is going to need to achieve this This individual preserving changes datainterpreterschool new improvement students different support education new funds for an essential education everyone from the historical opportunities to translate and practice policy this is instructional good data is shift on focus responsibility to figure assumptions about to practices major challenges infrastructure be a major to form of postsecondary and that and communitys schools the economy and that in that some receive into begin early and some postsecondary and training expectations a 90 percent moves toward achieving and graduate the of program culture the expectations become the norm what each student Data challenges nation on so one world school high a collegegoing infuse require will to districts real Both students and adults need schooling into student supports As the needs to the to Given the clear trends culture it is building district can states projectbased their curricula the early college of also most jobs its in academies career programs Districts continue achieving schools technical a connection learning with from preschool Recommendations high and embed support and can As college schools hallmarks Big State Policy improvement plans collegegoing culture are districts have chosen districts management options the other In being phased is are only districts rates systems with 20 more submitting as charter approved of instance the system for over three years Other their and graduation achievement and group individual States Big I the data for groups and leaders to design Building a Grad Nation May 2015 69 I The Quest to 90 Looking Across the Five Drivers graduation made school high most challenged progress and 2013 Progress both proof progress and states and in also districts places result of by and substantial early graduation This stands as outcomes can and a challenge to some cases shows that across rates states progress has occurred and the problem is not the conclusion 2020 to achieving is the nation that while a 90 percent achieve to high a number of key states that that outcome these Efforts within for and supports states Reversing and be central to achieving will 90 percent HispanicLatino students California significant overall for lowincome and and them need African New York American education special still Ip to the overall goal of Florida while improvements be central are struggling to the recent declines as well as outcomes remains graduation will students all be redoubled Illinois school having witnessed have worrisomely low outcomes for their African American and special education need to students do better Colorado their by Washington and Oregon lowincome HispanicLatino be graduation and special the nation to education achieve rate for African Michigan is 70 true for students a 90 percent May 2015 with Building a will high lot school better HispanicLatino Grad Nation for difficult American students without and Georgia doing a Arizona It Ohio and the students same Armed to like in have final states and schools within them more students ensure act and improving leveled Tennessee York City This or those have seen graduation diversity states to progress over the leaders appear districts for tells to decade high school will get their have graduation to order made the rates including districts need in graduate and were progress and Texas and these early leaders districts and beyond first we that districts off in their us that gaps and graduation reforms and practice a number of states and districts broad social forces pace rate Finally particular evidencebased of can make progress have not seen the same rate of that have worked that The second on Ip students and gaps widen The decline closing and has highly in states graduation students all districts and progress that high positive in both data on these these states and the its groups and lowincome racialethnic for Some and districts and middle and highIncome be achieved improving in with knowledge the First over the past decade rate remarkable gaps between stand out groups of students and all states made have remarkable between 2011 across the nations high school of conclusions graduation recently occurred drivers five rate three has nation the across Looking find for like New a second all students to 90 percent A Tale From the beginning we of made have of a it our work to priority school and those who an active voice efforts to on the dropout challenge listen who people both those young Two of graduated the perspectives to We them want to give of reality on the challenges perspectives schools the high the in two interviewed from the same family and asked students their We and lives experiences their them share to within presented was household 22 grew up up Growing in the same single in and there were times when difficult home a singleparent their family homeless lacked stable housing Ryana described growing These were to find up we were food kind As of and just a few of the barriers Lashon Ryana experienced public and struggled High School Brockton US the 912 not to began school school his began but quickly Boston Massachusetts courts that class an a year where a prison friends but the school his at truancy not have Lashon eventually the started East Boston was no High School where graduation rates and cause havoc in middle school began skipped bringing classes After Lashon for Lashon a school his only losing with goal two He became a knife with him to school often leave in look good violence safe so he Again are assigned said like felt graduating Most direction real one High School of and of his made it through years and did not feel he without fell into from school and work a subculture of responsibility to any Lashon he needed value he found finally to turn the his began families Following says Lashon turned his life when program Here come and understand with the higher education like his and taught to an Associates is her role around going to end up in him valuable YouthBuild he went on to Massasoit Community College where he graduated and received change to gave him opportunities to build homes lowincome skills the streets models and mentoring around that For the community Lashon the support he needed provided GED role life and opportunity a diploma the millions of opportunity disconnected nearly three fe low historically was to stopped feeling and would attended friends to Brockton leaving earn his better being did high school for High school out without no High School Lashon the same fate and never suffered YouthBuild forced the get involved to with at and were 2001 In he was referred to his local YouthBuild in him with the guidance home and teachers before a school he aged way his High grades in 2006 Lashon in around him This disconnection from School did factory school attending Brockton improvements Brockton at alternative was sent on After elementary Lewis Middle he lacked and in disconnected feel necessary to provide and structure skipping to He attended education resources promise in of his students enrolled administrators a dropout labeled of restructuring efforts impressive last one Though annually Lashon academic the largest high schools day first began Lashon 4000 around with youth who Lashon showed to the to the as they progressed through system school the expulsion Following was Lashon 25 and Ryana try On back on track interventions year he was expelled making improved parent Lashon the and how they can be they attended quick sophomore were no there and our work and to ground our country in schools improve High were East Boston Administrators at suspend him and get communities in day the to dropped out of high Students jail degree His sister model because from a place where or killed to a with where of the Ryana way he he was he is 38 GPA only today the middle of Building a Grad Nation May 2015 71 Though Kyanas Story The studentcounselor would take By said way weeps an appointment to get time I had that to out figure it t she my own cope to School the schools a student improvement at Brockton were efforts High well considered underway resulting graduation increased in a dropout factory however wasnt an honor in Her experience felt the teachers that the school at Ryana remembers students doing drugs bathrooms and carrying weapons and she rising longer While at Brockton positive all student roll was no and the school rates scores and test on them in school the challenges were ratios By an appointment my own way out to high that an alternative fall off her kids for can take you followed with Island with the only that it nobody through honors where and expects degree went on to of to all of of their at a specialty her friends she in is college experiences like Brockton that have becoming exemplary and Ryana have a even those strides toward short of meeting the diverse recommendations needs of all their for schools students how can better engage more students from 72 May 2015 The two shared many Brockton falling Building a High School students through Grad Nation Lashon also in or other school the cracks high and keep help students get in some constructive be engaged to a system form of extra activities in than learn rather from education the is different learn creating trouble in Being out of school through a thing last needs trouble recommends a more relevant creating curriculum that allows students to see the connection between more and incorporate Lashon go on help While the challenges that High School daunting This would much can would also who friends to college and be prepared education it students all pathways career and experiencebased but Ryanas of didnt could curriculum their like many but possible project servicelearning including helped students for and education their are providing made enormous fall student In system at discipline home By disconnected further suspensions are Lashon would involved students would become Brockton on why many schools unique perspective school students for Ryana recommends a that who gets them high school Learning from their experiences Because or The easy to rack up demerits and get it one students gives beneficial on time graduate Nursing with in enrolled is made than just send them rather the out of school is problem this disengaged system of learning she graduated she degree Today sonography Out one made by a better your education you have she said Ryana University a Bachelors diagnostic to her brothers footsteps and attended in an Associates Long to figure Ryana was motivated Massasoit Community College with get her senior up and wanted High and graduated Brockton Ryana from it Once had to and she was sent track her familys struggles growing life I For a time during However school take time she said cope year Ryana began to would it exacerbates suspended from school kind time Research graduate and using outofschool are to High administrators class the more days a student they Brockton more chronic and the frequent down from school missed even are already work The students faced that likely that were overwhelmed there studentcounselor so weeks with Lashon making school high in led to disconnection further causing suspension who middle school in get back on track to suspensions handed less track off disengagement from school truancy shows the same disadvantaged in fell much harder that His early ensured By the time Ryana became up Lashon household were so high ratios they grew have have been from graduated A more engaging remain connected for schools after high life to school East Boston and like and the students our kids with the education them in be done to ensure face educators and support they need to receive their diploma and lead successful Lashon recommends teachers understand lives and in society staff to be more culturally training competent and the trauma and issues that youth face today and how would that to also give criticism help them get the supports they need like to see the creation students of the opportunity to and have a dialogue with teacher offer their He evaluations constructive instructors This would allow teachers them and improve students engaged The what students need from to learn trust and teachers and relationships a key factor in between keeping stories of Lashon and Ryana are just two out millions But their experiences offer invaluable lessons that students drop out insight and importance that the perspectives both those should and national of can help improve even the best of schools and underscore the of students school in who continue dialogues to around graduate shape what and those community is to be done who state Recommendations Policy F e ciat 1 cofrD CZ ira • Ensure ESEA Reauthorization Federal among It is high rising school graduation the nations lowincome that this imperative and rates in particular minority students ESEA when continued is measure Cohort Graduation ACGR Rate school of high use the fouryear to Adjusted as their primary rate graduation improvement need States to their in have ambitious 2020 When evidencebased these rate graduation for should policy two ensure Language are by rate or more years that appropriate implemented to help students lowincome as well as English low graduation with cohort well as graduation their rates high below feeder middle schools funds must be used whole school to dedicated districts percentages of subpopulations schools those 67 percent In these addition student supports systems funding with accountability lowincome students high and other reauthorization gets written partners 74 In sent a May 2015 of ESEA is underway as this February 2015 the GradNation letter Building a to report campaign the Chairman and Ranking Grad Nation as Appendix made has nation Governors US No of Child Association Department graduation state for school Behind the and Fortynine now states common measure a state the rate data systems longitudinal Cohort Graduation district National Compact Rate initiatives using rates fouryear Adjusted the Left aided accountability Graduation and the Race to the Top report and Educations 2008 graduation of support regulations in progress significant rate reporting by the passage levels Rate for all the ACGR at students and enrollment accurately for subgroups student working Several groups of states enable documentation together to students who transfer across progress and enable compare across rates Department of Education Establishing ninthgrader when the Identifying states state are and lines stakeholders to states however of variation US the need and state leaders reach consensus on key issues to graduation in These issues include common when four definitions cohort counts for years of the fouryear student subgroups especially who are a is first time established ACGR consistently are across students with disabilities those for immigrant status those with Limited English and economically disadvantaged For students disaggregation severe and over students with to The N strengthening The in disabilities and those with data reveal to be atrisk measures rate accountability accountability systems Proficiency and schools that educate that as implement evidencebased reforms and enhanced by early warning states rate towards reforming with Continue to improve data reporting and rate reporting Learners or replacing Increase be accountable to for minority funds need to be targeted Federal attached letter is To maintain gaps education on graduation That of and schools need graduation and special to goals interventions districts closing guided the state lead to will students succeed States for annual for student subgroups do not meet these education school high stateset graduation federal rates that graduation having a 90 percent goals HELP Committee the Senate graduation is reauthorized States must continue of equity a priority and support has been a huge accountability driver of maintains graduation and makes rate accountability recommendations Members gmas with reporting disabilities between there should students with Autism Down Syndrome disabilities that be etc may be more amenable Interventions Defining what counts as a regular diploma the key benchmark for calculating ACGR and the relationship of a regular diploma to state graduation is have states currently wide variation especially Report four five to flexibility for decide students into who students who students both and there with disabilities are also extended are taking gaining time and credits college schools schools virtual schools and other statewide on these reporting and special alternative centers detention juvenile home schools charter public entities another US regular high cohort only grade ninth from which institution school diploma are they enroll if they can deceased among states about information thus easing earn a to student transfers the burden on local school systems Establishing will training districts for local how Establishing on how account to who grade dropouts students becoming an part of for to and providing record eighth leave this and grade or middle school before grade cohort ninth official out of state transfers be codedcounted and the country Reexamine and and with accountability schools that educate for high foundation to be atrisk without But into of that funding districts and lowincome data reveal supplemental support measures funding to percentages students and other subpopulations factors that Incorporate districts to continue students despite critical Within within a new state population impact on enable schools position state of where formulas to atrisk and without and school funding funding data services changes district foundation existing to deliver infrastructure this is require in provisions racial state which catch22 possible indicators early warning ABCs in state data schoolbased and systems warning early reporting course ABCs the indicators and accrual and related data systems into state professional behavior attendance or performancecredit functions real in development and time technical interpretation assistance to district and school and practical to state in achieving equity special to districts education Limited status both and success and schools on a set of indicators ethnicity coursepassing indicators systems and report and publicize gender race to for ABCs the strategies for accountability cards to capture personnel use of early warning support intervention Enhance in attendance regular higher English and advanced education Other state recommendations Offer Fund to immediate and to outcomes in a doublejeopardy carry or overlay and access outcomes state contribute and suspension policies truancy interventions for the behavior state the rewrite Improve schoolbased Proficiency equitable beyond funding indicates in students progress state Kecommenctatlon Designate accountability provisions and gender disparities ethnic related Make funding more staffing while discipline policies the rewrite codes which data Provide how undocumented and district in document and share public enact to discipline Reexamine and for or transfer multistate data collaborations Incentivizing and policies districts regarding strategies and increasing data indicates the country out of public instruction organization maintaining attendance Reaffirming that students can be removed from a schools education state school governors and disaggregating schools empower to Eliminate counterproductive education accountable as needed towards an associates degree or higher Holding andor rewrite overarching Strengthen school break them innovation Incentivize productive innovative and sixyear cohort graduation rates and for five and sixyear rates down requirements the same early diploma options to education counter the effects health of all students and weilness initiatives poverty alternativepath Require teacherpreparation teacher preparation data interpretation strategies into programs and programs to incorporate and alignment with teacher preparation development of content in intervention addition to and pedagogical skills and fund interpreter Building a Grad Nation May 2015 75 Acknowledgements A thanks special the leadership staff fellows to interns Education and volunteers the coconvening of Americas Promise Center at Johns Hopkins the of all the Alliance Alliance for Excellent Enterprises and the Everyone Civic and organizations School University Education of GradNation of partner organizations Graduates express sincere gratitude Promise Alliance Trustees without the Americas for whom the Phillip for especially the significant and Governor Bob Wise Lovell Excellent Education Hudson Katie John Gomperts Egan Weiss Stefanie of the Alliance for Melinda Daria Hall Cruz Stefanie and Esther Berg of Americas Maya GrigorovichBarksy Graduates enthusiasm Mark Pierson Vaughan Byrnes Diana Promise Alliance and Marstellar Liz Gubernatis of the Everyone Center and for the boundless energy It is and Matthew ATT sponsor and ATT its as our supporting sponsor support over many years We also special Broadcasting thanks its for thanks initiative their the leadership the Corporation for to CFO Patricia de Stacy Harrison and Deb Sanchez Aaronson leadership on American Graduate Lets Make individuals sharing their to build envisioned both It a GradNation share lessons learned to for their Happen have been wonderfully helpful experience willingness our sustained Stephanie Many to as well these two companies of work would not be possible give give Aspire Without this Public we Target and investments initiatives McMahon Atwell the utmost gratitude that with lead and team Kathleen the Civic Enterprises of Hina Samnani in For their and next steps Advocacy country we offer Institute in their thanks own to organizations Candace Bob Brown of and for Cortiella of the American the The Federation Superintendent of Teachers June Atkinson North of Public 76 May 2015 Instruction Building a Grad Nation Carolina and Angela State Quick stories other with North Carolina and Ryana courage and students graduate to college Lastly for their New Schools Special sharing their personal recommendations from high school to help and move on and career thanks and to the many respondents from the schools and school shape contributions of thanks to Lashon contributed Campaign would not be possible Thank you of In GradNaton we particular Edna Wallace their particular districts across wisdom and sections of the country who expertise to helping this report us Appendices APPENDIX A Number ad High Schools by Different Levels of Promoting Power 20022013 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 Key 1000 _ 2002 2012 500 0 0 10 20 40 30 50 PROMOTING 60 70 80 90 02013 100 POWER DECILES Class Promoting I Power Defiles 2002 1 0 10 Note 2013 6 11 5 36 10 10 95 43 32 20 30 40 253 130 108 540 306 297 50 1077 747 590 60 1751 1413 1316 70 2278 2320 2405 80 2534 3064 3132 90 2049 2923 3098 100+ 510 1650 1714 11129 12617 12707 TOTALS Figures Source 2012 US 19982014 include regular Department Public of and vocational Education high National ElementarySecondary schools Center School with for Universe 300 or Education more students Statistics Surveys Building a Grad Nation May 2015 77 Appendices APPENDIX B Change of High Schools with 1000 Promoting Power of 60 Percent or Less by Locale 20022013 T Key a 2002 2012 22013 Towns Suburbs Cities Rural LOCALE Suburbs Towns Rural 905 477 247 378 2012 714 267 123 255 2013 619 242 119 166 Class Cities 2002 I 2002 Change from ChangeN Change Note In proximity Source 2006 NCES to 78 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation 235 128 212 32 49 52 56 from population size changed Department Public 2013 286 urban areas US 19962014 to the referred of definition to of Rural as the urbancentric Education National ElementarySecondary Center School classification for Universe Education Surveys to system Statistics Appendices APPENDIX High C Schools and Student Enrollment by RaceEthnicity with an Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate ACGR 2012 67 Percent below Percent Per Ethnic Group American Indian Alaskan Native Asian 26 Hispanic Black 40 _ White _ Pacific Islander _ Two more or Ethnicities • er o` 1§ Alabama Alaska 54 4 Arizona 41 38586 066 1519 9164° 25824 1448 Arkansas 6 4741 California 105 96840 Colorado 24 32596 Connecticut 13 12778 3 2094 Delaware 13 8042 Florida 60 60482 Georgia 115 124224 Hawaii 3 2078 Dis€rict Of Columbia Illinois Indiana Kansas Louisiana Maine 51 58325 19 19474 5 37 1 3628 28584 301 Maryland 17 14106 Massachusetts 24 20357 Michigan 30 21589 Minnesota 10 8568 51 33955 Mississippi 038 099 157 044 014 009 047 021 173 027 034 152 087 133 028 050 053 212 006 029 066 194 101 526 287 229 349 052 185 258 299 033 1102 6285 2117 003 000 030 019 056 030 013 010 011 010 016 1333 380 366 5712 1497 154 044 190 188 000 2708 5560 1311 1114 4621 3725 2834 1767 4735 598 100 5670 3402 299 9468 007 003 017 005 000 026 036 002 035 001 6124 3452 632 3666 026 630 3853 607 5043 4159 5405 1254 2293 4578 935 3841 4584 3520 1450 1347 4226 3873 1506 8374 036 1910 3598 3986 1739 766669 293 481 221 5134 2494 1600 817 6915 1820 1026 1270 1906 5489 034 113 8503 1319 22569 Building a Grad Nation 0 027 079 179 032 368 172 160 181 012 264 202 539 232 459 306 052 000 022 205 173 062 024 May 2015 79 Appendices APPENDIX C CONTINUED Schools and Student High Enrollment by RaceEthnicity with an Adjusted Cohort Graduation 67 Percent Missouri 016 8737 11 Montana 41083 298971 453970 299042 139 362 2636 4002 2636 New Jersey 26 23807 New Mexico 22 18434 1368 New York 199 164172 16 8863 060 026 553 9494 35 60541 1 1296 North Carolina North Dakota 1 22756 026 304 024 054 054 465 9742 Ohio 47 59641 Oregon 35 26693 Pennsylvania 46 43723 Rhode 7977 9 Island South Carolina South Dakota 23 1 10184 14 Tennessee Texas 9 5849 Utah 10 10448 Vermont 2 657 Virginia 9 10803 12 9264 6 5375 13 13570 1235 1134258 Washington Virginia Wisconsin N Totals Percent Per •m 15795 Hampshire 1255 1 Nevada • 3 006 050 189 015 028 113 019 086 New 151 083 069 008 Nebraska • ai 230 000 167 518 571 154 126 935 262 000 119 243 305 409 074 000 081 668 167 046 157 997 102 320 9663 504 1 • s • s•c° • $ gar A Q`it below West ACGR 2012 Rate 1315 4311 2972 009 000 000 4501 1476 2908 120 1080 710 7315 4865 4629 310 6423 214 1734 3894 3844 1226 1700 6419 1380 000 625 036 470 3617 5236 000 030 008 020 006 000 004 048 004 076 010 000 003 010 264 000 008 246 000 002 394 255 004 127 021 208 000 373 448 143 352 187 000 008 125 075 122 264 658 056 051 3471 21926 031 193 1384 7252 1079 099 000 040 1907 303 6747 2176 4749 2597 4860 1993 2255 584 000 664 4606 4485 043 215 416 3156 3787 2204 1921 7171 091 459 214 076 7642 1441 3040 1014 3931 089 1818 7916 1630 4818 3093 8823 9650 030 198 1084 Group ACGR Education Note Figures include ethnic that group for reported regular students a school students Of the the of Department provisional high these schools rate students as having two US May 2015 vocational graduation nearest through Sources 80 to level enrollment total percent were reported were rounded and attending or in were with divided 201120121235 who more schools attended ethnicracial 300 or more students by the of total them with an Adjusted number of students had an ACGR below 67 percent these schools 40 percent were Black identities 1 percent were American Cohort attending Graduation schools that Rate meet the The estimated total 26 percent were Hispanic Indian or Alaska Native and criteria 2012 in enrollment below 67 percent Each the previous sentence at these schools 26 percent were White 3 percent were Pacific was racial Of the schools roughly 11 Islander note these figures ones place value of Education data file Building a of National SY201112 Grad Nation Center School for Education Level Statistics FourYear 19982012 Regulatory Public Adjusted Cohort ElementarySeeondary Graduation Rates School million 4 percent were Asian 2 Universe Surveys US Department of Appendices APPENDIX Mjustcd II Cohort Graduation Rate ACGR Gap Percentage Wyoming 100 New Hampshire 82 Nevada 78 Minnesota 75 South 60 Dakota White and Black Students from 2011 to and 2013 State from 201011 Alabama 51 New Mexico 50 Nebraska 48 New 43 Jersey Colorado 32 Rhode 31 Island Utah 29 North Carolina 28 Connecticut 26 California 24 Texas 21 Carolina 20 Ohio 20 Delaware 19 Kansas 19 Mississippi 19 Missouri 19 Massachusetts 17 Michigan 14 Arkansas 12 Virginia 12 Georgia 12 Florida 11 Wisconsin 06 Maryland 02 Washington 01 201213 of Black within the Cohort 92 25 160 24 376 25 65 178 54 91 15 284 136 77 136 389 28 170 340 79 526 178 87 198 224 254 402 228 105 379 47 41 Vermont 102 Kentucky t t Oklahoma t t Idaho t t Alaska Louisiana Arizona West New Virginia York Indiana Hawaii Illinois Maine 1 2012 110 Montana Tennessee in 10 18 05 08 09 12 16 19 23 27 28 34 49 60 Iowa Students Percent Points 21 Oregon to Percent 56 Dakota South between Gap Change by Subgroup 60 Pennsylvania North Closure ACGR 267 37 447 59 54 197 117 24 _ 199 26 i 11 18 Building a Grad Nation May 2015 81 Appendices APPENDIX D CONTINUED Ati usted Cohort Graduation Rate ACGH Gap Change by Subgroup and State from 201011 201213 to Percent ACGR Gap Percentage Alaska 81 Utah 73 Minnesota 67 Delaware 59 Nevada 52 New Mexico 50 Kansas _ 40 Mississippi 39 Connecticut 38 Massachusetts 37 Colorado 36 Iowa 35 New Hampshire 32 North Carolina 30 California 30 South Dakota 30 Missouri 29 White and Hispanic Students Nebraska 24 Washington 22 Michigan 22 Alabama 21 Texas 21 Oregon 18 2013 Cohort 15 Florida 14 Georgia 14 Arkansas 12 South 11 Carolina 56 92 It 10 r 65 36 91 25 36 97 192 132 162 47 29 458 176 18 44 235 88 83 46 95 28 71 196 01 Island 170 135 285 472 09 • 361 560 136 74 10 Ohio 14 32 66 Maine 02 02 02 07 10 10 10 19 29 30 89 Kentucky t t Oklahoma t t Idaho t t Vermont 1 Louisiana Indiana Arizona Montana Wyoming Illinois New York West Virginia Hawaii 82 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation 2012 55 10 Maryland in 146 16 Dakota Tennessee Rhode to Hispanic within the Percent 25 Jersey Wisconsin from 2011 Points 25 Virginia North between 48 Pennsylvania New Closure of Students I 1 1 1 394 29 109 194 203 09 44 11 Appendices APPENDIX D CONTINUED Ati usted Cohort Graduation Rate ACGH Gap Change by Subgroup and State from 201011 to Percent ACGR Gap Percentage Alabama 389 New Mexico 58 Louisiana 52 Wyoming 50 Illinois 49 Montana 46 Florida 37 Indiana 33 Kansas 21 Maine 16 Delaware 16 Arkansas 15 Dakota 14 Iowa 10 Maryland 10 North Carolina 08 New Hampshire 07 Wisconsin 07 South 06 Carolina Georgia 04 Connecticut 02 Pennsylvania 00 Ohio 00 Tennessee 00 Washington 02 03 04 06 06 06 08 08 10 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 Colorado 21 Massachusetts Missouri Hawaii Vermont Minnesota York Alaska Arizona Mississippi Texas West Virginia Michigan Nebraska California New All and Students with Disabilities from 2011 to 2013 Jersey Rhode Island Students Cohort in 06 92 147 145 96 112 118 147 120 175 146 104 117 94 137 96 100 180 116 105 109 136 133 150 122 201 119 105 154 130 147 104 U 96 53 98 155 112 115 113 156 216 106 _ 95 86 Oregon Oklahoma t t Kentucky t t Idaho t t Nevada 2012 105 131 37 53 55 South Dakota with within the Percent Points 15 Utah New between of Disabilities 20 Virginia North Closure 201213 102 134 Building a Grad Nation U May 2015 83 Appendices APPENDIX D CONTINUED Ati usted Cohort Graduation Rate ACGH Gap Change by Subgroup and State from 201011 Percent ACGR Gap Percentage Ohio 118 Texas 113 Wyoming 90 Utah 80 Georgia 71 Massachusetts 55 Nebraska 55 Minnesota 45 Iowa 43 Indiana 40 Delaware 36 South Carolina 34 Colorado 26 Connecticut 25 Louisiana 25 Rhode 23 Island 23 Missouri 23 New Mexico 21 17 Arkansas 11 Pennsylvania 10 Maryland 10 Michigan 04 Alabama 00 Florida 01 California Dakota New Jersey 21 Arizona 24 35 35 36 43 44 48 50 54 Montana Illinois North Carolina Oregon New Hampshire West Virginia Alaska Wisconsin Hawaii Vi rg i n New i 5 a Maine Mississippi 7 67 74 York 105 I and Limited English Proficient LEP Students from 2011 to 2013 LEP 11 36 26 42 27 61 40 65 30 20 32 30 101 46 82 75 11 I N 21 36 20 20 24 10 78 26 56 194 28 32 16 28 34 27 76 22 05 92 29 53 4 6 54 21 01 93 19 Nevada 137 Vermont 186 Oklahoma t t Kentucky t t Idaho t t 84 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation English Students within the Cohort Percent Points 07 08 13 15 20 Washington All Limited 282 Tennessee South Dakota between of Proficient 10 Kansas North Closure 201213 to in 2012 Appendices APPENDIX D CONTINUED Ati usted Cohort Graduation Rate ACGR Gap Closure Percentage Connecticut 66 Pennsylvania 30 Minnesota 30 Indiana 27 Florida 24 New Hampshire 24 Ohio 24 Nevada 23 Alabama 18 New 16 Jersey Massachusetts 16 Wisconsin 16 Maine 15 Virginia 15 Arkansas 14 New Mexico 14 West 13 Virginia Montana 11 Wyoming 10 Kansas 09 Utah 09 Hawaii 08 Delaware 08 Mississippi 07 Iowa 07 06 California 04 Tennessee 04 Nebraska 04 South Dakota 03 Georgia 01 South 01 Carolina Missouri 02 03 07 08 12 12 13 13 14 16 17 Michigan 21 Maryland Alaska Arizona Texas Illinois Colorado Oregon York I Washington Vermont North All and LowIncome Students from 2011 and to State 201011 from Percent 2013 201213 to LowIncome of within the Cohort _ Kentucky t t Oklahoma t t Idaho t t Note t = Not applicable existed in 201011 gap widening Sources US Data are minus the between not current expected 201213 groups The percent Department of Education of 2014 to Students 2012 367 336 318 333 409 274 373 567 517 272 415 298 247 311 494 572 564 513 400 374 515 305 430 472 533 361 520 440 629 576 352 281 486 491 320 375 396 482 414 422 514 422 451 411 395 438 282 I 55 Dakota in Percent Points 06 Island North Carolina New between Gap Change by Subgroup 12 Louisiana Rhode ACGH be reported ACGR by the gap between students within Provisional the Data SEA groups cohort File for SY201011 hence was positive aggregated SY201011 and or 201213 percentage up from 201213 the District ACGR point district and percentage values level State point indicate ACOR Level file gap changes graduation rate between gap closure student groups = the gap and negative values that indicate SY201112 FourYear Regulatory Adjusted Building Cohort Graduation a Grad Nation Rates May 2015 ACGR 85 Appendices APPENDIX E Mtjustcd Cohort ACGR Graduation Rate African White Students Gaps by Subgroup and State 201213 American Students Rate White Percentage Rate Point Students Rate Difference Hispanic Students Percentage Rate Minnesota 853 578 275 Minnesota 853 590 263 Wisconsin 924 660 264 New York 872 623 249 New York 872 629 243 Massachusetts 901 668 233 Ohio 870 630 240 Connecticut 914 702 212 Michigan 821 605 216 South Dakota 880 690 190 Nevada 772 570 202 Pennsylvania 900 710 190 California 877 681 196 Wisconsin 924 743 181 893 709 184 Ohio 870 690 180 Iowa 915 740 175 Colorado 828 654 174 Missouri 891 720 171 Georgia 792 626 166 Pennsylvania 900 730 170 Maryland 911 751 160 New 931 764 167 Utah 861 704 157 Massachusetts 901 738 163 839 690 149 Utah 861 700 161 821 673 148 880 720 160 New Jersey 931 786 145 Florida 805 646 159 Washington 797 659 138 Indiana 897 740 157 Arizona 826 689 137 Connecticut 914 760 154 Nebraska 922 786 136 Nebraska 922 770 152 Illinois 893 763 130 Georgia 792 644 148 Nevada 772 644 128 Louisiana 802 660 142 Virginia 886 761 125 Vermont 872 730 142 904 780 124 Oregon 710 570 140 California 877 757 120 Wyoming 800 660 140 Iowa 915 800 115 Washington 797 658 139 North Carolina 862 752 110 Alaska 779 650 129 New Hampshire 878 770 108 Maryland 911 783 128 Oregon 710 608 102 Colorado 828 700 128 Alabama 839 740 99 Arizona 826 700 126 Wyoming 800 710 90 Mississippi 821 700 121 New Mexico 770 680 90 Kansas 881 760 121 Oklahoma 872 786 86 Maine 869 750 119 Tennessee 898 813 85 839 720 119 Kansas 881 799 82 Virginia 886 768 118 Missouri 891 810 81 Tennessee 898 780 118 Montana 870 790 80 904 800 104 Texas 930 851 79 Oklahoma 872 770 102 Kentucky 876 800 76 Montana 870 770 100 Louisiana 802 730 72 Alabama 839 740 99 Indiana 897 825 72 Arkansas 878 780 98 799 730 69 Kentucky 876 780 96 Maine 869 810 59 Texas 930 841 89 Arkansas 878 820 58 North Carolina 862 780 82 Florida 805 749 56 New Mexico 770 690 80 Delaware 831 780 51 Delaware 831 760 71 Alaska 779 730 49 Illinois Jersey South Dakota Rhode North Island Dakota Rhode Island Michigan North South Dakota Carolina 819 750 69 Vermont 872 830 42 New Hampshire 878 820 58 Mississippi 821 790 31 South Carolina 799 750 49 Hawaii 790 770 20 Hawaii 790 752 38 819 820 01 t t t t t t West Virginia Idaho Note t = Not applicable Source 86 US Department May 2015 Data are of not Education Building a expected 2014 to be reported Provisional Grad Nation Data by the File SEA for West Virginia Idaho SY201213 SY201213 Point Difference FourYear Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates ACGR Appendices APPENDIX E CONTINUED Cohort Adjusted Graduation Rate All ACGR Proficiency Rate and State 201213 English Limited Students Gaps by Subgroup LEP Percentage Rate Point Difference Arizona 751 200 551 Nevada 707 240 467 768 391 377 Alabama 800 440 360 North Carolina 825 490 335 Virginia 845 518 327 Alaska 718 400 318 Nebraska 885 600 285 Maryland 850 570 280 Georgia 717 438 279 Montana 844 570 274 875 610 265 Wisconsin 880 620 260 Washington 764 506 258 Louisiana 735 480 255 Hawaii 824 570 254 South Dakota 827 590 237 Vermont 866 630 236 Utah 830 600 230 Kentucky 861 640 221 Connecticut 855 640 215 Massachusetts 850 635 215 Oklahoma 848 640 208 Minnesota 798 593 205 Oregon 687 491 196 Illinois 832 637 195 Pennsylvania 860 670 190 Mississippi 755 570 185 Colorado 769 585 184 Florida 756 575 181 California 804 631 173 New Hampshire 873 700 173 875 705 170 857 690 167 Texas 880 713 167 Ohio 822 670 152 Iowa 897 760 137 Maine 864 730 134 Tennessee 863 730 133 Michigan 770 654 116 Kansas 857 750 107 Delaware 804 710 94 Wyoming 770 680 90 870 780 90 776 690 86 797 730 67 New Mexico 703 654 49 Arkansas 849 810 39 814 830 16 t t t New York Dakota North New Jersey Missouri Indiana South Carolina Rhode West Island Virginia Idaho Note f = Not applicable Source US Department Data are of not Education expected 2014 to be reported Provisional Data by the File SEA for SY201213 SY201213 FourYear Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates ACGR Building a Grad Nation May 2015 87 Appendices APPENDIX F Fourdear Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates ACGR by State and Subgroup 201213 AsianPacific Major Racial and Ethnic Groups Special ZIP Populations Islander Alaska Arkansas Rorida Georgia Hawaii Idaho a 40 i a• Alabama Arizona o`a c wy CS •4• 800 860 890 740 740 770 839 769 440 718 718 570 770 650 730 670 779 430 400 595 751 611 840 700 689 633 200 694 826 810 640 849 780 810 780 820 880 878 804 810 803 880 580 804 728 909 681 757 778 877 619 631 748 916 784 Colorado 769 610 850 700 654 790 828 538 585 637 860 750 Connecticut 855 820 930 760 702 820 914 647 640 721 930 890 Delaware 804 800 880 760 780 >=900 811 600 710 742 756 770 884 646 749 523 575 670 717 640 818 644 626 351 438 638 824 620 838 752 770 610 570 782 California Illinois Indiana 805 790 753 792 884 t t t t t It t t t t 832 780 917 709 763 831 893 701 637 730 920 780 t 870 860 890 740 825 840 897 693 780 827 890 890 It Iowa 897 830 900 740 800 850 915 727 760 804 910 680 Kansas 857 770 890 760 799 830 881 778 750 766 890 800 Kentucky 861 790 870 780 800 830 876 520 640 854 880 780 735 750 850 660 730 780 802 367 480 677 850 720 864 720 950 750 810 770 869 700 730 769 >=950 >=500 New North North 88 Louisiana Maine 850 830 948 783 751 900 911 600 570 758 950 810 Massachusetts 850 730 902 738 668 840 901 678 635 736 906 750 Michigan 770 640 873 605 673 740 821 879 690 Minnesota 798 490 782 578 590 755 690 920 700 790 Mississippi Missouri Maryland 536 654 639 582 593 638 225 570 702 734 690 780 910 820 760 570 745 >=950 >=800 922 710 600 809 770 >=800 853 821 870 857 820 910 720 810 Montana 844 650 940 770 790 Nebraska 885 720 770 770 786 850 Nevada 707 590 810 570 644 800 772 264 240 640 820 750 873 840 860 820 770 920 878 710 700 757 860 >=500 890 931 959 920 New Hampshire 840 New Jersey 875 760 958 764 786 New Mexico 703 643 860 690 680 York 768 620 841 629 623 760 825 770 900 780 752 815 875 630 880 800 780 822 680 890 630 690 Carolina Dakota Ohio May 20 15 Building a Grad Nation 891 920 759 705 771 6011 654 647 872 472 391 675 862 623 490 761 700 610 720 692 670 696 770 904 742 870 880 Detail2 Appendices APPENDIX F CONTINUED ACGR FourYear Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates by State and Subgroup 201213 AsianPacific Major Racial and Ethnic Groups Special Populations Islander Oregon Rhode mom y ro 40 South Tennessee ` Q•j ens •r • •g 848 844 650 770 786 860 872 785 640 797 930 687 520 810 570 608 670 710 372 491 604 840 640 Pennsylvania 860 750 910 730 710 820 900 740 670 770 797 740 850 720 690 710 839 590 730 693 860 790 776 670 880 750 730 432 690 705 827 490 850 720 690 600 590 670 673 730 807 900 880 778 713 852 938 900 674 600 729 800 Island Dakota 863 840 900 780 813 Texas 880 860 937 841 851 Utah 830 800 700 704 799 898 800 880 917 930 840 861 Washington Wisconsin 670 Wyoming Vermont 866 Virginia 845 West A Virginia dash The AsianPacific an aggregation the 2 only Disaggregated state uses major Source Notes Reproduced 761 872 886 630 750 880 515 518 740 902 842 630 870 >=500 658 659 765 797 546 506 650 920 750 820 720 819 621 830 737 880 760 900 660 743 687 620 766 770 410 860 660 710 590 680 640 the data are not available that not column reported using for and from expected represents by the the major Adjusted ethnic be reported either state for racial and ethnic Department the SEA for value reported the which enable FourYear by the major racial group Cohort Graduation groups the United States SY201213 to of 770 800 >=500 SY201213 by the ethnic state to groups the Department Asian Native of Education for the HawaiiarVOther Pacific major racial Islander or and ethnic Pacific group AsianPacific Islander and Filipino Workbook Accordingly Islander or California is Filipino Rates further and 924 790 680 823 reporting for Provisional 768 770 700 values racial 830 560 Data are state currently 902 730 764 Islander of 890 >=500 814 indicates Not applicable t I `• `•c vz Oklahoma South Carolina Detail is done according disaggregation Education Regulatory Adjusted 2015 of to the outlined provisions Asian AmericanPacific Provisional Cohort Graduation Rates Data File within Islander SY201213 Retrieved January each states Accountablity AAPI FourYear 26 not every populations Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates Data 2015 from Building a Grad Nation May 2015 89 z Appendices APPENDIX Averaged G Freshman Graduation Rate AFGR ACGR and FourYear Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate by State 20032013 N AFGR 739 750 747 732 739 747 755 782 AGGR AFGR 647 650 659 662 671 690 ACOR 699 718 651 AFGR 680 672 641 665 691 691 726 755 ACGR 800 810 790 800 760 750 720 750 780 790 680 700 AFGR 759 668 847 705 696 707 725 747 790 770 AGGR 740 800 746 699 734 749 761 754 779 760 AFGR 767 768 757 804 744 764 740 750 770 780 680 805 807 840 782 800 820 747 763 790 ACGR 741 AFGR 739 746 692 707 712 710 ACGR AFGR 764 787 767 755 ACGR r AFGR 809 807 809 818 766 754 776 798 820 820 702 744 707 724 739 750 822 823 ACGR AFGR 730 729 731 763 719 721 754 751 850 860 793 818 830 850 737 755 760 770 758 785 800 ACGR AFGR 596 682 688 549 560 624 599 ACGR 610 710 586 590 AFGR 667 664 646 636 650 669 689 708 720 750 ACGR 565 592 593 588 598 627 655 690 706 750 AFGR 608 612 617 624 641 654 678 699 700 700 586 640 675 700 753 754 740 780 800 810 830 840 AGGR AFGR 713 726 751 755 754 760 ACGR AFGR 815 815 810 805 804 801 806 840 759 803 794 797 795 804 777 819 79 09 24 814 103 11 800 80 110 12 718 38 11 01 28 751 13 01 42 849 80 09 804 41 56 06 30 769 51 06 855 25 40 04 804 19 114 13 37 623 83 09 756 50 92 10 42 717 67 07 824 24 25 03 61 07 ACGR AFGR ACGR 755 AFGR 735 AGGR 90 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation 732 733 739 741 800 820 838 820 752 772 800 800 815 841 857 860 06 832 45 870 05 13 Appendices APPENDIX Averaged G CONTINUED Freshman Graduation Rate AFGR ACGR and FourYear Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate by State 20032013 C q • o• as I • AFGR 853 •$a 858 Sy 866 • 869 n$ 865 S 864 857 AGGR AFGR 769 779 792 776 789 791 802 AGGR AFGR 717 730 759 772 764 744 776 879 890 890 888 883 890 845 870 890 807 830 850 799 810 820 ACGR AFGR 641 694 639 763 776 786 595 613 635 673 688 710 720 648 663 660 673 672 709 720 763 785 791 799 828 860 870 804 828 838 850 801 822 840 840 820 828 840 ACGR AFGR 792 795 793 799 800 804 ACGR AFGR 757 793 787 ACGR AFGR 740 725 730 795 808 815 833 826 850 860 799 809 812 815 821 834 850 722 ACGR 770 763 753 759 750 770 755 755 752 760 743 760 AFGR 848 847 859 862 865 864 874 882 890 880 ACGR 725 735 748 752 748 743 743 755 769 780 AFGR 627 627 633 ACGR AFGR 783 804 806 635 636 639 620 638 690 680 708 738 720 716 714 737 750 810 819 824 831 837 ACGR AFGR 810 804 815 819 815 820 820 819 ACGR AFGR 37 04 14 897 121 13 857 27 103 11 79 09 861 AGGR AFGR EW 852 876 878 870 863 838 829 838 ACGR 850 860 813 860 840 860 822 840 900 930 860 880 735 26 107 12 26 864 48 05 22 850 103 11 16 850 30 03 770 27 32 04 798 29 53 06 755 18 77 09 45 857 50 06 844 22 78 09 885 25 ` iA9I T1 I AFGR 723 574 558 558 542 563 563 578 ACGR AFGR 782 787 801 811 817 834 843 ACGR AFGR ACGR 870 863 851 848 844 846 853 590 600 620 630 863 870 870 859 861 860 872 870 870 832 860 123 14 87 707 88 10 873 12 00 00 43 875 Building a Grad Nation May 2015 91 Appendices APPENDIX Averaged G CONTINUED Freshman Graduation Rate AFGR ACGR and FourYear Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate by State 20032013 • C ry q o• as • le IEW ly I lIv ICI r AFOR 631 670 654 673 591 AGGR AFGR 609 AGGR AFGR 701 714 864 861 AGGR AFGR 790 813 648 673 710 740 603 661 673 630 700 653 674 688 708 735 760 780 780 658 672 710 736 740 760 768 770 726 718 686 728 751 769 770 790 683 695 703 718 742 779 800 863 821 831 838 874 884 900 910 867 862 877 869 854 862 863 870 802 792 787 790 796 ACGR AFGR 668 ACGR AFGR 760 770 769 778 778 780 773 814 820 640 780 800 810 785 800 790 ACGR AFGR 737 742 742 730 738 767 817 822 825 830 827 765 763 780 780 662 664 677 680 805 ACGR AFGR 777 759 784 778 784 ACGR AFGR 597 606 601 589 830 837 823 845 825 841 860 880 778 826 840 764 753 764 770 760 739 755 758 773 770 622 660 682 690 720 720 736 750 ACGR AFGR 844 817 818 ACGR AFGR 634 ACGR 661 685 706 726 749 690 851 774 804 820 830 834 830 810 830 855 870 AFGR 755 767 740 725 719 731 754 789 810 820 ACGR 842 846 840 804 780 791 806 843 859 880 AFGR 802 830 844 786 766 743 ACGR AFGR 836 ACGR AFGR 806 854 793 ACGR 92 May 2015 12 73 171 19 00 768 90 10 46 825 46 05 875 13 50 06 22 822 30 03 43 05 848 ACGR AFGR 109 703 Building a Grad Nation 865 796 823 745 794 786 780 780 720 750 760 800 886 893 896 914 930 930 864 857 856 875 875 880 755 770 784 812 830 840 820 830 687 10 63 07 855 29 17 02 24 797 123 14 40 776 00 00 07 827 196 22 08 863 65 07 21 880 22 02 830 70 94 10 09 866 34 845 04 25 Appendices APPENDIX Averaged G CONTINUED Freshman Graduation Rate AFGR and FourYear Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate ACGR by State 20032013 4 o •$v AFGR 742 ® 746 Sy 750 • 729 S •$ 748 719 • 737 AGGR AFGR 757 769 773 769 782 773 770 ACGR AFGR 858 867 875 885 896 907 ACGR z N trry Sao 772 790 790 754 766 770 783 780 600 755 765 790 911 920 920 857 870 880 803 800 800 804 797 790 764 02 814 49 880 10 770 27 r AFGR 739 760 767 761 758 760 752 ACGR Sources First Stetser Look Provisional M Provisional Data Rle R 2014 Public High School FourYearOnTime Graduation Rates and Event Dropout Rates NOES 2014391 US Department of Education Washington DC National Center for Education Stillwell Data SY201213 FourYear Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation School Years Statistics 201011 US 201112 Department of and 201213 Education 2013 Rates Building a Grad Nation May 2015 93 Appendices APPENDIX H Graduates Estimated Needed by Class Graduates • Q Needed to Reach Q`• mco• Additional QF 2020 of • •`T Reach 90 Percent by to a 90 Percent Graduation Rate by State c • 3r S• 5440 22 7 3135 283 1929 23 1807 714 114 90 101 646 138 Arizona 11564 1178 158 889 6557 2536 Arkansas 1723 28 58 240 484 California 42053 551 30459 2865 1141 Colorado 7962 173 4264 2588 184 Connecticut 1957 13 978 4 7 482 126 363 85 85 11655 7554 8569 5881 Delaware 815 106 624 and Subgroup • • Alaska 6319 and Subgroup o Alabama 898 State 515 2005 9 498 alb v 5093 200 1178 427 6486 670 1633 122 13257 42364 21017 2160 6938 2020 1423 2863 525 320 41461 1484 • cooE Estimated Additional 9149 793 66 21038 4881 16207 1805 689 226 Rorida 28470 Georgia 22348 77 357 12231 3322 Hawaii 993 18 637 46 83 195 t t t t t t 4505 604 262 4464 11418 1388 405 169 147 1868 1934 203 780 1219 152 Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa t t 10845 51 2237 10 5610 t t 229 13 1429 399 457 34 100 11 Kansas 1534 57 9 378 516 478 100 552 2311 337 Kentucky 1873 8 21 641 156 952 42 1533 1067 152 Louisiana 7586 49 39 4905 253 2216 40 2356 5359 190 488 16 21 386 26 495 850 60 3304 20 3122 432 5079 1247 Maine Maryland 53 1154 2815 237 7290 1922 86 988 Massachusetts 3727 34 Michigan 16343 280 90 7020 1450 7032 6799 555 508 2001 1219 2390 3556 35 1177 2009 234 186 354 Minnesota Mississippi Missouri 4933 2 2843 26 13 Montana 604 298 Nebraska 329 49 64 6134 119 226 16 Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey 425 3 2701 20 1061 2533 22 Now Mexico 4883 757 14 New York 29206 318 1075 North Carolina 8188 207 North Dakota 188 167 2 11033 46 23 6161 Oklahoma 2194 393 232 546 Oregon 9613 325 181 418 5739 31 1181 7 17 177 6526 80 19 2975 Ohio Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee 94 May 2015 685 2595 Building a 396 10 Grad Nation 132 3658 11644 20 3719 2159 8 44 2502 3244 1614 I 2469 I 12825 1646 I 18 922 4 49 1 316 14219 824 5864 1306 3575 16 3140 159 733 137 486 721 1851 4168 666 69 2394 4017 751 545 965 157 165 236 1491 3698 1776 3130 116 14467 21808 6089 2271 298 3067 6577 1150 871 3207 771 4304 353 58 11103 431 1893 276 3230 7139 1285 3759 6659 667 2645 1909 1272 157 5071 360 523 662 73 2399 5852 457 485 463 39 463 2908 61 152 312 94 2077 1263 271 2937 3114 5261 30162 449 37 70 2730 2249 340 140 10 627 770 244 660 71 3842 264 Appendices APPENDIX H CONTINUED Estimated Graduates Additional QF 59 2916 132 151 223 3 1 10387 366 1780 4 Wisconsin 1336 152 Wyoming 889 98 Washington West Virginia 309461 Totals Note t = Not applicable students Sources US SY201213 Data are and each subgroup Department State Level of not was Education FourYear expected calculated 2014 Regulatory 868 to 33 7 168 26 1369 746 3111 4985 529 14 1546 12 • alb v 853 4361 237 7733 4460 2155 579 409 34 4837 1515 2947 9194 1678 868 1900 8 2763 460 1578 803 • 3 19 140 567 11 285 684 26 4739 112936 111903 72988 5824 122646 274495 62450 be reported by the the aggregated Provisional Adjusted and Subgroup 3733 1256 21 and Subgroup • 1214 1650 using State 3r 7537 169 8021 Rate by State o S• 121 499 Graduation c 3071 5278 Virginia a 90 Percent 2567 6520 Utah Reach 90 Percent by to • • •`T Texas Vermont Needed to Reach mcS Q 2020 of Q`• • all Needed by Class Graduates cooE Estimated Additional data Cohort file SEA for 201213 SY201213 district SY201213 Graduation Rates level District The number ACGR Level ACGR file of additional ie for FourYear the graduates state Regulatory level Adjusted needed cohort Cohort to reach 90 percent sizes and the Graduation Building 201213 Rates graduation graduation ACGR a Grad Nation rates for rates Provisional data May 2015 file 95 Appendices APPENDIX Top500 I Largest School Enrollrnent of Students Schools Adjusted Districts Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale Fm Al •m 35993 Birmingham 28655 00 00 Birmingham 25104 938 Daphne Madison 29419 262 Huntsville 23437 976 Huntsville 19764 00 Mobile Mobile 58277 436 Montgomery 31359 902 County County Birmingham Baldwin City County Huntsville City County County Montgomery Tuscaloosa County County Anchorage c 4• School Valley District Borough District Unified Unified Paradise Phoenix Valley Union Washington District School District Unified Elementary Kyrene Elementary Scottsdale Unified Dysart Unified Unified Sunnyside 96 School District District District District J A 20 910 50 550 650 100 740 800 60 660 820 160 17763 00 209771 400 Anchorage 48790 Wasilla 59 94 37 51 68 27 21 44 40 442 481 557 149 723 328 782 129 721 279 662 539 63 23 451 409 735 332 698 06 718 203 486 573 601 401 760 860 100 640 760 120 660 640 20 680 770 90 363 707 782 76 834 371 720 760 40 109 17484 00 133 700 740 40 33 66274 614 504 710 750 40 37950 271 880 850 30 190 Glendale 33992 464 910 910 00 179 Mesa 64119 941 760 740 20 395 Peoria 36631 00 940 930 Phoenix 32862 1000 880 850 30 275 Phoenix 25755 1000 790 740 50 793 District Phoenix t t t 506 947 09 876 136 780 418 419 458 495 191 688 358 506 432 734 School May 2D 15 School Dist District Building a 17462 807 720 700 20 450205 619 414 855 830 25 17937 14 610 730 120 63 430 454 576 25097 966 37 52 660 750 90 109 663 193 719 22760 975 18905 1000 Phoenix 17779 723 Scottsdale 25220 927 Surprise 25999 00 Tucson 50751 828 Tucson District 35 11 59 34 30 24 21 17 16 23 24 47 16 Phoenix Averages Co Spec Rock District District Unified District Totals Little District High School Cartwright Elementary Pulaski m I 4C m oer 830 Gilbert District Peoria Unified Tucson C4 c 860 Averages Gilbert Unified Mesa for District District Totals Deer a 810 Northport MatanuskaSusitna School RaceEthnicity l 48 39 34 40 32 27 78 42 24 Averages District Totals K12 with City Birmingham Shelby of Enrollment •o ti Jefferson K12 Total Code and Percentages mac ac Name Change Code 201213 •Ir District ACGR Rate College Little Grad Nation Station Rock t t t 893 t t t 225 910 880 30 191 880 810 70 356 820 800 20 621 883 38 30 43 47 28 92 76 39 97 38 75 55 24 281 614 281 56 536 325 788 42 997 531 269 688 243 501 492 235 648 45 67 ItY Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools Students of Districts Adjusted Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale ACGR Rate Change Total Code and Percentages of K12 K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 •Ir Al l •o Fm •m mac c ac 4• ti Name District District 765 43 800 810 10 63775 633 131 690 763 73 03 05 03 03 06 05 03 03 03 04 03 05 07 05 06 04 04 05 09 04 03 04 04 03 10 03 03 03 06 05 910 910 830 840 t t 12 20741 Springdale Averages District Totals Alhambra Unf Alhambra 17991 206 Anaheim Anaheim 32060 724 Anaheim 19120 1000 Antioch Union Anaheim High City Antioch Unf Kern Union High Bakersfield City PanamaBuena Baldwin Union Unf Unf 00 37070 660 Bakersfield 28987 682 Bakersfield 17325 862 Baldwin 18828 00 16452 1000 Park Cathedral Unf Chino 18770 Bakersfield Burbank Palm Springs Abc Vista Park Unf Burbank City Cerritos Valley Unf 30701 492 40822 1151 Vista 28524 62 39892 371 Union Chula Vista Elem Clovis Unf Clovis Joint Unf Colton 23117 Compton Mt Chula Unf Diablo Unf CoronaNorco Chula 23479 Vista Chino High 20806 00 00 Sweetwater Colton Unf Compton 24710 00 19 Concord 31764 136 Corona 53404 592 21989 1000 Cupertino Union Cupertino 19028 921 Downey Downey 22814 El Cajon 22880 El Cajon 16213 00 00 00 NewportMesa Unf Unf Grossmont Union Cajon Valley High Union Costa Mesa 61861 163 Escondido 19365 00 FairfieldSuisun Unf Fairfield 21343 718 FolsomCordova Folsom 19089 972 Unf Fontana 40341 Unf Fremont 33257 00 00 Fresno 73684 983 Elk Grove Unf Escondido Fontana Fremont Fresno Unf m City School Springdale a c Elk Union Unf Grove 446 22 400 00 433 731 642 124 664 t 863 06 27 14 22 10 46 872 679 740 780 40 392 247 198 617 820 800 20 621 253 588 t t t 775 63 87 105 876 107 265 611 34 861 444 412 150 757 72 512 821 33 26 55 94 34 32 42 33 56 t t t 523 890 930 40 868 910 920 10 393 800 870 70 741 910 930 20 439 850 890 40 568 800 830 30 748 t 672 220 448 78 492 140 489 453 382 79 03 790 372 452 297 436 477 456 182 53 t t 930 920 740 780 40 580 650 70 787 197 820 930 10 393 870 920 50 512 930 930 00 435 t t t 53 920 930 10 869 770 780 10 339 t t t 364 44 63 13 09 30 69 72 820 880 60 257 153 232 552 t t t 664 20 201 677 830 900 70 373 178 199 555 900 930 30 174 571 349 810 860 50 858 48 870 890 820 70 160 164 216 730 760 30 647 71 61 37 94 120 895 326 Building 744 63 704 472 446 465 685 a Grad Nation May 2015 97 Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools Students of Adjusted Districts Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale ACGR Rate Change K12 Total Code and Percentages of K12 Fm •m mac c 4• ac Hemet Unf Beach Union High Unf Unf Jurupa Unf Lake Antelope Union Valley High Beach Unf Los Angeles Madera Unf Saddleback Napa Unf Valley Unf Unf Valley NorwalkLa Mirada Unf Unf Oceanside Chaffey Unf Valley Oakland Unf Valley Montebello Murrieta 30139 896 82036 864 780 810 30 544 152 147 622 105 610 680 70 738 820 830 10 868 92 84 593 03 04 09 05 05 06 04 03 03 07 03 04 04 05 03 03 03 03 03 880 920 40 508 94 22 80 240 596 970 970 00 251 13 602 242 940 950 10 306 15 520 261 810 870 60 952 03 883 690 820 130 665 171 16 96 890 940 50 335 335 880 30 521 306 438 900 940 40 785 55 23 27 468 850 100 736 590 630 40 420 289 92 773 810 870 60 540 289 579 840 860 20 625 62 87 26 21828 915 Hemet 21650 Hesperia 23430 00 16 Unf Joint Union OntarioMontclair Orange Unf Oxnard Union Heights 16374 237 Indio 29155 00 Irvine 29045 1000 Huntington Beach Valley Elsinore Beach High Elam High Oxnard 19541 22114 653337 825 Madera 19984 658 Manteca 23210 184 Mission Viejo 53750 Mission Viejo 30327 Los Angeles Unf Capistrano Moreno 24769 Hayward Long Unf Unf Manteca Lancaster 00 Lake Lodi Unf Long Murrieta 22929 00 00 53 00 00 Napa 18306 719 Norwalk 19757 00 Oakland 46298 1000 Oceanside 21202 00 Ontario Montebello 30523 Moreno 34869 Valley 24962 284 Ontario 22710 667 Orange 29804 777 Oxnard 16743 708 Oxnard 16533 1000 Palmdale Elam Palmdale 21264 00 Pasadena Unf Pasadena 19441 807 Perris 19809 00 Val 98 m Lodi 777 20349 Jurupa Unf Elsinore J 00 00 00 26133 Hacienda Unf Sands Desert 154 Grove Glendale Unf Unf Huntington C4 08 04 03 04 03 04 03 05 05 03 04 04 05 13 47585 Garden La Puente Hesperia Irvine Unf Unf Hayward I 4C a City Garden Grove Hacienda for •o c ti Glendale RaceEthnicity All a Name with Code 201213 •r District Enrollment Verde Unf May 2D 15 Building a Grad Nation 30 535 920 40 231 880 420 802 08 13 11 770 80 601 125 790 20 514 790 830 40 595 910 930 20 247 830 860 30 705 970 950 20 105 800 820 20 831 890 890 00 540 77 78 12 20 23 22 45 760 780 20 531 186 199 550 770 830 60 419 73 255 680 860 890 880 460 690 810 99 715 547 511 40 65 739 678 338 769 276 722 404 281 226 682 341 131 120 736 343 602 844 813 189 521 42 858 t t t 883 910 940 30 518 14 322 466 790 780 735 596 t t 908 22 16 160 t 787 t t t 707 162 41 79 760 830 70 593 156 156 652 820 900 60 728 145 58 830 818 Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools Students of Districts Adjusted Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale ACGR Rate Change Code and Percentages K12 Total of K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 r Al l •o mac ac C4 c ti m o o J m m Name District City PlacentiaYotha Linda Unf Pomona Unf Redlands Unf Rialto West Unf Contra Riverside Alvord Costa Unf Unf Unf San Juan Unf Sacramento City Twin Rivers San Bernardino San City Unf San Francisco San Jose Unf Unf East Side Union San Marcos San Simi Valley Ana Unf S Hart William High Valley Torrance Joint Tustin Unf Vista 17393 981 Visalia 27617 931 Vista 25599 00 Watsonville 20001 490 3526808 550 568 26555 141 Richmond 30349 00 Riverside 42429 952 Riverside 19602 872 Sacramento 47534 315 Sacramento 47303 815 Sacramento 31369 392 San Bernardino 53964 893 San Diego 129995 994 San Diego 35110 629 San 56841 991 San Jose 33141 1000 San 26235 1000 Francisco Jose San Marcos 19582 101 Ramon 30741 564 Ana 57378 1000 Santa Clarity Valley 18857 00 00 26323 730 30312 777 Unf Thermal 18720 00 Unf Unf District Totals Ventura Rialto 38389 Unf Valley 23764 669 Temecula Unf Pajaro 07 724 00 21210 Stockton Ventura Unf Visalia 17392 Tustin 27138 Unf Unf Tracy Pomona Simi Valley 152 Redlands Santa Union Valley Coachella 25606 San Unf Temecula Conejo Unf Unf Valley Stockton High Unf Ramon Santa Unf Unf Diego Poway Unf Unf 04 04 03 04 05 07 03 08 08 05 09 21 06 09 05 04 03 05 09 04 03 06 05 03 03 04 03 04 03 04 04 03 Placentia Unf Averages 20582 935 Torrance 24185 1000 Tracy Thousand Oaks 920 930 10 392 16 55 68 427 271 39 809 324 543 123 43 734 202 108 701 254 643 111 776 201 75 40 76 612 420 770 790 20 838 860 910 50 450 780 800 20 804 740 800 60 513 800 850 50 589 770 800 30 782 800 810 10 740 850 110 372 176 187 722 680 750 70 380 149 304 759 680 760 80 727 140 79 91A 850 880 30 466 102 232 647 940 950 10 137 524 139 820 820 00 259 108 575 840 820 20 524 258 442 770 820 50 504 72 424 940 940 00 459 27 95 29 30 26 411 456 970 980 10 83 18 504 34 830 860 30 932 844 930 347 04 50 27 940 458 231 820 850 30 307 11 559 284 670 830 160 618 114 75 856 920 940 20 306 472 202 740 790 50 967 39 02 13 450 950 960 10 228 15 616 226 930 960 30 247 277 297 830 870 40 470 251 446 960 970 10 464 43 72 22 298 427 900 900 00 481 14 431 472 840 880 40 636 652 810 00 604 271 530 810 890 80 805 21 40 05 253 810 167 755 824 860 36 Building a Grad Nation May 2015 99 Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools Students of Districts Adjusted Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation ACGR Rate Change Code and Percentages with a City Locale Total of K12 K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 c os I Fm m F • a c C m c •o ti ti r Name District No 5 Cherry Creek School District In The County Of Arapah Aurora School Colorado No 11 In School No And County District Valley The County 840 870 30 180 118 562 251 Aurora 39814 1000 46 480 530 50 537 176 192 678 Boulder 30041 551 880 910 30 174 188 790 60 440 482 335 640 660 20 293 08 18 72 703 730 District 528 534 Brighton 16184 00 Colorado Springs 29032 980 35 19 34 No 20 Colorado 23973 554 28 890 910 20 121 31 750 125 Denver 83377 996 97 560 610 50 582 141 206 714 Fort Springs An R1 School District 27903 873 840 00 177 295 21730 760 780 20 222 13 07 739 413 32 25 840 Grand Junction 717 444 Greeley 19821 742 23 720 800 80 584 19 364 615 64657 00 75 840 890 50 135 17 762 115 Lakewood 85542 245 99 790 810 20 238 12 678 337 Longmont Collins County No R1 Wain The County School Haven Waterbury No Re1J No 60 Ranch District School District Totals District District 790 830 40 284 325 630 700 70 684 10 21 653 17711 34 21 271 697 Thornton 43268 123 50 650 740 90 332 23 569 370 585505 512 678 736 778 42 Bridgeport 20155 977 600 670 70 488 386 88 995 Hartford 21545 972 630 710 80 500 316 112 849 New Haven 21103 977 640 710 70 387 435 151 782 Waterbury 18391 00 37 39 38 33 660 660 00 483 247 218 810 81194 754 147 633 688 55 16157 161 126 820 800 20 253 228 453 524 161 686 115 533 Averages School District Wilmington Averages Of Columbia Public District Totals 00 1000 And District Consolidated Clay 29382 Pueblo Averages School District Totals 100 District 12 Five Star Schools Hartford District Highlands District Of Pueblo Bridgeport School Red Sta District District District Totals New And School School Valley Pueblo School Adams No 6 District Of Weld 1 Jefferson In 61 C County School Douglas No Re St 499 51 GreeleySchool In Reg 27J The County In 1 State Of School 53070 Of E Paso El No District Of Denver Mesa No District Of No District District The County The County Poudre 28 Aurora Adams And A Springs School Academy School Of School Valley Brighton In No Joint District Of The Counties Boulder amyl City Schools Washington Averages May 2015 Building a Grad Nation 16157 161 126 820 800 20 44179 1000 583 530 560 30 44179 1000 583 530 560 30 Appendices APPENDIX Top510 I CONTINUED Largest School Enrollment Schools of Students Adjusted Districts Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale ACGR Rate Change Code and Percentages K12 Total of K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 •r Al l •o Fm c ac •m mac osR District Name 4 a • C4 c ti m c •c J moo City Broward Fort Lauderdale Lee Fort Myers 85765 432 St Fort Pierce 39641 582 17 08 23 97 32 15 Fort Walton 29786 295 11 27826 427 125686 912 Manatee Bradenton 46165 164 Hernando Brooksville 22218 00 61064 310 260226 166 Volusia Daytona Lucie Okaloosa Beach 650 770 120 299 144 509 551 710 740 30 157 73 712 596 620 680 60 178 152 611 585 720 750 30 290 395 249 569 690 740 50 342 152 464 653 650 680 30 260 296 387 612 850 830 20 83 126 690 397 630 730 100 457 490 720 90 82 89 361 630 441 385 491 760 780 20 559 116 270 717 660 690 30 283 212 451 666 810 870 60 129 145 634 454 710 770 60 666 236 80 731 10 Beach Duval Jacksonville Osceola Kissimmee 56411 22201o Lakeland 96937 227 Melbourne 71228 431 10 47 21 36 26 Alachua Gainesville J Polk Brevard 354262 175 132 Milton 25878 00 780 54 54 802 405 Naples 43789 109 730 810 80 456 121 381 612 Pasco New 67153 00 710 760 50 199 61 668 551 Marion Ocala 41990 260 700 770 70 186 198 547 671 Clay Orange 35244 00 740 780 40 99 134 695 360 Orange Orlando 183066 207 710 760 50 347 274 305 621 Bay Panama 26634 263 680 730 50 725 572 Pensacola 40670 330 580 640 60 51 51 153 Escambia 351 495 610 Charlotte Port Charlotte 16355 236 730 750 20 123 90 728 625 Seminole Sanford 64463 182 10 16 25 16 13 68 10 15 06 24 790 790 840 50 222 141 555 448 Sarasota Sarasota 41096 487 15 710 760 50 179 521 St Augustine 32447 00 860 870 10 69 90 75 660 St 801 225 103590 467 650 720 70 139 190 587 537 Dade Miami Rosa Santa Collier Port Richey Park City Martin Stuart 18687 00 12 38 07 820 880 60 251 78 626 414 Leon Tallahassee 33432 692 12 680 770 90 47 426 457 443 690 740 50 331 215 377 575 750 780 30 210 154 569 573 720 800 80 208 164 579 566 740 760 20 297 289 350 547 714 764 50 Johns Pinellas St Petersburg Hillsborough Tampa 200447 290 Lake Tavares 41495 00 Vera Beach 18011 296 179514 274 74 15 07 67 2491176 275 925 Indian Palm River Beach District Totals West Palm Averages Beach Building a Grad Nation May 2015 101 Appendices APPENDIX Top510 I CONTINUED Largest School Enrollment Schools of Students Districts Adjusted Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation ACGR Rate Change Total Code and Percentages with a City Locale of K12 K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 • • •o AQP a c c c o c ti Name District Alpharetta 93907 370 49558 1000 County Augusta 32052 852 County Canton 39270 00 Columbus 32172 896 County Public Richmond Cherokee Muscogee Schools County Columbia County Fayette Hall County County Clayton County Mcdonough Henry County County Chatham Houston County County District Totals Hawaii District Totals Valley District Joint District View Cusd 300 102 May 2015 727 197 779 30 146 71 734 318 680 730 50 576 287 667 90 66 62 640 730 860 900 515 375 669 40 123 26 733 194 790 40 540 700 160 730 790 60 51757 760 7B0 20 76 201 672 422 590 590 00 136 677 111 714 710 710 00 121 496 325 604 760 800 40 646 330 870 90 76 96 187 780 245 551 248 730 780 50 383 46 535 614 510 560 50 183 708 33 865 680 730 50 258 305 294 557 510 610 100 37 729 197 797 730 770 40 179 313 426 454 720 790 70 470°0 382 515 22691 00 553 Warner 27610 624 13 21 16 1005674 190 590 676 730 54 184760 242 1000 800 820 20 184760 242 1000 800 820 20 25726 845 91 t t 36838 206 130 62564 469 221 00 00 09 10 Robins Honolulu Boise Meridian Bolingbrook Carpentersville Building 30 36610 Averages Cusd 365U 780 Newnan Averages Boise Independent Meridian Of Education 580 750 Savannah Averages Department District Totals 550 750 26675 Marietta 753 24°0 Gainesville Macon 452 141 00°10 Fayetteville 20301 Cobb 321 770 40180 24431 Lawrenceville County 25175 Evans Bibb County Coweta le Jonesboro County Gwinnett 98910 Douglasvil 421 65 34 108452 28408 County 134 00 Dallas Douglas 70 507 38850 County 60 590 24508 19181 Cumming Decatur 760 520 164976 Covington County County 700 16 30 97 14 64 County Forsyth Dekalb 55 29 19 23 19 11 23 17 58 15 14 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 13 00 00 Newton Paulding cd amyl City Atlanta Fulton Atlanta m oer a Grad Nation 17576 20655 79 76 57 75 213 651 450 577 287 646 361 490 536 83 22 139 506 t 115 30 13 782 436 840 305 t t t 85 830 840 10 406 207 280 621010 890 890 00 336 49 526 442 Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools Students of Districts Adjusted Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation Rate ACGR Change Code and Percentages with a City Locale K12 Total of K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 R a a tide o CS •m clrme• oa45 QP Vv o m me Name District City $d Sd Of Chicago 299 Cusd Prairie Cusd Naperville Cusd Oswego 203 $d 202 Rockford Sd 205 Cusd Waukegan Southeastern Hamilton Schools Wayne Community Indianapolis South Public Schools Schools Bend Community Sch Rapids Des Moines Corp Comm School Independent Comm School District Totals District 40 451 404 92 849 880 800 80 504 609 990 10 104 547 191 950 960 10 88 930 950 20 186 910 930 20 227 67 92 51 76 90 313 980 720 640 80 259 680 750 70 772 28615 Rockford 28639 923 Waukegan 16688 00 610600 768 297 851 845 060 Evansville 22504 756 810 810 00 Fishers 20207 00 940 940 00 72 774 145 Wayne 30404 951 880 890 10 147 242 479 705 Indianapolis 29799 1000 650 630 20 204 528 212 839 178 347 367 723 505 17412 911 17399 19182 775 22 19 29 29 18 770 720 50 122096 742 117 810 798 12 Cedar Rapids 16283 948 810 32474 978 33 66 820 Des Moines 760 790 30 48757 968 99 790 600 10 20350 983 630 650 920 900 960 950 910 910 00 Fort South Bend Averages District Totals Cedar Corp 700 00 00 428 28873 Plainfield Sch 740 20 14 08 08 14 14 08 40158 Oswego Vanderburgh Evansville 192 Naperville Naperville 60 1000 Elgin Averages District Totals Fort 204 308 Plainfield 394585 Chicago U46 Indian Q City 672 135 621 276 590 206 298 338 788 148 42 21 33 52 141 718 577 56 139 728 469 231 172 460 725 20 445 348 131 895 20 133 713 273 785 81 168 69 31 86 660 369 322 181 351 762 District Averages Olathe Olathe 28742 27 Blue Overland Park 22162 594 Shawnee Mission 27083 409 43 61 47 57 48806 945 103 660 770 110 147143 619 311 816 836 20 t 920 t 60 33 853 340 t 830 t 129 228 562 468 t 770 t 74 36B 497 593 Kansas Kansas City Valley Shawnee Mission Pub Sch Wichita City Wichita District Totals Averages Boone Co Florence 19827 00 Fayette County Lexington 39250 992 29 57 Louisville 100316 814 146 159393 756 233 Jefferson County District Totals Averages 46 840 Banding a Grad Nation May 2015 103 Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools Students of Adjusted Districts Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale ACGR Rate Change Code and Percentages K12 Total of K12 Al •m mac c ac 4 Parish 670 00 630 690 60 770 790 20 780 800 523 689 807 109 815 274 603 457 20 72 882 508 800 870 70 57 307 608 491 710 690 20 700 810 110 474 467 759 279 553 663 433 492 612 00 36 47 46 28 730 720 780 780 333 610 588 670 690 20 183 449 289 767 19993 00 51 610 640 30 325 646 790 00 190 736 473 730 790 60 24 43 20 626 790 338 628 297 377422 362 541 721 748 28 Baltimore 106927 72 124 820 860 40 386 444 460 99 44 61 47 90 26 20 19 660 690 30 847 80 841 870 900 30 178 674 284 910 930 20 66 54 57 87 Baltimore 211 461 174 920 930 10 119 109 666 250 840 860 20 101 203 603 302 900 910 10 734 465 920 80 186 683 312 910 920 10 61 56 43 123 840 141 742 225 10 266 213 330 331 242 661 45 594 57 40 523 327 316 36 877 178 21457 506 Ascension Parish Gonzales 20838 Springs 25293 00 00 Tangipahoa Parish Hammond 19784 122 Terrebonne Parish Houma 18619 299 Lafayette Parish Parish Parish Caddo Parish Parish Parish District Totals City Public Public Schools Schools Hanford County Public Schools Howard Public Schools Anne County Arundel St Marys Calvert County Charles Carroll Public Public County Public County Georges County County District Totals Schools Public County County Montgomery Prince Public County Washingtion 567 32015 379 Metairie 45322 297 Shreveport 40209 795 Slidell 37467 Monroe Averages Baltimore County Frederick 30583 Lake Charles West Schools Schools Schools Schools Public Public Public Schools Schools 1000 37868 00 Columbia 52053 395 Frederick 40456 236 Glen Burnie 77770 00 Hagerstown 22403 353 Lexington 17453 141 16323 00 Prince Schools County Public 84747 Bel Air Schools Silver Park Frederick Spring 148780 279 173 870 880 144 750 740 31 31 880 900 20 930 940 10 Waldorf 26644 Westminster 26687 00 00 00 781848 223 909 854 875 22 17 58 690 740 50 144 540 247 771 640 660 20 399 356 132 717 Upper Marlboro Averages 123737 Brockton Brockton 16595 00 Boston Dorchester 55114 1000 104 May 2015 Building Q 427 Bossier City Livingston Baltimore A t 27 45 67 33 758 Denham Ouachita J m 670 412 42072 Baton Parish St Tammany m o 34 60 31 36 30 28 27 44 46 65 58 54 29 23770 Rouge Alexandria Rouge Parish Jefferson C4 o I 4C City Parish Calcasieu a • 5 Name Lafayette •o c ti Bossier for IZRI Fm East Baton RaceEthnicity l 5 Rapider with Code 201213 •Ir District Enrollment a Grad Nation Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools Students of Adjusted Districts Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale ACGR Rate Change Code and Percentages Total of K12 K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 7 a Q 0 o Av Y • rmc• Name District Springfield Springfield Worcester Averages District Totals Arbor Public Valley Dearborn Community Detroit City Grand Utica School Community Washington Rochester St Public Paul Public School Co Rankin Desoto School Public Co School Dist 02 City LeeS Summit Ft Zumwalt City 74 Rli 730 381 142 358 731 128 643 670 28 972 11 12 840 870 30 143 554 251 860 880 20 64 32 728 160 11 850 96 89 44 816 261 921 670 16390 16084 28145 Rapids Heights 880 30 3100 12 32 760 860 100 22 600 650 50 11 480 470 00 19 900 910 10 161612 605 107 756 789 33 27174 326 860 920 60 810 840 30 770 810 40 910 900 122 836 26 810 358 358 201 828 21 48 885 297 72 77 43 67 94 715 232 218 490 402 92 74 771 323 727 194 17643 00 00 00 Minneapolis 35262 1000 32 24 45 21 42 470 540 70 148 356 364 657 Rochester 16441 896 1910 790 830 40 88 114 652 373 St Paul 37913 1000 45 640 730 90 140 276 234 732 193459 500 229 750 796 46 19448 00 860 20 19 221 736 407 29296 630 640 10 11 969 15 904 32759 00 40 60 67 840 966 860 850 60 323 596 521 81503 347 166 777 783 07 16162 00 18 19 20 21 18 19 21 920 930 10 92 694 153 830 860 30 205 624 369 750 860 110 49 58 21 718 241 553 850 910 60 128 121 642 468 500 670 170 272 597 90 00 860 940 80 141 770 199 830 890 60 54 38 54 842 222 Valley Coon Park Rapids Cottage Grove Jackson Olive Branch 20623 38403 17719 922 Florissant 18323 00 Kansas 19443 667 16831 1000 Kansas RVii 720 863 121732 977 Ballwin 33 1000 24740 1000 Columbia Kansas 875 47919 Averages Hazelwood Kansas District 135 Detroit Brandon Dist Columbia 93 North District School District Totals Parkway Dist District 202 969 Averages District Totals Jackson School School Dist 609 10 18882 Township Brooklyn Dist 30 16301 Apple School County Public Minneapolis School 550 Dearborn Sterling District Public 520 997 00 00 Grand ValleyEagan School AnokaHennepin South Schools Schools RosemountApple Public • 26 26 25283 17891 Canton Averages District Totals Osseo Arbor Clinton District District Public Rapids Schools Schools School City Ann Schools PlymouthCanton Chippewa •c City Worcester Ann •o City City LeeS Summit 17782 OFallon 18871 00 00 Banding a Grad Nation May 2015 I05 Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools Students of Adjusted Districts Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation Rate ACGR Change Code and Percentages with a City Locale Total of K12 K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 4ZI R ryr yea •m V ti A Name District Francis St Howell Louis CS RVi •mc Q 20423 00 910 940 30 223123 450 244 787 851 74 834 St Charles 19834 41 St Louis 32190 1000 Wildwood Averages District Totals q° m n• o 28 22 35 22 25545 Springfield RIii City Rockwood o ti City RXii Springfield `• S 790 870 B0 880 920 40 540 680 140 45 27 26 27 79 68 820 852 158 853 99 684 20 873 81 516 Lincoln Public Schools Lincoln 36943 962 122 800 840 40 121 63 692 431 Omaha Public Schools Omaha 50559 891 167 730 760 50 314 260 323 730 Omaha 23395 567 77 930 940 10 70 29 818 161 110897 850 365 820 853 33 316778 530 712 590 720 130 435 125 294 549 64305 524 145 700 730 30 383 25 470 457 381083 529 856 645 725 80 18 20 24 18 12 670 710 40 686 213 81 880 700 670 30 381 327 109 748 610 680 70 421 482 720 80 623 278 86 58 890 640 900 900 00 114 50 779 236 218 653 202 650 398 437 64 754 Public Millard Schools District Totals Averages Clark County Washoe School County School Public Elizabeth City Paterson Toms I Illllr New Rochester Syracuse Yonkers 16760 125646 480 92 704 736 32 Albuquerque 93105 782 277 630 690 60 665 Schools Las Cruces 25091 630 670 40 750 Rio Rancho 16879 00 75 50 710 Schools 730 840 110 486 24 25 31 135075 656 402 690 733 43 Brentwood 17492 00 760 740 20 781 130 Buffalo 32370 1000 06 12 500 490 170 505 222 749 383 663 646 17 402 288 143 670 510 480 30 249 614 104 827 510 510 00 128 502 250 746 690 720 30 545 206 180 756 605 598 08 School District Schools Free School School City City City School School School District District Department City District Totals 106 Toms 00 00 River Averages Union City York 24571 Public District Totals Buffalo 33299 Public Rancho Brentwood 1000 Newark Averages Las Cruces Public l 1000 847 1 Albuquerque Rio 00 27028 Paterson Schools Schools Regional River 23988 Jersey City Elizabeth Schools Public Public District Totals Il1i Schools Public The Newark Reno District Averages District Totals Jersey Las Vegas District Of Education District District District 1038566 1000 Rochester 29303 1000 Syracuse 20622 1000 Yonkers 25529 00 11 08 09 1163882 963 430 New Averages May 2015 Building a Grad Nation York City Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools Students of Districts Adjusted Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale ACGR Rate Change Code and Percentages K12 Total of K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 •o •m mac c ac 4 ti Buncombe Schools County Schools Johnston County Cabarrus County Schools Durham Public Harnett County Schools Schools Schools County Schools Wayne County Public Schools County Catawba Onslow County Schools Schools County Davidson Public Schools County Schools Guilford Pitt Schools County County Schools Schools Robeson Of Union County Public Wake County Schools NashRocky Mount County Schools Schools RowanSalisbury Schools IredellStatesville Randolph New County Hanover Forsyth County District Totals Akron Schools Schools County Schools Schools 309 Charlotte 141270 758 Clayton 33443 00 Concord 30187 394 Durham 32904 850 Erwin 20501 00 Fayetteville 52242 500 Gastonia 31784 301 Goldsboro 19444 250 Greensboro 73718 644 Greenville 23580 398 Hickory 17204 63 Jacksonville 25207 298 Lexington 20247 00 Lumberton Cleveland Municipal Columbus City •c ca A t School Local City 20 128 61 749 555 780 20 227 211 510 565 740 810 70 184 417 317 559 790 830 40 198 160 598 442 840 870 30 137 186 609 427 740 800 60 244 505 193 639 730 770 40 172 251 511 575 780 820 40 115 446 331 585 750 810 60 98 204 644 602 750 780 30 178 346 409 637 830 860 30 121 408 370 577 700 780 80 98 479 378 586 11 860 910 50 128 52 711 517 820 870 50 114 193 603 432 810 850 40 65 31 873 450 790 850 60 124 253 154 834 890 910 20 149 132 674 348 810 810 00 156 245 490 351 40580 00 Raleigh 150317 404 100 16655 425 Mount Trinity 18590 00 00 00 Wilmington 25530 499 Salisbury 20087 Statesville 21374 750 790 40 105 498 344 677 13 14 770 830 60 133 186 638 621 850 880 30 111 139 696 439 12 830 890 60 144 37 772 551 740 820 80 98 219 625 466 790 820 30 218 289 428 545 787 831 43 11 53816 586 17 36 941194 403 625 21974 1000 31575 953 39808 980 Columbus 50384 1000 Grove 20829 155 13 18 23 29 12 10 13 Salem Cleveland District 800 00 Rocky Lewis Toledo City 17383 33 22107 1000 Q 760 24150 Cincinnati SouthWestern City m 780 Monroe Akron City 17 15 94 22 20 22 14 35 21 13 49 16 17 13 16 27 Winston City Olentangy 281 22738 Averages Cincinnati Toledo 25626 Burlington Asheville Schools CharlotteMecklenburg Cumberland o City AlamanceBurlington Gaston m o c 4C 5 Name District C4 c I J a • IZRI Fm 750 780 30 389 143 740 100 31 31 460 640 586 250 638 560 640 80 143 669 148 828 79 573 271 726 129 121 684 532 760 770 10 830 860 30 980 980 00 25 39 816 73 620 650 30 105 412 398 654 Building a Grad Nation May 2015 907 Appendices APPENDIX Top510 I CONTINUED Largest School Enrollment Schools of Students Adjusted Districts Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale Rate ACGR Code and Percentages • • clrmc• West Chester Averages District Totals 16510 00 10 920 950 30 220570 759 128 758 796 39 t 880 t t 960 t Broken Arrow Broken Arrow 17207 00 Edmond Edmond 22489 204 Moore Moore 23173 413 City 44720 907 City 19257 645 41076 1000 26 33 34 66 29 61 167922 644 249 39488 508 Bend 16259 747 Eugene 16710 976 Hillsboro 20583 814 Milwaukee 16932 00 Portland 44669 994 Oklahoma City Oklahoma City Tulsa Tulsa District Totals Averages Sd Beaverton BendLapine Eugene Sd 48J Administrative Sd 4J Clackamas Sd Portland Sd Central City Bucks Philadelphia 24J Sd Sd Aiken Beaufort 01 Charleston Richland 108 01 02 May 2015 Building 44 673 424 t 99 85 105 665 266 830 t 129 68 547 410 t 790 t 474 266 178 863 t 800 t 224 251 380 753 t 650 t 274 282 281 835 t 818 t 770 770 00 238 516 362 680 790 110 105 849 448 710 640 70 134 698 375 510 452 676 450 700 720 20 703 733 30 lentown 16713 1000 660 660 00 660 157 140 861 Doylestown 19814 00 980 990 10 31 16 882 89 139503 1000 Pittsburgh 26066 1000 Reading 17598 973 10 11 80 15 10 219694 908 23663 780 800 20 346 660 740 80 163 27 08 19 21 21 620 670 50 158 111 565 434 391 09 503 586 550 700 150 184 545 142 829 680 770 90 19 547 336 694 610 670 60 797 96 74 887 126 696 758 62 1000 168 660 710 50 640 181 87 837 23663 1000 168 660 710 50 Aiken 24686 00 740 800 60 73 333 554 600 Beaufort 20443 500 700 750 50 213 305 438 579 Charleston 44599 578 730 770 40 458 521 26564 00 760 810 50 69 67 435 Columbia 34 28 61 36 591 280 486 Averages 01 180 350 Providence District Totals 745 715 Averages Providence 103 738 Philadelphia Sd 49 40123 AI Sd City District Totals for 194764 Salem Sd Pittsburgh Reading 12 1 Averages District Totals Allentown Sd 1J SalemKeizer RaceEthnicity 71 29 30 37 30 80 72 Beaverton HillsboroSd 1J North with City Lakota Local Putnam K12 Enrollment c me Oklahoma of K12 m m •m 11 Name Total Code 201213 e`m District Change a Grad Nation Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools Students of Adjusted Districts Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale ACGR Rate Change K12 Total Code and Percentages of K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 •o Fm •m mac c ac < Name a O ti District • v C4 c 4 ry J le m City 30942 42 33 23 22 42 750 770 20 38 52 25 78 311 535 603 Greenville 01 Greenville 73649 243 100 740 770 30 126 234 580 491 Lexington 05 Irmo 16435 870 880 10 626 333 01 Lexington 23556 840 840 00 Myrtle Beach 39998 262 750 780 30 Rock 740 790 50 750 810 60 t 800 t 32 57 aa 69 56 32 277 Lexington 00 00 Richland 01 Columbia 24138 554 Easley 16735 212 Florence 01 Florence 16146 667 Berkeley 01 Goose Pickens 01 Horry 01 York 03 Dorchester 02 Sumter 01 Falls School District Totals Distri ct495 Sumter 16796 486 415952 291 565 755 791 35 23219 980010 178 790 810 20 23219 980 178 790 810 20 46552 0000 890 880 820 850 30 54 78 940 940 00 106010 920 940 20 890 890 00 870 880 10 Sioux Falls 33204 138 Hendersonville 28448 00 Knoxville 58929 399 47 44 31 33 29 59 106873 998 108 730 680 50 16312 00 900 950 40400 353 910 43707 421 Clarksville 30622 614 Franklin Knox County County County 10 23741 Chattanooga Sumner 50 800 278 Hamilton Williamson 770 790 729 Bartlett County 720 17524 Hill Averages County 30 Summerville Shelby County Montgomery 720 22 32 54 24 32 23 Averages District Totals Sioux Creek 690 Memphis Memphis Wilson Mt 732 184 699 68 $26 491 515 418 616 104 788 389 205 644 633 366 509 552 296 578 434 614 319 718 85 103 696 458 369 506 368 307 585 584 235 575 46600 42 94 862 116 823 400 142 754 470 810 71 821 50 40 55 58 97 39 70 857 295 920 10 102 161 676 421 177 446 329 714 81134 877 16 41 82 760 770 10 486181 530 490 853 870 07 Abilene 17152 970 900 910 10 413 119 407 656 Alen 19894 980 990 10 133 104 569 167 Alvin 18886 00 00 Amarillo 33327 1000 Arlington Isd Arlington 65001 918 Austin Austin 86516 957 03 04 04 07 13 17 County Rutherford Davidson County County District Totals Abilene Isd Allen Isd Alvin Isd Amarillo Isd Isd Juliet Murfreesboro Nashville Averages B40 900 60 447 139 309 516 850 850 00 446 100 372 669 810 840 30 439 235 238 683 800 840 40 604 87 248 629 Banding a Grad Nation May 2015 109 Appendices APPENDIX Top510 I CONTINUED Largest School Enrollment Schools of Students Districts Adjusted Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale ACGR Rate Change Code and Percentages K12 Total of K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 •r All •o Fm •m mac c ac 4 Name Goose Baytown 21821 683 Beaumont 19850 952 Bedford 21814 29 Brownsville 49190 943 Buda 16568 00 Carrollton 26365 255 Isd Conroe 53934 613 Christi Isd Corpus 39213 1000 Isd HurstEulessBedford Brownsville Isd Isd Hays Cisd CarrolltonFarmers Branch Conroe Corpus Dallas Denton Paso Cisd Isd SOcorro Ysleta Fort Isd Isd MtSaginaw Eagle Frisco Grand Isd Isd Isd lad Spring Branch Galena Park Humble Isd Katy Isd Isd Isd Isd Keller lsd 110 692 Edinburg 33673 717 El Paso 63210 986 El Paso 44259 636 43680 1000 Fort Worth 83419 936 Fort Worth 17727 574 May 2015 Building 26921 84 00 00 18509 899 42707 Prairie 58059 17811 484 Houston 203354 957 Houston 110013 34 Haslet Isd Isd Spring Irving 25775 Harlingen CypressFairbanks Aldine Denton Grand Isd Cisd Houston 38043 976 Garland Isd Northwest 957 Frisco Prairie Harlingen Alief lad lad Garland 158919 Dallas B Paso Isd Worth Christi Dallas Isd lad Edinburg El lad Isd Richardson C4 I J 4C m City Creek Cisd Beaumont a c ti District • 04 04 04 10 03 05 11 08 31 07 05 07 12 09 09 16 03 08 860 920 60 566 160 240 643 870 900 30 203 609 135 742 960 950 288 163 429 531 880 900 20 986 959 900 40 618 01 33 10 860 320 460 870 930 60 538 163 173 623 930 920 337 357 840 30 790 60 41 537 810 140 685 770 850 80 694 237 48 889 910 890 20 394 230 281 579 950 940 312 120 516 430 860 880 980 852 800 106 694 860 900 40 910 02 41 23 11 810 860 10 957 10 53 27 719 850 800 790 605 228 133 770 910 940 30 352 93 478 402 970 980 10 150 105 570 120 20 826 809 880 890 10 496 172 225 610 05 04 04 40 22 840 890 50 636 172 135 732 810 860 50 915 71 780 900 930 30 197 04 62 681 232 790 790 00 627 246 82 797 900 910 10 435 163 290 497 847 11 Houston 65684 355 13 780 780 00 701 256 20 Houston 45783 768 910 930 20 512 312 35 817 Houston 09 07 07 04 07 07 13 07 820 860 40 426 398 121 731 900 880 20 583 55 279 584 870 880 10 756 163 59 829 930 940 10 312 180 447 337 840 870 30 715 129 101 813 920 930 10 343 418 300 940 940 00 194 96 79 610 222 36098 18 Houston 34857 802 Houston 22113 107 Humble 37095 443 Irving 35030 1000 Katy 64562 07 Keller 33367 699 a Grad Nation Appendices APPENDIX Top510 I CONTINUED Largest School Enrollment Schools of Students Adjusted Districts Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale ACGR Rate Change Code and Percentages K12 Total of K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 •Ir All •o Fm •m mac c ac 4 Name Killeen Klein Isd Isd Lubbock lad Mansfield Mcallen led Isd Mckinney Isd Mesquite Midland Corral Isd lad La Joys Isd Isd Pasadena Isd Pharr San Isd JuanAlamo Isd Lamar Cisd Round Rock Northside North Isd 251 Leander 34381 Lewisville 52528 44 00 Lubbock 29207 991 Mansfield 32879 374 Mcallen 24931 1000 Mckinney 24443 Mesquite 39127 00 00 Midland 23319 977 Mission 29235 73 18693 366 24190 00 Odessa 29649 907 Pasadena 53665 244 Pearland 19650 00 Pflugerville 23347 276 Pharr 32050 00 Piano 55185 921 Richmond 26135 00 Round Rock 45749 730 Braunfels Isd Richland Isd District Totals Averages Hills c •c J •T 870 890 940 940 820 960 276 330 279 562 20 370 142 371 413 00 984 30 994 10 04 739 850 974 960 00 270 513 280 910 950 40 238 633 219 930 940 10 268 01 01 82 39 90 496 300 800 830 30 563 132 266 661 900 910 10 242 265 384 385 800 860 60 930 04 45 556 950 960 10 266 126 539 296 890 910 20 512 249 194 702 820 800 20 586 300 466 780 830 50 997 930 930 00 364 860 880 20 381 750 770 20 709 830 860 30 821 84 00 22 76 39 67 930 960 30 277 900 930 30 448 880 900 20 11 930 950 05 09 20 13 900 910 900 02 952 569 312 462 576 227 519 74 794 167 428 273 188 247 527 989 01 08 890 20 226 113 414 273 10 461 185 282 522 950 50 302 441 297 920 920 00 687 191 532 880 890 10 561 299 460 810 60 911 20 929 810 830 20 528 240 178 623 910 920 10 265 293 191 385 850 890 40 434 297 236 707 01 820 830 10 962 01 14 856 585 594 870 899 20 924 San 54268 1000 22606 167 69591 352 Tyler 18263 964 Weslaco 17936 3015456 Land 660 750 727 67901 Antonio 870 04 14 04 04 100159 Antonio 08 09 08 05 08 07 10 06 06 05 05 08 05 06 04 05 06 11 04 05 06 90 61 72 63 San Antonio Sugar Isd Isd Weslaco 1000 39635 City San Antonio Isd Bend 24823 San Isd San Antonio Tyler Isd Isd East Judson Fort Isd led Pflugerville Piano 961 North Ector County Pearland 00 42891 New Isd Birdville 47045 Laredo League Isd lad Lewisville 598 J Laredo Isd Clear Creek Leander 41756 Klein Killeen Isd Laredo m I 4C City Isd United C4 c ti District a • 11 `Yo Building a Grad Nation May 2015 111 Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools Students of Adjusted Districts Attending Schools within the District with any Locale Cohort Graduation with a City Locale ACGR Rate Change Code and Percentages K12 Total of K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 •o Fm c ac •m mac osR Name 0 District Davis Weber District Alpine District Granite Salt Lake Nebo District m AR c •c moo 72452 226 Salt Lake City 69312 00 113 650 740 90 314 Salt Lake City 24680 971 620 700 80 419 830 830 00 139 860 910 50 99 750 860 110 124 14 06 09 07 31 42 12 06 09 District District 900 80 890 920 30 89 82 30895 770 840 70 118 118 760 880 120 90 770 840 70 129 11 793 449 104 425 263 849 426 886 565 826 587 862 383 555 778 416 817 766 517 866 781 816 763 31240 00 00 St George 27271 529 West 52481 00 40 55 51 45 86 428171 143 699 772 842 70 Alexandria 180582 55 143 860 860 00 226 Arlington 22543 1000 810 840 30 286 109 458 311 Chesapeake 39630 00 850 880 30 331 506 315 Hampton 21350 1000 800 800 00 66 56 599 270 545 Leesburg 68205 930 10 154 170 910 920 10 33 69 95 560 18370 00 00 920 Mechanicsville 825 136 33951 Fork Jordan Averages District Totals 820 26 50 Ogden Spanish District Jordan ti 4I J 114 16116 Sandy District Washington C4 c 84 10 20 Logan Orem District Canyons v a 4C 69773 Kaysville District • City District Cache < =1 Fairfax Co Pblc Co Arlington PbIc Schs Chesapeake Hampton Co Co Newport News Pblc City Stafford City Co 112 Schs District School School Way 83865 00 840 840 00 749555 279 593 812 839 27 Bellevue 19009 914 890 112 20328 00 910 900 120 Everett 18909 583 22231 97 18 19 18 21 900 Bothell 29786 1000 Norfolk 32862 1000 Richmond 58859 News Newport Richmond 48364 00 00 Richmond 23649 959 Spotsylvania 23768 Stafford $chs Pblc 18 31 17 54 15 24 26 47 38 19 19 22 56 66 Virginia Beach Woodbridge Averages Bellevue School Federal Schs Schs Pblc District Totals Everett Schs Pblc Pblc Prince William Northshore Schs Pblc Co Co Pblc Schs Schs Pblc Schs Pblc City Spotsylvania Va Beach City Co Co Richmond Schs Schs Pblo Chesterfield Henrico Pblc Sohs PbIc Schs Hanover Norfolk Pblc City City Loudoun Schs District District School May 2015 District Building Federal a Grad Nation Way 27463 00 00 70259 996 760 820 60 112 543 275 576 680 730 50 62 619 226 645 830 880 50 108 263 552 217 800 850 50 445 364 650 60 72 88 361 590 799 93 734 820 850 30 114 183 624 344 890 890 00 146 184 569 248 820 840 20 99 240 518 318 295 206 351 376 459 205 652 187 604 414 353 576 820 840 20 159 29 17 39 720 730 10 244 114 P yea Appendices APPENDIX Top510 CONTINUED I Largest School Enrollment Schools of Students Districts Attending Schools within the District Cohort Adjusted Graduation with a City Locale with any Locale ACGR Rate Change K12 Total Code and Percentages of K12 Enrollment with RaceEthnicity for Code 201213 e° •o 423 Name District City School Issaquah Kennewick School Kent School District District Lake Washington School Edmonds District School School Puyallup Seattle School District Bethel School Spokane Tacoma District District School School District District Evergreen School Vancouver School District Totals Kanawha Berkeley District County 900 930 30 73 160 730 20 271 654 541 27518 599 690 790 100 198 119 396 488 Kirkland 25522 260 940 890 50 97 126 Lynnwood 00 760 760 00 166 538 385 Puyallup 20625 0010 840 840 00 134 16 58 39 636 20741 652 364 Seattle 50655 1000 Seattle 18372 Spanaway 18031 Spokane 29032 950 Tacoma 28957 983 Vancouver 26495 654 Vancouver 22925 466 26 24 20 20 48 17 17 28 28 25 22 404385 505 385 775 789 14 08 00 627 102 760 730 30 126 177 440 401 620 620 00 365 110 250 706 710 710 00 137 390 810 60 89 94 28 607 750 712 581 600 700 100 165 216 461 632 820 800 20 159 492 730 20 208 33 33 649 710 639 537 126 838 483 94 791 516 08 57 Charleston 28548 216 101 710 710 00 Schools Martinsburg 18171 318 64 810 840 30 46719 255 165 760 775 15 780 810 30 247 78 534 595 790 850 60 246 155 546 506 740 770 30 186 191 452 486 630 610 20 240 554 139 823 680 720 40 254 262 439 642 724 752 28 Bay Area Public School Madison Metropolitan School School District District School 20685 906 Kenosha 22570 00 Madison 27112 983 Milwaukee 78363 1000 Racine 20577 754 24 26 31 90 24 169307 823 194 Green Bay District District School District Totals 870 Kent Averages Unified 18 Schools Kenosha Racine Clark District County Milwaukee 16580 20 24 Averages District Totals Green Kennewick 750 1 1 District School Highline District 68 18455 Issaquah District District Averages AVERAGES NATIONAL Note t = Not applicable Enrollment ie in Schools Data are arithmetic averages US Department Sources through provisional a with data City not This table file of is Education of expected Locale Code sorted 21300065 502 TOTALS 48476346 304 be reported are weighted by state National SY201112 to TOTALS and city Center and for SY 201213 by the District averages district Education District for District 35 SY201112 Totals SY201213 Averages for 785 817 33 304 185 410 532 790 814 24 2430 1570 5100 5090 or no comparison 2011 2013 and District ACGR Totals percentage Averages point for change Percent are not of Student weitghted name Statistics Level 201213 FourYear Public Regulatory ElementarySecondary Adjusted Cohort Graduation School Universe Surveys US Department of Education Rates Banding a Grad Nation May 2015 113 Appendices APPENDIX J Four or More Year Adjusted Cohort Earliest ACGR 2010 ACGR StateLevel ACGR Graduation Rate 2011 ACGR StateLevel 2012 ACGR StateLevel Public Availability by State Classes 2013 ACGR StateLevel 2010 ACGR DistrictLevel 2011 ACGR DistrictLevel Alabama 2009 No yes yes yes No Yes Alaska 2011 No Yes yes yes No yes t Arizona 2003 Yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes Arkansas 2009 Yes Yes yes Yes Yes It California 2010 Yes yes Yes yes yes It Colorado 2007 Yes Yes Yes Yes Connecticut 2009 Yes yes yes Delaware 2010 Yes yes Florida 2003 Yes Georgia 2009 Hawaii 2010 Idaho NA No Illinois 2011 No Indiana 2009 Yes Iowa 2010 Yes Kansas 2011 of 2012 ACGR DistrictLevel yes yes It to 2013 2013 ACGR DistrictLevel Yes Yes yes yes yes yes Yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes Yes yes Yes Yes t Yes yes t No yes yes yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes Yes No Yes yes yes Yes yes yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes yes yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes It 2010 Yes Yes yes yes yes Yes No Kentucky NA No No yes yes No No yes yes Louisiana 2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Maine 2009 Yes Yes yes yes Yes Yes yes yes Maryland 2010 Yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes Massachusetts 2006 Yes yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Michigan 2007 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes Yes Minnesota 2003 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes Mississippi 2003 Yes yes yes No Yes Yes Yes No Missouri 2011 No yes yes yes No Yes Yes No Montana 2011 No yes yes yes No Yes Yes Yes Nebraska 2011 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Nevada 2010 Yes yes Yes yes yes Yes Yes yes New Hampshire 2011 No Yes Yes Yes No yes Yes Yes New Jersey 2008 Yes yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes yes New Mexico 2006 Yes Yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes yes New York 2006 Yes yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes No North Carolina 2006 Yes yes yes yes yes It Yes Yes Yes North Dakota 2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes It Yes Yes Yes NA No yes yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Oklahoma 2008 Yes No No yes yes No No No Oregon 2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Pennsylvania 2007 Yes yes yes No Yes Yes No No Rhode 2011 Yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial Ohio Island It It yes It South Carolina 2011 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes South Dakota 2011 No yes yes Yes No Yes t yes Yes Tennessee 2003 Yes Yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes yes Texas 2008 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes Utah 2006 Yes yes yes yes Yes t Yes yes yes Vermont 2011 No Yes Yes Yes No Virginia 2010 Yes yes yes No Yes t Yes Yes No Washington 2009 Yes Yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes West Yes It Yes It Yes 2010 Yes yes yes yes yes Yes Yes yes Wisconsin 2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes yes Yes Yes Yes Wyoming 2010 Yes Yes yes Yes Yes Yes No 114 Virginia May 2015 Building a Grad Nation Appendices APPENDIX J CONTINUED Four or More Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate ACGR Public Availability Classes by State of 20112014 20112012 2010 AGGR SchoolLevel 2011 No 2012 Yes Yes t yes Yes t ACGR 2013 SchoolLevel Yes No Yes AGGR SchoolLevel t ACGR Four Year Five ACGR SchoolLevel Year 20122014 Six Year ACGR Seven ACGR Year ACOR Posted Data Posted 20132014 yes yes yes No No No Yes Yes Yes t yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No yes yes yes No No No Yes No Yes yes yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No yes Yes yes yes No No yes yes Yes yes yes t yes No yes No Yes t yes yes yes Yes Yes No No Yes No yes t yes t No Yes No No No No No No No No yes yes No No No Yes No No yes yes yes yes yes No No yes yes Yes yes Yes yes yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes yes yes Yes Yes No No Yes No yes Yes No Yes yes No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No yes yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes No Yes No Yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No yes yes Yes Yes yes yes yes yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No yes yes yes yes yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No yes yes Yes No yes yes Yes yes yes yes Yes No No No Yes No No yes yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes yes yes yes Yes Yes Yes yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes t t Plan Plan to to Na Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Plan to No Yes Yes Yes yes yes No No yes yes Yes t Yes Yes yes yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes yes yes Yes Yes No No Yes No yes yes yes No No No yes yes yes Yes Yes t No No District Yes t Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No yes yes yes Yes No No No Yes No yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No yes yes Yes yes yes yes yes yes No No Yes No Yes Yes yes yes Yes Yes No No yes yes Yes yes yes No Yes yes yes No Yes No Yes yes yes No yes yes Yes No Yes No Yes Source Data 20122013 t The USDOE and School also recently level ACGR for released the 2012 where State Level available 2012 ACGR for 01150 can be obtained from states and the District of each states Department Columbia available at of Educations website httpeddataexpressedgovstatetablesmainctm or by open request to their Department Banding a Grad Nation of Education May 2015 115 Appendices APPENDIX K ACGR Fourdear Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Department Alabama Alabama State Link Department to Data Links by State Main Website toACGR Link Data httpwwwaisdoeciuhomeDefaultaspx httpwwwalsdeedudeptdataPagesgraduationrateallaspx httpwwwi4edstateakus httpwwwaedstatoakusstats httpAvwwazadgov httpAmwwazedgovresearchevaluationgraduationrates of Education Alaska Alaska Department Arizona Arizona of Arkansas California Department Education Arkansas of of Education Development Early httpwwwarkansasedorg Department httpwwwarkansasedorgdivisionspublicschoolaccountabi Education 1 httpwwwodecagov Department California 2 3 Colorado Department of Connecticut httpdqcdacagovdataquestoohortratesGradRatesaspxods J0000000000000TheYear=201011 of Education Colorado lity schoolperformancegraduationrate Agg=TTopic=Graduates RC=StateSubGroup=EthnicRacial httpdqcdecagovdataquest httpwwwedecagovdssdsdtilescohortasp httpwwwrdestatecou$Andexhomehtm httpwwwcdestaterouscderevalgradcurrent httpwwwsdectgovsdesitedefaultasp httpwwwsdectgovsdacwpviewaspa=2758q=334898 Education Connecticut State Department of Education Delaware Delaware of Department Florida Florida 2deu s httpwwwdoekl Department httpprofil esdoekl 2deusSchoolProfilesStateAccountaspx Education of httpwwwfldoeorgdefault httpwwwfideorgeiasBiaspubspubstudentasp asp Education Georgia Georgia of Hawaii httpwwwdoekl2gausPagesHomeaspx Department http Hawaii alAff wwwgadoeorgExtern rsandPolicycommunications ease D eta Is as px P res sV iew =default p d =14 7 ai PagesP ress Re Education State Department http doe k 2 h l i l i i httparchkl2hiusschoolncibnelbhtml u$ of Education Idaho Idaho State of Illinois State Illinois of of httpwwwsdoid2hogov httpsappssdaid2hogovAccountabilityReport0ard Board httpwwwisbenat httpwwwisbeneVassessmentreportcardhtm httpwwwdGeingov httpwwwdoeingovaccountabilitygraduationcohortrate httpeducateiowegov httpswwweducateiowegoved httpwwwksdaorg httponlineksdeorgrcard httpeducationkygovPagesdefaultaspx httpapplicationseducatiorkygov$RCDataSetsaspx httpwwwdoestat8 http Education Indiana Indiana Department Education State Department Education Iowa Iowa Kansas Kansas of Education Department State Department ucationstatistics of Education Kentucky Kentucky Department ntcohortg of Education Louisiana Louisiana of Maine Department laus Education Maine wwwou rad u Department atio i s i an abel i evescomdotsdataman p df nrates20062012 ageme rsn=2 sf v httpwwwmainegovdoe httpvvwwmainegoveducationgradratesgradrateshtmi httpIwwwmarylandpublicschoolsorgMSDE 1httpwwwmdreportcardorgdownloadindexaspxK=01 of Education Maryland State Department Maryland Massachusetts 6012 99AAAA1 N0131211113 Massachusetts of AAAA 2httpwwwmdreportcardorgCohortGradRateaspxPV=1 of Education Elementary Department 1 2 httpwwwdoemassedu Secondary httpwwwdoemasseduAnfoservicesreportsgradrates httpprofilesdoemassedustatereportgradratesaspx Education Michigan Michigan httpmichigangovmde Department httpswwwmischooldataorgOtherDataFilesStudentCounts of Education Minnesota Minnesota HistoricalGradDropout aspx Department http s educationstat e mn u sM D Efi n d ex h tm of Education I 1 2 httpw20educationstatemnusMDEAnalyticsDatajsp httpeducationstatemnusmdeprodfidrplgldcService=GET R LEd DocN ame=054257R ev i s i on Selecti onMethod=l atestRend lion=primary Mississippi Mississippi Department httpwwwmdekl 2msusmdehome of Education Missouri Missouri Department Elementary of Secondary Education 116 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation http m cds httpwwwmdekl 2m s u s dropoutprevention and co m p u so ryschoolattendancedropoutg l raduationrateinformation d es e mOgovPagesdefaultaspx http mcds d ese mog Informationaspx ov gu i d ed n q u i i ryPagesD ist rictandSchool i Appendices APPENDIX X CONTINUED ACGR FourYear Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Department Montana Montana Public Nebraska Office Link to Data Links by State Main Website 1 2 Instruction Nebraska httpwwweducationnegov Department Nevada of New Hampshire of Education Hampshire State Jersey New of Department New New Mexico New York httpAvwwdoenvgov Department Jersey i n egovn rd H Reco is i g dep ress2014H i h pdf g hSchoolG rad httpwwwnevadareportcardcomdimaincohort httpwwweducationnhgov httpwwweducationnhgovdataldropoutshtm httpAwmwstatenius0ducation httpwwwStaterijuseducationdatagrate Education of Mexico Education New wwweducation Education New New httpopimtgovpdfMeasurement Rate H Department Data httpopimtgovReportsDataMeasurementlindexhtml http of Education Nevada toACGR uation Link httpopimtgov of Public http ped sta te n m u s p ed fi nd ex h tm httppedstatorimuspedGraduationdatahtmi I Department York State httpwwwnysadgov Education httpdatanysedgov Department North Carolina North Carolina North Dakota Education Department of Public North Ohio httpwwwncpublicschoolsorgorganization httpwwwncpublicschoolsorgaccountabilityreportingcohortgradrate Instruction Dakota of Public Ohio State Board of httpwwwdpistatendus Department Department of Education httpwwwodestateohusGDTempl PagesOD Oklahoma httpwwwdpistatendusresourcegraduationshtm Instruction Oklahoma State Department EO D EDefau ItPag ates httpreportcardeducationohiogovPagesDownloadDataaspx eas pxpage=1 httpwwwokgovsde httpsappssdeokgovCalendarDueDatesDefaultaspx httpAwvwodestateorushome httpwwwodestateorussearohpageid=2644 httpwwwportalstatepausportalserver D=7237mode=2 ptopen=512obj Adjusted of Education Oregon Oregon Department of Education Pennsylvania Pennsylvania of Rhode Rhode Island Department Education I Department Island of http www Pennsylvania for ride rigov d efa u lt as p x the Class provide did not Cohort of Graduation publicly Rates downloaded for its of files the and schools districts 2012 httpwwwaride ri goveride40reportcardsl 2defaultaspx and Secondary Elementary Education South South Carolina of Education South South Dakota Carolina Dakota Department Department httpedscgov httpedscgovdatsreportcards httpdoesdgov httpdoesdgovreportcardlistnew httptngoveducation http httpteatexasgov httpwwwteastatetxusacctresCompletion2012levelhtmi httpschoolsutahgovmain httpwwwschool httpeducationvermontgov httpeducationvemiontgovnewhtmldataldropoutcompletion of Education Tennessee Tennessee Department wwwtngoveducationdatareportc ardfindex s htm I of Education Texas Texas Education Utah Utah Vermont State State Virginia of of Education of httpAwvwdoevirginiagov Department of s utahgovdataReportsGraduationDropoutas px htm I Education httpwwwdoevirg inia govstatisticsreportegraduationcompletioncohortreportsndexshtml Education State Washington of Vermont of Department Virginia Agency Office Washington Superintendent of Office httpwwwkl 2waus 2wa httpwwwkl u s D at aAd m i n def a u t as px l Public Instruction West West Virginia Virginia Department httpwvdestatewvus httpwveiskl 2wvusnclbpubenrol sy=l Irepstatgrcfmxrep=1 1 of Education Wisconsin Wisconsin of Public Department httpdpiwigovi http d atad p st G ra p h F Instruction i Conf=45SC Wyoming Wyoming Department httped uwyominggovDefaultaspx http i le= s tate w i us dataH SC o m p l I E SA=05Com pa reTo=C on N eti H G H S C H O OL C O M PL ETI O S Pa g e asp C o u my=4 U RRE NTO N LY xO 7 rg L eve S Ath let l i = s ed u wyom n g govd at ag ra d u at ion rates i of Education Note Current as of press time Banding a Grad Nation May 2015 117 Appendices APPENDIX L Frequently Used Terms and Definitions Student subgrouprelated terms US Department of Education persons defined the black as a person having origins in any of Native A person having South America including Central America and maintains tribal A Asian peoples person the of subcontinent or affiliation having origins for who China Japan example Cambodia Korea Malaysia Pakistan Central origin or American South are Rican other Spanish or into fall one culture or American Alaskan or Native or native 2 English who come and areas outlying than as as students 1 who whose or who were not languages a Native are a native resident of the from an environment significant where languages impact 3 who on their writing or and the and who come where or 4 other than languages whose difficulties in to level ability deny the achievement of to to ability successfully opportunity to on fully participate may meet the states is in in classrooms English andor society Students with Disabilities Defined as students mental retardation hearing deafness speech or 118 May 2015 Building impairments language a Grad Nation East by curriculum collegelevel who Students can earn examination with including impairments students visual Supreme Court separate establishing was A of Education US the college 1954 landmark case ruled schools public school black and white for how much of misses for any reason a student equated to typically 18 school missing ten percent is It usually school of the year or days Free and ReducedPrice free laws that state unconstitutional Chronic Absenteeism A measure and reduced Lunch lunches Students qualify households their reduced for income no is price greater meals if 130 than Additionally if of the federal poverty a child can receive free or the family is already receiving mandates Individuals with Disabilities US federal law how states related early to originally and public to children special with International Baccalaureate a nonprofit in 1975 for Children educational in with IDEA services and other Most recent 2004 National Disabilities Founded foundation diploma programs over 147 countries provide education IB to Act that disabilities the law were passed Center is in agencies Dissemination educational Education enacted intervention services amendments IB SNAP stamps including assessments state achieve of instruction are reading language which food from an English in price are speaking understanding the English Programs offered students AP complete the guidelines proficiency other than English where the language the language of languages be sufficient proficient level have a native environment dominant than English migratory whose are languages other the Middle or successfully Brown v Board Cuban Also known defined categories of tour other languages ELL Learners the United States in LEP Proficiency Language English born Puerto AP Placement any Africa the regardless of race Limited English who Mexican of origins defined persons the original of credit Islands Thailand and Vietnam Hispanic A person having Europe North of in need thereof services nonHispanic white traumatic or specific by reason and related courses to high school Asia or the Indian who College Board that provide the Philippine including Includes Advanced any of the original in White peoples community attachment East Southeast Far education as a person any of the original peoples of North and in special impairments and disabilities learning of Africa groups racial black nonHispanic Includes American IndianAlaskan origins other health brain injury American African blindness autism impairments including that students In nd 1968 provides aged 3 to four 19 Appendices APPENDIX L CONTINUED Frequently Used Terms and Definitions Investment 2009 the Investing schools and nonprofits educational No is overall reauthorization of Act of grants innovative student achievement Child the 1965 Behind Left accountable performance of proficiency Race $4 to Elementary created K12 district No regardless of race competitive by the US ethnicity status program of over grant Department of Education and reforms in and state local school education Improvement Grants School the Top A innovation spur improving students all to the academic English disability or economic In to the billion for act and Secondary Education Act The law was intended hold states to demonstrated to have an Behind The No Child Left a 2002 Fund provides order to Implement that are practices on improving impact in Established and Reinvestment Innovation in i3 Fund Innovation in under the American Recovery Child Behind Act Left in SIG 2009 Authorized these under grants are students given to State resources for funds to provide which positive establish of based on each the funds and commitment to use adequate children apply the knowledge understand provide SEAs determine schools resources and Emotional Learning through to US Department 2014c Education Social SEAS the achievement schools receive these grants schools need of agencies the lowestperforming in which educational to substantially raise goals and and emotions skills set and show empathy maintain positive The process and and adults acquire attitudes and manage feel SEL effectively necessary to and achieve for others relationships and make responsible decisions Building a Grad Nation May 2015 119 Appendices M APPENDIX Graduation Rate FAQ does graduating from high school matter Why High school graduates make taxable higher more are likely What be employed to and generate jobs than incomes method additional those without the nation a high school from a single class graduates $53 an estimated For example had diploma our 90 percent reached already more billion would per year Graduates behavior criminal are less or receive have earned Income generated in GDP more than 37000 jobs and increased the billion the goal outcomes and higher $66 They have attainment better health Strong evidence also expectancies fife Increased links educational graduates higher voting and volunteering with this even issue affects national can be accepted How in arrived at feasible high school graduation multiple the student of a graduate These have as also calculate based on several and most the been of of Department or adjusts die The out to transfer ACGR is students identifier based made to each the state school at Most district ACGR Education ACGR the for the following provided the graduating class 2013 Number different and method leaver years the 2008 regulations in ACGR the or a single student required or four accounts individual the formula for the is US The of cohort members who earned a regular high diploma by the end of the 201213 school year school of the notably state methods Number of firsttime 9th graders in fall 2009 starting cohort plus students who transferred in minus students were graduation rates determined on an who interim basis Beginning the states and in 1990s researchers late federal government began developing National rate calculations Governors about a consensus Association strategies that high be calculated in a pioneering for In 2005 members NGA improving school compact generated so The formula was modified schools rates and refined in a Margaret were expected to report formula the Adjusted beginning with Spellings In should rate reporting for and doing 29page rates Cohort Graduation the 201011 of December 2008 States graduation school using the refined Rate ACGR year The Averaged calculation Freshman Graduation that Is still Rate AFGR was an Time span for the The fouryear the states a formula The same formula the reached rulemaking document released by thenSecretary Education of deeply graduation a uniform way across Interim used today for purposes of continuity students of Education and 2014 calculate of Building a Grad Nation or died during school 20112012 and 20122013 as In five standard early ie graduates ACGRs it followed In expected in to the fouryear who ACGR to class study or three with their original calculated in school Department many states consideration time to complete who graduate years are included fouryear cohort for US 2012 2013 ACGR Students graduation which high US enable take additional of in complete news releases and sixyear one two to the rate that the is addition course for the number of years reported grade each graduating gold standard the is is ACGR are often for ACGR ACGR those students the is are typically The fouryear the tenth May 2015 out emigrated 20092010 20102011 and then the concerned graduation transferred years alternative 120 to follow three the school into the state ability grade by state baseline of a diploma rates include completer method rates formulas that varied and researcher and were in in by assigning student states transfer formula to calculate using definitions school on a states What rates determined past Historically who tenth in and schoollevels the armed forces in were high school graduation the How Finally as only security serve to rates within ACGR a regular diploma The students for who students of schools that begin In a is as firsttime ninthgraders together ontime ie and graduate another in school or tenthgraders ACGR Rate or cohort a group tracking for enter high with engage to likely services social by ACGR the is The Adjusted Cohort Graduation as Threeyear schools that begin at Appendices M APPENDIX CONTINUED Graduation Rate FAQ What ACGR numbers as Graduation carefully and and enact regulations the original federal Graduation students than a have GED leaves in Do mean that a certificate when a student known is and same formula to calculate state follows US by the states vary ACGR the same general who formula the is high school students who are or out transfer most states although transfer across into considered sort who Students considered valid students 14 with percent states most of expect states out into state transfers states there out in variation who students with is not required approximately Some disabilities states to gain a regular diploma to these students whatever for their individual for special education say education plan a regular that granting is to identify those schools additional support now states all comparisons who and working is still your states we change if use that states imperative evaluating the definition and rate and groups districts of its this ability need in of ACGR reporting the fouryear IEP they are when in students required students with disabilities outlines As a result it began using a formula Five states 2003 may ACGR have calculated or 11 states back to this ACGR had reported ACGR similar to in period and by 2009 Columbia 24 had reported March 2015 of 49 Appendix I for a list and the states for reported states Thirtyfive it the 201213 District One Department granted a waiver by the allowing them delay reporting because Do all all all of at of see ACGR has been of Education of technical data systems states report ACGR at the school and levels district Not to with difficulties 2010 which in Idaho state US in school years the earliest years of was reported by state states are reporting those that report See Appendix J rigorous diploma the regular diploma are lines occurs among constitute other state in fact years while no is gain a diploma of any documentation more disabilities valid the student population four experts across your states graduation affects question is it When had reported homeschooling out across transfer though Even every state in in homeschooled students that a great deal after cohort or a graduate The answer to a ninthgrade As requirement during support What happens By 2006 Department of What the ways they define in homeschooling Students at at the state level they count incarceration what to learn definitions ask Are boundaries vary in arrived across rates developed Transfers conjectured or each component of the formula For instance how of the cohort see the above section ACGR rather Education truly regulation additional common that formula and states needs diploma or a waiver diploma assumed to formula provided Education the attendance to Department of to ability and compare rates states To be able to make accurate across ACGR mean to her next destination not yet While each ACGR for not be added states use the all No his or writing should of US impede our input and consensus from education of the with the regular state diploma intended is school verified in received intended is an alternative Transfer out ACGR comply that fidelity they can graduation real states The must states picture surrounding regulations a certificate completion measure a comprehensive legislation instance for They matter because a given time period an accurate ACGR implement the fully do the ambiguities and loopholes matter Why individual the terms they use to calculate define to and with uniformly enrollment Freshman counts more years several approach ACGR provide to from aggregate within graduate take no longer are the Averaged with into the ACGR states AFGR ACGR Rate What goes accomplish that rates done is who students means graduation estimating For ACGR does using the Using the which ACGR in states for it in for an report schools yet nor do easytouse format a statebystate list of the level 2010 2011 2012 and 2013 an easytouse See Appendix F ACGR do so format for 2013 reported for links ACGR by state and subgroup See Appendix K to state Building sources of a Grad Nation ACGR May 2015 121 Appendices M APPENDIX CONTINUED Graduation Rate FAQ the graduation Is cards the report Not necessarily rate that same report calculated ACGR cards States supposed are confusion but can which statistics cases in as to what the graduation states estimate to is graduation Many rates regular inflate diplomas graduates who received than rather the graduation retained The ACGR by counting or Some together a certificate definitions fourth Check a diploma as graduates used are report cards about what the Alliance your state in wish Educations for Excellent to the your the method and check state report cards graduation ACGR cards for previous report list by state method results a rate method different and results from independent these rates give the range why a common method in previous based rates common on ACGR the the ONLYgraduation in Building a Grad Nation No Because rates to can only ACGR used Rate 2015 states are still ACGR using the be established two data other report in this AFGR for used is of Statistics absence strategy to of identifiers reported years of after calculate Graduation PP convening May 2015 by each Core Building of school about the most rates on individual Data or a Grad Nation and district CCD three compares It in a school years to by earlier enrollment numbers reported to the Core Data Promoting Power does of who make students for out or in grade to twelfth it nor does the absence In adjust of it for uniform Promoting Power enables rates comparisons to be Promoting Power made across states has been a Grad Nation Annual the Building of used in each Reports A a dropout factoryschool is dropout factory Power of school in a high school is 60 percent which 60 percent or less reported its than or less In with words other twelfth it is a grade enrollment is enrollment three ninthgrade its a Promoting years earlier Why are in the student to The AFGR is in this ACGR report in calcuated AFGR used is national using and state AFGR It CCD schools because It has been more than 30 years although can data trend is be lines is done by the Broad Prize Is number comparison of and changes calculated as retroactively enabling easily available more schoolspecific Power the AFGR and PP used to Because panels The AFGR depends on enrollment by grade annually ninthgraders level and schools for graduation students Common addition by the National Center for NOES Education Tines estimations are Freshman Power data systems based NOES Common 122 rate experts to make recommendations effective trend with several states the Averaged and Promoting from using and because of twelfthgrade graduation What and Challenges transition graduation The AFGR was developed Education in of uptodate illustrate previous Annual Report rate definitions rate that Progress in schoollevel Together and Individual students was so badly needed Is number transfers preceded and for transfers Graduates Center at Johns School but ultimately do not graduate average sources of account not years Those that number federal out freshman individual not account an estimated graduation is University the grade and the website students of using Hopkins and school district may you addition In with AFGR does by the Everyone and fifth grades are the of Power Promoting count students states research developed as completion or attendance of department of education state GEDs by counting because out or state calculation rate two four eighthgraders taken is ninth large sixthyear methods many that of disproportionately because number some In use methods other than the cards report has shown lead to rate actually The average earlier years also report other may and the number years earlier graduationrelated some ACGR report the number of ninthgraders of years earlier the number of tenthgraders three to the number of diploma by dividing by the average systems issue state State accountability and school district reclplents reported on state is as the for for for only at the state level districts and schools select Urban districts and and Education measures were needed one such proxy and enables distribution over time characteristics zeroing of other Promoting in on the schools with Appendices M APPENDIX CONTINUED Rate FAO Graduation Power dropout factories low Promoting becomes more be phased gradually Is there one on prevalent there is Are graduation rates reported or calculated of list ACGR ACGR on Each and most but not summarizes distrlctbydistrict state calculates done so school by school have states own its the of availability ACGR for the 200910 201011 20112012 and 201213 school years the most recent periods which for ACGR publish ACGR is by school each state Are there other is It do not states that recommended that state Civic lists available at Survey that for the for different the school each state The Alliance gc for maintains schools county zip code the classes of Is infopromoting state of GED not and congressional 2008 2009 and 2010 http and not restricted include who are rate No Graduation rates are who students district a in those grades Depending percent to is the grades by the in 9 the data is is diluted of or enrollment in dropout rates to 12 Dropout of indicators over the grades typically considered number a school total on the state 12 or grades total be among the most misleading can because all year divided may cover grades 7 rates rate drop out from given How Ten to 15 a very high dropout rate ACGR including AFGR or They also do students of Incarcerated the and the 3 percent have very to those excludes survey such as the schools public both estimated One rates in percent 11 private school situations I enrolled population tends living and the Incarcerated have low to rates find out the graduation rate in my school community education resources If Its or listed contact website earner your does size of on how the dropout Appendix J in department state provide not the Dropout to Crisis also out the graduation find crisis In your community Icasoromir e orqourlnlork i web for of schoolbyschool A Guidebook nformation The Grad Nation filler not the inverse of dropout Generally the dropout rates methods alternate the in homeschooled information the dropout rate the inverse of the graduation part the surveys are covering has had time to get back on the a sampling of the attended graduation group to Communities Tackle power In that included Consult the tables high all state produce do high than population or Alle Education wwwall4edorgaboutthecrisisschools local each a Promoting Power database by state for district Excellent for rates attainment path through graduation in ACGR 2013 AFGR 2011 Power 2012 estimates and Promoting the attainment both surveys Typically educational an older population who N•f available two surveys snapshots of educational age groups graduation military the latest being are Survey and the American Community provide rates of graduation provide situations population snapshots that are taken separately higher high for Two The Census Bureau conducts but of lowperforming schools based Plan state indices Marshall different Census addressed are Appendix J on different measurement systems The Not on face value the as of press time current lists In be contacted departments of education links for available US to I schoolbyschool and data by state those reported by the all Appendix using enrollment data comparable district Current Population lowperforming the nation based and school will out not one centralized schools across high ACGR of lowperforming high schools based list ACGR No As AFGR use of PP and to Help provides rate and h •Yvvw DrorourPrevention mediaFilesOur2OWorkDropout2OPrevention Grad 20Nation20Guidebook20052809ashx The Civic provide Marshall Plans State Challenge a quick snapshot meeting the graduation index to tes see where it of each challenge stands 1 ii• Indices states status Download also in your states r orcbuiidina qr riilationstate prof ilesandannualupdates Building a Grad Nation May 2015 123 Appendices APPENDIX CradNation N Campaign ESEA on Letter Reauthorization GradNation AMERICAS PROMISE ALLIANCE 7 2015 February Honorable Lamar Alexander Honorable Patty Murray Chairman US Senate 428 Dirksen HELP Committee US Senate 428 Dirksen DC Washington Office Building 20510 decades of stagnating students from high school ESEA of this Member a high The out when 17 have students finally is Bldg seeing progress in from high school became As a more challenging rate accountability for more graduating Education Act Because points from high school on time instead graduated among lowincome and occurred school graduation Office 20510 have risen nationally about ten percentage rates million greatest gains have high DC reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Since Congress school graduation graduating support effective Senate Murray rates the nation graduation progress an additional dropping time 2001 in HELP Committee Senate Washington Dear Mr Chairman Alexander and Ranking After Member Ranking states minority students we result strongly and schools districts and of right at urge you to the in ESEA reauthorization As you know National calculated the US is in NGA reached rates emerged from a consensus a uniform manner across states and developed Department 20019b that on high school graduation leadership Governors Association of to establish comparable Education built upon Governors the a uniform and more accurate across that high states In 2005 members of school graduation a pioneering compact leadership to rates do so In and issued regulations should the be 2008 34 CFR measure of calculating a high school graduation rate states ACGR The fouryear Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate calculates the number of students who graduate reauthorization in four years with state levels a regular high school diploma and must be reported and disaggregated by subgroups should continue the use of graduation We very much Graduation Child rate accountability appreciate Rate Ready for that the Building a Grad Nation support this and the disaggregation approach of school district and believe ESEA subgroup Chairmans ESEA discussion draft references the Adjusted Cohort on the day before the date of enactment 2015 To ensure that parents and communities of this critical and data to maintain strong as such rates were calculated you to incorporate the specific May 2015 across fully the high states College or Career Act of accurate reporting 124 ACGR We at indicator of definition of school performance the Adjusted and young Cohort Graduation peoples Rate into of the can progress ESEA Every rely on the we urge Appendices APPENDIX CradNatien N CONTINUED Campaign Letter on ESEA Reauthorization continuous States are also required to set goals to schools accountable for improve graduation more graduating of and annual rates students their each For year continued progress they must meet or exceed the states graduation reauthorization state accountability 2008 we Specifically comprehensive 2 67 percent of ESEA systems rate graduation it increase possible that for in draft goal or rate or US under the reform among implement high high schools evidencebased graduation districts rate with to rates school and believe district reauthorization consistent to and make graduation accountability to support 3 goals and to 1 rates ESEA implement Ie a considerable success in into evidencebased rates rates at or below that consistently a meaningful part This increase story It should continue to be an important includes use rates policy Flexibility subgroups graduation adulthood frameworks and we look forward you are considering with current federal graduation graduation student make continued make progress progress toward productive rates their policy as stipulated under the Educations systems low graduation continue is of Department performance school graduation of current focus and effort the nation can make progress on a major education with districts districts demonstrate requires states to incorporate interventions and schools and we support rates does not maintain key elements more young people momentum we the school graduation the discussion urge you to require that state accountability such systems so that The it high in While regulation miss stateset annual of and improvement from the prior year toward meeting that goal These regulations have and substantial been essential to improvements the targets to hold schools to strong accountability has made has also demonstrated goal and To capitalize on the significant element in working with you to ensure that on high school graduation rates and state policy Sincerely X ``++ John Gomperts President CEO Americas Promise John Bridgeland President CEO Alliance Civic Enterprises IVIC NTEHPRISES Bob Balfanz Bob Wise Executive Director Executive Everyone Graduates Center Alliance Johns Hopkins University EVERYONE GRADUATESE V Director for Excellent Education ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENT EDUCATION Building a Grad Nation May 2015 125 Appendices APPENDIX Civic 0 Marshall Plan Principles Every school in every community has unique opportunities to accelerate do so stakeholders Plan Marshall campaign is at level every not meant to require a set of appropriate be a prescription end Americas dropout to crisis around Four Leading Principles focus offer stakeholders on which they can focus to but rather an iterative Therefore reach the goal of of their all 90 percent capacities We must direct human financial and and resources to lowgraduation technical rate communities systems schools and disadvantaged school Action All and collaboration action rate students deserve the have 60 percent dropout a worldclass can succeed factory high and lower high school that practices and comprehension by and their feeder middle and schools have 61 to 75 percent the high schools that graduation rates and their feeder middle and elementary schools to ensure do not slip into in a dropout factory promote ensuring school efforts collaboration school system individual efforts school and in at coming and school to school or learning launch gradelevel reading students read proficiently all fourth in and beyond grade advancing and with on grade level through transitions effective Redesign multisector business and communitybased with all supports appropriate campaigns Support Support students they Integrate in and education provided if support students school Serve communities housing rates issues targeted absenteeism with policies elementary graduation principles Action Items staying that items provide The by 2020 Reduce chronic Serve communities housing solutionsoriented Plans action items are organized while the children dynamic evolving Marshall graduation unique needs The Civic for their accountability work children To for their students Items schools the Civic high expectations key themes that can guide solutions achievement middle grades education Provide and demanding coursework that engaging prepares students for college in the Common Transform Core replace or engaging schools academically directed Expand education and careers as outlined Standards State dropout factories options and choices for students opportunities connecting high including college high and recovery Reauthorize quality schools 126 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation and postsecondary career dual technical enrollment education early back on track programs the Elementary Act strengthen accelerate school state and Secondary and school student achievement Education system policies to Appendices APPENDIX Civic 0 CONTINUED Marshall Plan Principles ACCO un We rhtful Collabon must measure our work so and what working system and school is We not must to capacity we know whats that build improve state school graduation Use evidencebased promising practices strategies educationrelated and datadriven decision making in implement use and improve linked continuum accountable and support highly effective teachers counselors and administrator and youthserving working with who those personnel represent teachers track and Intervention Indicator Warning and appropriately support Systems on track and off students outofschool Measure collective impact the effectiveness interventions in of inschool and order to promote and scale best practices metrics maximize efficiency Action items examples of success levels serving time on task extended learning time school In Ir school and during the the state at as a challenge to Create multisector and communitybased that harness Ensure in their the power of youthserving and businesses as education nonprofits parents childs Elicit and others efforts agencies partners and families are continuously engaged and provided education the perspectives of students appropriate success educators and parents Educate community members about the need education available high school tools to and national Maximize afterschool collaborations by shared guided to thoughtfully integrated an allhandsondeck resources to promote their childs Early to identify requires planned deliberately community educational data systems throughout the educational Build To achieve Showcase all sectors Develop must be crisis and outcomes Action Items Fully approach and readiness rates and college Ending the dropout and beyond keep Grad Nation a using local for all state priority and maximize out of school summer Building a Grad Nation May 2015 127 Appendices APPENDIX P Key Programs GradNation individuals of the GradNation Campaign a large and growing movement is and communities organizations dedicated of working together nationwide to rase graduation rates and prepare success The campaigns graduation graduating students all on time students its postsecondary GradNation also aims enrollment for dramatic increases in and graduation Promise Alliance Civic The Everyone Graduates Center Enterprises Hopkins University and the Alliance key increase graduation rates an effective start the a 90 percent onlime high school goal of by 2020 Through 2016 Americas rate support summits 100 communities in to safe places a and opportunities education local government in conjunction with Tufts childcentered help Americas Promise Alliance research approach young people all in institute University The Center The Promise center takes what to researching America succeed The centers work adds for in a needed is to individuals life of academic exploration to the these issues and helps give communities the tools and knowledge to work together support young people One example IS iences Tf•c fiuh Scrou B in this report the United States adversity and too • Craduetion research quantitative people ore Of who Peoai Through gives on the of helping front line to effectively faced i 4 u Leave and qualitative a voice to young life Members Network commit to of much with too and parents a blueprint to accelerate progress chance communitys strengths and needs At each these plans are the Five Promises services that a healthy safe the a young persons dramatically increase success caring adults of Pathways an places effective and opportunities to help others start to Opportunity Fund Progress Youth Progress Youth Pathways to Americas Promise Alliance and the grants to innovative best ideas Fund Opportunity directservice Citi led The by Foundation nonprofits in provides 10 cites lowincome young adults with Boston path to for helping success The $3 million initiative find their award 10 to will 20 oneyear grants ranging from $150000 to $250000 nonprofit organizations Chicago Newark in 10 the of Los Angeles Dallas St Louis San to largest US cities Miami New York City DC and Washington Francisco GradNation State Activation in are school GradNation Communities work across sectors to pursue the GradNation goals share best practices and provide updates on progress and challenges A Initiative between Pearson and Americas 90 percent by in investing Promise organizations within states statewide strategies award will statewide collaboration in $200000 the up to three states share change to encourage and replicate what works and develop successful models other states millions people with the succeed skills for grants to statewide can replicate The goal to prepare and partnership Promise Alliance works to increase high school graduation rates to convening Communities young people succeed the to tailored initiative annual and is Americas GradNation Communities Network work education with join is oari are and support little higher organizations nonprofits wraparound that the and school will country to operates a dedicated organizatons civic schools public young people to develop education help others Center for Promise Promise across the foundatons businesses as leaders from the heart of by providing young people with more of the Five Promises caring adults healthy Johns at Education for GradNation campaign are designed of the initiatives with partnership in by Americas graduation and faithbased Led by Americas summits Local and supported leaders by community the national by the Class of 2020 with no school rate fewer than 80 percent of GradNation Community Summits Promise are hastening the nations progress toward reaching for a 90 percent goals are convened necessary to more young in college work life Any community including GradNaton can apply to join the effort and benefit significantly support and services to help end the dropout training resources and networking tools opportunities and expertse through connections GradNationorg the crisis to and funding opportunities campaign showcase colleagues hard to 128 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation Learn connect mantra of GradNationorg of are research at and act That digital This online platform ideas who the is hub is of the a vibrant and growing best practices work across the nation stories and who working improve graduation rates among young Americans Endnotes Brookings 1 2 G Kona US S Aud Department Johnson Wang X Zhang J F Education of Center National Kneebone E The growth and spread Institution 2014 31 July A Rathburn condition 2014 Statistics 2000 poverty httpwww The al et Educational concentrated of from Available for 20082012 to 2014 education of DC Washington from httpsncesedgov April Available Internet DC Washington brooking seduresearchinteractives2014concentratedpoverty M10420 3 4 B Risley T Forry 271 49 s Halle the 2003 TR N Hair Childhood Early United States The 30 million Internet Census Bureau 2015 Apr 13 updated 2015 cited Apr from httpwwwcensusgovacswww Available Hart 200913 Community Survey American 15 E The early Perper K catastrophe Wandner L Wessel J et al Disparities ECLSB Cohort StudyBirth Longitudinal word gap by age 3 American Educator 2003 Spring and development early learning in DC Washington Child Lessons from 2009 Jun Trends explanations 8 V Burkham D Lee school Washington Inequality DC the at Economic gate starting background Social differences in achievement as begin children 2002 Nov 25 Policy Institute mentoring 7 SF The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor New evidence and possible G Duncan R Mumane Eds Whither Opportunity Rising Inequality Schools and Childrens Life Chances Reardon In New 9 NY York M Bruce Bridgeland DC Washington 9 Low Jun 6 Sage Foundation Russell 2015 the environment 15 Apr The mentoring Jul affect young peoples Hart Research Civic Enterprises with weight and birth cited JM 2001 Center Internet Disease for on the outcomes and perspectives Associates of availability Jan 2014 and Control 2012 Prevention Apr 17 updated 2014 from httpephtrackingcdcgovshowRbLBWGrowthRetardationFnvactionexpos Available A 2014 DC Available 10 A ColemanJenson US Department and food security C Gregory of Agri culture insecurity Singh Economic households in Household food Research Service by selected with children the in security No Sep Report 2014 household United States ERR173 in 2013 Table 3 p16 2013 characteristics Washington Prevalence food of from Available hftpwwwcrsusdagcvmedia1565415errl73pdf 11 K Cook J Jeng Child food insecurity The economic impact on our nation Chicago IL Feeding America 2009 from httpnokidhungryorgproblemhungerresources 12 Asthma and schools Internet 15 13 Income cited 14 15 poverty 2015 Center Available The wwwcdc from Available for and 15 Apr for Disease insurance coverage health Control and Prevention updated 2013 19 February 2015 cited Health in the United States 2013 Internet US Census Bureau 2014 Sep 16 and Education schoolbased About Health Care American Public Health Association 2011 from httpwwwaphaorgprogramsschoolhealthed long reach of early childhood poverty Pathways and impacts on Center the Developing Child at Harvard University Evidence Available 16 Kim from httpdevelopingchildharvardedu GW P Evans emotion Apr from httpwwwcensusgovnewsroompressreleases2014cbl4169html Retrieved School Centers govHealthyYouthasthma M Angstadt regulatory brain function He SS Sripada in adulthood CS Swain Proceedings JE of of the al Effects of childhood poverty and Academy National of Sciences chronic stress on 2011 doi 101073 pnas1308240110 17 Jackson CK Johnson from school Working 18 Paper School f 20647 district Persico Available current ethnicity characteristics FY1112 RC C The effects Hance reforms Cambridge of school spending on The National Bureau educational of Economic and economic outcomes Research 2015 Jan Report No from httpwwwnberorgpapersw20647 expenditures Internet MA per National pupil with and without adjustments Center on Education Statistics for federal 2014 Available revenues from by poverty and race httpnoesadgovedfn tablesasp Building a Grad Nation May 2015 129 19 Review of SNAP Program the before Hearings the Committee Agriculture House Cong 2015 114th Testimony of Robert Greenstein Chicago 20 ASCD and CDC announce whole school community whole whole model Internet child Mar 20 2014 cited 2015 Apr 15 Available from httpwwwascdorgnewsmediaPressRoomNewsReleasesASCDandCDCannouncewholechildmodel aspx 21 CA Farrington Nagaoka J Roderick become learners the role ILConsortium on SEL 22 What 23 The heartbrain is 27 M noncognitive CASEL Internet Keyes Research 2012 role noncog DW Johnson et al A literature to review from httpsccsruchicagoedupublications Available school shaping nitivef actors adolescents Teaching critical httpwwwcaselorgsocialandemotionallearning from Available IS shaping school performance in The neuroscience connection E Allensworth factors Chicago School become learners adolescents teaching of emotional of social academic and Internet learning 2008 Edutopia Internet Washington February 24 G Kena Aud Department 25 JM Krogstad S Johnson Education of httpwwwedutopiaorgricharddavidsonselbrainvideo from Available R Fry Pew Research Wang X Zhang F Dept of Center ed DC 27 of S Heaviside Department S Kemp Robers C Rowand Education US schools C Education J Truman J Department Farris E National schools Violence and of Justice fall ng thistall problems discipline school crime and of this httpwwwpewresearchorg Education for DC US 2014 Washington education of April be majorityminority will from condition 2014 be majority mi noritystarti Center Bureau Justice The et at Statistics Available expectedto Indicators of A J Rathburn Education 16 August Williams of for projects public 2014 facttank20140818uspublic 26 Center National school Statistics 199697 schools public No 2012 Washington safety Offce US in 1996 Report Statistics NCES 98030 DC US Department Programs June 2013 of Justice No Report Available NOES 2013036 28 KangBrown New schools 29 NY Fratello Vera J DaftaryKapur Institute Justice for Juvenile Justice of Juvenile T A generation weve learned about what later zero tolerance in 2013 December arrest rates by offense sex and race Internet December 2014 16 httpwwwojjdpgovojstatbbcrimeexcelJAR2012xls DJ Losen J Trone J York Center National from 30 NCJ 241446 Skiba R Suspended education Internet Law Center 2010 September Southern Poverty from Available httpwwwsplcenterorggetinformedpublicationssuspendededucation 31 The Advancement Project answer 32 to Losen the DJ TE The Martinez 2013 Internet The Newton shooting April 8 Available Alliance January overuse for Educational Justice Dignity in LDF Schools Police in schools are not the 2013 of suspensions in American middle and high school The Civil Rights Project from httpciviinghtsprojectuclaeduresourcesprojectscenterforcivilrightsremedies schooltoprisonfolderfederalreportsoutofschoolandofftrack theoveruseofsuspensionsinamericanmiddleandhighschoolsOutofSchoolOffTrackUCLA48 pdf 33 Council on School Health Out of school suspension and expulsion 2013 Pediatrics March 1 1313 10001007 Doi 101542peds20123932 31 of R Balfanz V Fox J Byrnes Suspended Being in Ninth Home and Sent Grade Internet Put OffTrack Everyone The Antecedents Graduates Center Disproportionalities School of Education and Johns Consequences Hopkins Available from httpcivilrightsprojectuclaeduresourcesprojectscenterforcivilrightsremediesschooltoprisonfolderstatereportssenthomeandputofftracktheantecedentsdisproportionalitiesandconsequencesofbeingsuspendedintheninthgradebalfanzsenthomeccrrconf2013pdf 35 36 T LA Watanabe Apr 14 Available the school Ending United bans suspension from httparticles to prison for willful defiance Los Angeles Times Internet 2013 May 14 cited pipeline in Florida Internet NAACP cited 2015 Apr 14 Available from orgnewsentryendingtheschooltoprisonpipelineinHonda 37 Shapiro 13 cited E 2015 City unveils Apr 14 longawaited Available school discipline May 2015 Building a Grad Nation reforms Capital New York Internet 2013 Feb from httpwwwcapitalnewyorkcomarticleCityhall2015026562324 cityunveilslongawaitedschooldisciplinereforms 130 2015 latimescom2013may14locallamelausdsuspension20130515 httpwwwnaacp Available Internet G Orfield Civil I Rights E Frankenberg The Department Education of J Ee with J Brown Kuscera at 60 a progress great and an retreat long uncertain future The May 15 2014 Project Civil Data Rights Collection Part 20092010 II 2012 Internet 2015 Apr 14 cited from httpocrdataedgov 40 The Education New Trust DC Washington Jun 5 cited newanalysisfindstoomanystud 41 D Mapp K Thomas Too Many Students Missing from AP and IB Programs 2015 Apr 14 Available from httpedtrustorgpressrelease Finds Analysis 2013 entsmissingfromapandibprograms T Race Clayton and Accountability Achievement the A Gap 2006 Internet httpwwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorgleadingforequitypdfHarvardCaseRaceANdAccountabilityB 42 Montgomery County Montgomery County Schools Public Advanced 2012 and Schools Public Public Exam Placement School Students Participation Maryland in and and Performance Nation the from Available pdt Students for 2012 Internet in Available from httpwwwmontgomeryschoolsmdorgintopdf121127APExamPertormancepdf 41 The and Eli 44 The 2007 45 S and success to for AfricanAmerican The students Internet and Eli from httpbroadeducationorgimgroadtoequitypdf Available Language for English Acquisition Language and Educational Instruction Programs NOELA from wwwnoelagwueduexperttastfaq4html Available Aud US 2013 Clearinghouse National The road Broad Foundation Edythe Edythe Broad Foundation W Hussar Department Johnson F Education of Kena G National Roth E Center of E Manning Education et The Condition al of 2012 equity Statistics DC 2012 Washington Education AP expanding May Report access No mathematics NOES 201245 46 Consolidated 47 Hemphill and 1 on the Center Education for NYU J Driscoll School of NYU York Law Advanced School Porter Power Listening to No students Washington in public DC US schools perform Department in Education of NOES 2011459 teachers of English needs development Mediation Law Advanced of language learners Santa Cruz CA The a survey Center for the of California Future of teachers Teaching and A International of Restorative Institute Approach Clinic and Mediation the Economic and National Clinic cited 2015 April 15 Social 2011 Rights Available NESRI Initiative from Internet httpswwwnesn CaseStudiesSchoolClimateRevpdf orgsitesdefaultfilesFINALDRAFT 50 A Progress Jun Report 2011 professional Hispanic and White of Educational 2005 Learning New gap how Assessment Statistics and experiences 200912 Reports Achievement National Gandara P MaxwellJolly challenges 49 A FC Vanneman reading National Performance State Practices for Restorative Part 11 Internet Place Restorative unknown Practices Available in Schools Research Reveals from httpwwwiirpeduartioledetail phparticleid=NTUz $1 Findings 52 Oakland 2015 53 Oakland 55 from R Williams April Oakland School at 15 District Facts Fast District J Marxer Suspensions from United School 2014 Restorative Practices Internet Cited 2015 April 15 International Institute for httpwwwsafersanerschoolsorgpdfIIRPImprovingSchoolClimatepdf 201314 Internet Oakland United School District 2014 cited 2015 April Facts Fast 201213 Internet Oakland United School District 2013 cited 2015 April httpwwwousdkl2causcroslibo7CA01001176CentricitySharedFastFactspdf Available District from httpousdkl2causcros1ib07CAO1001176CentricityDomain4OUSDFastFacts201314pdf United School A Closer Look 2015 from Available Brown Implementing Available United School Available 2015 54 from Schools Practices Restorative cited S S Spiker of African Chang A A Budi E African American Male Achievement OUSD Urban Strategies Council Internet 2012 May Feldman American Males in Initiative httpurbanstrategiesargAAMAIimagesdocsAAMA District 2015 Restorative April 15 Justice Available in from Oakland Schools cited OUSDSuspensionAnalysispdf Implementation and Impacts Oakland Unified httpwwwousdkl2causcroslibC7CA01001176Centricity Domain134OUSDRJ20Report20revised2OFinalpdf Riestenberg and N Expulsions Inschool Minnesota behavior intervention department of grants Children A Threeyear Evaluation of Alternative Approaches to Suspensions and Families 2001 Building a Grad Nation May 2015 131 s° from Schools Findings Practices Restorative Implementing Practices Restorative Internet 2015 cited 15 April International graduating University 57 Graduation ° requirements J Gwynne J Lesnick of HM Hart Schools Public Chicago in students for Chicago for IL E What matters for staying Consortium 2009 Dec Institute for students all Center National on from httpwwwachieveorgSpecialEducationGradRegs Available Allensworth Chicago Urban Education ensuring meaningful diplomas with disabilities Outcomes and Achieve 2013 Educational Institute httpwwwsatersanerschoolsorgpdfIIRPImprovingSchoolClimatepdf from Available ontrack and on Chicago School Research at the httpsccsruchicagoedupublications from Available whatmattersstayingtrack andgraduatingchicagopublicschoolsfocusstudents M Wagner Newman L Cameto R Garza N A report from the national youth with disabilities 2005 April 60 61 JM Bridgeland Research No Report G Aud J Dilulio S K Morrison Johnson The school transition a look first postschool at the NLTS2 study2 epidemic silent DC Washington Civic Enterprises experiences CA Menlo Park SRI completepdf association in of International with Hart from httpswwwcivicenterprisesnet Available Wang X Zhang J F After high longtitudinal from wwwnlts2orgreports200504nlts2report200504 Available 2006 Mar Associates Kena P11182 P Levine A Rathburn et at The condition of education DC US Washington ethnically Department 62 IDEA B Part osepidea618 11 S Faircloth US level Toldson Lucio Department Mar 21 I 2013 Internet data R Educational 2015 cited 2014 Statistics 15 Apr Available httpsncesedgov from April Available from www2edgovprograms files Decreasing dropout SC Clemson rates for minority Dropout Prevention National male youth Center with disabilities Students for from culturally and 2014 with Disabilities Available of Education of T Thompson how discipline Governments Offce for Civil Rights data Marchbanks MP Rights Civil data snapshot school discipline 2014 collection from wwwocrdataedgov Available Fabelo study Justice MD Plotkin relates Center to in M D Carmichael students success and partnership with the juvenile justice Public Policy Booth EA Breaking schools New involvement Research Institute at NY AM York Texas rules A statewide The Council University of State 2011 Jul from csgjusticecenterorg Available 66 datastate for hUpwwwndpcsdorg from 65 Count 2013 Child Center National backgrounds diverse 11 Education of M Griffith M Millard A School Funding Formula for Philadelphia Lessons from urban Association DC httpdataqualitycampaign 67 State by Analysis State Action Internet Data Washington Quality Campaign 2015 from Available orgyourstatesprogress10stateactions 18 Rankings 2015 of States 89 North 7° Humphrey Research Carolina D New Diepenbrock 72 Fulton W J California of School Statistics 201415 Results Toward 2014 Available Internet Washington DC National Education a Grand Vision Early from httpncnewschoolsorgaboutusresults Implementation Charter System White Internet of Californias Local Control Funding Formula 2014 Amid Bumps New School Funding System County Schools Charter Schools Estimates Schools Koppich paper 71 and from httpwwwneaorghome44479htm Available paper 2014 Georgia Department Fulton of Rolls Out in California County Schools Education Available Education Atlanta from Ga Week 2014 2012 httpwwwgadoeorgExternalAffairsandPolicyCharterSchoolsPagesdefault aspx 132 May 2015 Building a Grad Nation Aug 29 35pm (911363 GradNation IVIC NTERPRISES GRADUATES