Policy & Reform

Matthew Lynch published in OpEducation, Policy & Reform

School Reform on a Budget: Where to Invest First

By Matthew Lynch

A major mistake made by school reform groups is to table educational reform efforts because the expenditure does not fit into the school budget. If children are America’s most precious commodity and the focal point of the nation’s educational system, then the lack of funding is no excuse to forgo reform efforts. If we can’t commit money to our K-12 students, how can we expect them to rise above their circumstances?

The old business adage is that you have to spend money to make money – and that should be the mentality when looking at struggling schools or districts that need, sometimes costly, reform. By smartly investing the money, even just in a few key areas, schools will see a return on that reform investment in the way of more successful, higher achieving students. And really – school reform does not need to cost a fortune to make a difference.

In truth, many school reform efforts are cost-effective and can be implemented by resourceful educators. When there is a lack of money, reform is contingent upon the faith and commitment level of the faculty and staff.  Money should not be wasted on model programs and unsubstantiated trends. Reform groups will have to work diligently and efficiently to implement the chosen reform efforts properly and effectively.

So where should the money go?

When school reform is needed and schools have limited resources, spending money on curriculum can be intimidating, but it is a vital place to put money because it makes a huge impact on student outcomes. The curriculum chosen will need to be a good fit for both teachers and students. Math and reading should be the first concern, because they are the building blocks for other subject areas, as well the most frequent measure of future success. Success in these two areas bode well for success in other subjects at all grade levels.

Teachers’ professional development is a key factor for successful school reform as well. When analyzing reform budgets, it is important to set aside money to hire teachers with the ability to create and teach in-service professional development programs. The ability to train the staff and educators internally will save the school money, and will give the teacher/expert a feeling of usefulness. For instance, a teacher with 30 years of experience and a demonstrated ability to obtain amazing results from her specific teaching strategies might create a professional development seminar to share her expertise.

This saves the school an enormous amount of money, and saves the administrator the trouble and cost of hiring a consultant. Another low-cost/no-cost option is to hire professors from neighboring colleges and universities to provide professional development services to your district as a form of community service or to fulfill requirements to obtain or maintain tenure.

In the end, schools operating with limited funds to support reform efforts will need to be both resourceful and creative in order to effect positive change. Forward thinking leaders, committed and imaginative teachers, and a supportive community can contribute to change that improves the educational experiences of our children.

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

3 Ways to Improve U.S. Students’ Standing Worldwide

The latest international report on student knowledge and success worldwide once again paints U.S. students in a bad light. This is not the first time American students have lagged behind their peers on the OECD PISA global education survey that tests and compares student outcomes in areas like math, science and reading. The results are really just more of the same.

While I take issue with particular parts of the test (leader China reportedly only tested students in elite schools in Shanghai), it is a wake-up call nonetheless. When it comes to American K-12 student achievement, it is not enough to be a big fish in a little pond. To really make a splash and gain international footing, a few things need to change in U.S. K-12 education. Here are just a few:

Teacher support. This starts from administration in individual schools and extends into the community at large. Parents must also respect the role of teachers in order for kids to follow suit. Unfortunately many times teachers are pitted as servants, and not put on the pedestal they deserve. Perhaps I’m biased but what is more important than imparting knowledge to our next generation? Today’s best teachers are not simply reciting facts and expecting their students to regurgitate them; the teachers in contemporary classrooms are “showing their work” so to speak by imparting the life skills necessary for students to find answers on their own and be successful citizens in other ways.

Teachers need backup from the other people in their students’ lives and from their own colleagues and superiors. Traditionally high-performing PISA countries like Sweden, Australia and Japan all have one thing in common – high levels of community support for teachers and involvement from teachers in the course of instruction and curriculum. When new initiatives are handed down in the U.S., like the Common Core standards, teachers should have access to resources to help them reach goals. Teachers need more input in decisions, more access to continuing education resources and more faith from the administrators and families impacted by their classrooms.

STEM emphasis. There seems to be a general societal consensus that science, technology, engineering and math subjects are somehow boring, or uncool. A lot of attention has been placed lately on young women and finding ways to encourage them in male-dominated STEM fields, but I’d argue that young men need the same opportunities. Overall, more American students need to take an interest in STEM topics if we want to be able to compete on a global scale. The rapidly changing field of technology makes this part of U.S. K-12 education even more pressing. As the digital age continues to modify life as we know it, the students in today’s classrooms must have the tools to lead the country in discoveries, inventions and communication technology the coming decades.

Equal opportunities. In country that claims to be based on equality for all, there are still too many achievement gaps in our classrooms. While it should be a non-issue, the color of a student’s skin does seem to impact his or her academic achievement. It is not a direct effect, of course, but still something that needs even more focus to overcome. The best work on closing the achievement gap is in individual schools and I think that makes the most sense. No blanket national program will be able to answer all of the intricacies of why an achievement gap exists in a particular place or school. From a federal standpoint, however, schools should be encouraged to develop programs for eliminating achievement gaps and reaching individual students where it is most effective – their own classrooms.

Why do you think American students lag the rest of the world? What would you add to my list?

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

Lessons from Educators on the Big Screen: Part II

For better or worse, films influence people. While known for exaggeration, I do feel like the best-made films contribute something to society at large. In the case of movies where excellence in teaching is the star, there is a lot to be gleaned – whether for first time or veteran teachers.

In part I of this series, I wrote about four inspirational movies that highlight transcendent educators. Today I want look at a few more of my favorites from the big screen and the lessons they teach teachers about their important jobs.

Lean on Me (1989). This is not really about a teacher per se, but about a principal. Joe Clark (Morgan Freeman) comes to save a school about to be taken over by the state. It is run down and full of rebellious and even criminal-minded young people. Joe Clark, the principal with the baseball bat, quickly tries to run the school like some angry but well-meaning despot. At first his teachers are against his methods (and critics of the movie made the same mistake), but as both students and teachers warm up to him, it’s clear that what he is doing is really working.

He does, however, have his enemies; particularly one member of the School Board, who is trying to get him fired. When he is caught chaining the school doors against the fire department’s regulation, he is put in jail, and the School Board convenes a special session to decide if he should be fired. But the students show up in front of the jail en masse and demand his release, which is eventually granted. Immediately after his release, he receives good news; the entire student body has passed the test administered by the state. This movie is yet another shining examples of a dedicated educator who breaks the rules and succeeds precisely for that reason.

Dangerous Minds (1995). This may begin to sound like a litany, but Dangerous Minds is yet another story (based on a true story) involving the dedication of a teacher in an underpriviledged school. Here Michelle Pfeiffer plays the real-life LouAnne Johnson, whose story the movie is based on. Johnson, an ex-Marine, is hired on the spot without really being informed of the kind of class she is to teach. Her students are not interested in learning, are disrespectful and the class is basically in chaos. At first she almost gives up in frustration, but then she decides not to. Once she has made up in her mind that she is going to win over the students, the “battle” begins. Once more, we have a movie about a teacher who breaks as many rules as it takes. In the end, the class is completely won over. In fact, they not only start learning and enjoying it, but they have also come to love and respect their teacher along the way.

Freedom Writers (2007). This is based on another true story. Here Hilary Swank plays the real-life Erin Gruwell. Her dedication also leads to a compassionate understanding of her underprivileged students, and she achieves the ultimate breakthrough when she informs them that they aren’t the first young people besieged by problems. Although she is not permitted to use The Diary of Ann Frank, she does precisely that, at her own expense. She also buys notebooks for her students and encourages them to keep diaries that she would only read if they permitted her to do so. Needless to say, breaking all the rules once more allows her to become an exceptional teacher whom her students come to love.

While I’m not advocating anarchy and chaos in the classroom, all these movies are good at pointing out that you can’t have a great school by making everything and everyone wear the same straitjacket. Rules and regulations are fine, provided that they don’t interfere with the real business of teaching. These fictional and real-life educators got through to their students by leveling with them, by understanding where they come from, and by empathizing with their struggles.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

Is it Possible to Sustain School Reform Indefinitely?

By Matthew Lynch

The word “reform” comes with the connotation of something with a start and end date. There are reformation eras in history, and policies, and initiatives. The problem with thinking of reform, particularly school reform, on a timeline is that the most successful reform attempts are ongoing.

People involved in the piloting stage of school reform often see what they are doing as something limited by time. Other stakeholders likely share this view, or are of the opinion that the work will stop when the reform money runs out, or that, the new reforms won’t take hold. This generally leads to fragmentation, or a lack of a coherent approach to reform, and as a result, reform efforts often end up sidelined. Unfortunately, this circumstance runs contrary to the realization of in-depth, sustained school reforms.

The cyclical turnover of superintendents and school board members makes it difficult to ensure that others will continue effective systemic reforms begun by one board and superintendent. New superintendents and new school boards often want to make their marks by initiating changes rather than sustaining the strategies created by their predecessors.

This is often the case even when evidence suggests that existing programs are the ones that need to be sustained to meet long-term goals, such as closing the achievement gap or getting all students to proficiency. The new leadership appears to forget that there are no quick fixes or short term reforms that guarantee continuous improvement in student achievement, as they jump to exchange existing efforts for improvement with new ones.

The process of school reform can become very lengthy and on the whole it is expected to stretch across a period of several years. Ironically, school districts are placed under tremendous pressure to turn a new page each year, allowing for only a fraction of the time required for any reform plan to produce results. This is sometimes part of a government ploy when budget cuts are enforced with little notice, or a result of resentful parents streaming to the authorities in opposition to some aspect of the an existing plan.

The process of annual makeovers comes at substantial costs to the states that are likely already operating on limited funds. Cost is not the only issue however. By reinventing the system each year, educators, teachers, and principals alike, have no chance to come to terms with the details of any particular plan before it’s time to implement the next one. As a result, educators are never fully versed on any plan, in effect making the process of reform fruitless.

The role of the school district is to take a long-term approach, define, and articulate the school reform agenda for the district, as they are a crucial source of leadership in implementing and sustaining reform. Their role should be to develop a framework by which sustainable reforms can be measured even if there is a turnover of staff.

A school reform framework should include four key points:

  • improving student achievement
  • fiscal accountability
  • increasing organizational effectiveness
  • building and improving relationships with staff and the broader community.

This framework provides an agenda that the school board and staff can work from and use as a checklist to measure the success of reforms. It also means that when recruiting new staff you should look to hire people whose vision matches the already defined vision of the district, an important factor when it comes to sustaining change over time. Reform then should become a permanent goal of every school system, not something that can be plotted out nicely on a calendar.

 

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

The School’s Role in Sex Education and Preventing Teenage Pregnancy

By Matthew Lynch

For how progressive Americans claim to be, conflicting messages about sex abound. Young people hear messages about abstinence until marriage alongside the messages about the importance of using protection during sexual intercourse. Ashamed to ask legitimate questions, youth often turn to their peers for information about sex instead of to their parents and other trusted adults.  At the same time, they are bombarded with sexual images from the media. With all these conflicting aspects of sex, is it any wonder the youth of today are confused?

As of today, the federal government will only fund programs that teach abstinence until marriage and one third of all American schools teach this type of sex education program. Many schools do teach comprehensive sex education, which promotes abstinence until marriage, but also address issues of protection against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).  Recently, President Obama proposed ending funding for abstinence-only programs and instead funding comprehensive sex education programs, but he has not made much progress in that regard, as social conservatives seem to continue to reign when it comes to the topic.

It’s not difficult to see why the programs need to be changed, though. The rates of teen pregnancy and STDs are higher in the United States than in any other developed country and it is only getting worse.  Sexual activity among teens occurs at high rates, which suggests abstinence-only programs are not working.  In fact, these programs are woefully out of date, inaccurate and severely biased.  Sexual activity, pregnancy rates, and rates of STDs either stay the same or increase after teens have taken these abstinence-only programs.

The number of babies born to teens has decreased in recent years, but the actual rate of teenage sexual activity has increased.  Teens are demanding information beyond that offered through abstinence-only programs. Many states are willing to forego federal funding, in order to offer comprehensive sex education programs that include up-to-date and non-judgmental information.

One of the newest approaches, and one that is expected to be more successful, is the Baby Think it Over program.  In this program, students are given the responsibility of caring for a “baby” for an extended period of time.  This is a newborn infant and the computer program that goes with it makes it “cry” at regular intervals. The computer will alert the instructor if the baby has been mistreated or neglected.  This is a good program to teach students what it is like to have the responsibilities of a parent.

Other approaches include building a support system for pregnant teens and bringing the family onboard.  In this way, the negative reactions to teen pregnancy are replaced with the kind of attention that ensures the teen mother and the baby are well cared for, and that pre-natal and post-natal education and care are available. During both the pregnancy and the birth of the child, teen mothers are able to live stress-free environments with the love and support of their family. This level of support increases the possibility that the teen mother will finish high school and find the means to support herself and her baby.

By taking a “see no evil” approach to sex education, we are providing a severe disservice to our youth. More informed teens will make more informed decisions, and they deserve the chance for that.

How do you think sexual education in the U.S. can be modified to better fit today’s society?

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

3 Reasons K-12 Education Still Needs Federal Oversight

Educating American children has always been a responsibility that has fallen heavily on the states. As the public k-12 education matured in the 20th century, however, it became increasingly apparent that states left to their own educational devices meant dangerous consequences for many children—especially students with disabilities and those living in poverty, for example. Historically, the federal government has always been the one to pick up the slack in k-12 education when states have fallen short.

In his piece for The Daily Beast, Jonah Edelman of Stand for Children warns that members of the newly-seated Congress have already voiced intentions to reduce accountability and transparency over states’ educational systems, while providing additional flexibility with federal funding.

I have my reservations about this. Contrary to what some states-rights activists claim, states do not always act in the best interests of their residents, especially when it comes to education. Left to their own devices, states tend to enact discriminatory practices. Allow me to share a few reasons I think education still needs the support of the federal government:

  1. Some states will run wild once given control.

My home state of Mississippi is an example of state control gone awry. If its schools were wholly reliant on the state to outline learning benchmarks and divvy up funding (based on a state population with 24 percent in poverty and over 70 percent of its students eligible for free-and-reduced-price lunch), the inequalities would compound exponentially.

And those inequalities are already startling. For example, while 83 percent of high schools in New Hampshire offer calculus, only 41 percent of those in Mississippi do.

Mississippi has never quite been able to recover from its rampant poverty that began after the Civil War. Even when freedom was granted to slaves in the state and nearby, the African-American population was not able to elevate its quality of life due to the barriers erected by segregation and Jim Crow laws. Less-overt inequalities still exist that keep each new generation of African-American students in the state from breaking the cycle of poverty at home and underachievement in the classroom.

  1. Federal intervention can give students rights when states refuse to.

Edelman mentions issues like desegregation as wins for the federal government when states refused to do the right thing for all students. Without federal intervention, for instance, we wouldn’t have programs like the DREAM Act, which encourages continued education for students who might otherwise have been eligible for deportation. Instead, because of this federal program, they can contribute positively to their communities and to our country.

  1. The federal government can help raise the standard of education so that all states have something to aspire to.

Federal guidance is needed to measure how much students are learning from one state to the next. Establishing a common high bar for academic performance that includes rigorous college-prep expectations can only be brought forth through federal involvement in schools.

It will be interesting to see what twists and turns the NCLB rewrites take and certainly no group will ever be completely satisfied. But the basic principle that guaranteeing every student in every state equal access to education is one worth fighting for.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in OpEducation, Policy & Reform

Can Schools Succeed without Enough Money?

Free, public education in this country comes at a price. When the country hits turbulent financial times, like the recent recession years, it takes its toll on the quality of education available in our K-12 schools, and it can even take decades for the true deficiencies to show.

When town and city administrators are forced to curtail the hiring of new teachers, or force the retirement of older teachers, class sizes then increase.  The teacher-to-student ratio expands accordingly meaning less face time per student, reducing the overall effectiveness of educational institutions.

An economic crisis does not just affect the schools in terms of budgets.  Financial difficulties within students’ families also play a huge role in the educational problems of the United States.  With more parents scrambling to make ends meet, there is less parental involvement with their children.  As a result, students may become unmotivated and slack off on assignments.  They may become problematic at school, meaning more time and effort from school administrators, leaving less time to improve their various systems.

Most American homes are dual-income, with both parents working one or more jobs to try to meet their financial obligations. There are also many single parent families, where the time for work and domestic tasks takes away from one-on-one educational work with children. In nearly every family situation, the time parents have to give their children any type of grounding in basic knowledge is severely limited.  The result is children starting school without much of the very basic knowledge children had in generations past.  Without that early foundation on which to build, children find themselves forever running at a deficit.

Furthermore, testing regimens for our children are anything but uniform. Some children are over-tested to an extreme; States like Massachusetts may be venerated for their stringent policies and standardized testing, but that level of stringency does not necessarily carry over to other states. In fact, many other states are not nearly as rigorous in their own testing procedures, preferring to do only what is required to ensure that they receive federal education funds, and nothing more.

This level of inconsistency then becomes yet another problem for students.  Given the economic climate of the nation, many students may find themselves moving from state-to-state as their parents pursue employment or better jobs.  Inconsistency among state’ standardized testing procedures may result in students who have relocated suddenly finding themselves under a lot of pressure to do better than what was required in their previous school.

The Difference between Then and Now

In generations past, children starting school came into the system with far more knowledge already in hand.  They knew their letters, they knew how to count, and some of them already knew the fundamentals of reading.  This, of course, stems from the fact that most families had a parent who stayed home during the day and was therefore able to spend more time with the child. There were also less electronic distractions from the basics of reading.

Teacher retention is also difficult, stemming from economic factors. A number of the accelerated teacher certification programs, such as weekend and online programs, have good intentions but are turning out teachers that are unprepared to the meet the challenges that they soon will face in troubled classrooms.

Although these teachers are inexpensive since they are brand new and have not worked their way up to better pay scales and benefits, they are more likely to jump ship and leave the school system instead of staying to nurture their profession. Of course, the next group of teachers to replace them is new and inexperienced, too, but provides fresh bodies in the classrooms at an inexpensive level – so the cycle repeats itself. This is good for the budget, but not so good for long-term performance, morale, and achievement.

Certainly, the economic situation affects the task of balancing budgets, by the school system, government entities, and parents. Conversely, more money does not necessarily mean more improvement – but not enough causes a host of its own problems too.

America spends more per student than any other nation in the world, and yet we see meager results. With this kind of money being pumped into the system, why are our school systems in the state that they are? There’s no arguing that our schools need to be well funded in order for our children to succeed, but clearly our schools need to do a better job utilizing the funds that they already receive too.

How can public schools continue to thrive, even in difficult economic times?

photo credit: horizontal.integration via photopin cc

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

3 Real Facts About Behind the Senate’s Refusal to Consider Climate Change Education

The latest version of “No Child Left Behind” had a section that would have created climate change curriculum for K-12 students.

However, the Senate said “no” to this portion of the bill.

Why did this happen? Let’s look at the facts behind this decision.

  1. According to theHill.com, the measure failed 44-53.

“The measure, from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would have created a grant program for school districts to “develop or improve climate science curriculum and supplementary education materials,” according to the amendment text. It failed on a 44-53 vote.”

  1. Chair of the Senate H.E.L.P. Committee (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) Lamar Alexander said that he wasn’t fond of the measure because it further inserts the federal government into public education. But that wasn’t all…
  2. Alexander believes in climate change but is afraid that allowing the amendment to pass would, in essence, create a slippery slope due to political partisanship.

Interesting that politics is the reason why a measure like this failed. Climate change is real and has been proven by simple science. While the development of the curriculum hopefully wouldn’t grow around partisan ideas, giving baseline information on climate change and its impact on the earth seems fairly logical.

Explaining why temperatures in the ocean continue to rise, why the polar ice caps are melting, and why tornadoes have gotten more powerful is information all students should know. This attack on climate change as “made up” is not helpful to anyone — least of all the next generation of adults who will deal with this on an even larger scale.

Hopefully the Senate tries again with rewritten language and passes the measure. Our students need to learn about climate change and at an early age.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Parental Involvement, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Student and Teacher Records: What are the Privacy Rules?

By Matthew Lynch

Personal histories and records exist for every student who attends, and every teacher who teaches, at a school.  This history, in the form of school records, test scores and the opinion of teachers and mentors, can have a huge impact on a student’s future. In some cases, it is on the basis of these assessments about an individual’s potential and overall disposition that life-changing decisions are made about them.

These histories could determine what colleges they attend, the privileges that they are allowed, or even the jobs that may eventually be able to attain. It’s important, then, for these records to be maintained properly and justly and be void of impartial or biased content.

School records and who should have access to them was first realized in the 1970s when instances of parents and students being denied access to them came into the spotlight. The passing of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (or the Buckley Amendment, as it is popularly known) by the U.S. Congress in 1974 was the first federal piece of legislation that expressly addressed what students could and could not access.

The Act makes clear who may have access to a student’s records and who may not. The move was largely beneficial for parents who were previously denied access to records that were very likely to affect their children’s lives.  The Act made it mandatory for schools to share all information about students with their parents, when requested.  It also required schools to explain or interpret the recorded observations to parents, with the failure to do so resulting in federal funds being denied to the school. At the same time, the Act serves in the best interests of teachers.  It clearly denies parents the right to inspect a teacher’s or an administrator’s unofficial records.

The Buckley amendment applies to all schools that receive federal money.  The act has been a promising step in ensuring transparency in dealing with and handling student’s records.  Aspects of the Act, such as the confidentiality granted to both parties, and fundamental fairness, make it stand out as a reformative measure in ensuring the right to privacy for individuals wanting to be educated.

Here is how the FERPA Act empowers parents and guardians and puts them in a better position than they were previously:

  • Parents and guardians can inspect their child’s school records.
  • The Act ensures that information about students under 18 years of age cannot be passed on without parental consent.
  • Parents have the right to challenge the accuracy of information at any point in time and to request a hearing to contest such information.
  • A legal route to get corrections made in children’s school records and to place a statement of disagreement in student regards too is now open to parents.
  • Parents can single-handedly decide who can access the information about their child.
  • In cases where parents find any discrepancies, they can always file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education to seek relief in the civil courts.

It is important for schools, parents and students to realize the importance of what is contained in teacher and student records, while still having reasonable access to both.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, OpEducation, Policy & Reform, Teachers

5 Fascinating Statistics About High School Dropouts in America

Considering the flack the United States educational system gets for its underperformance, you might think that the high school dropout rate would be a cause for concern. However, the reality of our high school graduation rates would actually surprise you. Here are some fascinating statistics about high school dropouts in the United States.

  1. The numbers have fallen across all demographics. In 1972, the government started tracking the dropout rates specifically for Hispanic students because this group has consistently highest percentages of students who do not get their high school diploma. Back then, over one-third of all Hispanic students dropped out. Today that number is down to 13.6 percent. However, the group still leads all races and ethnicities when it comes to young people out of school with no diploma or G.E.D.OK

In 1967, black students dropped out at a rate of 29 percent. That number is down to 7 percent, the same as the national average, today. White students have always held on to the lowest percentage of the dropout pie chart, even when their numbers represented a larger majority of total student populations. In 1967, 15 percent of white students dropped out of high school; today, just 5 percent do.

  1. Low-income students are much more likely to drop out than their middle-class peers. In 2009, students from families in low-income brackets ran a risk of dropping out that was five times higher than high-income peers. Students from low-income families are 2.4 times more likely to drop out than middle-income kids, and over 10 times more likely than high-income peers to drop out.

Still, the future is not completely bleak for kids from disadvantaged economic environments; in 1975, low-income students dropped out at a rate of 16 percent but that number now sits comfortably under 10 percent.

  1. Students with disabilities are still being left behind by schools. Household income is the not the only disadvantage many dropouts have, though. Students with learning or physical disabilities drop out at a rate of 36 percent. Overall, a student who does not fit the traditional classroom mold, or who falls behind for some reason, is more likely to lose motivation when it comes to high school and decide to give up altogether.
  2. Men and women drop out at around equal rates. When it comes to gender, there has not been much differentiation when it comes to dropout percentages in over 40 years. There have been four years since 1972 when the rate for young men dropouts was noticeably higher than young women: 1974, 1976, 1978 and 2000.
  3. D.C. has the lowest high school graduation rate and Iowa has the highest. According to the latest set of national statistics, released in 2012, high school graduation rates were the lowest in the District of Columbia (59 percent), Nevada (62 percent), New Mexico (63 percent), Georgia (67 percent) and Oregon and Alaska (both with 68 percent). By contrast, the states with the highest graduation rates were Iowa (88 percent), Vermont and Wisconsin (87 percent), and Indiana, Nebraska and New Hampshire (86 percent). The type of area a student lives also impacts graduation rates. The average high school grad rate in the largest 50 U.S. cities is just 53 percent, compared with 71 percent in suburban America.

As you see, there are many factors that seem related to the high school dropout rates in this country. However, one thing is certain—in most demographics, fewer and fewer students are dropping out. That is encouraging, even if we do have a way to go.

  • no reactions
0
Share