Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Upon Closer Inspection, those H.S. Graduation Numbers Don’t Look So Great

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

inspectorLast week I posted a piece entitled, “High School Graduation Rate, Too Good to Be True,” wherein I wondered if the spectacular gains in the high school graduation rates for Virginia students were too good to be true. I didn’t know — I was just raising a question. Reader John Butcher proffers this look at the data:

I would add a couple of points to your piece on graduation rates.

First, the overall 89.2% graduation rate for the 2013 4-year cohort is bogus.  VDOE counts the Modified Standard and Special Diplomas and General Achievement Diplomas to get to that number.  The differences between the diplomas are set out at length here.  In short, the Standard Diploma requires twenty-two standard credits and six “verified” credits (i.e., six passed end of course SOL tests); the Modified Standard Diploma is for students with disabilities and requires only twenty course credits.  The relaxed requirements for the Modified Standard degree are in addition to the accommodations available to students with disabilities who seek a Standard Diploma.  The Special Diploma, also for students with disabilities, requires only completion of the Individual Educational Plan.  The General Achievement Diploma is granted to persons who exit high school without a diploma (think dropouts, mostly) and who earn twenty standard credits and pass the GED.

If we count only the Standard and Advanced degrees, as is required for federal reporting, the 4-year cohort graduation rate in 2013 was 85.5%.  As the UVa blog points out, an 89.2% rate is far from satisfactory; 85.5% is still farther from satisfactory.

That said, the major increases in the rates between 2008 and 2013 are in the black, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged populations, just as they are in the bogus numbers.

grad_rates

grad_rates2

 

Second, you ask whether the improvements in the graduation rate are beingachieved by social promotion.  The VCU catalog gives one measure of that:

All VCU students are required to take UNIV 111, 112 and 200. A minimum grade of C is required in UNIV 112 and UNIV 200. Transfer credits are not accepted for these courses after a student is enrolled at the university.

Hold any of the three course descriptions up to a bright light, you’ll see “remedial” written all over.  For instance, UNIV 111:

UNIV 111 Focused Inquiry I (Fall 2014)

Semester course; 3 lecture hours. 3 credits. Utilizes contemporary themes to give students opportunities and practice in writing, critical thinking, oral presentation, collaborative learning, information retrieval and evaluation, and social and civic responsibilities. Incorporates common reading materials and course activities across all sections.

If you think that might describe a real college course, I can introduce you to a recent graduate of Maggie Walker Governor’s School who was forced to endure the predecessors of Univ 111 and 112.  We can infer that things are worse since he left VCU because they now have a third required remedial course.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

3 responses to “Upon Closer Inspection, those H.S. Graduation Numbers Don’t Look So Great”

  1. virginiagal2 Avatar
    virginiagal2

    Two quick things – first, I could not find anywhere in the the link to UVA statistics that said the rates were far from satisfactory. Could you please quote the portion that you read that way? The article appears to be praising improvement. The closest I could find was that even with improvement, “a good deal of upside remains”, which is different in tone and meaning than from “far from satisfactory.”

    Second, I started UVA in the late 70’s. Assuming that we both agree that it was a pretty good school at that time, UVA had much the same requirements you’re bemoaning at VCU.

    UVA had a two-semester composition requirement at that time – well over 30 years ago – for all entering first years that wasn’t, as I recall, all that different from the description of the VCU courses. If I remember correctly, you could place out of the first course if you had very high SATs in your verbal – over 700, something like that – but not the second – and another course requiring research and papers was required, for a total of at least 3 courses.

    At UVA. In the late 70’s and early 80’s.

    How is that so different from VCU’s requirement over 30 years later?

    VCU’s third course appears to be a standardized course on university level research and writing. High school and university are a little different.

    None of these sound like remedial courses. I could debate whether the third requirement would better be achieved with specific courses or with designated courses in various departments – and I’ve seen both approaches in college catalogs – but it’s not that different from what I did in the late 70’s and early 80’s at a very good school, and I don’t think it’s an actual example of required remediation.

  2. mshapiro Avatar
    mshapiro

    VDOE’s numbers never make any sense to me. I’ve analyzed Norfolk public schools extensively and almost nothing there adds up. Especially the cohort rates. In most urban school systems you see senior graduation rates in the 80-90% range because if you have not dropped out of school by your senior year, you are extremely likely to graduate. For example a 9th grade class in Norfolk may have 800 students while the senior class has only 200. Yet you don’t see that kind of drop off reported in the cohort numbers which are supposed to be able to measure those kinds of discrepancies.

  3. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: ” For example a 9th grade class in Norfolk may have 800 students while the senior class has only 200. Yet you don’t see that kind of drop off reported in the cohort numbers which are supposed to be able to measure those kinds of discrepancies.”

    Given the watering down of the requirements for these faux diplomas as well as the screwing around with the data itself – added to the current propensity of the schools to NOT make it simple and clear but instead to make it as difficult and convoluted as they can in making such determinations.. I would suggest:

    1. – looking at the latest SOL scores – which they cannot pervert and have to report per the NCLB specifications.

    2. – look at the standard plus advanced diploma graduation rate.. only and assume the other data is questionable – because it clearly is.

    The intent of the NCLB and SOLs was to hold the schools accountable but they are engaging in massive prevarication these days on things that they have the latitude to do – and the graduation rate is one of those areas.

    The schools are under tremendous pressure these days – and part of it is their own fault – because … way back in K-3, they do not take the actions that they must take to get the at-risk kids on track academically for core reading, writing and math – and they just kick the can down the road until sometime in middle school – they have kids – who are not proficient with core academics to progress through the subjects that assume a basic proficiency so these kids stumble along .. with some remedial courses if the schools put money on it (which they should have put in K-3) or they do whatever they can to keep these kids in school and “give” them “some kind of” diploma …

    but where do these kids go and what do they do after they “graduate”?

    well.. when you hear folks complaining about entitlements – this is it.

    this is how that happens.

    we know this but the schools give up on many of these kids, long, long before they “graduate” with a symbolic diploma.. in k-3 where the only extra help many of these kids get – is if that school receives Federal Title 1 funds.. If they don’t receive Title 1 funds, sometimes the State will help out and almost never does the locality put extra money in those areas even as local money is spent for extra-curricula courses and amenities for the kids who ARE on grade-level.

    In other words – we are STILL leaving these kids behind – but the schools have found a way to camouflage it.

    People can’t find the data to hold the schools dead-to-rights on this – the schools have gotten very clever at fan dancing the data – but people still have a sense that something is very wrong – and this contributes to more and more people feeling that the public school system should be replaced with charter, choice and private schools…

    I personally think it is disgusting on many levels… especially when we have no shortage of people bellowing about deficits and entitlements – who refuse to see the schools role in these bigger issues. The fundamental purpose of everyone paying taxes to have public schools – is for the schools to provide an employable workforce and what they have become is de-facto private schools for the kids who have good parental advocates and warehouses for other kids who do not.. and it starts in K-3 when kids that are behind – are not brought up on grade level.

    If you don’t believe me – go look at the 3rd grade SOL scores, then look at the 4th, 5th and follow on grades and see if the fail rate gets better. it doesn’t.

Leave a Reply

Read More