Building a

Grad Nation:
Progress and Challenge in
Raising High School Graduation Rates
Annual Update 2019

A Report By: Civic | Everyone Graduates Center at the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University
Lead Sponsor: AT&T Supporting Sponsors: Pure Edge and the Raikes Foundation
Building a
Grad Nation:
Progress and Challenge in
Raising High School Graduation Rates
Annual Update 2019

A Report By: Civic | Everyone Graduates Center at the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University
In Partnership With: Alliance for Excellent Education, America’s Promise Alliance
Authored By: Matthew N. Atwell, Robert Balfanz, John Bridgeland, Erin Ingram
Data Analysis By: Vaughan Byrnes
Lead Sponsor: AT&T
Supporting Sponsors: Pure Edge and the Raikes Foundation
Progress and Challenge in Raising High School Graduation Rates

Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Part I: High School Graduation Trends Across the Nation................................................................................................. 15
Part II: Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students...................................................................................... 19
Where We Stand: Low-Income Students....................................................................................................................... 19
Where We Stand: Black and Hispanic Students............................................................................................................ 20
Where We Stand: Homeless Students .......................................................................................................................... 22
Highlight: Spotlight on Michigan: Supporting the Attendance of Students Experiencing Homelessness.......................... 23
Where We Stand: Students with Disabilities.................................................................................................................. 24
Highlight: Change in Graduation Requirements Leads to Dramatic Shift in Nevada’s Graduation Rate............................ 25
Where We Stand: English Learners............................................................................................................................... 25
Highlight: State Graduation Rate Accountability Fueled Graduation Rate Rise............................................................... 26
Where We Stand: Low-Graduation-Rate High Schools................................................................................................... 28
Highlight: From a Nation at Risk to a Nation at Hope:
The National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development......................................................... 31
Part III: Examining the Connection Between High School, Postsecondary, and the Workforce............................................ 33
Secondary School Improvement Index.......................................................................................................................... 33
Postsecondary Enrollment and Readiness.................................................................................................................... 36
Highlight: Promising Models in Boosting the School-to-Work Pipeline............................................................................ 37
Policy and Practice Recommendations........................................................................................................................... 39
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................................... 42

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 5

 Progress and Challenge in Raising High School Graduation Rates

Appendices
Appendix A. A
 veraged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) and Four-Year Adjusted Cohort
Graduation Rate (ACGR), by State, 2003–2017...........................................................................................46
Appendix B. A
 djusted Cohort Graduation Rates, by State and Subgroup, 2016–17..........................................................50
Appendix C. Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Gaps—Black and White Students, by State, 2016–17..............................52
Appendix D. Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Gaps—Hispanic and White Students, by State, 2016–17.........................53
Appendix E. A
 djusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) by State,
Percent Low-Income, ACGR Low-Income, ACGR Estimated Non-Low-Income,
Gap between Low-Income and Non-Low-Income, and Gap Change 2011–2017..........................................54
Appendix F. A
 djusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR, 2016–17)
for Students with Disabilities (SWD) versus Non-SWD Students....................................................................55
Appendix G. A
 djusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR, 2016–17)
for English Language Learners (ELs) Students versus Non-EL Students.......................................................56
Appendix H. E
 stimated Number of Additional Graduates Needed to Reach
a 90 Percent Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) by State and Subgroup, 2016–17...........................57
Appendix I. P
 ercentage of Four-Year Non-Graduates, by State and Subgroup, 2016–17..................................................58
Appendix J. E
 SSA High Schools (100 or more students)
with ACGR of 67 Percent or Below, by State and Type, 2016–17..................................................................59
Appendix K. L ow-Graduation Schools (ACGR Less than or Equal to 67%
& Enrollment Greater than or Equal to 100) and Number of Non-Graduates
Produced by Them, by State and Locale Code, 2016–17............................................................................60
Appendix L. Low-Performing High Schools, by Type and State, 2016–17........................................................................61
Appendix M. Secondary School Improvement Index.......................................................................................................65
Appendix N. State ESSA Plan’s Graduation Rate Goals....................................................................................................68
Appendix O. State ESSA Student Subgroup Graduation Rate Goals.................................................................................70

Figures
Figure 1. A
 veraged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR)
and Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), by State, 2002–2017...............................................15
Figure 2. Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate, by State 2016–17.......................................................................................16
Figure 3. A
 djusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) for Black, Hispanic,
and White Students from 2010–11 to 2016–17...............................................................................................20
Figure 4. S
 tate graduation rate goals, annual improvement targets,
and use of cohort graduation rate by year: 2003–2010....................................................................................27
Figure 5. E
 ffect of state graduation rate goal and annual improvement target
type on school district graduation rates, assuming use of a non-cohort graduation rate: 2003–2010.................27

6 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

Progress and Challenge in Raising High School Graduation Rates

Tables
Table 1. State 2011 ACGR, by Range............................................................................................................................17
Table 2. State 2017 ACGR and Change since 2011, by Range.......................................................................................17
Table 3. Equity Path to 90: Estimated Additional Graduates Needed
to Reach a 90 Percent Graduation Rate by State and Subgroup........................................................................17
Table 4. States with the Largest Graduation Gaps Between
Low-Income and Non-Low-Income Students, 2016–17.....................................................................................20
Table 5. States with Highest Proportion of Low-Income Non-Graduates, 2016–17..........................................................20
Table 6. States with the Largest Percentage of Black Students.......................................................................................21
Table 7. States with the Highest Proportion of Non-Grads who are Black........................................................................21
Table 8. States with the Largest Percentage of Hispanic Students...................................................................................21
Table 9. States with Highest Percent of Non-Graduates in the State that are Hispanic.....................................................21
Table 10. Homeless Students National Data...................................................................................................................22
Table 11. State-Level ACGR for Homeless Students Compared
to All Students and Economically Disadvantaged Students..............................................................................22
Table 12. States with the Highest Proportion of Student With Disabilities (SWD) Non-Graduates, 2017...........................24
Table 13. States with the Highest Proportion of English Learner Non-Graduates, 2017...................................................28
Table 14. Characteristics of High Schools Identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI)........................28
Table 15. Student Demographics in High Schools
Reporting 2017 ACGR and Low-Graduation-Rate High Schools.......................................................................29
Table 16. States with the Highest Percentage of Low-Graduation-Rate High Schools
(100 or more students) and Overall State ACGR, 2016–17..............................................................................30
Table 17. Percent of Schools With 100 or More Students that are
Low-Graduation-Rate Schools by Type, 2016–17............................................................................................30
Table 18. Secondary School Improvement Index, 2011–2017........................................................................................34
Table 19. High School Graduates Immediately Enrolling in College by Family Income, 1975–2016.................................36

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 7

Executive Summary

This year’s annual update to the nation this period climbed from 67 percent to 77.8
includes three new features. The first is a percent for Black students, 70 percent to P
 art I: High School Graduation
Secondary School Improvement Index to assess 78.3 percent for low-income students, and Trends Across the Nation
whether gains in high school graduation 59 percent to 67.1 percent for students The nation continues to see steady, but
rates nationally and by state are translating with disabilities. slowing, growth in graduation rates and
into better preparation for postsecondary Notwithstanding this progress, however, remains off-pace to reach the 90 percent
education. Sixty-eight percent of states have the nation is off pace to reaching its 90 goal, which would require graduating an
been able to improve both their graduation percent high school graduation rate goal and additional 199,466 more students on time
rates and at least two other measures of needs to more than double its annual rate of and more than doubling the annual rate of
academic success of their secondary schools, progress since 2011. Reaching the 90 percent gain since 2011 through 2020.
while nearly one-third have not. The second goal would have required graduating an In 2011, no state had reached a 90
feature is a focus on homeless students with additional 199,466 students on time across percent graduation rate and only nine had
graduation rate data available for the first the nation in 2017. What’s more, to achieve graduation rates above 85 percent. By 2017,
time from 26 states, together with a national an equitable path to 90 percent, the majority
two states were already at the national goal
graduation rate released by the National of these additional students would need to be
of 90 percent and 25 additional states had
Center for Homeless Education, signaling that students of color, low-income students, and
surpassed 85 percent.
homeless students may be the subgroup with students with disabilities.
the lowest graduation rates in the nation. The Students continue to live in two educational • In 2011, 15 states had graduation rates
third new component highlights indicators nations. Most students attend high schools below 75 percent but by 2017, all but one
of postsecondary success and provides with a graduation rate already at 90 percent, of those states had crossed the 75 percent
snapshots of innovations in the school-to- while other students remain trapped in a subset graduation rate threshold.
work pipeline as the nation works to prepare of high schools where the average graduation
• Of the 15 states that had the lowest
more Americans for the increasing demands rate for students is only 40 percent. This
graduation rates in 2011, five have seen
of the workplace. report looks at these issues of equity in-
their graduation rate increase by more than
This year’s report also continues to keep depth—both the subgroups of students that
10 percentage points, helping to close
the nation’s attention on the progress and disproportionately fail to graduate on time,
the gap between lowest- and highest-
challenge across the nation and by state as well as the types of schools where these
performing states in the nation and serving
in raising high school graduation rates, a students are educated. There were 2,357 low-
as a challenge: If some states can make
critical on-track indicator for young people graduation-rate high schools in 2017, down
as they enter adulthood. The graduation from 2,425 in 2016. These low-graduation- such significant gains, others can too.
rate has continued its rise from 79 percent rate high schools accounted for 12.5 percent • Despite the challenges of closing the last
in 2011 to an all-time high of 84.6 percent of all public high schools enrolling 100 or remaining gaps, reaching the 90 percent
in 2017 under the Four-Year Adjusted more students that reported ACGR in 2017, goal by 2020 in fact comes down to highly
Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), and from enroll about 6.5 percent of all students, and achievable numbers at the state level, as
71 percent since 2001 based on the best educate approximately 31 percent of all four- 17 states need to graduate fewer than 1,000
available estimate that has tracked the ACGR year non-graduates. The vast majority of these additional students on time to reach a 90
very closely. This progress means that more schools have been identified for reform. percent rate, while some larger states have
than 3.5 million additional students have We conclude with a list of policy and to graduate an additional 10,000 students.
graduated instead of dropping out over the last practice recommendations that aim to help
decade and a half. the nation reach its goal of a 90 percent The progress of high-poverty states like
Encouragingly, Hispanic, Black, and low- high school graduation rate for all students Georgia and West Virginia, which have seen
income students continue to drive increasing and ensure they are better prepared for their graduation rates increase by more than
graduation rates, with Hispanic students postsecondary education in an economy 10 percentage points since 2011, shows
being the first among them to reach an 80 that increasingly demands it. The report also that, even in the face of challenges, boosting
percent graduation rate in 2017, up from 71 includes a deep analysis of state-by-state high school graduation rates is possible,
percent in 2011. Graduation rates during data in the appendices. even as some states struggle to do so.

8 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

15.6 percent of the 2016–17 cohort, they students with disabilities ranges from a low of
P
 art II: Reaching a 90 Percent comprised 22.5 percent of the nation’s non- 36.4 percent in Mississippi to a high of 83.8
Graduation Rate for All Students graduates. Hispanic students were similarly percent in Arkansas. Students with disabilities
As accountability is transitioned back into the overrepresented, amounting to 23.4 percent of face some of the most inequitable outcomes of
purview of states under the Every Student the cohort but 30.4 percent of non-graduates. any student subgroup, with a 19.8 percentage
Succeeds Act (ESSA), it is important to point graduation rate gap between them
closely monitor states’ progress in reaching Homeless Students and their peers. What’s more, students with
their ESSA subgroup graduation rate goals Homeless students face barriers to graduation disabilities amount to more than one in four
(see Appendix O) and in driving sustained above and beyond poverty alone, and newly students that fail to graduate on time.
improvements in the schools attended by their collected graduation rate data reflects the
student populations with the lowest graduation challenges of keeping this demographic in English Learners
rates. By keeping a spotlight on progress, school and on track, highlighting that they English Learners (EL) represent a growing
these goals have the ability to continue to may have the lowest graduation rates in the population of America’s public school students,
play a crucial role in creating more equitable nation of any subgroup. Under the ESSA, all reaching 9.5 percent of all U.S. students in
outcomes for all students. Under ESSA, states states will be required to submit disaggregated grades K–12 by the fall of 2015. Discouragingly,
are also required to identify their lowest- graduation rates for homeless students for as English Learners increasingly make up a
performing high schools for comprehensive the 2017–18 school year. This year, 44 larger share of the population, in 2017 their
improvement, many of which educate states shared 2016–17 data voluntarily with graduation rate decreased nationally by 0.5
disproportionate numbers of Black, Hispanic, the National Center for Homeless Education percentage point, dropping to 66.4 percent. In
and low-income students, and to generate (NCHE). NCHE used the submitted state data 15 states, less than 60 percent of EL students
plans to improve them. to calculate a national average graduation graduate on time. English Learners graduate
rate of 64 percent for homeless students, as at a rate 19.4 percentage points below their
Where We Stand on Key Drivers compared to the low-income rate of 78.3 non-English Learner peers. Over 41 percent
Low-Income Students percent, and 84.6 percent for all students. In of all English Learners that do not graduate on
Low-income students made up 47.2 percent addition, 26 states shared their graduation rate time are concentrated in four states (Texas, New
of the nation’s graduating cohort in 2017, but data for homeless students with our Education Mexico, California, and Nevada).
nearly two-thirds of the nation’s four-year non- Leads Home campaign, which we provide for
graduates with an average graduation rate of the first time in this report. Low-Graduation-Rate High Schools
78.3 percent. The graduation rate gap between In 2017, there were 2,357 low-graduation-rate
• Twenty states have rates below 70
low-income and non-low-income students high schools of all types (regular, vocational,
percent for homeless students, and nine
ranges from a high of 24.5 percentage points charter, virtual, etc.) with a graduation rate
among that group have rates below 60
in Wyoming, to a low of -2.7 percentage points of 67 percent or less, enrolling 100 or more
percent. Minnesota has the lowest rate, at
in South Carolina. While the majority of states students, down from 2,425 in 2016. These
45.4 percent.
have seen their graduation gaps between low- low-graduation-rate high schools accounted for
income and non-low-income decline, 13 states • One state (Delaware) has a graduation rate 12.5 percent of all public high schools enrolling
have actually seen this gap increase. Fifteen above 80 percent for homeless students. 100 or more students that reported an ACGR in
states are driving progress for low-income 2017, enroll about 6.5 percent of all students,
students, with gains of 10 percentage points or Students With Disabilities and educate approximately 31 percent of all
more in the last seven years. The graduation rate for students with four-year non-graduates. The average graduation
disabilities ticked up in 2016–17, increasing rate for students trapped in these low-performing
Black and Hispanic Students by 1.6 percentage points to 67.1 percent schools is 40 percent. Black, Hispanic, and
Both Black and Hispanic students continue to nationally. This makes students with low-income students disproportionately
make gains greater than the national average. disabilities the student subgroup with the attend low-graduation-rate high schools. In
While Black students have had a double-digit third-lowest graduation rate across the four states, more than one in every five high
gain since 2011 in their graduation rates, country, ahead of only English Learners schools has an on-time graduation rate of 67
even higher than Hispanic students, Hispanic and homeless students (based on the data percent or less, while in seven states, over 25
students became the third major subgroup, available today). Although most states saw percent of on-time non-graduates are found in
after white and Asian students, to reach the improvements in their on-time graduation rate low-graduation-rate high schools. This report
80 percent mark. Yet, while these students for students with disabilities, just 26 states also breaks down low-graduation-rate high
continue to drive gains in the national saw increases of at least 1 percentage point. schools by whether they are alternative or
graduation rate, gaps remain considerable Moreover, 14 states saw their rates decline regular schools; district operated or charter
(10.8 percentage points between Black and over the past year. Still, a 1.6 percentage-point operated; and virtual schools. Through ESSA,
white students; and 8.6 percentage points increase amounts to the largest percentage- states identified 1,805 of their low-graduation-
between Hispanic and white students). point gain this past year among subgroups rate high schools by the spring of 2019. This
Moreover, these students continue to analyzed in this report and is more than three means that the vast majority of the 2,357 low-
disproportionately fall off track to graduate times the national rate of increase. Across graduation-rate high schools in the nation have
on time. While Black students made up states, the high school graduation rate for been targeted for comprehensive reform.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Promote greater alignment and clarity on

P
 art III: Examining the P
 olicy and Practice how students with disabilities are treated
Connection Between High Recommendations across states.
School, Postsecondary, Continue to improve graduation rate data State variation in graduation rates for students
and the Workforce collection and reporting. with disabilities merits further study and
The GradNation Campaign has always While the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate examination to understand why some states
viewed high school graduation as an “on- remains the “gold standard” for collecting have been able to make significant progress,
track indicator” for students at or around the and reporting on high school graduation while others continue to lag. In order to
age of 18. This year’s report examines the rates in its seventh year, there is still room for better understand the education landscape
relationship between increasing high school improvements that would guarantee the best for students with disabilities and hold states
graduation rates and college readiness, data is available. There remain discrepancies accountable for progress, all states should
increasing postsecondary enrollment rates for in how states remove students from their disaggregate data on the types of diplomas
low-income high school graduates, indicators cohort counts, what is considered a “regular” students with disabilities are receiving. The
of postsecondary success, and innovative diploma, how transfer students are taken into National Center for Education Statistics
practices in the school-to-work pipeline. Below account, and how certain subgroups (e.g., (NCES) should also consider setting a
are some highlights: students with disabilities, English Learners, universal definition for who is a student with
and low-income students) are identified a disability and how states count students
• To show the relationship between increasing
within the cohort. In addition, access with the most significant cognitive disabilities
high school graduation rates and college
to disaggregated data on more specific who graduate with a state-defined alternative
readiness, the 2019 Annual Update
intersections of student socioeconomic diploma. Finally, states should ensure that
features for the first time a Secondary
subgroups (e.g., low-income white students, their graduation requirements and diploma
School Improvement Index that uses four
English Learners with disabilities, etc.) options for students with disabilities align with
measures—the percent of students scoring
would allow us to better narrow where postsecondary requirements so that students
proficient on the 8th grade Reading National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) major problem areas may exist. We strongly are not denied the opportunity to access a
exam, the percent of students scoring recommend that graduation rate data be postsecondary education.
proficient on the 8th grade Math NAEP disaggregated by gender.
exam, the percent of students receiving Promote policies that reduce damaging
a 3 or higher on an Advanced Placement Probe deeper on credit academic disparities.
(AP) exam, and the percent of students recovery programs. The data show that Black, Hispanic, and
graduating from high school in four years. Credit recovery practices and pathways have low-income students are less likely to be on
Sixty-eight percent of states have been able rightfully become a cause for concern and track to graduate on time and be college and
to improve both their graduation rates and add to the recent skepticism over increasing career ready. Greater reforms and investments
at least two other measures of academic need to be made in their schools and greater
high school graduation rates. Yet, this is due,
success of their secondary schools, while supports need to be provided to these
in large part, to the fact that few rigorous
nearly one-third have not. students across the education continuum
studies have been done on the quality and
to ensure equitable access to opportunities
• Analysis of recent data from the U.S. effectiveness of credit recovery courses.
from early education through postsecondary
Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey Given the lack of comprehensive knowledge
education. Additionally, states should address
show that, for the first time ever, immediate on the rigor of the most widely adopted
inequities between high- and low-poverty
postsecondary enrollment rates for low- credit recovery programs, it is difficult to
school districts by establishing weighted
income students match those of their middle- understand the true impact of these courses.
funding formulas that provide more money
income peers. It is then essential that deeper investigations
to schools serving students with the greatest
be done to understand how effective credit
• Analysis of a recent longitudinal study out needs. States and districts should also work
of Boston show that three indicators— recovery courses and programs are; what
together to identify where those dollars can
an attendance rate of 94 percent or types of students make up the enrollment in
have the greatest impact, especially as they
higher during four years of high school, credit recovery courses and programs; how
begin to develop comprehensive support and
a GPA of 2.7 or higher, and completing many credit recovery courses on average are
improvement plans for their lowest performing
the required set of courses for admission taken per student; and what percentage of schools under ESSA, and ensure funding is
to state university systems and taking an total credits earned by students come from tied to evidence-based policy and practice.
AP class—were highly predictive of both credit recovery. It would also be important to
earning and not earning a bachelor’s understand what courses are predominantly
degree within seven years of high school taken in these settings and the degree to Align diplomas with college- and career-
graduation. In fact, the odds of achieving which credit recovery courses are ready standards.
a four-year degree increase from 10 enabling some students to learn course The misalignment between what students need
percent to 84 percent as the number of content and graduate with a legitimate to graduate high school and what they need
college success indicators a student meets diploma, and how these students fare in to succeed in postsecondary education puts
moves from zero to three. postsecondary education. students at a disadvantage and often leads to

10 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

them taking remedial courses that can add better equipped to understand their needs and available to them, including financial aid
significant costs to a postsecondary education. implement appropriate interventions. and the application process, as well as
State leaders should establish diploma the course requirements to access certain
requirements aligned with state college and pathways. Moreover, schools and districts
university systems’ admissions criteria. Schools
Improve data collection and reporting on should provide greater access to dual
and districts should ensure more students, postsecondary transitions and outcomes. enrollment, early college, career academies,
Creation of the Four-Year Adjusted Cohort and career and technical education
especially those from traditionally underserved
Graduation Rate allowed for a reliable,
populations, earn a diploma that ensures they pathways. Postsecondary institutions should
consistent, on-track indicator for young people
are college and career ready. Ensuring high do more to support students, particularly
as they transition to adulthood, disaggregated
school diploma requirements are aligned with first generation and low-income students,
by race, ethnicity, income, disability, English
college- and career-ready standards can help both before they step onto campus and
Learners, and homelessness, as well as by
ensure more students are on track to graduate once they are there. Employers can also
state, district, and even school. Data reporting
prepared to immediately enter postsecondary help strengthen the transition between
on postsecondary enrollment and success rates
education or the workplace. education and the workplace by increasing
is, as a result of the nature of postsecondary
engagement with schools through
education, less reliable. In order to properly
internships and the Federal Work Study
understand the full nature of postsecondary
Create state-specific high school program that ground learning in real-
enrollment and success, there must be
graduation plans. world experiences in communities and the
improvement in data reporting. Specifically, we
States should develop “Closing the Grad Gap workplace. Federal policymakers can also
need state level data on how many high school
on the Path to 90 Plans” that analyze which contribute to creating stronger pathways
graduates immediately enroll in postsecondary
districts, schools, and students within their institutions, as this is an important metric of between high school and postsecondary
states need additional supports or guidance momentum toward postsecondary success. We by allowing high school students to use
on implementing evidence-based approaches also need better data on whether high school federal Pell Grants to pay for college courses
to enable all students to graduate on time and graduates are succeeding in postsecondary taken in dual enrollment and early college
be prepared for postsecondary or workforce education in a timely matter, and how that programs. They can also increase national
success. Using data in this report, including tracks with the state in which the student was service opportunities to provide additional
data on the equity path to 90 for all states (see educated and their socioeconomic background. mentors and tutors in high-needs schools,
Appendix H), states could identify where their help those who serve defray the cost of
biggest challenges remain. Creating these Strengthen the transition from high school college with education awards, and allocate
plans can better ensure students in need of to postsecondary and careers. additional funding to accelerate research
critical interventions do not fall through the It is critical that schools help students on college- and career-pathway initiatives to
cracks, and that districts and schools are understand the postsecondary options build the evidence of what is effective.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 11

Introduction

In the early 2000s, Civic In the aftermath of this renewed attention

and visibility, increasing numbers of
while some of these concerns have merit, the
calculation and accuracy of the high school
Enterprises published The institutions began to partner to envision graduation rate has improved significantly.

Silent Epidemic, a report on the

a “Civic Marshall Plan” with clear goals, Further, we show in this report that high
an evidence-based plan of action to meet school graduation rates have increased

first national sample of high

them, and accountability for results over two simultaneously with other measures of
decades. A “GradNation” Campaign was academic achievement, such as the number
school dropouts that debunked officially launched in 2010, committed to
reaching a 90 percent high school graduation
of students passing an Advanced Placement
exam or scoring “proficient” on the 8th Grade
stereotypes, showed most rate by the Class of 2020. After a little more NAEP reading exam.

students could have graduated

than a decade of collectively working on the Most encouragingly, we know that
high school dropout challenge, extensive improvement is possible. After 30 years of

if given the proper supports,

contributions of others in the field, and the flat-lining rates, the high school graduation
hard work in schools, districts, and states to rate has improved substantially since
and outlined concrete reforms. improve outcomes for students, substantial
improvements have occurred, and we have
2001, first slowly, then with increasing
speed, and now at a steady rate. This
During this same period, Johns learned a great deal about the nature of the resulted in more than 3.5 million additional

Hopkins University published

challenge and what works to drive progress. students graduating rather than dropping
Troublingly, despite this progress, deep out. Despite the lingering equity gaps,

the report, Locating the Dropout equity gaps remain, as Black, Hispanic, and
low-income students continue to graduate
these gains have been driven by Black,
Hispanic, and low-income students, and
Crisis, which revealed that just high school at rates far behind their white
and more affluent peers. In addition, English
translated into greater rates of enrollment
in postsecondary programs for these very
15 percent of high schools were Learners, students with disabilities, and same students. We also know that progress

responsible for 50 percent of

homeless students all have graduation rates is possible even in the states and schools
below 70 percent. with the most entrenched educational

high school dropouts, enabling We know the schools that have continued
to struggle with low graduation rates. From
challenges, as many of the poorest-
performing states from 2011 have driven
a targeted approach to address the days prior to the GradNation campaign progress with graduation rate gains greater
with Locating the Dropout Crisis to the than 10 percentage points.
the problem. Great American High School Campaign Importantly, we also know what is
report released just last year, we know effective in boosting graduation rates,
where these schools are located and the including in the schools and communities
intensities of the educational challenges facing the most significant challenges.
they encounter. These high schools also Early warning systems have effectively
reflect the challenges of their surrounding begun tracking a student’s attendance
communities—communities that have been patterns, behavior, and course performance
unable to make the transition to a 21st to identify at-risk students early and to
century economy and are often at the intervene with the necessary supports.
nexus of the all-too-present divides our The Aspen Institute’s National Commission
nation faces. on Social, Emotional, and Academic
We are aware of concerns around Development reinforced that fostering a
accountability and graduation rate gaming child’s social and emotional learning is
that have arisen in tandem with the national essential to improving student academic
graduation rate. Each year, we highlight and career outcomes. High school
areas of significant progress and issues that redesign, comprehensive evidence-based
raise serious concerns. We also know that school improvements, and new high

12 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 INTRODUCTION

schools focused on creating pathways to regular high schools. While we have a strong achievable gains that are necessary to
college and career success for all students understanding of what predicts success in reach the graduation rate goal;
are significant parts of the story. The four-year colleges and universities, there is
2. Reaching a 90 percent graduation
Great American High School Campaign more to learn on indicators for success in
rate for all students: highlighting both
report released by Civic and the Everyone two-year postsecondary programs.
continued improvement for historically
Graduates Center lays out a clear path for As the campaign moves closer to 2020,
underserved student subgroups and the
our lowest-performing schools. we remain committed to ensuring every
equity gaps that linger, and focusing
Now more than ever, we know that a student, regardless of background or zip
on the remaining lowest performing
high school diploma is no longer enough. code, receives a quality education. We are
schools by state; and
Researchers from Georgetown University encouraged by efforts across the nation to
have shown that by 2020, 65 percent of integrate social, emotional, and academic 3. The connection between high school,
jobs will require some type of postsecondary development, and to ensure all students postsecondary, and the workforce:
degree (Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl, have access to a quality education. We will exploring trends in postsecondary
2013). We need to double down on ensuring continue to report on progress and challenge preparation through secondary school
that high school graduation translates into in graduating students from high school and indicators, trends in immediate
postsecondary success. In this report, we building pathways to college and career, and enrollment for low-income students,
identify that a student’s GPA and their high to hold leaders at the federal, state, district, and the strongest predictors of
school coursework lead to greater rates of and school levels accountable for progress postsecondary success.
postsecondary completion. in creating a Grad Nation for all. To highlight The report also includes best practices
Still, there are issues that require further important trends over the past year, this in improving high school graduation rates
monitoring and exploration. We need to report is broken down into three sections: and strengthening the school-to-work
know more about credit recovery programs 1. High school graduation trends across the pipeline, highlights ongoing issues with
and ensure alternative education settings nation: examining the progress states high school accountability, and presents
are held to the same high standards as have made since 2011 and the highly recommendations for policy and practice.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 13

 PART I

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION TRENDS

Across the Nation

…Attaining the goal of a 90 The National Picture State-Level Progress and Challenge
percent graduation rate by
In 2017, the national graduation rate reached A review of state-level data shows that some
an all-time high of 84.6 percent, up from states have already reached the national goal,

2020…would require graduating

79 percent in 2011—when the Four-Year other states have shown significant growth
Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate was first over time, and still others have failed to make
an additional 199,466 students reported nationally—and a small increase
from 84.1 percent in 2016. Although steady
sufficient progress or in some instances have
even lost ground. The progress of high-poverty
on time. progress continues to be made, the nation states like Georgia and West Virginia, which
remains off-pace to attaining the goal of a 90 have seen their graduation rates increase by
percent graduation rate by 2020, which would more than 10 percentage points since 2011,
require graduating an additional 199,466 shows that, even in the face of challenges,
students on time. What’s more, to achieve an boosting high school graduation rates is
equitable path to 90 percent, the majority of possible, even as other states struggle to do
these additional students would need to be so. By 2017, two states (Iowa and New Jersey)
students of color, students with disabilities, remained at the national goal of 90 percent and
and low-income students. Encouragingly, 25 additional states had surpassed 85 percent,
these student populations drove gains in high with New Mexico remaining the only state with
school graduation rates from 2011 through a graduation rate below 75 percent. A number
2017. Graduation rates during this period of these states have been sitting within range
climbed from 71 percent to 80 percent for of the 90 percent goal for several years, but
Hispanic students, 67 percent to 77.8 percent remain unable to make the final gains needed,
for Black students, 70 percent to 78.3 percent supporting the idea that as states approach 90
for low-income students, and 59 percent to percent, the final effort necessary to reach 90
67.1 percent for students with disabilities. percent can be difficult.

Figure 1 Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) and Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), by State, 2001–2017

86
● AFGR
84 ● ACGR

82
GRADUATION RATE (%)

80

78

76

74

72

70 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
YEAR

Sources: Stetser, M. & Stillwell, R. (2014). Public High School Four-Year On-Time Graduation Rates and Event Dropout Rates: School Years 2010–11, 2011–12, and
2012–13: First Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2014–391). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Department
of Education (2013). Provisional Data File: SY2012–13 Four-Year Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 15

PART I High School Graduation Trends Across the Nation

Figure 2 Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate, by State 2016–17

AK WA
VT ME
MT ND
OR MN NH
ID MA
SD WI NY
WY RI
CA MI CT
PA NJ
NV IA
NE
OH DE
UT IN
IL WV VA MD
CO DC
KS MO KY
NC
AZ TN
NM OK AR SC
HI
MS AL GA
LA
TX
70–74.9%
75–79.9% FL
80–84.9%
85–89.9%
90% and above

Six-Year Trends those states have crossed the 75 percent than 3 percentage points over the last six
While yearly growth has slowed, this is still graduation rate threshold. years.
important progress from 2011, when no • Five of these states—Alabama, Alaska, Despite the challenges of closing the last
state had achieved a 90 percent graduation Florida, Georgia, and Utah—have had remaining gaps, reaching the 90 percent
rate, and only 9 states had graduation rates goal by 2020 in fact comes down to highly
gains of more than 10 percentage
above 85 percent. In 2011, the gap between achievable numbers at the state level.
points since 2011, helping to close the
the state with the highest graduation rate Seventeen states need to graduate fewer
gap between the lowest and highest
and the lowest graduation rate was 26 than 1,000 additional students on time
graduation rates in the nation. Another
percentage points. By 2017, that gap has (Vermont needs only 53). Just six states
seven from among this group of previously
closed to about 20 percentage points. (Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, New
low-graduation-rate states had gains of
Six-year trend lines show 24 states York, and California) will need to graduate
more than 5 percentage points.
making gains of 5 percentage points or more than 10,000 additional students.
more, seven of which made gains of more • Of the nine states with the highest These states will need to focus intently
than 10 percentage points. Fifteen states graduation rates in 2011 (Iowa, on improving outcomes for students of
made gains between 3 and 5 percentage Vermont, Wisconsin, North Dakota, New color, students with disabilities, and low-
points, nine made gains of less than 3 Hampshire, Nebraska, Texas, Indiana, income students, as those are the majority
percentage points, and only two states have and Tennessee), none but New Jersey of students currently being left behind.
lost ground. and Iowa have managed to cross the 90 (See Appendix H for state and national
• In 2011, 15 states had graduation rates percent mark as of 2017. In fact, six of breakdown by subgroup of the additional
below 75 percent. In 2017, all but one of these states have growth rates of less graduates needed to reach 90 percent.)

16 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 High School Graduation Trends Across the Nation
PART I

Table 1 State 2011 ACGR, by Range Table 2 State 2017 ACGR and Change since 2011, by Range

State 2011 ACGR State 2011 ACGR Change Change

85–89% 75–79% State 2017 ACGR (% Point) State 2017 ACGR (% Point)
Iowa 88.3% Wyoming 79.7% 90–94% 80–84%
Vermont 87.5% Delaware 78.5% Iowa 91.0% 2.7% Ohio 84.2% 4.2%
Wisconsin 87.0% Arizona 77.9% New Jersey 90.5% 7.3% Rhode Island 84.1% 6.8%
North Dakota 86.3% North Carolina 77.9% 85–89% Indiana 83.8% -1.9%
New Hampshire 86.1% Rhode Island 77.3% Tennessee 89.8% 3.3% South Dakota 83.7% 0.3%
Nebraska 86.0% Minnesota 76.9% Kentucky 89.7% 3.6% South Carolina 83.6% 10.0%
Texas 85.9% New York 76.8% Texas 89.7% 3.8% Mississippi 83.0% 9.3%
Indiana 85.7% Washington 76.6% West Virginia 89.4% 12.9% California 82.7% 6.4%
Tennessee 85.5% West Virginia 76.5% Alabama 89.3% 17.3% Hawaii 82.7% 2.7%
80–84% California 76.3% Nebraska 89.1% 3.1% Minnesota 82.7% 5.8%
Illinois 83.8% Utah 76.0% Vermont 89.1% 1.6% Oklahoma 82.6% -2.2%
Maine 83.8% 70–74% New Hampshire 88.9% 2.8% Florida 82.3% 11.7%
Massachusetts 83.4% Michigan 74.3% Wisconsin 88.6% 1.6% New York 81.8% 5.0%
South Dakota 83.4% Colorado 73.9% Massachusetts 88.3% 4.9% Nevada 80.9% 18.9%
New Jersey 83.2% Mississippi 73.7% Missouri 88.3% 7.0% Georgia 80.6% 13.1%
Connecticut 83.0% South Carolina 73.6% Arkansas 88.0% 7.3% Michigan 80.2% 5.9%
Kansas 83.0% Alabama 72.0% Connecticut 87.9% 4.9% 75–79%
Maryland 82.8% Louisiana 70.9% Maryland 87.7% 4.9% Idaho 79.7% 2.4%
Pennsylvania 82.6% Florida 70.6% North Dakota 87.2% 0.9% Washington 79.4% 2.8%
Montana 82.2% 65–69% Illinois 87.0% 3.2% Colorado 79.1% 5.2%
Virginia 82.0% Alaska 68.0% Delaware 86.9% 8.4% Alaska 78.2% 10.2%
Missouri 81.3% Oregon 67.7% Maine 86.9% 3.1% Louisiana 78.1% 7.2%
Arkansas 80.7% Georgia 67.5% Virginia 86.9% 4.9% Arizona 78.0% 0.1%
Hawaii 80.0% 60–64% North Carolina 86.6% 8.7% Oregon 76.7% 10.0%
Ohio 80.0% New Mexico 63.0% Pennsylvania 86.6% 4.0% 70–74%
Nevada 62.0% Kansas 86.5% 3.5% New Mexico 71.1% 8.1%
Source: NCES, US Department of Education

Idaho** 77.3%
Kentucky* 86.1%
Oklahoma* 84.8%

** First Year of ACGR data was 2012–13

* First year of ACGR data was 2013–14
Source: NCES, US Department of Education

Table 3 Equity Path to 90: Estimated Additional Graduates Needed to Reach a 90 Percent Graduation Rate by Subgroup

American Asian/
All Students Indian/Alaska Pacific Two or More Students with Low- Limited English
Cohort Year (N) Native (N) Islander (N) Black (N) Hispanic (N) White (N) Identities (N) Disabilities (N) Income (N) Proficiency (N)
2016–17 199,466 7,286 - 70,282 86,486 26,793 † 99,877 203,907 54,689

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 17

 PART II

REACHING A 90 PERCENT
Graduation Rate for All Students

If states focus attention on Since 2015, the Building a Grad Nation

reports have highlighted critical drivers in
• In 2017, four states achieved a graduation
rate above 85 percent for low-income
ESSA goals, they have the raising high school graduation rates. These students: Kentucky, South Carolina, Texas,

ability to play a crucial role

drivers have included student subgroups and West Virginia.
and geographic locales, as well as school • An additional nine states crossed the 80
in creating more equitable types that are most in need of support and
intervention and are critical to reaching a
percent mark for low-income students,
while just three states were left in the
outcomes for all students. 90 percent graduation rate for all students bracket of 65–69 percent.
equitably. In this report, we add a new critical
• While most states saw increases in their
subgroup—students who are homeless.
low-income graduation rates, 14 states
As states are required to identify schools (Arizona, California, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,
for comprehensive support and improvement Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New
under the Every Student Succeeds Act, Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
it is essential to ensure traditionally Washington, and Wyoming) saw their rates
underperforming states and schools are decrease from 2016 to 2017. This is a
getting the supports they need and are making concerning trend.
sufficient progress in meeting their student
Six-year trend lines show that graduation
subgroup graduation rate goals laid out in
rates for low-income students have risen
their state ESSA plans (see Appendix N). As
an average of 8.3 percentage points, above
such, last year’s report began reporting on
the six-year average for all students of 5.6
each state’s subgroup goals (see Appendix percentage points. In 2011, 48 states had
O) and will continue to do so in order to hold low-income graduation rates of less than 80
states accountable for progress. If states percent, and 22 states had rates below 70
focus attention on ESSA goals, they have the percent. In 2017, that number had dropped
ability to play a crucial role in creating more to 36 states with low-income graduation rates
equitable outcomes for all students. of less than 80 percent, and only six of those
had rates lower than 70 percent. This is a
W
 here We Stand: significant improvement, but still leaves over
Low-Income Students half of the states with low-income graduation
rates below the national average for low-
Low-income students made up 47.2 percent
income students.
of the nation’s graduating cohort in 2017,
Fifteen states are driving progress for low-
with an average graduation rate of 78.3
income students, with gains of 10 percentage
percent. Improving graduation rates for this
points or more in the last six years. These
demographic is critically important to reaching
states include Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and
the 2020 goal, given that they make up nearly
Utah, a group of states that also had some of
half of the nation’s students.
the largest gains for all students.
Graduation rates for low-income students
rose at a rate just above the national average Low-Income/Non-Low-Income Gaps
for all students, with an increase of 0.7 The graduation rate gap between low-income
percentage point (as compared to the 0.5 and non-low-income students ranges widely
percentage-point growth nationally). Only five across states, from a high of 24.5 percentage
states have low-income graduation rates above points in Wyoming, to a low of –2.7 percentage
the national average for the overall student points in South Carolina. With the exception
population of 84.6 percent (Arkansas, South of Indiana, the Midwest is home to the
Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, and West Virginia). majority of states with the largest gaps for

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 19

 PART II Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students

Table 4 States with the Largest Graduation Gaps Between Low-Income and Non-Low-Income this demographic. Many of these Midwestern
Students, 2016–17 states also have large proportions of low-
income students. For example, Minnesota,
Gap Between Non-Low-Income and Low- Percent of Low-Income Students
Michigan, Idaho, and Ohio have high school
State Income ACGR (Percentage Points), 2017 in the Cohort, 2017 (%)
graduation cohorts with over 40 percent
Wyoming 24.5 13.4% low-income students. In 2017, the 10 states
Minnesota 23.9 42.7% with the largest graduation gaps between low-
South Dakota 23.7 29.7% income and non-low-income students were
Michigan 20.6 40.2% Wyoming, Minnesota, South Dakota, Michigan,
Colorado, Ohio, Washington, North Dakota,
Colorado 20.0 47.0%
Idaho, and Rhode Island.
Ohio 19.3 42.5%
Over the last six years, the majority of
Washington 19.0 50.5% states have seen the gaps between low-
North Dakota 17.9 26.4% income and non-low-income students
Idaho 17.9 54.8% gradually decrease. Thirteen states, however,
have gone in the other direction and seen
Rhode Island 17.4 53.4%
this gap increase (Texas, Missouri, Maine,
Hawaii, North Dakota, Louisiana, Arizona,
Table 5 States with Highest Proportion of Low-Income Non-Graduates, 2016–17 Washington, Colorado, Michigan, South
Percentage of State Dakota, Minnesota, and Wyoming). The
Non-Graduates who are Percentage of Low-Income Low-Income majority of these states already had some
of the largest gaps between low-income
State Low-Income Students Within the 2017 Cohort ACGR, 2017
and non-low-income students to begin with,
West Virginia 92.0% 76.8% 87.3%
meaning even more low-income students are
Maine 84.2% 53.3% 79.3% being left behind.
Arkansas 82.2% 65.3% 84.9% To better tackle graduation rate gaps, it is
California 82.2% 67.1% 78.8% important to understand if there are specific
Nevada 81.4% 67.0% 76.8% subgroups that are over-represented in the
students that fail to graduate on time each
Kansas 81.1% 51.2% 78.6%
year. Reviewing percentages of non-graduates
Rhode Island 80.7% 53.4% 76.0% by subgroup can clarify where states can
Louisiana 80.1% 64.1% 72.6% direct their focus in order to make larger gains.
Massachusetts 79.9% 44.5% 79.0% For example, in California, more than eight out
Vermont 78.9% 45.3% 81.0% of 10 students who did not graduate on time
were low-income students.
The states with the highest proportions
of low-income non-graduates are a diverse
Figure 3 A djusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) for Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White Students
group, ranging from small and largely rural
from 2010–11 to 2016–17
West Virginia to the State of California with its
large urban centers and the largest student
95% population in the country. In eight states,
more than eight out of 10 students who did
90%
not graduate with their peers were low-
85% income. Reducing the number of low-income
non-graduates in these states will require
ACGR (%)

80%
a range of reforms and smart tactics, given
75% the differences among states in terms of
population, challenges, and resources.
70%

65% W
 here We Stand:
60% Black and Hispanic Students
2010–11 2011–12 2012–2013 2014–2015 2015–16 2016–17 Growth in the national graduation rate
School Year continues to be driven by increases for Black
— Black — Hispanic/Latino — White and Hispanic students across the country.
Black and Hispanic students made higher
Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/
achievement-gap-narrows-high-school-graduation-rates-minority-students-improve-faster-rest-nation
yearly gains than their white counterparts (1.4
and 0.7 percentage points respectively, as

20 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students
PART II

Table 6 S tates with the Largest Percentage Table 7 States with the Highest Proportion of Non-Grads who are Black
of Black Students Percent of State’s Non- Percent of Students in the
Percent of State Graduates that are Black Cohort that are Black ACGR, Black
Students in Mississippi 60.3% 49.5% 79.3%
the Cohort ACGR, Black, Louisiana 54.1% 43.6% 72.8%
State that are Black 2016–17 Alabama 43.3% 34.3% 86.5%
Mississippi 49.5% 79.3% Georgia 43.2% 37.7% 77.8%
Louisiana 43.6% 72.8% Maryland 41.6% 35.1% 85.4%
Georgia 37.7% 77.8% South Carolina 40.8% 35.8% 81.3%
South Carolina 35.8% 81.3% Delaware 39.9% 31.1% 83.2%
Maryland 35.1% 85.4% Tennessee 39.1% 25.0% 84.0%
Alabama 34.3% 86.5% Missouri 34.3% 16.7% 75.9%
Delaware 31.1% 83.2% Florida 31.9% 22.4% 74.8%
North Carolina 26.5% 83.9%
Tennessee 25.0% 84.0% Table 8 States with the Largest Percentage of Hispanic Students
Virginia 23.1% 82.8%
State Percent of Students in the Cohort that are Hispanic ACGR for Hispanic Students
New Mexico 60.1% 70.5%

compared to 0.3 percentage point for white California 52.0% 80.3%

students, and 0.5 percentage point nationally) Texas 49.9% 87.7%
in 2017. Despite a faster rate of growth, Arizona 43.1% 74.5%
however, these subgroups of students still Nevada 40.0% 79.7%
graduate at rates lower than their white peers.
Colorado 32.1% 71.1%
In 2017, the national graduation rate for
Florida 29.9% 81.3%
Hispanic students reached 80 percent for
the first time, a milestone for the nation. Illinois 23.3% 83.5%
Six states—Alabama, Arkansas, Maine, New Jersey 23.0% 84.3%
Texas, Vermont, and West Virginia—led the New York 22.7% 71.2%
way with graduation rates greater than 85
percent. Twenty-six states had graduation
rates below 80 percent for Hispanic students, Table 9 States with Highest Percent of Non-Graduates in the State that are Hispanic
two of which (Louisiana and Minnesota), had
Percent of Non-Graduates in Percent of Cohort Hispanic Student
graduation rates below 70 percent. This is an
State the State that are Hispanic that is Hispanic ACGR
improvement from 2016 when five states had
rates below 70 percent for this subgroup. New Mexico 61.3% 60.1% 70.5%
The national Hispanic-white graduation Texas 59.5% 49.9% 87.7%
gap is 8.6 percentage points, a decrease California 59.2% 52.0% 80.3%
from 9 percentage points in 2016, and 13 Arizona 49.9% 43.1% 74.5%
points in 2011. Twenty-seven states have
Colorado 44.4% 32.1% 71.1%
gaps larger than the national average, and one
state, Minnesota, has a gap larger than 20 Nevada 42.5% 40.0% 79.7%
percentage points. New Jersey 38.0% 23.0% 84.3%
Graduation rates for Black students also Connecticut 37.7% 20.5% 77.7%
fall below the national average, with a rate of Massachusetts 36.6% 16.7% 74.4%
77.8 percent. Among the five states with the
New York 35.9% 22.7% 71.2%
largest percentage of Black students, only
two (Maryland and Alabama) have obtained
graduation rates for Black students that
exceed the national average for the overall Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, 11.9 percentage points in 2016, and 17 points
student population. Oregon, and Wisconsin) still had graduation in 2011. At the state level, 24 states had
In 2017, 23 states had graduation rates rates for Black students below 70 percent. Black-white graduation rate gaps greater than
above 80 percent for Black students, while 27 In 2017, the national graduation gap the national average in 2017. Of these states,
states had graduation rates below 80 percent. between Black and white students was 10.8 Wisconsin and Minnesota had gaps larger than
Troublingly, seven of those states (Michigan, percentage points. This is a decrease from 20 percentage points.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 21

PART II Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students

In 2017, Black students made up 15.6 The national graduation rate for Hispanic problematic that in states with substantial
percent of the nation’s total graduating students crossed 80 percent in 2017. Here Hispanic student populations—such as
cohort, but comprised 22.5 percent of again, we can see uneven progress across Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and New
the nation’s non-graduates. By looking at states. Gains in Hispanic graduation rates York—Hispanic graduation rates remain in
the percentage of Black students in each were in large part driven by improvements in the mid-to-low 70s. The net result is Hispanic
state who do not graduate with their peers, Texas and California—two highly populated students comprise 23.4 percent of the
we can better understand where we must states, where half of all students are Hispanic, graduating cohort in the nation, and 30.4
concentrate our efforts in order to see and Hispanic graduation rates are above percent of non-graduates.
improvements for these students. 80 percent. At the same time, it remains
W
 here We Stand:
Table 10 Homeless Students National Data Homeless Students
Homeless students face multiple barriers
Homeless Students High School to graduation. Newly collected graduation
School Year Number of Homeless Students Graduation Rate rate data reflects the challenges of keeping
2016–17 1,355,821 64% this demographic in school and on track,
Note: The graduation rate is based on analysis of 44 states that submitted disaggregated high school highlighting that they may have the lowest
graduation rates to the Department of Education. Source: National Center for Homeless Education graduation rates in the nation of any subgroup.
Until very recently, states were not required
to report graduation rate data for homeless
Table 11 S tate-Level ACGR for Homeless Students Compared to All Students and Economically students, meaning there was no way to
Disadvantaged Students measure or hold states accountable for the
success of these young people. Under ESSA, all
State All Students Economically Disadvantaged Students Homeless Students
states will be required to submit disaggregated
Alaska 78.2% 72.0% 56.3% graduation rates for homeless students for
Arkansas 88.0% 84.9% 79.4% 2017–18. This year, 44 states shared 2016–17
Colorado 79.0% 70.5% 55.8% data voluntarily with the National Center for
Delaware 84.7% 76.5% 81.3% Homeless Education. While data specific to
each state will not be released by NCHE this
Florida 82.3% 76.8% 63.8%
year, NCHE used the submitted state data
Georgia 80.6% 76.4% 60.9%
to calculate a national average graduation
Idaho 79.7% 71.6% 55.1% rate of 64 percent for homeless students,
Indiana 83.8% 80.3% 70.3% as compared to the low-income rate of 78.3
Kansas 86.9% 78.8% 66.3% percent, and 84.6 percent for all students.
In addition, 26 states shared their
Maine 86.9% 79.3% 59.7%
graduation rate data for homeless students
Maryland 87.7% 79.3% 67.2%
with our Education Leads Home campaign.
Michigan 80.2% 67.9% 54.6%
• Twenty states have rates below 70 percent
Minnesota 82.7% 69.0% 45.4%
for homeless students, and nine among that
Missouri 89.0% 81.8% 76.4% group have rates below 60 percent. Minnesota
Montana 85.8% 76.6% 61.9% has the lowest rate, at 45.4 percent.
New Hampshire 88.9% 77.5% 65.4% • One state (Delaware) has a graduation rate
New Jersey 90.5% 83.9% 73.2% above 80 percent for homeless students.
North Carolina 86.5% 81.8% 69.2% Students experiencing homelessness are 87
Ohio 84.1% 73.1% 60.3% percent more likely to drop out of school than their
Oregon 76.7% 70.1% 50.7% housed peers, and without a high school diploma
Rhode Island 84.1% 76.0% 60.7%
youth are 4.5 times more likely to experience
homelessness later in life (Morton, Dworsky, and
South Dakota 83.7% 66.9% 56.8%
Samuels, 2017). Furthermore, more than 95
Texas 89.7% 86.9% 72.1% percent of jobs created during the economic
Washington 79.3% 70.0% 53.9% recovery have gone to workers with at least some
Wisconsin 88.6% 77.4% 68.7% college education, while those with a high school
Wyoming 80.2% 67.9% 60.8% diploma or less are being left behind. More and
more research supports the imperative of actively
As of the 2017–18 school year, ESSA requires all states to submit graduation rate data for students
experiencing homelessness. The individual state data shown here were provided voluntarily to the addressing the educational needs of homeless
Education Leads Home campaign by state education agencies. students to help break the cycle of poverty.

22 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students
PART II

experiencing homelessness are getting

Spotlight on Michigan: Supporting the Attendance of Students what they need. There’s an expense
Experiencing Homelessness involved, and that’s one place where our
superintendent does what needs to be
Students who miss 10 percent or more absenteeism is preventable for even the done and doesn’t cut corners.” Wallin
of days enrolled in school are defined most vulnerable students. admits that this buy-in isn’t easy to
as chronically absent—including both In light of these districts’ successes, come by: “You can’t train it. You can’t
excused and unexcused absences. Poverty Solutions recommends that buy it. In the end, if they didn’t care
Research indicates that students who districts and states: the way they do, we couldn’t do what
are chronically absent are less likely to 1. Ensure that attendance programs we do.”
meet grade level proficiency standards and policies meet the needs of all
3. Adopt real-time attendance tracking
and more likely to drop out of school students, including those experiencing
tools: Early identification and outreach
(Attendance Works, 2018). Absences in homelessness: Because students
to students and families are vital for
early grades have lasting impact: Among experiencing homelessness are
improving school attendance. It is
third grade students, those who were not chronically absent at such markedly
easy, however, to miss early patterns
chronically absent in kindergarten and first higher rates than their housed
of school absence that place students
grade were 3.5 times more likely to read peers, it is critical that programs to
at risk for chronic absenteeism.
on grade level than their peers who were improve attendance are designed in
Real-time attendance tracking tools
chronically absent both years (64 percent ways that address barriers specific
make earlier identification easier
vs. 17 percent, respectively) (Applied to these children and families. Beth
and are available to both teachers
Survey Research, 2011). When students Wallin, a high school counselor and
and administrators for free through
consistently miss school, it is often a sign homeless education local district
national organizations such as
of underlying challenges and may signal a liaison from Manton Consolidated
Attendance Works. One example of a
student is experiencing homelessness. Schools in northern Michigan, says
state-specific resource is MiDataHub,
Based on recent estimates in a report that effective policies and practices
a Michigan initiative to improve
by Poverty Solutions at the University often hinge on practitioner willingness
the management and usability of
of Michigan, the state of Michigan has to get creative. For example, “Getting
school data. Opting into the initiative
the sixth highest statewide chronic [students experiencing homelessness]
food is easy. When they start missing provides Michigan schools with
absenteeism rate in the country (Erb-
school and isolating themselves, we streamlined access to previously
Downward and Watt, 2018). Close to one
have to actively reach out and provide disconnected sources of data which
out of every six children enrolled in the
transportation in any way possible. We enables improved identification and
state’s public and charter schools were
have a teacher who lives in Traverse outreach to struggling students.
chronically absent in the 2016-2017
school year. Homeless students had the City and picks up [one student] every Remember, however, that data is only one
highest chronic absenteeism rate of all day. We pay mileage for [the teacher] to part of a comprehensive intervention strategy.
subgroups in the state for which data was pick up [the student] fifty miles away Sue Lenahan, an elementary and middle
available: Forty percent, or 2.5 times the from school.” school counselor and homeless education
rate of the statewide average. The next 2. Learn from local and national successful local district liaison from Big Rapids Public
highest rate was 8 percentage points attendance interventions: While the needs Schools in central Michigan notes, “I may
lower. Among students who self-identified of students experiencing homelessness learn about a student’s attendance problems
as African American, 32 percent were and successful strategies for supporting while reviewing data, but more than likely
chronically absent, followed by students them may vary somewhat from one one of the teachers will contact me voicing
with disabilities and economically community to the next, Wallin believes their concern; or the attendance clerk will let
disadvantaged students at 24 percent. that effective chronic absenteeism me know of a student’s attendance so that I
The report noted that chronic interventions universally depend on can make additional contact with the family.
absenteeism varied greatly by district for a genuine commitment from district Or our food service department might reach
homeless students, however, and that administrators. “Our administration out to me and let me know that a particular
this variability presents an opportunity takes [chronic absenteeism] seriously homeless student hasn’t eaten lunch for a
to identify what is working in some and personally for the kids. When number of days. It is definitely teamwork
school districts to support homeless our superintendent hears about kids that makes all of this work, but if I didn’t
student attendance. In fact, in four going through these kinds of things, he consciously nurture the relationships I have
school districts, homeless students were literally wraps his arms around these with the other members of this complex
chronically absent at rates lower than the kids and won’t let go of them. That team, the support we offer the students
statewide average for housed students makes my job both serious and easy. would be much harder to accomplish.
(16 percent), indicating that chronic It’s not cheap to make sure these kids Everyone matters.”

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 23

PART II Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students

Table 12 States with the Highest Proportion of Student With Disabilities (SWD) Non-Graduates, 2017 postsecondary education. Making things
even murkier, when the National Center on
Percent of State Non- Percent of SWD Students
Educational Outcomes asked states that allow
State Graduates who are SWD within the 2017 Cohort SWD Student ACGR
students with disabilities to receive different
Maine 46.1% 22.0% 72.5%
diploma options if their states report data on
Massachusetts 44.6% 19.2% 72.8% the number of students receiving different
Connecticut 42.7% 15.5% 66.7% diploma types, just seven states responded
New Hampshire 39.7% 16.9% 74.0% (Johnson, Thurlow, Qian, and Anderson,
New York 38.3% 15.6% 55.4%
2019). In order to better understand the
education landscape for students with
Rhode Island 38.0% 16.3% 63.0%
disabilities and hold states accountable for
Mississippi 36.8% 9.8% 36.4% progress with this subgroup, all states should
Virginia 36.2% 11.8% 59.8% disaggregate data on the types of diplomas
Iowa 35.9% 12.6% 74.3% students with disabilities are receiving.
Vermont 35.8% 16.2% 76.0% Although state-to-state discrepancies make
state comparisons challenging, one thing is
clear: Students with disabilities continue to
graduate at rates well below their peers. The
Encouragingly, six states have agreed W
 here We Stand: graduation rate for students with disabilities
Students With Disabilities
to participate in a State Partnership
ticked up in 2016–17, increasing by 1.6
Challenge with the Education Leads Home
Previous Building a Grad Nation reports percentage points to 67.1 percent nationally,
(ELH) campaign that brings together
have explored the complexity in cross-state the largest uptick among subgroups analyzed
policymakers and practitioners with
comparisons for students with disabilities due in this report. This marks a six-year increase
the goal of overcoming child and youth
to variance in state diploma requirements of 8.1 percentage points. Still, the rate makes
homelessness through education. Through
and identification procedures. Research students with disabilities the student subgroup
the partnership, each state is committed to
has also indicated that anywhere from with the third-lowest graduation rate across
researching and implementing replicable
24 to 32 states offer diploma options the country, trailed only by English Learners
best practices that address the most urgent
specifically for students with disabilities and homeless students (based on the data
needs of their unique homeless student
populations. By working directly with state (Achieve, 2016; Johnson, Thurlow, Qian, available today). Although most states saw
leaders to develop and implement strategic and Anderson, 2019). This makes drawing improvements in their on-time graduation rate
action plans, and creating an innovative any generalizations from state-by-state for students with disabilities, just 26 states
and collaborative “learning lab” of best analysis for students with disabilities difficult. saw increases of at least 1 percentage point.
practices from birth through postsecondary More importantly, it presents challenges for Moreover, 14 states saw their rates decline
education, ELH’s State Partnerships will students themselves, as differences in the over the past year.
promote educational achievement and diploma requirements—and even the types of Students with disabilities face some of the
help break the cycle of poverty diplomas students with disabilities are eligible most inequitable outcomes of any student
and homelessness. to receive—leave students ill-equipped for subgroup, with a 19.8 percentage point
graduation rate gap between them and their
peers. Graduation gaps between students with
disabilities and their peers without special
needs fluctuate across states, from lows of 4.7
and 6.6 points in Arkansas and Oklahoma,
respectively, to a high of 51.7 points in
Mississippi. In 24 states, the graduation gap
between students with disabilities and their
peers without disabilities was greater than 20
percentage points. Only three states had such
gaps less than 10 percentage points.
Significantly, students with disabilities
make up 25.2 percent of all students who
fail to graduate on time, despite comprising
only 11.8 percent of the total 2017 cohort.
Half of the states where students with
disabilities are the largest proportion of
non-graduates are states with above average
high school graduation rates—Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and

24 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students
PART II

passed a bill that allows students with

Change in Graduation Requirements Leads to Dramatic Spike in disabilities who fail to satisfy Nevada’s
Nevada’s Graduation Rate graduation requirements to still receive
a diploma. Any student with a disability
Long one of the states which has struggled disabilities scored proficient on any of the who does not meet Nevada’s graduation
the most to achieve high on-time high school exams, while just 28 percent of English requirement is able to receive a standard
graduation rates, Nevada experienced a Learners were proficient on the math exam, high school diploma if the student
7.3 percentage point jump in their high the highest rate of proficiency by ELs on demonstrates proficiency through a
school graduation rate from 2015–16 to any of the four required exams. This could portfolio of work, while also satisfying the
2016–17, the largest increase of any state account for a sizable amount of the 35.4 requirements set forth in the student’s
in the nation. That increase, however, and 39.1 percentage point gains by students individualized education program.
seems to have been driven in part by two with disabilities and English Learners, Additionally, the bill allows a student who
changes to Nevada’s high school graduation respectively, from the 2015–16 school year suffers a significant cognitive disability to
requirements, rather than just improvements to 2016–17. receive an alternate diploma if the student
in keeping students on track to graduation. Beginning in the 2018-19 school year, the passes an assessment prescribed by the
Beginning in 1979, Nevada required end-of-course assessments will count for 10 State Board of Education. Prior to this
students to pass at least one High School percent of a student’s final grade, increasing change, students with disabilities were also
Proficiency Exam (HSPE). Following 5 percent each subsequent school year until required to pass the four HSPE and were
Nevada’s adoption of the Common Core reaching a maximum weight of 20 percent.
given no flexibility even if they had difficulty
Standards in 2010, the state’s High School In addition to changing the graduation
taking standardized tests.
Proficiency Exams were determined to no requirements for test passing, Nevada will
While it is important to recognize the
longer align with the new standards. At that retroactively grant diplomas to students who
specific needs of students with disabilities,
time, students were required to pass HSPEs previously met all the requirements to receive
and provide these students with the support
in Math, Reading, Science, and Writing. a diploma, but failed to pass at least one of
and flexible learning environments they need
The state legislature subsequently voted the state’s required proficiency exams. This
to succeed in high school and beyond, it is
to replace the HSPE with end-of-course may allow a student who left high school as
important to ensure that any allowances for
evaluations, beginning with students in the long ago as 1980 to receive a diploma.
students with disabilities at the high school
2016-17 school year, and charged the State Nevada is not the first state to do away
level maintain the rigor and coursework
Board of Education with determining how with required state exit exams and bestow
students’ exam results would factor into their retroactive diplomas. As of 2016, at least necessary to successfully prepare these
final grade in the course. six other states—Georgia, California, Texas, students for postsecondary education and
Subsequently, the Board decided that for South Carolina, Arizona, and Alaska— the increasing demands of the workforce.
the first two years of the new end-of-course have been awarding retroactive diplomas Although both adaptations to Nevada’s
examinations (2016–17 and 2017–18), a for previous cohorts of students after high school graduation requirements are
student need only participate in the end- making similar changes to their graduation well-meaning, both raise concerns that the
of-course exams to graduate from high requirements (Gewertz, 2016). These sizable jump in the state’s graduation rate
school. This is significant, as the Class of retroactive diplomas are not counted toward is influenced by changes in requirements
2016, the last class required to pass the the state’s ACGR, so they are not actively rather than demonstrable improvements
HSPE, saw at least 18 percent of test- influencing present graduation rates. in educating students and preparing them
takers score below proficient on every exam Students with disabilities chances of for success beyond high school. Nevada’s
required to graduate, meaning that these receiving a high school diploma have also new graduation requirements will merit
students would be ineligible to receive a been altered as the result of a second significant monitoring to ensure students
high school diploma of any kind. Moreover, change in Nevada’s state graduation receiving a diploma are also receiving a
no more than 37.4 percent of students with requirements in 2017. The state legislature quality education.

Vermont. Thus, even states that have found with disabilities merits further study and was not born in the United States or whose
ways to improve their graduation rates overall, examination to understand why some states native language is a language other than
continue to struggle to find ways to graduate are making significant progress and others English; or who comes from an environment
students with disabilities at similar levels. This, continue to languish. where a language other than English is
and the fact that one of every four students dominant; or who is an American Indian
who fails to graduate high school on time is
special needs, emphasizes how important
W
 here We Stand: or Alaska Native and who comes from an
environment where a language other than
it is to address the inequitable outcomes of English Learners English has had a significant impact on his
students with disabilities for all states. State The National Center for Education Statistics or her level of English language proficiency;
variation in graduation rates for students defines English Learner as an individual who and who, by reason thereof, has sufficient

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 25

PART II Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students

difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or

understanding the English language to
deny such individual the opportunity to State Graduation Rate Accountability Fueled
Graduation Rate Rise
learn successfully in classrooms where
the language of instruction is English or
to participate fully in our society (U.S.
Recent ground-breaking research by Dan Princiotta of Johns Hopkins University’s School
Department of Education, 2016).
of Education finds state graduation rate accountability systems helped fuel the rise in U.S.
In the fall of 2015, there were 4.8 million
graduation rates from 2003 to 2010 (Princiotta, 2019). Conducting analysis at the state
ELs in the United States. This amounts to
and district levels, the study examined numerous factors that have been proposed as
9.5 percent of all U.S. students grades K–12.
possible drivers of improvements in high school graduation rates, from demographic and
For the 2014–15 school year and earlier,
economic shifts, to smaller schools, the expansion of charter schools, and improvements
data on the total number of ELs enrolled in
in elementary and middle grades achievement. Even after accounting for all these factors,
public schools and the percentage of public
graduation rate accountability was the single largest contributor to improved graduation
school students who were ELs included
rates, accounting for 23 percent of the total observed increase in district graduation rates
only students who participated in EL
over that time (Princiotta, 2019).
programming. Beginning in 2015, however,
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) mandated that states set up graduation
calculations were changed to include all EL
rate accountability systems with statewide graduation rate goals for schools and districts.
students, regardless of program participation.
These systems typically included annual improvement targets for schools and districts that
For this reason, comparisons between 2015
failed to meet state goals. Only if schools and districts met statewide goals or improvement
and prior years should be done with caution.
targets would they make “Adequate Yearly Progress” and avoid sanctions under NCLB.
Still, 9.5 percent amounts to a significant
Over time, and with the help of new federal regulations issued in 2008, states raised the
increase from 8.1 percent in 2000, and
bar for schools and districts with respect to graduation rate accountability (Princiotta,
follows larger demographic trends in the
2019; Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, 2008).
United States.
Substantial variability existed, however, in the timing, intensity, and manner in which states
ELs are primarily made up of native
increased their graduation rate goals, adopted more rigorous annual improvement targets,
Spanish/Castilian speakers (77.1 percent of
and implemented the gold-standard Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate for accountability
ELs and 7.6 percent of total U.S. enrollment).
purposes, as shown in Figure 1.
English Learners also most commonly live
The result of these state-level changes can be seen at the district level. From 2003 to
in urban areas, where they amounted to 14
2010, states’ average district graduation rate goal increased from 74 to 80 percent, the
percent of all students in the fall of 2015,
percent of districts in states with negligible improvement targets decreased from 70 to
followed by suburban areas (9.1 percent),
4 percent, the percent of districts in states with moderate or high annual improvement
towns (6.5 percent), and rural areas
targets increased from 0 to 67 percent, and the percent of districts in states using a cohort
(3.6 percent).
graduation rate increased from 10 to 47 percent.
The proportion of EL students is at its
As shown in Figure 2, increased graduation rate goals were associated with increased
highest in Kindergarten and 1st grade, where
district graduation rates, and this was particularly true in states with moderate or high annual
16.3 and 16.5 percent, respectively, of all
improvement targets. District graduation rates also increased by about 1 percentage point, on
students were ELs in the fall of 2015, and
average, with state adoption of the ACGR for accountability purposes (Princiotta, 2019).
tapers off in each successive grade. This trend
Although numerous factors contributed to U.S. graduation rate increases during the
is due, in part, to students who are identified
No Child Left Behind era, state graduation rate accountability played a unique and
as English Learners when they enter school
critical role. In short, there is clear evidence that increased graduation rate accountability
but reach language proficiency as they grow
at the state level led to high school graduation rate improvements at the district level.
older. Of the 2017 cohort, 6.3 percent of
Today, under ESSA, states have greater flexibility to design their graduation rate
students were ELs.
accountability systems, and districts are no longer necessarily held accountable for their
Discouragingly, as English Learners
graduation rates. Given Princiotta’s (2019) landmark findings, to meet the GradNation
increasingly make up a larger share of the
Campaign goal of a national on-time graduation rate of 90 percent, states should set
population, in 2017 their graduation rate
appropriately challenging graduation rate goals and targets under ESSA, provide support
decreased nationally by 0.5 percentage point,
to schools and districts to meet them, and consider reinstituting district-level graduation
dropping to 66.4 percent. This leaves EL
rate accountability.
students with the second-lowest graduation
rate of any of their peers, other than initial
estimates of graduation rates for homeless
students. In total, 19 states saw their
graduation rate decline while another two saw
no change in their overall rate. In 15 states,
less than 60 percent of EL students graduate
on time.

26 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students
PART II

Figure 4 State graduation rate goals, annual improvement targets, and use of cohort graduation rate by year: 2003–2010

Source: Reprinted from “Understanding the Great U.S. High School Graduation Rate Rise: 1998–2010,” by Princiotta, D., p. 203. Copyright 2019 by Daniel Princiotta.

Figure 5 Effect of state graduation rate goal and annual improvement target type on school district graduation rates,
assuming use of a non-cohort graduation rate: 2003–2010

Source: Reprinted from “Understanding the Great U.S. High School Graduation Rate Rise: 1998–2010,” by Princiotta, D., p. 229. Copyright 2019 by Daniel Princiotta.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 27

PART II Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students

Table 13 States with the Highest Proportion of English Learner Non-Graduates, 2017
W
 here We Stand: Low-
Percent of State Non- Percent of EL Students Graduation-Rate High Schools
State Graduates who are EL within the 2017 Cohort El Student ACGR In 2004, Locating the Dropout Crisis was
New Mexico 34.4% 31.1% 68.1% released and identified the nation’s lowest
California 27.9% 14.7% 67.2% performing schools—schools that had a
promoting power of 60 percent or less.1 This
Virginia 25.2% 7.7% 57.3%
report identified 2,007 regular or vocational
Massachusetts 24.2% 7.7% 63.4% schools with a promoting power of 60 percent
Nevada 21.7% 22.6% 81.7% or less with enrollment of 300 or more in the
Colorado 20.3% 12.0% 64.6% 2001–02 school year. These schools were
Texas 19.9% 8.4% 75.5% educating 40 percent of the nation’s Black
students, a third of Hispanic students, and
Hawaii 19.2% 10.7% 69.0%
producing half of the nation’s dropouts.
Nebraska 16.9% 3.7% 50.0% Following the development of the ACGR, the
New York 16.8% 4.4% 30.8% Building a Grad Nation report began tracking
progress on regular and vocational schools that
enroll 300 or more students with graduation
With a graduation rate of 66.4 percent, the nation, English Learners made up 13.7 rates of 67 percent or lower. The number of
English Learners graduate at a rate 19.4 percent of all students who failed to graduate schools identified by this measure tracked
percentage points below their non-English in four years, but comprised just 6.3 percent closely with the schools captured by promoting
Learner peers. Graduation rate gaps for of the cohort. Of the states with the largest power and in “Locating the Dropout Crisis.”
English Learners ranges from a low of 4.4 percent of non-graduates that are English Now, after a decade and a half of progress,
percentage points in New Mexico to a high Learners, three of the four states share a there are only 731 regular or vocational high
of 53.4 in New York. Four other states have border with Mexico—Texas, New Mexico, and schools with graduation rates of 67 percent or
graduation gaps greater than 40 percentage California—and the other is Nevada. Each lower and 300 or more students and producing
points, and in total, 23 have gaps greater of these states has significant proportions of just 16 percent of non-graduates. This
than 20 percentage points. English Learners, as well as Hispanic students. represents substantial progress from the 2,007
English Learners comprise disproportionate In fact, over 41 percent of all non-graduates schools identified in 2004 that housed half of
rates of the nation’s non-graduates. Across that are ELs come from these four states. the nation’s non-graduates.
With the passage of the Every Students
Succeeds Act in 2015, every state is required
Table 14 Characteristics of High Schools Identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) to identify high schools enrolling at least 100
students with graduation rates of 67 percent
Special
or lower for comprehensive support and
Total Regular Education Vocational Alternative Charter*
improvement. Last year, we began tracking
N= 1,805 1,017 17 14 756 501 progress on these schools. In 2017, there
Enrollment 381 538 117 413 176 271 were 2,357 such low-graduation-rate high
Free/ 69% 72% 53% 71% 66% 67% schools, down from 2,425 in 2016. These
Reduced low-graduation-rate high schools accounted
Lunch for 12.5 percent of all public high schools
Native 5% 7% 1% <1% 3% 3% enrolling 100 or more students that reported
ACGR in 2017, enroll about 6.5 percent of
Asian 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%
all students, and educate approximately 31
Hispanic 35% 28% 14% 48% 44% 37% percent of all four-year non-graduates.
Black 26% 33% 29% 36% 17% 28% Low-income students and students of color
White 31% 29% 51% 14% 32% 29% disproportionately attend low-graduation-
Pacific 1% 1% <1% <1% 1% <1% rate high schools. While low-income
Islander students comprised just under 44 percent
of all students in schools with 100 or more
Multi Racial 4% 3% 4% 2% 4% 4%
students that reported ACGR in 2016–17,
Urban 50% 56% 47% 57% 43% 62%
over 58 percent of the student body in
Suburban 26% 18% 47% 21% 36% 25% low-graduation-rate high schools were low-
Town 12% 11% 6% 14% 13% 7% income students. Table 15 shows that both
Rural 12% 16% 0% 7% 8% 6%
*C
 harter school is a status separate to and overlapping with school types (regular, special education,
1
Promoting Power compares the number of seniors enrolled
vocational, alternative). in a high school to the number of freshmen four years
earlier (or three years earlier in a 10–12 high school).

28 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students
PART II

Table 15 Student Demographics in High Schools Reporting 2017 ACGR and Low-Graduation-Rate High Schools
Total Number Total Native
School Type of Schools Enrollment Low-Income American Asian Hispanic Black White Multi-Racial
Schools with 100 or
more Students reporting 18,822 15,545,284 43.9% 1.1% 5.1% 24.5% 15.3% 50.6% 3.0%
2016–17 ACGR
Schools with 100 or
more Students and
2,357 1,012,152 58.4% 3.7% 2.7% 30.6% 27.7% 31.3% 3.5%
2016–17 ACGR at or
below 67%

Hispanic and Black students are similarly time non-graduates. Moreover, states must second consecutive year. Meanwhile, it is no
over-represented in low-graduation-rate high ensure schools are not intentionally keeping coincidence that New Mexico has the lowest
schools. Conversely, while white students enrollment below 100 students to avoid on-time graduation rate in the nation, as
amount to over half of all students in schools accountability. Troublingly, while the national almost three of every 10 schools (29 percent)
with 100 or more students nationally, they proportion of non-graduates attending schools in the state are low-graduation-rate high
make up less than one-third of all students with fewer than 100 students remained the schools. In another three states—Arizona,
attending low-graduation-rate high schools. same, 21 states saw their percent of on-time Colorado, and Florida—more than one in every
States have begun identifying schools non-graduates at these schools increase, five high schools has an on-time graduation
in need of comprehensive support and including Nevada, where the percent of on- rate of 67 percent or lower.
improvement (CSI, or CSI schools). Table 14 time non-graduates from schools with fewer Other states have extensive numbers of
shows how many schools have been identified than 100 students increased by 8 percentage their on-time non-graduates come from low-
under ESSA to this point. So far, lists of CSI points to 38 percent. graduation high schools. Over 25 percent of on-
schools were available for 43 states.2 These time non-graduates come from low-graduation-
lists have identified 1,805 high schools for Low-Graduation-Rate High Schools by State rate high schools in seven states, while more
comprehensive support and improvement. The number and percentage of low- than one-third of on-time non-graduates are
Interestingly, while half of all CSI schools graduation-rate high schools varies widely found in low-graduation-rate schools in Indiana,
were found in urban areas, the majority of across states, and with that the numbers New Mexico, and New York.
alternative schools identified were found in of on-time non-graduates attending these
suburbs, towns, and rural areas. schools. At the low end of the spectrum, West Low-Graduation-Rate High Schools, by Type
That states have identified 1,805 of their Virginia is the only state in the nation to not For the purposes of this report, we examine
low-graduation-rate high schools is significant. have a low-graduation-rate high school for the two broad types of low-graduation-rate high
This means the vast majority of the 2,357
low-graduation-rate high schools in the nation
have been targeted for comprehensive reform.
If ESSA works as intended, these schools The Great American High School Campaign
should all be engaging in evidenced-based
reforms informed by a needs assessment. It In a separate report issued last year, The Great American High School Campaign (GAHS), we
will be important to ensure that states and highlighted that after more than a decade of progress in improving high school graduation
schools implement ESSA with fidelity as it rates, there remain about 1,300 traditional high schools that enroll 300 or more students in
pertains to these low-performing high schools. need of serious improvement and redesign. While the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
Under ESSA, the enrollment cutoff point will flag schools with 100 or more students as in need of comprehensive reform, GAHS
for high schools automatically identified for focused on the struggling traditional high schools that serve both a substantial number of
comprehensive support and improvement students and a defined geographic region. These are the schools that were once the pride
is 100 students. It is important, however, of their community but no longer provide a reliable pathway for students to progress from
for states to be aware of what is happening adolescence to successful adulthood. From the inner city to the heartland of America, these
in schools that fall under this threshold. In low-performing high schools are concentrated in struggling communities that sit at the fault
2016–17, schools with enrollments of fewer lines of race, class, and inequality. Remarkably, students in America still live in two different
than 100 accounted for 6 percent of all on- educational nations. In the first such nation, the vast majority of high schools have an average
graduation rate of 90 percent or higher and dropping out is a rarity. The push and focus are
getting kids into college and the workforce. In the second educational nation, the average on-
2
For Maine, Maryland, and Vermont, CSI schools time graduation rate for students trapped in the remaining 1,300 low-performing high schools
had not yet been identified as of March 2019. For is only 49 percent (and only 40 percent in the remaining 2,357 larger set of low-performing
Nebraska, CSI schools had been identified but the list high schools) and success in college is an unrealized dream. The GAHS report lays out a
is not publicly available. For Alabama, Arkansas, the clear path forward for the communities and schools where the past decade of high school
District of Columbia, and North Dakota, the status of reform efforts have failed to take hold.
their CSI lists is unknown.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 29

PART II Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students

Table 16 S tates with the Highest Percentage of Low-Graduation-Rate High Schools schools. Regular charter-operated schools
(100 or more students) and Overall State ACGR, 2016–17 accounted for 8 percent of all high schools
in 2017 but amounted to 19 percent of all
Percent of All High Schools that are low-graduation-rate high schools.
State Low-Graduation-Rate High Schools State 2016–17 ACGR
New Mexico 29% 71.1% Alternative High Schools: District Operated
Florida 21% 82.3% The characteristics of alternative schools—
Colorado 21% 79.1% and the definition of what an alternative
school is—vary significantly from state to
Arizona 20% 78.0%
state. A 2014 state scan found that 43 states
Michigan 19% 80.2%
and the District of Columbia have formal
California 19% 82.7% definitions of alternative education, yet there
Alaska 18% 78.2% is little consensus among states on how to
New York 17% 81.8% define the term. Differences arise on student
Utah 17% 86.0% populations served, the education settings,
the length of time students spend within
Idaho 16% 79.7%
alternative settings, and the instructional and
environmental characteristics.
schools: regular and alternative schools. non-graduates, and, as such, are home to large What is known, however, is that alternative
These schools cover the majority of schools percentages of several states’ non-graduates. schools educate many of the most at-risk
reporting ACGR in 2017. NCES defines students in the nation, some of whom are
a regular high school as any school that Regular High Schools: District Operated sent to alternative settings, and others who
does not fall into the alternative, special District-operated regular high schools make elect to attend district-operated alternative
education, or vocational category. In up the bulk of high schools in America, and settings. Students in alternative settings are
contrast, alternative schools, as defined by the majority are viewed as the traditional
often struggling with poor grades or chronic
NCES, address the needs of students that American high school. In 2017, 83 percent
absenteeism; are pregnant or parenting;
of all high schools and 34 percent of all low-
typically cannot be met in a regular school, have disciplinary infractions; are in the midst
graduation-rate high schools were regular
provide a nontraditional education, serve as of re-engaging with school; are returning
district-operated schools. While the 770
adjuncts to a regular school, or fall outside from incarceration/adjudication; are wards
low-graduation-rate regular district-operated
the category of regular, special education, or of the state (i.e., in foster care or homeless
high schools made up just 5 percent of
vocational education. This report examines youth); in need of extra assistance; have
all regular district high schools, that does
alternative and regular schools that are both jobs that require them to work to support
represent a slight increase from 2016.
district- and charter-operated. In 2017, themselves or their families; are newcomers
charter-operated regular and alternative Regular High Schools: Charter Operated to the U.S. or refugees; or have mental
schools accounted for 9 percent of all Charter schools are publicly funded, health needs (Deeds and DePaoli, 2017).
high schools, but 26 percent of all low- privately operated schools. Currently, 44 In 2017, district-operated alternative
graduation-rate high schools. states and the District of Columbia have schools made up just 5 percent of all high
This report also examines virtual schools. charter-school laws, with just Montana, schools, but 32 percent of all low-graduation-
While the number of these schools is much Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, rate high schools. In all, three in four district-
smaller in comparison, virtual schools educate a Vermont, and West Virginia as the only operated alternative settings had graduation
disproportionate number of the nation’s four-year remaining states that do not allow charter rates at or below 67 percent.

Table 17 Percent of Schools With 100 or More Students that are Low-Graduation-Rate Schools by Type, 2016–17

Percent of Total Low-Graduation-Rate Percent of School Type that are

School Type Percent of all High Schools High Schools Low-Grad-Rate High Schools
Regular District 83% 34% 5%
Regular Charter 8% 19% 28%
Regular Total 92% 53% 7%
Alternative District 5% 32% 75%
Alternative Charter 1% 7% 82%
Alternative Total 6% 38% 76%
Charter Total 9% 26% 34%
Virtual 1% 7% 78%

30 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

Reaching a 90 Percent Graduation Rate for All Students
PART II

From a Nation at Risk to a Nation at Hope: The National Commission on Social,

Emotional, and Academic Development
In our examinations in recent years of low-performing schools that • embedding social, emotional, and cognitive skills into school-wide
had made significant gains in increasing their high school graduation instruction and practice;
rates, we consistently found schools and districts that were integrating
• building adult expertise in child and adolescent development;
social, emotional, and academic development. Over the last two years,
a national commission on this topic completed its work. The Aspen • aligning resources and leveraging partnerships across schools,
Institute’s National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic families and communities to address the whole child; and
Development (NC-SEAD) was formed with the goal of bringing educators, • shifting the research paradigm by forging closer connections
scientists, parents, students, policymakers, and other leaders together between research and practice.
to explore how to engage and energize communities to re-envision
learning to encompass its social, emotional, and academic dimensions Furthermore, school structures should support development of
so all children can succeed. While many advocates have worked to relationships that make students’ voices heard and respected. To
improve the academic aspects of education, students need more than assist teachers and school staff, best practices should be shared not
academic skills to succeed. Social and emotional learning is just as just through academic publications but in summaries geared toward
important as academics for both the wellbeing of students and for their educators and the public. The Commission encourages different
success in school and the workplace. The Commission has worked groups to work together to achieve all of its recommendations.
to unite diverse voices to examine how schools can better fulfill their While it will inevitably fall to educators and school leadership
educational missions by integrating social, emotional, and academic to enact the cultural and practical changes necessary to embed
learning to educate the whole child. Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) into their schools, the National
Social and emotional learning provides the basis for how learning Commission also provides clear actions policymakers can take to
happens—what child development experts and neuroscientists help support districts and schools in this mission by setting a clear
have highlighted as the “social gate to learning.” Cognitive skills vision, fostering and supporting continuous improvement of learning
and competencies underlie students’ ability to focus, set goals, and environments, promoting the development of adult SEL capacity,
solve problems, and social and interpersonal competencies enable and aligning resources efficiently and equitably. More specifically,
students to navigate social situations and resolve conflicts. Emotional policymakers should
skills and competencies aid students’ understanding of their own • create local definitions of student success that include social and
and other people’s emotions, respect for others, and handling emotional competencies;
stress and frustration. All these skills and competencies interact
with attitudes, beliefs, and mindsets to guide students’ actions. • develop standards, guidance, and frameworks that emphasize the
Furthermore, character and values provide a basis for working with importance of developing the whole learner;
others and support core ethical values. These different dimensions • use data for continuous improvement in developing students’ SEL
of learning combine to act as a booster rocket to essential outcomes through repeated evaluation of data and experience to improve
that we already measure, including school attendance, behavior, and programs over time; and
academic achievement; high school graduation rates; postsecondary
• incentivize the redesign of education preparation and programs,
attainment; employment; and civic engagement.
and educator licensure requirements, to reflect the competencies
The Commission proposed a series of recommendations
required to support students’ comprehensive development.
on practice, policy, and research for how schools can better
Communities and districts should then be encouraged to recruit,
integrate dimensions of learning to educate the whole student.
hire, support, and retain educators who demonstrate their ability to
Recommendations for practice included
develop the whole learner.
• setting a vision for student success that prioritizes the whole child;
Leaders and institutions are already working to implement the
• transforming learning settings so they are physically and emotionally recommendations of the National Commission on Social, Emotional,
safe—and so they foster strong bonds among students and adults; and Academic Development.

Alternative High Schools: Charter Operated charter-run alternative schools are low- states, virtual schools educate even greater
Alternative charter schools, similar to their graduation-rate high schools. percentages of four-year non-graduates, like
district-operated counterparts, serve non- Ohio (24 percent), Idaho (23 percent), and
traditional, often at-risk, students. They Virtual Schools Arizona (22 percent), where more than one
make up just 1 percent of all high schools While virtual schools make up just 1 percent in five students who fail to graduate on time
reporting ACGR, but disproportionately of all high schools across the nation, they are educated by a virtual school. In total, 78
account for 7 percent of all low-graduation- amount to about 7 percent of all low- percent of all virtual schools qualify as low-
rate high schools. Eighty-two percent of all graduation-rate high schools. In several graduation-rate schools.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 31

 PART III

EXAMINING THE CONNECTION

Between High School,
Postsecondary, and the Workforce
indicate elementary and middle schools
High school graduation is a S econdary School State within a state are increasing their capacity
Improvement Index
critical milestone that signals
to prepare students to enter high school on
As high school graduation rates have a pathway to postsecondary success. The
readiness for college and the continued to rise, concerns have been
expressed that some of the improvement
ACT, among others, has shown that middle
grade academic achievement can be as,
workforce, but the GradNation may be driven by the lowering of standards if not more, predictive of postsecondary

campaign has always viewed

and, in so doing, weakening the value of a success as high school achievement
high school diploma and its ability to signal measures. Proficiency in 8th grade is also

it as an on-track indicator
college and workplace readiness. The main something schools and school districts
evidence for this viewpoint has come from actively aim to achieve, as 8th grade
for students at or around comparing gains in graduation rates with
stagnation or minor gains in college aptitude
proficiency measured by state assessments
is integral to all state accountability systems
the age of 18 and not a final tests—the ACT and SAT—and in some and has been since the advent of No

destination. Given that the

instances 12th grade scores on the NAEP. The Child Left Behind in 2001. NAEP scores
validity of this analysis has been questioned are also designed to provide insight into

majority of jobs today and by those who argue that, as high school
graduates have become more diverse and
the outcomes of the entire population of
students, and as such, are not as affected
in the future will require less advantaged over time, flat scores on high as SAT and ACT scores are by changing
school assessments represent progress. They
some level of postsecondary
populations of test-takers over time. Finally,
indicate more students than ever, including we argue that 8th grade NAEP scores are

education and training, in

many more low-income and students of color, a more accurate predictor of academic
are graduating high school with the same achievement of secondary school students
this section we examine how skill set as more advantaged populations
demonstrated in prior years.
than 12th grade NAEP scores, which both
miss students who have dropped out before
well high schools are doing In order to dig more deeply into this 12th grade, and is an assessment that

in preparing their graduates

question, this report developed a state-level neither schools nor students are motivated
index of secondary school improvement. The to prioritize.

for postsecondary success. index uses four measures that are employed
uniformly across states and, taken together,
To measure high school academic
outcomes, we instead use the percent
We also feature in this year’s provide a measure of the extent to which of high school graduates who score a 3
states have been able to improve both the or higher on Advance Placement tests.
report some innovative graduation rates and academic outcomes of This captures the percent of high school

approaches to strengthening
their secondary schools. graduates who demonstrate the ability to
These measures are the percent of do college level work, while in high school.

the school-to-work pipeline. students scoring proficient in Reading

and Mathematics on the 8th grade NAEP
Given that scoring a 3 or higher on an AP
test often leads to college credit, students
exam, the percent of high school student have a motivation to demonstrate their full
graduates who score a three or higher on ability. AP test success rates also depend on
Advance Placement tests, and the percent school- and district-level decisions around
of students who graduate on time within four investment in teacher training and policy
years as measured by the Adjusted Cohort decisions around the level of access and
Graduation Rate. support provided to students to take and
We use 8th grade NAEP scores because succeed in AP courses.
this provides a measure of the academic Finally, we measure graduation rates
skills with which students are entering using the adjusted cohort graduation
high schools. Increases in proficiency rates rate, which measures the percent of

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 33

PART III Examining the Connection between High School, Postsecondary, and the Workforce

Table 18 Secondary School Improvement Index, 2011–2017

8th Grade NAEP High School AP Scores

State Reading Proficiency 8th Grade Math Proficiency Greater than 3 High School Graduation Rate Total Index Score
States that Showed Improvement on All 4 Indicators
Georgia 7.8 3.6 5.2 13.6 30
California 8.5 3.8 8.3 6.7 27
Florida 5.7 1.5 7.2 11.3 26
West Virginia 3.7 2.6 2.5 11.4 20
Utah 2.8 4.1 2.8 10.0 20
Nebraska 3.2 8.1 3.8 3.1 18
Tennessee 4.0 5.8 3.8 3.8 17
Oregon 3.4 1.0 4.3 8.7 17
Mississippi 3.6 2.2 2.3 8.0 16
Iowa 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.0 14
New Hampshire 5.5 1.8 3.3 2.9 14
Ohio 2.2 1.3 5.0 4.2 13
States that Showed Improvement on 3 of 4 Indicators
Nevada 1.9 -1.2 8.4 18.9 28
Alabama 2.1 0.7 = 5.2 17.3 25
Indiana 9.3 3.7 5.8 -2.2 17
Rhode Island 4.0 -3.7 8.8 7.1 16
Massachusetts 3.2 -1.5 8.7 5.3 16
New Jersey 1.9 -3.0 7.5 7.5 14
Washington 4.6 0.9 = 5.0 3.4 14
Michigan 2.3 0.4 = 4.9 6.2 14
Illinois 2.2 -0.3 = 8.2 3.0 13
South Carolina 3.4 -5.5 5.4 9.6 13
New York -0.9 = 3.8 5.1 4.8 13
North Carolina 1.8 -2.1 3.7 8.6 12
Wisconsin 4.5 -1.7 6.7 1.6 11
Louisiana 2.7 -3.5 4.4 7.1 11
Virginia 1.4 0.6 = 3.7 4.9 11
Pennsylvania 2.0 -0.8 = 5.5 3.6 10
Hawaii 4.3 -2.7 5.4 2.7 10
Wyoming -0.1 = 1.0 2.6 6.2 10
New Mexico 2.3 -3.5 2.5 8.1 9
Arizona 2.3 2.0 4.5 0.0 = 9
Texas 1.5 -7.0 5.7 3.7 4
Kansas 1.2 -5.4 1.0 3.5 0

first time ninth graders who graduate school prepared for postsecondary success, success rates of high school graduates,
within four years, and is used by all state are graduating from high school on time, are declining.
accountability systems. and are succeeding in college-level work We measure improvement from 2011
Ideally, we would hope to see substantial while in high school. A red flag should be to 2017, given that 2011 is the first year
growth at the state level across all four raised if we find many states in which high we have a common state measure of high
measures. This would indicate a state in school graduation rates are rising, school graduation rates, and 2017 is the
which more students are entering high but proficiencies of 8th graders, and AP most recent year we have data on all four

34 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

Examining the Connection between High School, Postsecondary, and the Workforce
PART III

Table 18 Secondary School Improvement Index, 2011–2017 (continued)

8th Grade NAEP High School AP Scores

State Reading Proficiency 8th Grade Math Proficiency Greater than 3 High School Graduation Rate Total Index Score
States that Showed Improvement on 2 of 4 Indicators
Delaware 0.1 = -3.4 5.1 8.9 11
Missouri 0.2 = -1.3 4.3 7.3 11
Connecticut -0.9 = -1.9 7.1 4.9 9
Minnesota 0.0 = -1.2 4.6 5.7 9
Arkansas 0.9 = -3.8 4.1 7.0 8
Colorado 0.2 = -5.2 6.1 5.1 6
Alaska -4.9 -6.0 3.0 10.2 2
Vermont 0.4 = -6.6 5.3 2.1 1
North Dakota -1.4 -2.9 2.7 1.2 0
Maryland -2.3 -7.8 4.7 4.7 -1
Idaho* 4.8 -1.5 0.8 = 2.4
Kentucky* -2.1 -1.8 5.7 3.6
Oklahoma* 1.3 -3.2 1.4 -2.2
States that Showed Improvement on 0 or 1 of 4 Indicators
Maine 0.5 = -2.8 -0.5 = 2.9 0
Montana -6.4 -8.2 0.7 = 3.8 -10
South Dakota 0.2 = -3.4 0.6 = 0.7 = -2
National Average 3.1 -1.0 5.7 5.6 13
* Initial ACGR scores are taken from 2013 for Kentucky and Oklahoma and from 2014 for Idaho, as those states were not yet reporting Adjusted Cohort Graduation
Rates in 2011.

measures. This six-year period runs from did not. Thus, there is no strong evidence graduation rates decline or did not see
the last years of NCLB through the period within this data set that increases in high improvements in at least two of the four
when the majority of states received waivers school graduation rates have come at the academic measures. Only two states—
from the U.S. Department of Education to expense of academic outcomes and levels Maine and Montana—reached red flag
modify NCLB. Though it stretches through of postsecondary preparation. The national status with small gains in graduation rates
the signing of ESSA, it effectively captures data also clearly show, however, that there but declines in the other three academic
improvements prior to its implementation. is much room for improvement, with only measures. Counter to many perceptions,
National data show solid and continuing about one-third of students entering high in 20 states the percent of high school
improvements in high school graduation school with academic proficiencies aligned graduates scoring a three or higher on AP
rates during this time period, with a 5.6 with postsecondary success and one in five tests increased at a faster rate than did
percentage point increase over six years. high school graduates demonstrating the high school graduation rates.
Encouragingly, the percent of high school ability to do college-level work, while in Table 18 also examined improvements
graduates scoring a three or higher on high school. in an additional manner. States were
AP tests improved at a similar rate of 5.7 Looking at the state-level data shows awarded one point for each percentage
percentage points. Eighth grade NAEP a more complex picture. Twelve states point of improvement in each of the four
proficiencies in Reading improved, but at reached the ideal of demonstrating measures. States are then ranked in order,
a slower rate of 3.1 percentage points, and improvements in all four measures, while based on their total combined percentage
Math proficiencies had a marginal decline 20 other states saw their graduation point improvements. This shows that two
of 1 percentage point. Thus, between rates increase, as well as two of the three of the most populous states, California and
2011 and 2017, at the national level more academic measures. Thus, 68 percent of Florida, along with Georgia had high rates
students graduated high school and more states saw their graduation rates increase of improvement across all four measures
high school students were succeeding with in addition to at least two measures of between 2011 and 2017. All three of these
college-level work. The reading proficiencies academic success among their secondary states with one exception1 outperformed
of students entering high school also students. This means, however, that a third the national average on all four secondary
improved modestly, but math proficiencies (32 percent) of the states either saw their improvement measures and their cumulative

1
Georgia’s gain in AP test outcomes at 5.2 percentage points is marginally below the national average of 5.7.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 35

PART III Examining the Connection between High School, Postsecondary, and the Workforce

Table 19 High School Graduates Immediately Enrolling in College by Family Income, 1975–2016 2.7 or higher, and completing the required
set of courses for admission to state
Year Low Income Middle Income High Income university systems and taking an AP class—
1975 31% 46% 65% identified students with very high odds of
1995 34% 56% 84% postsecondary success. Eighty-four percent
of Boston Public School graduates in the
2005 54% 63% 81%
Class of 2010 who had all three of these
2016 65% 65% 83%
indicators earned bachelor’s degrees. In
contrast, only 10 percent of BPS graduates
who had none of these indicators earned a
totals ranged from 26 to 30 points, two times high school. Sixty-five percent of low-
bachelor’s degree. So, the odds of a four-
the national outcome. At the other end of income and 65 percent of middle-income
year degree swing from 10 percent to 84
the spectrum, eight states had cumulative students enrolled immediately, while 83
percent as your number of college success
improvements of less than 5 percentage percent of upper-income students did so.
indicators grows from zero to three.
points, with four states (North Dakota, As seen in Table 19, this resulted from
Maine, Maryland, and Montana) having substantial improvements among high 2. The most consequential indicators were GPA
cumulative improvement scores of zero or a school graduates from low-income families, and taking the set of courses required by the
negative total outcome. building on an upward trend starting state university system. This adds additional
Thus at the state level, as well as at in the 1990s. Over the past decade, confirmation to the findings from “Closing
the national level, the bulk of evidence the percent of low-income high school the College Gap,” a report on college
supports a picture of improvements in both graduates enrolling immediately in college readiness and persistence that Civic and
graduation rates and measures of secondary has increased 11 percentage points, while EGC completed in 2016. Doing solid work in
school achievement. This is balanced by middle- and upper-income students have challenging courses in high school is a strong
the fact that not all states experienced these only seen modest 2 percentage point predictor of the ability to do the same in four-
outcomes. This data, consistent with other increases. As a result, over the past decade year colleges. The Boston findings also show
data we have analyzed and reported in the low-income students closed a 9 percentage that, at least for the cohort studied, solid,
past, continues to support the position that point gap with middle-income high school not spectacular, outcomes in high school
if some states can make gains in both high graduates in immediate college enrollment. are predictive of postsecondary success. A
school graduation rates and achievement, High school graduates who enroll in college GPA of 2.7 represent more Bs than Cs, and
pointing toward success in postsecondary immediately after high school have higher 94 percent attendance can be achieved
education, other states can as well. college success rates. Thus, it is an important while still missing an average of two weeks of
step toward postsecondary degree attainment. school per year.
P
 ostsecondary Enrollment The gains among lower-income students 3. When the college success indicators are
and Readiness immediately enrolling in college occurred analyzed across the full cohort of 2010
A recent data set and research study during an era when low-income high school high school graduates, some clear high-
provide further insight into the state of graduation rates also grew considerably. This leverage improvement strategies emerge.
national efforts to improve postsecondary means that not only have more low-income For example, about a quarter of BPS
access and attainment, as well as the work students been graduating from high school, graduates with a GPA above 2.7 did not
that remains. but more have also been improving their complete the required courses for the
momentum toward postsecondary success by state university system and 40 percent
Low-Income High School Graduates immediately enrolling in college. of HS graduates had none of the college
Match Immediate College Enrollment Rates success indicators. Moving these students
High School Predictors of from zero to one indicator would triple
of Middle-Income High School Graduates
Postsecondary Success their odds of college success and moving
for the First Time
A recent longitudinal study of the from zero to two indicators would increase
Recent data from the Census Bureau’s
postsecondary outcomes of high school their odds five-fold.
Current Population Survey shows for
graduates in Boston, “College, Career and Life
the first time that high school graduates 4. The strength with which four-year college
Readiness: A Look at High School Indicators
from low-income families, defined as the outcomes could be predicted with high
of Post-Secondary Outcomes,” extends our
bottom 20 percent of all family income, school outcomes was matched by the
knowledge of keeping students on track to
are enrolling in college immediately after inability to predict two-year outcomes. At
postsecondary success in several key ways.
completing high school at the same rates least for the cohort of 2010 high school
as those from middle-income families 1. It further confirmed that the attainment of graduates, it seems the circumstances and
(defined as the middle 60 percent of a bachelor’s degree is highly predictable process by which students experienced two-
family income distribution). In 2016, based on high school outcomes. It found year college options swamped the impact
the most recent year of data available, that combining three indicators—an of varied levels of academic preparation.
70 percent of all high school graduates attendance rate of 94 percent or higher Forty percent of BPS graduates enrolled
enrolled in college immediately following during four years of high school, a GPA of in community college options but only 6

36 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

Examining the Connection between High School, Postsecondary, and the Workforce
PART III

percent earned a two-year degree in seven 5. Boston Public Schools gives its seniors a participation in extra-curricular activities,
years. Among those who did graduate, 25 fairly extensive senior survey, which asks there was no difference in the responses of
percent had high school GPAs of 3.0 or about their views and experiences with their those who did not go onto postsecondary,
classes, teachers, and schools; the extent to
higher, but another 25 percent had high those who enrolled in two-year programs,
which they feel they were educated to think
school GPAs below 2.0. As a result, the four and those who enrolled in four-year
critically, write well, use and understand
indicators that strongly predicted obtaining technology; and what types of guidance postsecondary institutions. As such, it did
a bachelor’s degree did not predict which and postsecondary support they received. not provide an effective source of additional
students would earn associate degrees. One interesting finding is that, beyond predictive information.

Promising Models in Boosting the School-to-Work Pipeline

Urban Alliance capable, hard-working, and well-prepared men attending college by 23 percentage
Urban Alliance seeks to ensure that young to succeed in the workplace. Urban Alliance points and of middle-tier students (2.0–3.0
people leave high school prepared for Program Coordinators help students think average GPA) enrolling in a 4-year college
success in either postsecondary education through how to respond to challenges they by 18 percentage points, and resulted in
or a career. Their unique internship experience on the job, and serve as a liaison greater comfort with and retention of soft
program provides high school seniors with between students and the workplace. skills, especially among young men.
the opportunity to work in local businesses, Urban Alliance interns work with Program Looking forward, Urban Alliance has
allowing them to gain critical workplace Coordinators to not only work through started working with students earlier than
experience and develop the work-related potential challenges on the job, but also their senior year of high school in order to
skills they will need to be successful in to develop the soft skills they need for better prepare them for lifelong economic
their future careers. The program provides success in the workplace. “Professional self-sufficiency. There are currently pilot
intensive supports in the form of a pre- communication, teamwork, time programs running in Virginia, Chicago, and
employment training bootcamp for students, management—these are skills that schools Washington, D.C. that begin with training
one-on-one mentoring while they remain are not always set up to teach, so we can be and preparation for an internship as early
in the workplace, ongoing job and life skills that training space for our students, giving as a student’s freshman year of high
training throughout their internship, and them the chance to not only learn these school, deepening throughout their high
lifelong college and career guidance. skills, but practice them in a real-world school career, and culminating in a senior-
Strong employer partnerships is setting,” says Daniel Tsin, Chief Impact year internship through Urban Alliance’s
critical to the success of this program, so Officer at Urban Alliance. signature program. By giving students even
Urban Alliance provides intensive case Urban Alliance Program Coordinators more opportunities to grow their soft skills,
management to ensure that students and also work closely with job partners to Urban Alliance hopes to be able to help
employers are supported throughout the identify an employee who can serve as both more students successfully navigate the
process. This kind of deep support is a supervisor and mentor to the student. world of work, and leave high school better
critical for both employers wary of taking Program Coordinators maintain an ongoing prepared for their chosen postsecondary
on the work of managing an internship relationship with the mentor by offering pathway. “Schools and employers want
program, and for students starting their training, conducting regular site visits, and the same thing (soft skills development),
first professional work experience. Eshauna being available to troubleshoot any issues even if they might not call it the same
Smith, CEO of Urban Alliance, points out that may arise. “We try to prep [employers] thing,” says Tsin. “Well-done, intentional
that providing companies with this kind for exactly what to expect the training internships provide a ready-made
of support is critical to the success of the students have received, and the level that opportunity for students to grow and be
program.“Too often the young people students will likely be at when they arrive,” exposed to a lot of the competencies that
we serve do not have access to or feel said Tsin, “and then help them think schools want to teach, and that businesses
they don’t belong in the professional through tasks that might be appropriate want in their employees.”
workplace because of their background at each phase of the internship.” Setting
or circumstances,” says Smith. Urban expectations with both students and P
 -TECH Snapshot
Alliance acts both as an advocate for the employers can help avoid frustration, and The P-TECH 9–14 School Model is a public
skills and abilities of their students, as ensures that the internship provides both education reform initiative that extends high
well as a safety net for employers. “We parties with a high-value experience. school from the traditional four years to an
bridge the gap between employers and the The Urban Alliance program shows innovative six years (grades 9–14). When
young people who most need employment strong evidence of success. A recent 6-year students graduate, they have earned both
opportunities ” explains Smith. At the same Urban Institute randomized controlled trial their high school diploma and an associate’s,
time, Urban Alliance assures potential found that completing Urban Alliance’s
partners that the youth in their program are program boosted the likelihood of young continued on page 38

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 37

PART III Examining the Connection between High School, Postsecondary, and the Workforce

or two-year postsecondary, degree directly necessarily a four-year college degree. As the • There have been 185 graduates to date
aligned to industry needs. demand for higher-skill jobs increased, nearly from the most mature schools, graduating
The first P-TECH school opened in seven million jobs requiring only a high school with both a high school diploma and an
Brooklyn, New York in September 2011, diploma disappeared between 2008 and 2016. Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S.)
designed by IBM as a collaboration among The U.S. education system, however, is not degree within 3.5–6 years
IBM, the New York City Department of producing the talent required for New Collar
Education, The City University of New jobs. P-Tech, along with its industry partners, is • The first cohort of students graduated at
York and the New York City College of working to solve this problem. four times the on-time national community
Technology (“City Tech”). Today, there are college graduation rate, five times the rate
currently 110 P-TECH schools across eight Using Partnerships to Boost Opportunity— for low-income students
U.S. states (New York, Illinois, Connecticut, and Outcomes • Twenty-three graduates have already been
Maryland, Colorado, Rhode Island, Texas, P-TECH is powerful because it combines hired into full-time positions directly after
and Louisiana), Australia, Morocco, and the expertise of public and private systems
graduating with their A.A.S.
Taiwan. Further replication is under way and institutions, school districts, community
in existing states, including California, colleges and industry—with high-level
New Jersey, and Virginia, as well as new government support. The many partners Implementation Requirements
countries, such as Singapore, Korea, collectively provide students with the academic, P-TECH is implemented with the highest-
Ireland, Colombia, and Brazil. technical, and professional skills required to level government support, on a country-
The P-TECH 9–14 School Model directly compete in the 21st century economy. They wide, statewide, or regional level. It is NOT
addresses both education and workforce- enable students to complete high school and implemented on a school-by-school basis
development issues in an integrated fashion, college coursework at the same time, at no cost because scale and sustainability requires
providing a seamless school-to-college-to to students or their families. They also enable support at the system level. Public sector
-career program, with two goals: 1) to address students to participate in a range of innovative funding and private sector engagement,
the global “skills gap” and strengthen regional workplace experiences that include mentoring,
together with a launch within at least two
economies by building an educated and skilled workplace-learning coursework, worksite visits,
schools and with at least two different industry
workforce with the technical and professional and paid internships. These opportunities
partners, are required to implement the
skills required for New Collar jobs; and 2) to together ensure students complete their
P-TECH model. Partners must also commit
provide underserved youth with an educational two-year postsecondary degree, with no
opportunity that enables them to earn a that each P-TECH school follows basic
spending on remedial courses, and are ready
two-year college degree, along with the skills to either continue their education or enter into tenets relating to a long-term commitment,
required to continue their educations or garner competitive entry-level careers. scope, and sequence of courses leading to
New Collar jobs with a range of employers. The P-TECH model as a whole is now industry-recognized credentials, real-world
The United States economy will create 16 in its eighth year, and only a few schools work opportunities, open student enrollment,
million New Collar jobs by 2024—positions have completed all six years (the full grades a cost-free postsecondary degree, and being
requiring postsecondary degrees, though not 9–14), and thus have completion data. first in line for jobs with industry partners.

38 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 POLICY AND PRACTICE
Recommendations

C
 ontinue to improve graduation there are high-quality models that exist to diploma and how these students fare in

rate data collection and reporting. help off-track students get back on track, postsecondary education.
the growth of credit recovery has also led
P
 romote greater alignment
While the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate
to many schools that are sometimes no
remains the “gold standard” for collecting
and reporting on high school graduation
more than warehouses or storefronts, where and clarity on how students
rates in its seventh year, there is still room
student learning consists exclusively of
with disabilities are treated
online courses with little to no interaction
for improvements that would guarantee
with teachers or other students. Questions across states.
the best data is available. Discrepancies As previously mentioned in this report,
have been raised about rigor, whether
remain in how states remove students from research has indicated that anywhere
their cohort counts, what is considered a students in these courses are actually able
from 24 to 32 states offer diploma options
“regular” diploma, how transfer students to master critical concepts online and in a
specifically for students with disabilities.
are taken into account, and how certain condensed time period, and if these courses
Moreover, there is a strong increasing
subgroups (e.g., students with disabilities, are more susceptible to student cheating.
trend in the number of states providing
English Learners, and low-income students) Issues have also been raised over the growth
diploma options exclusively for youth with
are identified within the cohort. These of the credit recovery sector alongside
disabilities (Achieve, 2016; Johnson,
issues challenge the reliability of cross- increasing pressure on schools to raise
Thurlow, Qian, & Anderson, 2019). This
state graduation rate comparisons and graduation rates.
makes comparing state-by-state data for
leave loopholes for states in calculating These practices and pathways have
students with disabilities difficult. More
their rates. rightfully become a cause for concern and
importantly, it presents challenges for
In addition, there remain important add to the recent skepticism over high
students themselves, as often differences
elements of data not being collected that school graduation rate gaming. Yet, this
in the diploma requirements and the types
would provide valuable insights into the is due, in large part, to the fact that few
of diplomas students with disabilities are
high school graduation rate challenge. rigorous studies have been done on the
eligible to receive leave students ill-equipped
Currently, national graduation rate data quality and effectiveness of credit recovery
for postsecondary education. Moreover,
is not disaggregated by gender, leaving a courses. Given the lack of comprehensive
just seven states actually collect and report
gaping hole in high school graduation rate knowledge on the rigor of the most widely data on the types of diplomas students with
analysis. There is also no way to examine adopted credit recovery programs, it is disabilities are receiving (Johnson, Thurlow,
the intersection of various socioeconomic difficult to understand the true impact of Qian, and Anderson, 2019).
subgroups (e.g., low-income white these courses. While two recent reports State variation in graduation rates for
students, English Learners with disabilities, using data from the 2015–16 Civil Rights students with disabilities merits further
etc.) and disaggregate the data to narrow Data Collection shed more light on credit study and examination to understand
where major problem areas may exist. recovery programs, there is still much why some states have been able to make
Resolving these issues will help to ensure that is unknown. It is then essential significant progress, while others continue
accurate graduation rate data and the that deeper investigations be done to to lag. In order to better understand the
ability to accurately pinpoint and properly understand how effective credit recovery education landscape for students with
design interventions for students needing courses and programs are; what types of disabilities and hold states accountable
additional supports. students make up the enrollment in credit for progress, all states should disaggregate
recovery courses and programs; how many data on the types of diplomas students
P
 robe deeper on credit credit recovery courses on average are with disabilities are receiving. NCES should
recovery programs. taken per student and what percentage also consider setting a universal definition
While credit recovery courses have long of total credits earned by students come for who is a student with a disability and
been in existence to help students failing from credit recovery; what courses are how states count students with the most
core coursework to graduate, the advent predominantly taken in these settings; and significant cognitive disabilities who
of computer technology has allowed credit the degree to which credit recovery courses graduate with a state-defined alternative
recovery courses to help more students are enabling some students to learn course diploma. Finally, states should ensure
earn their diploma in a timely manner. While content and graduate with a legitimate their graduation requirements and diploma

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 39

POLICY AND PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

options for students with disabilities align university systems is a strong predictor of enrollment and success, there must be
with postsecondary requirements so postsecondary success. The misalignment improvement in data reporting on the
students are not denied the opportunity to between what students need to graduate issue. Specifically, we need state-level
access a postsecondary education. high school and what they need to succeed data, disaggregated by subgroups, on the
in postsecondary education puts students percent of high school graduates who
P
 romote policies that reduce at a disadvantage and often leads to enroll immediately in postsecondary
damaging academic disparities. them taking remedial courses that can schooling. This is a key metric of
add significant costs to a postsecondary momentum toward postsecondary success.
The data show that Black, Hispanic, and
education. State leaders should establish We also need more knowledge on whether
low-income students are less likely to be on
diploma requirements aligned with state high school graduates are succeeding
track to graduate on time and persist on to
college and university systems’ admissions in postsecondary in a timely matter, and
postsecondary college and career ready.
criteria. Schools and districts should how that tracks based on the state where
Though the gaps between these students
ensure more students, especially those the student was educated and their
and their white and more affluent peers
from traditionally underserved populations, socioeconomic background.
have narrowed, they remain behind on
earn a college- and career-ready diploma.
S trengthen the transition from
all of the critical indicators across the
Ensuring high school diploma requirements
educational spectrum. The schools that
many of them are enrolled in are still
are aligned with college- and career-ready high school to postsecondary
among the lowest performing in the nation.
standards can help ensure more students
and careers.
are on track to graduate prepared to
Greater investments need to be made in There are clear steps K–12 education
immediately enter postsecondary or leaders can take to ease the transition from
these students and their schools across the
career pathways. high school to postsecondary and careers.
education continuum to ensure equitable
access to opportunities from early education It is critical that schools help students
to postsecondary. C
 reate state-specific high school understand the postsecondary options
Additionally, states should address graduation plans. available to them and the application
inequities between high- and low-poverty States should develop “Closing the Grad process, as well as the course requirements
school districts by establishing weighted Gap on the Path to 90 Plans” that analyze to access certain pathways. Moreover,
funding formulas that provide more money which districts, schools, and students schools and districts should provide greater
to schools serving students with the greatest within their states need additional supports access to dual enrollment, early college,
needs. States and districts should also work or guidance on implementing evidence- career academies, and Career and Technical
together to identify where those dollars based approaches to enable all students Education (CTE) coursework pathways, as
can have the greatest impact, especially to graduate on time and be prepared well as model innovative approaches to
as they begin to develop comprehensive for postsecondary or workforce success. strengthening the school-to-work pipeline
support and improvement plans for their Using data in this report, including data such as those highlighted in this report.
lowest-performing schools under ESSA. on the equity path to 90 for all states (see States also must work to ensure students
Though there is no direct accountability Appendix H), states could identify where from all backgrounds have the same access
on states for failing to meet set subgroup their biggest challenges remain. Creating to rigorous coursework like GATE and AP
graduation goals, the federal government these plans can better ensure students in programs, and high-quality science and
should continue to monitor state progress need of critical interventions do not fall math courses.
through the cracks, and that districts Postsecondary institutions should do
toward ESSA subgroup goals and continue
and schools are better equipped to more to support students, particularly first
to identify and report on racial, income, and
understand their needs and implement generation and low-income students, both
disability disparities through the Office for
appropriate interventions. before they step onto campus and once they
Civil Rights data collection.
are there. This can include working with

A
 lign diplomas with college- Improve data collection and high schools to offer academic preparation

reporting on postsecondary
courses prior to high school graduation;
and career-ready standards. embracing testing-optional-admissions
Two recent reports on the quality of high transitions and outcomes. policies; developing more structured
school diplomas found mismatches between Creation of the Adjusted Cohort Graduation and strategic advising and engagement
high school graduation requirements and Rate allowed for a reliable, consistent on- opportunities for students during the
state college admissions criteria, as well as track indicator for young people as they summer gap and school year, particularly
the number and types of students earning transition to adulthood, disaggregated by during their critical freshman year; and
college- and career-ready diplomas in the race as well as state, districts, and even ensuring students have access to tutoring
few states that offer them (Almond, 2017; schools. Data reporting on postsecondary and other academic support. As more
Jimenez and Sargrad, 2018). Moreover, enrollment and success rates is, inherently low-income students enter postsecondary,
our analysis showed that students who due to the nature of postsecondary it will become increasingly important that
graduate high school after completing the education, less reliable. In order to properly these institutions recognize their needs and
courses required for admission to state understand the full nature of postsecondary understand that financial aid packages often

40 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 POLICY AND PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

are not enough to cover basic expenses Federal policymakers can also contribute high school dropout challenge and improve
such as food and housing. to creating stronger pathways between high the life prospects of millions of students.
Employers can also help strengthen school and postsecondary by allowing high That focus has paid off with benefits to
the transition between education and the school students to use federal Pell Grants individuals, the economy, and our civic
workplace. They can increase engagement to pay for college courses taken in dual society. America now needs a second
with schools by providing internships and enrollment and early college programs.
act, as the rise in high school graduation
job shadowing to ground learning in real They can also increase national service
rates slows down and the demands of the
experiences, as well as provide mentoring to opportunities to provide additional mentors
workplace require postsecondary education
high school students who lack the positive and tutors in high-needs schools, and allocate
additional funding to accelerate research on and training of some kind for most jobs
adult relationships so critical to school
success. Employers can also work with high college and career pathway initiatives to build today and in the future. Our country has
schools and postsecondary institutions to the evidence of what is effective. always risen to its challenges and the futures
create a more innovative last semester of of young people are at stake. It is time to
high school where students can have the C
 onclusion summon our energy and courage again to
opportunity to have more practical, hands- For nearly two decades, the nation has address once and for all America’s high
on experiences. focused attention on the need to address its school dropout challenge.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 41

 Acknowledgments

A special thanks to the staff, fellows, interns, and volunteers of the co-convening organizations:
America’s Promise Alliance, the Alliance for Excellent Education, Civic, and the Everyone
Graduates Center of Johns Hopkins University School of Education, and all the partner
organizations of GradNation. In particular, we express sincere gratitude for the America’s Promise
Alliance Trustees, without whom the GradNation Campaign would not be possible.
Thank you especially for the significant contributions of Deborah Delisle, Phillip Lovell, and
Jason Amos of the Alliance for Excellent Education; John Gomperts, Monika Kincheloe, Nevasha
Noble, Liz Glaser, Melissa Mellor, and Maya Grigorovich-Barsky of America’s Promise Alliance;
Amanda Martorana of the Everyone Graduates Center; and for the energy and enthusiasm of the
Civic team, Bruce Reed, Ellie Manspile, and Kelly Wert.
It is with the utmost gratitude that we give thanks to our lead sponsor, AT&T and its AT&T Aspire
Initiative, as well as our supporting sponsors, Pure Edge, Inc. and the Raikes Foundation for
their support. We specifically want to thank Charlene Lake, Mylayna Albright, Nicole Anderson,
Kelem Butts, and Cathy Friese of AT&T, Jessica Abensour of VOX Global, Chi Kim of Pure Edge,
and Tricia Raikes, Zoe Stemm-Calderon, and Casey Trupin of the Raikes Foundation. Without the
leadership, initiatives, and investments of these four organizations, this would not be possible.
We also give a special thanks to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CEO Patricia de Stacy
Harrison, Debra Sanchez, and Stephanie Aaronson, for their leadership on the public media
initiative American Graduate.
Lastly, thanks to the many respondents from the schools, districts, and states across the country
who contributed their wisdom and expertise to helping us shape particular sections of this report.

42 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 References

Achieve. (2016). Diplomas that Matter: Balfanz, R., DePaoli, J. L., Ingram, E. S., CIRCLE. (2012). Young voters in the 2012
Ensuring Equity of Opportunity for Students Bridgeland, J. M., & Fox, J. H. (2016). Closing presidential election: The educational gap
with Disabilities. the College Gap: A Roadmap to Postsecondary remains. Retrieved from http://www.civicyouth.
Readiness and Attainment. Washington, DC: org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012-Exit-
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2015). Civic Enterprises. Poll-by-Ed-Attainment-Final.pdf
The graduation effect: The economic impact
of a high school diploma. Retrieved from Bridgeland, J., et al., The Silent Epidemic: Clements, M., Pazzaglia, A.M., & Zweig, J.
http://impact.all4ed.org/#national/increased- Perspectives of High School Dropouts. (2015). Online course use in New York high
investment/all-students Civic Enterprises 2005-6. schools: Results from a survey in the Greater
Capital Region (REL 2015-075). Washington,
Almond, M. (2017). Paper thin? Why all high Carnevale, A. P., Jayasundera, T., & Gulish, A. DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute
school diplomas are not created equal. Retrieved (2016). America’s Divided Recovery: College of Education Sciences, National Center
from the Alliance for Excellent Education Haves & Have-Nots. Georgetown University for Education Evaluation and Regional
website: https://all4ed.org/DiplomaPathways/ Center on Education and the Workforce. Assistance, Regional Education Laboratory
Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from
Applied Survey Research (July 2011). Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. R. (2013). The
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Attendance in Early Elementary Grades: Undereducated American. Georgetown
Associations with Student Characteristics, University Center on Education and Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Education and
School Readiness, and Third Grade Outcomes. the Workforce. the path to one nation, indivisible. (Chapter
San Francisco, CA: Attendance Works. brief). In F. Harris & A. Curtis (Eds.), Healing
Retrieved from https://www.attendanceworks. Carnevale, A., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2013).
Our Divided Society: Investing in American
org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ASR-Mini- Recovery: Job Growth and Education
Fifty Years after the Kerner Report. Retrieved
Report-Attendance-Readiness-and-Third- Requirements Through 2020. Georgetown
from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/
Grade-Outcomes-7-8-11.pdf. University Public Policy Institute and Center on
education-path-one-nation-indivisible-brief
Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from
Ayala, E-M. (2018, January 11). “Texas broke https://1gyhoq479ufd3yna29x7ubjn-wpengine. Deeds, C. & DePaoli, J., PhD. (2017).
special education laws and denied services, netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ Measuring Success: Accountability
federal investigation finds.” The Dallas Recovery2020.FR_.Web_.pdf for Alternative Education. AYPC and
Morning News. Retrieved from https://www. Civic Enterprises. Retrieved from
dallasnews.com/news/education/2018/01/11/ Carver, P.R. & Lewis, L. (2011). Dropout
https://2bvwbm3nkjunbdihp5qn91qi-
texas-broke-special-education-laws- Prevention Services and Programs in Public
wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/
deliberately-delayed-services-kids-need- School Districts: 2010–11 (NCES 2011-037).
uploads/2017/11/Measuring-Succes_
federal-investigation-finds U.S. Department of Education, National Center
Accountability-for-Alt.-Ed.-.pdf
for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
Ashikenas, J., Park, H., & Pearce, A. Government Printing Office. Easton, J.Q., Johnson, E., & Sartain, L.
(2017). “Even with affirmative action, Blacks (2017). The predictive power of ninth-grade
and Hispanics are more underrepresented Chen, X., (2016). Remedial Coursetaking
GPA. UChicago Consortium on School
at top colleges than 35 years ago.” at U.S. Public 2- and 4-Year Institutions:
Research. Retrieved from https://consortium.
The New York Times. Scope, Experiences, and Outcomes (NCES
uchicago.edu/publications/predictive-power-
2016-405). U.S. Department of Education,
ninth-grade-gpa
Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating Washington, DC: National Center for
the Dropout Crisis: Which High Schools Education Statistics. Economic Policy Institute (2018). Wages
Produce the Nation’s Dropouts? Where by education. State of Working America
Are They Located? Who Attends Them? Child Trends. (2014). Making the grade:
Data Library.
Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Assessing the evidence for integrated
Education of Students Placed at Risk, student supports. Retrieved from
Johns Hopkins University. http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/02/2014-07ISSPaper2.pdf

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 43

REFERENCES

Edelman, S. & Sanders, A. (2018, March 24). Hughes, J., Zhou, C., & Petscher, Y. (2015). Lochner, L. & Moretti, E. (2001). “The effect
“Audit slams city over ‘troubling’ grade-fixing Comparing success rates for general and of education on crime: Evidence from prison
fallout.” New York Post. Retrieved from credit recovery courses online and face inmates, arrests, and self-reports.” American
https://nypost.com/2018/03/24/audit-slams- to face: Results for Florida high schools Economic Review, 94(1), 155-189.
city-over-troubling-grade-fixing-fallout/ courses (REL 2015-095). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch., (2016).
Erb-Downward, J., & Watt, P. (November Education Sciences, National Center for Education Pays 2016: The Benefits of
2018). Missing School, Missing a Home: The Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Higher Education for Individuals and
Link Between Chronic Absenteeism, Economic Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Society. College Board.
Instability and Homelessness in Michigan. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Poverty Malkus, N. (2018). Second Chance or Second
Solutions. Retrieved from https://poverty. Jimenez, L. & Sargrad, S. (2018). Are Track? Credit Recovery Participation in US
umich.edu/10/files/2018/11/PovertySolutions- high school diplomas really a ticket to High Schools. Washington, DC: American
MissingSchoolMissingHome-PolicyBrief-r4.pdf. college and work? An audit of high school Enterprises Institute. Retrieved from https://
graduation requirements. Retrieved from www.aei.org/publication/second-chance-or-
Gallup & Communities in Schools. U.S. Adults the Center for American Progress website: second-track-credit-recovery-participation-in-
report graduating students are unprepared https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ us-high-schools/.
for college and the workplace. Retrieved education-k-12/reports/2018/04/02/447717/
from https://www.communitiesinschools.org/ Marchello, L. (2017, August 3). Reports:
high-school-diplomas/
our-data/publications/publication/gallup-poll- Credit recovery program allows failing students
college-and-career Johnson, D.R., Thurlow, M.L., Qian, X., to graduate. Carolina Journal. Retrieved from
and Anderson, L. (2019). Diploma Options, https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/
Gary, L., & Lewis, L. (2018). Career and Graduation Requirements, and Exit Exams for report-credit-recovery-program-allows-failing-
Technical Education Programs in Public Youth with Disabilities: 2017 National Study, students-to-graduate/
School Districts: 2016–17: First Look (NCES Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
2018-028). U.S. Department of Education. Marken, S., Gray, L., & Lewis, L. (2013). Dual
National Center on Education Outcomes.
Washington, DC: National Center for Enrollment Programs and Courses for High
Education Statistics. Jordan, R. (2015). A closer look at income School Students at Postsecondary Institutions:
and race concentration in public schools. 2010–11 (NCES 2013-002). U.S. Department
Gewertz, C. (2016). New Laws Give Students Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www. of Education, Washington, DC: National Center
who Never Passed their Exit Exams Another urban.org/features/closer-look-income-and- for Education Statistics.
Change to Graduate. EdWeek. race-concentration-public-schools
McGee, K. & Squires, A. (2018, January 16).
Heppen, J., Allensworth, E., Sorenson, N., Kids Count Data Center. (2018). Children “Students across D.C. graduated despite
Rickles, J., Walters, K., Taylor, S., Michelman, living in concentrated poverty by race and chronic absences, an investigation finds.”
V., & Clements, P. (2016). Getting back on ethnicity. Retrieved from https://datacenter. NPR Ed. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/
track: Comparing the effects of online and kidscount.org/data/tables/7753-children-living- sections/ed/2018/01/16/578310510/students-
face-to-face credit recovery in Algebra I. in-areas-of-concentrated-poverty-by-race-and- across-d-c-graduated-despite-chronic-
American Institutes for Research, UChicago ethnicity#detailed/1/any/false/1607,1572, absences-an-investigation-finds
Consortium on School Research. Retrieved 1485,1376,1201/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/1494
from https://www.air.org/resource/comparing- Morgan, I. & Amerikaner, A. (2018). Funding
3,14942
effectiveness-online-and-face-face-credit- gaps: An analysis of school funding equity
recovery-algebra-i Kohli, S. (2017, July 2). “Schools are boosting across the U.S. and within each state.
graduation rates by offering ‘credit recovery.’ Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Hillman, N., & Weichman, T. (2016). Education But what are students learning?” Los Angeles Retrieved from https://edtrust.org/resource/
Deserts: The Continued Significance of “Place” Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes. funding-gaps-2018/
in the Twenty-First Century. Viewpoints: Voices com/local/education/la-me-edu-pass-credit-
from the Field. Washington, DC: American Morton, M.H., Dworsky, A., & Sanuels,
recovery-20170701-htmlstory.html
Council on Education. G.M. (2017). Missed Opportunities:
Koran, M. (2017, May 17). “It is shockingly Youth Homelessness in America. National
easy to cheat San Diego Unified’s online estimates. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at
courses.” Voice of San Diego. Retrieved the University of Chicago. Retrieved from
from https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/ http://voicesofyouthcount.org/wp-content/
education/cheat-on-online-courses-san-diego/ uploads/2017/11/VoYC-National-Estimates-
Brief-Chapin-Hall-2017.pdf

44 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 REFERENCES

Muenning, P. (2005). The economic value Sum, A., Khatiwada, I., McLaughlin, J., & U.S. Department of Education, Office for
of health gains associated with education Palma, S. (2009). The consequences of Civil Rights. (2018). 2015–16 Civil Rights
interventions. New York: Columbia University. dropping out of high school: Joblessness and Data Collection: School and climate safety.
jailing high school dropouts and the high cost Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/
OECD Social Policy Division, Directorate of for taxpayers. Boston, MA: Center for Labor offices/list/ocr/docs/school-climate-and-
Employment, Labour, and Social Affairs. Market Studies, Northeastern University. safety.pdf
(2017). OECD Family Database. Retrieved
from http://www.oecd.org/els/family/ Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil
database.htm of the Disadvantaged, 73 Fed. Reg. Number Rights. (2018). 2015–16 Civil Rights Data
210 (final rule October 29, 2008) (to be Collection: STEM course taking. Retrieved
Pleis, J.R., Lucas, J.W., & Ward, B.W. (2010). codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200). Retrieved from from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/
Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: https://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/ docs/stem-course-taking.pdf
National health interview survey, 2009 (Vital finrule/2008-4/102908a.html.
and Health Statistics Series 10, no. 249). U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil
Washington, DC: National Center for Health Thomas, N., Marken, S., Gray, L., & Lewis, L. Rights. (2016). 2013–14 Civil Rights Data
Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/ (2013). Dual Credit and Exam-Based Courses Collection: A First Look. Retrieved from
nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_249.pdf in U.S. Public high Schools: 2010–11: First https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/
Look (NCES 2013-01). U.S. Department of docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf
Princiotta, D. (2019). Understanding the Education, Washington, DC: National Center
great U.S. high school graduation rate rise: for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor. (2010). America’s
1998–2010 (Doctoral dissertation). youth at 23: School enrollment, training,
Tyner, A. & Munyan-Penney, N. (2018). and employment transitions between age 22
Rosenthal, B.M. (2016, September 10). Gotta Give ‘Em Credit: State and District and 23. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor
“Denied: How Texas keeps tens of thousands Variation in Credit Recovery and Participation. Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/
of children out of special education.” Washington, DC: The Fordham Institute. nls/nlsy97.htm
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from https:// Retrieved from https://fordhaminstitute.org/
www.houstonchronicle.com/denied/1/ national/research/gotta-give-em-credit.

Rumberger, R. (2012). America cannot afford United States Census Bureau. (2017,
the stiff price of a dropout nation. San Jose, September). Household income: 2016.
CA: Silicon Valley Education Foundation. Washington, DC: Guzman, G.

Southern Education Foundation. (2015). A U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical

new majority: Low-income students now a abstract of the United States: 2012. Retrieved
majority in the nation’s public schools. Atlanta, from https://www.census.gov/library/
GA: Southern Education Foundation. Retrieved publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed.html
from http://www.southerneducation.org/
getattachment/4ac62e27-5260-47a5-9d02- U.S. Department of Education, National Center
14896ec3a531/A-New-Majority-2015-Update- for Education Statistics. (2017). The condition
Low-Income-Students-Now.aspx of education. Retrieved from https://nces.
ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp
The Statistics Portal (n.d.). Unemployment
rate of high school graduates and dropouts U.S. Department of Education, National Center
not enrolled in school in the United States for Education Statistics, Common Core of
from 2000–2013. (Data file). Retrieved from Data (CCD). (2016). Local Education Agency
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184996/ Universe Survey 2015–16.
unemployment-rate-of-high-school-graduates-
and-dropouts/ U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development,
Stein, P. (2018, January 16). “D.C. schools Policy and Program Studies Service. (2018).
increasingly graduating chronically absent Issue brief: Credit recovery. Retrieved from
students, report finds.” The Washington Post. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/
Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost. ppss/reports-high-school.html
com/local/education/dc-schools-increasingly-
graduating-chronically-absent-students-
report-finds/2018/01/16/a1722404-
bf01-44bc-a8c7-e9d9e3b3e9df_story.
html?utm_term=.4e2e24f5795a

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 45

 APPENDICES

Appendix A Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) and Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), by State, 2003–2017
Average Annual Change in
Change in ACGR, Four-Year
2011–2017 Cohort Rate,
2005 (%) 2006 (%) 2007 (%) 2008 (%) 2009 (%) 2010 (%) 2011 (%) 2012 (%) 2013 (%) 2014% 2015 (%) 2016(%) 2017(%) (% Point)* 2011–2017 (%)**

All States
AFGR 74.7 73.2 73.9 74.7 75.5 78.2 80.0 81.0 81.8 — — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 79.0 80.0 81.4 82.3 83.2 84.1 84.6 0.9 5.6

Alabama
AFGR 65.9 66.2 67.1 69.0 69.9 71.8 76.0 75.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — 65.1 — 72.0 75.0 80.0 86.3 89.3 87.1 89.3 2.9 17.3

Alaska
AFGR 64.1 66.5 69.1 69.1 72.6 75.5 78.0 79.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 68.0 70.0 71.8 71.1 75.6 76.1 78.2 1.7 10.2

Arizona
AFGR 84.7 70.5 69.6 70.7 72.5 74.7 79.0 77.0 — — —
ACGR 74.6 69.9 73.4 74.9 76.1 75.4 77.9 76.0 75.1 75.7 77.4 79.5 78.0 0.0 0.1

Arkansas
AFGR 75.7 80.4 74.4 76.4 74.0 75.0 77.0 78.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — 68.0 80.5 80.7 84.0 84.9 86.9 84.9 87.0 88.0 1.2 7.3

California
AFGR 74.6 69.2 70.7 71.2 71.0 78.2 80.0 82.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 74.7 76.3 79.0 80.4 81.0 82.0 83.0 82.7 1.1 6.4

Colorado
AFGR 76.7 75.5 76.6 75.4 77.6 79.8 82.0 82.0 — — —
ACGR — — 70.2 74.4 70.7 72.4 73.9 75.0 76.9 77.3 77.3 78.9 79.1 0.9 5.2

Connecticut
AFGR 80.9 81.8 82.2 82.3 75.4 75.1 85.0 86.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — 79.3 81.8 83.0 85.0 85.5 87.0 87.2 87.4 87.9 0.8 4.9

Delaware
AFGR 73.1 76.3 71.9 72.1 73.7 75.5 76.0 77.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 75.8 78.5 80.0 80.4 87.0 85.6 85.5 86.9 1.4 8.4

District of Columbia
AFGR 68.8 — 54.9 56.0 62.4 59.9 61.0 71.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 58.6 59.0 62.3 61.4 68.5 69.2 73.2 2.4 14.6

Florida
AFGR 64.6 63.6 65.0 66.9 68.9 70.8 72.0 75.0 — — —
ACGR 59.3 58.8 59.8 62.7 65.5 69.0 70.6 75.0 75.6 76.1 77.9 80.7 82.3 2.0 11.7

46 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX A

Appendix A Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) and Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), by State, 2003–2017 (continued)
Average Annual Change in
Change in ACGR, Four-Year
2011–2017 Cohort Rate,
2005 (%) 2006 (%) 2007 (%) 2008 (%) 2009 (%) 2010 (%) 2011 (%) 2012 (%) 2013 (%) 2014% 2015 (%) 2016(%) 2017(%) (% Point)* 2011–2017 (%)**

Georgia
AFGR 61.7 62.4 64.1 65.4 67.8 69.9 70.0 70.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — 58.6 64.0 67.5 70.0 71.7 72.5 78.8 79.4 80.6 2.2 13.1

Hawaii
AFGR 75.1 75.5 75.4 76.0 75.3 75.4 74.0 78.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 80.0 81.0 82.4 81.8 81.6 82.7 82.7 0.5 2.7

Idaho
AFGR 81.0 80.5 80.4 80.1 80.6 84.0 83.0 84.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — — — — 77.3 78.9 79.7 79.7 0.8 2.4

Illinois
AFGR 79.4 79.7 79.5 80.4 77.7 81.9 80.0 82.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 83.8 82.0 83.2 86.0 85.6 85.5 87.0 0.5 3.2

Indiana
AFGR 73.2 73.3 73.9 74.1 75.2 77.2 80.0 80.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — 81.5 84.1 85.7 86.0 87.0 87.9 87.1 86.8 83.8 -0.3 -1.9

Iowa
AFGR 86.6 86.9 86.5 86.4 85.7 87.9 89.0 89.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 88.8 88.3 89.0 89.7 90.5 90.8 91.3 91.0 0.5 2.7

Kansas
AFGR 79.2 77.6 78.9 79.1 80.2 84.5 87.0 89.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 80.7 83.0 85.0 85.7 85.7 85.7 85.7 86.5 0.6 3.5

Kentucky
AFGR 75.9 77.2 76.4 74.4 77.6 79.9 81.0 82.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — — — 86.1 87.5 88.0 88.6 89.7 0.9 3.6

Louisiana
AFGR 63.9 59.5 61.3 63.5 67.3 68.8 71.0 72.0 — — —
ACGR — 64.8 66.3 66.0 67.3 67.2 70.9 72.0 73.5 74.6 77.5 78.6 78.1 1.2 7.2

Maine
AFGR 78.6 76.3 78.5 79.1 79.9 82.8 86.0 87.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — 80.4 82.8 83.8 85.0 86.4 86.5 87.5 87.0 86.9 0.5 3.1

Maryland
AFGR 79.3 79.9 80.0 80.4 80.1 82.2 84.0 84.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 82.0 82.8 84.0 85.0 86.4 87.0 87.6 87.7 0.8 4.9

Massachusetts
AFGR 78.7 79.5 80.8 81.5 83.3 82.6 85.0 86.0 — — —
ACGR — 79.9 80.9 81.2 81.5 82.1 83.4 85.0 85.0 86.1 87.3 87.5 88.3 0.8 4.9

Michigan
AFGR 73.0 72.2 77.0 76.3 75.3 75.9 75.0 77.0 — — —
ACGR — — 75.5 75.5 75.2 76.0 74.3 76.0 77.0 78.6 79.8 79.7 80.2 1.0 5.9

Minnesota
AFGR 85.9 86.2 86.5 86.4 87.4 88.2 89.0 88.0 — — —
ACGR 74.8 75.2 74.8 74.3 74.3 75.5 76.9 78.0 79.8 81.2 81.9 82.2 82.7 1.0 5.8

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 47

APPENDIX A

Appendix A Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) and Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), by State, 2003–2017 (continued)
Average Annual Change in
Change in ACGR, Four-Year
2011–2017 Cohort Rate,
2005 (%) 2006 (%) 2007 (%) 2008 (%) 2009 (%) 2010 (%) 2011 (%) 2012 (%) 2013 (%) 2014% 2015 (%) 2016(%) 2017(%) (% Point)* 2011–2017 (%)**

Mississippi
AFGR 63.3 63.5 63.6 63.9 62.0 63.8 69.0 68.0 — — —
ACGR — 70.8 73.8 72.0 71.6 71.4 73.7 75.0 75.5 77.6 75.4 82.3 83.0 1.6 9.3

Missouri
AFGR 80.6 81.0 81.9 82.4 83.1 83.7 85.0 86.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 81.3 86.0 85.7 87.3 87.8 89.0 88.3 1.2 7.0

Montana
AFGR 81.5 81.9 81.5 82.0 82.0 81.9 84.0 86.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 82.2 84.0 84.4 85.4 86.0 85.6 85.8 0.6 3.6

Nebraska
AFGR 87.8 87.0 86.3 83.8 82.9 83.8 90.0 93.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 86.0 88.0 88.5 89.7 88.9 89.3 89.1 0.5 3.1

Nevada
AFGR 55.8 55.8 54.2 56.3 56.3 57.8 59.0 60.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 62.0 63.0 70.7 70.0 71.3 73.6 80.9 3.2 18.9

New Hampshire
AFGR 80.1 81.1 81.7 83.4 84.3 86.3 87.0 87.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 85.9 86.1 86.0 87.3 88.1 88.1 88.2 88.9 0.5 2.8

New Jersey
AFGR 85.1 84.8 84.4 84.6 85.3 87.2 87.0 87.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 83.2 86.0 87.5 88.6 89.7 90.1 90.5 1.2 7.3

New Mexico
AFGR 65.4 67.3 59.1 66.8 64.8 67.3 71.0 74.0 — — —
ACGR — — — 60.3 66.1 67.3 63.0 70.0 70.3 68.5 68.6 71.0 71.1 1.4 8.1

New York
AFGR 65.3 67.4 68.8 70.8 73.5 76.0 78.0 78.0 — — —
ACGR 65.8 67.2 71.0 73.6 74.0 76.0 76.8 77.0 76.8 77.8 79.2 80.4 81.8 0.8 5.0

North Carolina
AFGR 72.6 71.8 68.6 72.8 75.1 76.9 77.0 79.0 — — —
ACGR — 68.3 69.5 70.3 71.8 74.2 77.9 80.0 82.5 83.9 85.6 85.9 86.6 1.4 8.7

North Dakota
AFGR 86.3 82.1 83.1 83.8 87.4 88.4 90.0 91.0 — — —
ACGR 86.7 86.2 87.7 86.9 85.4 86.2 86.3 87.0 87.5 87.2 86.6 87.5 87.2 0.2 1.0

Ohio
AFGR 80.2 79.2 78.7 79.0 79.6 81.4 82.0 84.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 78.0 80.0 81.0 82.2 81.8 80.7 83.5 84.2 0.7 4.2

Oklahoma
AFGR 76.9 77.8 77.8 78.0 77.3 78.5 80.0 79.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — — — 84.8 82.7 82.5 81.6 82.6 -0.6 -2.2

Oregon
AFGR 74.2 73.0 73.8 76.7 76.5 76.3 78.0 78.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — 66.2 66.4 67.7 68.0 68.7 72.0 73.8 74.8 76.7 1.5 9.0

48 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX A

Appendix A Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) and Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), by State, 2003–2017 (continued)
Average Annual Change in
Change in ACGR, Four-Year
2011–2017 Cohort Rate,
2005 (%) 2006 (%) 2007 (%) 2008 (%) 2009 (%) 2010 (%) 2011 (%) 2012 (%) 2013 (%) 2014% 2015 (%) 2016(%) 2017(%) (% Point)* 2011–2017 (%)**

Pennsylvania
AFGR 82.5 — 83.0 82.7 80.5 84.1 86.0 88.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 77.8 82.6 84.0 85.5 85.3 84.8 86.1 86.6 0.7 4.0

Rhode Island
AFGR 78.4 77.8 78.4 76.4 75.3 76.4 77.0 76.0 — — —
ACGR — — — 73.9 75.5 75.8 77.3 77.0 79.7 80.8 83.2 82.8 84.1 1.1 6.8

South Carolina
AFGR 60.1 — 58.9 62.2 66.0 68.2 69.0 72.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 72.0 73.6 75.0 77.6 80.1 80.3 82.6 83.6 1.7 10.0

South Dakota
AFGR 82.3 84.5 82.5 84.4 81.7 81.8 82.0 83.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 83.4 83.0 82.7 82.7 83.9 83.9 83.7 0.1 0.3

Tennessee
AFGR 68.5 70.6 72.6 74.9 77.4 80.4 81.0 83.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 85.5 87.0 86.3 87.2 87.9 88.5 89.8 0.7 4.3

Texas
AFGR 74.0 72.5 71.9 73.1 75.4 78.9 81.0 82.0 — — —
ACGR 84.0 80.4 78.0 79.1 80.6 84.3 85.9 88.0 88.0 88.3 89.0 89.1 89.7 0.6 3.8

Utah
AFGR 84.4 78.6 76.6 74.3 79.4 78.6 78.0 78.0 — — —
ACGR — — — 69.0 72.0 75.0 76.0 80.0 83.0 83.9 84.8 85.2 86.0 1.7 10.0

Vermont
AFGR 86.5 82.3 88.6 89.3 89.6 91.4 93.0 93.0 — — —
ACGR — 85.1 86.4 85.7 85.6 87.5 87.5 88.0 86.6 87.8 87.7 87.7 89.1 0.3 1.6

Virginia
AFGR 79.6 74.5 75.5 77.0 78.4 81.2 83.0 84.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — — 82.0 83.0 84.5 85.3 85.7 86.7 86.9 0.8 4.9

Washington
AFGR 75.0 72.9 74.8 71.9 73.7 77.2 79.0 79.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 75.4 76.6 77.0 76.4 78.2 78.2 79.7 79.4 0.5 2.8

West Virginia
AFGR 77.3 76.9 78.2 77.3 77.0 78.3 78.0 80.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 75.5 76.5 79.0 81.4 84.5 86.5 89.8 89.4 2.2 12.9

Wisconsin
AFGR 86.7 87.5 88.5 89.6 90.7 91.1 92.0 92.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 85.7 87.0 88.0 88.0 88.6 88.4 88.2 88.6 0.3 1.6

Wyoming
AFGR 76.7 76.1 75.8 76.0 75.2 80.3 80.0 80.0 — — —
ACGR — — — — — 80.4 79.7 79.0 77.0 78.6 79.3 90.0 86.2 1.1 6.5

Sources: Stetser, M. & Stillwell, R. (2014). Public High School Four-Year On-Time Graduation Rates and Event Dropout Rates: School Years 2010–11, 2011–12, and
2012–13: First Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2014-391). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Department
of Education (2013). Provisional Data File: SY2012–13 Four-Year Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates.
*The Average Annual Change in ACGR reflects the annual change from 2013 to 2017 for Kentucky and Oklahoma and from 2014 to 2017 for Idaho.
**The Change in Four-Year Cohort Rate reflects the change from 2013 to 2017 for Kentucky and Oklahoma and from 2014 to 2017 for Idaho.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 49

APPENDIX B
Appendix B Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates, by State and Subgroup, 2016–17
Regulatory Adjusted Regulatory Adjusted Regulatory Adjusted Regulatory Adjusted Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Regulatory Adjusted Cohort
Cohort Graduation Rate, Cohort Graduation Cohort Graduation Rate, Cohort Graduation Graduation Rate, Asian and Graduation Rate, American Indian
State All Students: 2016–17 Rate, Black: 2016–17 Hispanic: 2016–17 Rate, White: 2016–17 Pacific Islander: 2016–17 and Alaskan Native: 2016–17
Alabama 89.3% 86.5% 88.0% 91.0% 95.0% —
Alaska 78.2% 74.0% 77.0% 82.2% 84.0% 69.0%
Arizona 78.0% 73.8% 74.5% 82.8% 89.0% 66.8%
Arkansas 88.0% 83.4% 85.7% 90.0% 86.0% 89.0%
California 82.7% 73.1% 80.3% 87.3% 92.6% 68.2%
Colorado 79.1% 71.9% 71.1% 83.9% 89.0% 64.0%
Connecticut 87.9% 80.1% 77.7% 92.8% 95.0% 88.0%
Delaware 86.9% 83.2% 82.0% 89.9% 95.0% 76.0%
Florida 82.3% 74.8% 81.3% 86.2% 92.9% 80.0%
Georgia 80.6% 77.8% 73.6% 84.0% 91.2% 79.0%
Hawaii 82.7% 79.0% 80.0% 80.0% 83.5% 79.0%
Idaho 79.7% 70.0% 74.8% 81.1% 85.0% 66.0%
Illinois 87.0% 78.9% 83.5% 90.6% 94.5% 81.0%
Indiana 83.8% 70.8% 75.8% 87.5% 80.0% 76.0%
Iowa 91.0% 82.0% 82.4% 92.7% 91.0% 83.0%
Kansas 86.5% 78.0% 81.1% 88.8% 93.0% 81.0%
Kentucky 89.7% 81.6% 84.0% 91.2% 92.0% 77.0%
Louisiana 78.1% 72.8% 67.0% 83.7% 90.0% 81.0%
Maine 86.9% 83.0% 89.0% 87.4% 89.0% 71.0%
Maryland 87.7% 85.4% 74.0% 92.7% 96.2% 86.0%
Massachusetts 88.3% 80.0% 74.4% 92.6% 93.9% 81.0%
Michigan 80.2% 68.6% 73.3% 83.7% 90.5% 68.0%
Minnesota 82.7% 64.8% 66.3% 88.1% 85.2% 51.0%
Mississippi 83.0% 79.3% 81.0% 87.1% 91.0% 80.0%
Missouri 88.3% 75.9% 84.4% 91.4% 91.0% 84.0%
Montana 85.8% 81.0% 80.0% 88.7% 91.0% 69.0%
Nebraska 89.1% 81.0% 81.6% 92.5% 82.0% 70.0%
Nevada 80.9% 67.7% 79.7% 84.2% 91.0% 74.0%
New Hampshire 88.9% 79.0% 76.0% 89.8% 93.0% 75.0%
New Jersey 90.5% 83.4% 84.3% 94.5% 96.6% 92.0%
New Mexico 71.1% 68.0% 70.5% 76.4% 85.0% 61.0%
New York 81.8% 71.5% 71.2% 89.8% 87.7% 67.0%
North Carolina 86.6% 83.9% 80.6% 89.3% 93.8% 84.0%
North Dakota 87.2% 75.0% 76.0% 90.5% 80.0% 68.0%
Ohio 84.2% 68.6% 73.6% 88.2% 88.0% 76.0%
Oklahoma 82.6% 80.3% 79.3% 83.7% 86.0% 82.7%
Oregon 76.7% 68.0% 72.5% 78.0% 86.0% 59.0%
Pennsylvania 86.6% 73.8% 73.9% 91.0% 92.4% 73.0%
Rhode Island 84.1% 81.0% 76.0% 87.7% 88.0% 73.0%
South Carolina 83.6% 81.3% 80.5% 85.2% 93.0% 76.0%
South Dakota 83.7% 78.0% 71.0% 89.5% 85.0% 50.0%
Tennessee 89.8% 84.0% 83.8% 92.6% 94.0% 89.0%
Texas 89.7% 86.1% 87.7% 93.6% 95.8% 86.0%
Utah 86.0% 73.0% 77.3% 88.3% 87.0% 74.0%
Vermont 89.1% 77.0% 90.0% 89.8% 82.0% <>
Virginia 86.9% 82.8% 73.0% 91.3% 93.4% 83.0%
Washington 79.4% 71.5% 72.7% 81.9% 85.3% 62.0%
West Virginia 89.4% 87.0% 92.0% 89.5% 95.0% 8.0%
Wisconsin 88.6% 67.0% 80.3% 92.7% 91.0% 79.0%
Wyoming 86.2% 83.0% 80.0% 87.5% 84.0% 59.0%
United States 84.6% 77.8% 80.0% 88.6% 91.2% 72.4%

50 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX B
Appendix B Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates, by State and Subgroup, 2016–17 (continued)
Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Regulatory Adjusted Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Regulatory Adjusted Cohort
Graduation Rate, Native Hawaiian or Graduation Rate, Two or Cohort Graduation Rate, Graduation Rate, Students Graduation Rate, Limited
State Other Pacific Islander: 2016–17 More Races: 2016–17 Low Income: 2016–17 with Disabilities: 2016–17 English Proficient: 2016–17
Alabama — 91.0% — — —
Alaska 77.0% 75.0% 72.1% 59.0% 58.0%
Arizona — 0.0% 72.4% 66.4% 30.0%
Arkansas 69.0% 86.0% 84.9% 83.8% 82.0%
California 91.3% 70.4% 78.8% 65.0% 67.2%
Colorado 77.0% 80.0% 68.5% 56.8% 64.6%
Connecticut 81.0% 88.0% 78.1% 66.7% 68.0%
Delaware 5.0% 91.0% 78.0% 69.0% 69.0%
Florida 87.0% 83.1% 76.8% 66.0% 67.3%
Georgia — 81.5% 76.4% 58.9% 59.0%
Hawaii — 0.0% 77.9% 65.0% 69.0%
Idaho 78.0% 76.0% 71.6% 61.0% 75.0%
Illinois 82.0% 86.2% 79.4% 71.2% 73.6%
Indiana 70.0% 82.1% 80.3% 70.9% 50.0%
Iowa 77.0% 85.0% 83.7% 74.3% 80.0%
Kansas 75.0% 84.0% 78.6% 78.4% 79.7%
Kentucky 76.0% 87.0% 87.0% 74.4% 67.0%
Louisiana 77.0% 82.0% 72.6% 52.5% 36.0%
Maine 5.0% 79.0% 79.3% 72.5% 81.0%
Maryland 89.0% 91.0% 79.3% 67.5% 45.0%
Massachusetts 78.0% 85.0% 79.0% 72.8% 63.4%
Michigan 85.0% 74.7% 67.9% 56.7% 69.4%
Minnesota 63.0% 71.0% 69.0% 61.2% 64.7%
Mississippi 8.0% 79.0% 79.9% 36.4% 67.0%
Missouri — 89.0% 80.1% 76.9% 67.0%
Montana 83.0% 0.0% 76.6% 77.0% 63.0%
Nebraska 85.0% 86.0% 81.8% 71.0% 50.0%
Nevada 82.0% 81.0% 76.8% 64.7% 81.7%
New Hampshire 5.0% 85.0% 77.5% 74.0% 78.0%
New Jersey 9.0% 92.0% 84.0% 78.8% 76.1%
New Mexico — 0.0% 66.4% 61.5% 68.1%
New York 77.0% 83.0% 75.3% 55.4% 30.8%
North Carolina — 84.3% 81.8% 70.3% 58.0%
North Dakota — 0.0% 74.0% 66.0% 69.0%
Ohio — 78.7% 73.1% 70.5% 55.0%
Oklahoma 84.0% 82.5% 76.8% 77.0% 57.0%
Oregon 69.0% 77.0% 70.1% 58.8% 55.0%
Pennsylvania 90.0% 79.0% 79.8% 73.6% 65.0%
Rhode Island 68.0% 79.0% 76.0% 63.0% 72.0%
South Carolina — 0.0% 85.1% 53.5% 77.0%
South Dakota <> 78.0% 67.0% 60.0% 59.0%
Tennessee 93.0% 0.0% 84.5% 72.7% 74.0%
Texas 89.0% 91.7% 86.9% 77.4% 75.5%
Utah 86.0% 87.0% 76.6% 69.4% 67.0%
Vermont <> 83.0% 81.0% 76.0% 66.0%
Virginia 91.0% 90.0% 77.8% 59.8% 57.3%
Washington 68.0% 79.7% 70.0% 59.4% 57.8%
West Virginia 5.0% 83.0% 87.3% 76.0% <>
Wisconsin 85.0% 84.0% 77.4% 68.2% 65.0%
Wyoming 5.0% 79.0% 65.0% 68.0% 77.0%
United States — 0.0% 78.3% 67.1% 66.4%
Source: EDFacts/Consolidated State Performance Report, 2016–17: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 51

APPENDIX C
Appendix C Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Gaps—Black and White Students, by State, 2016–17

Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Graduation Rate Gap between White and
State Graduation Rate, White: 2016–17 Rate, Black: 2016–17 Black Students, 2016–17
Alabama 91.0% 86.5% 4.5%
Alaska 82.2% 74.0% 8.2%
Arizona 82.8% 73.8% 9.0%
Arkansas 90.0% 83.4% 6.6%
California 87.3% 73.1% 14.2%
Colorado 83.9% 71.9% 12.0%
Connecticut 92.8% 80.1% 12.7%
DC 85.0% 72.4% 12.6%
Delaware 89.9% 83.2% 6.7%
Florida 86.2% 74.8% 11.4%
Georgia 84.0% 77.8% 6.2%
Hawaii 80.0% 79.0% 1.0%
Idaho 81.1% 70.0% 11.1%
Illinois 90.6% 78.9% 11.7%
Indiana 87.5% 70.8% 16.7%
Iowa 92.7% 82.0% 10.7%
Kansas 88.8% 78.0% 10.8%
Kentucky 91.2% 81.6% 9.6%
Louisiana 83.7% 72.8% 10.9%
Maine 87.4% 83.0% 4.4%
Maryland 92.7% 85.4% 7.3%
Massachusetts 92.6% 80.0% 12.6%
Michigan 83.7% 68.6% 15.1%
Minnesota 88.1% 64.8% 23.3%
Mississippi 87.1% 79.3% 7.8%
Missouri 91.4% 75.9% 15.5%
Montana 88.7% 81.0% 7.7%
Nebraska 92.5% 81.0% 11.5%
Nevada 84.2% 67.7% 16.5%
New Hampshire 89.8% 79.0% 10.8%
New Jersey 94.5% 83.4% 11.1%
New Mexico 76.4% 68.0% 8.4%
New York 89.8% 71.5% 18.3%
North Carolina 89.3% 83.9% 5.4%
North Dakota 90.5% 75.0% 15.5%
Ohio 88.2% 68.6% 19.6%
Oklahoma 83.7% 80.3% 3.4%
Oregon 78.0% 68.0% 10.0%
Pennsylvania 91.0% 73.8% 17.2%
Rhode Island 87.7% 81.0% 6.7%
South Carolina 85.2% 81.3% 3.9%
South Dakota 89.5% 78.0% 11.5%
Tennessee 92.6% 84.0% 8.6%
Texas 93.6% 86.1% 7.5%
Utah 88.3% 73.0% 15.3%
Vermont 89.8% 77.0% 12.8%
Virginia 91.3% 82.8% 8.5%
Washington 81.9% 71.5% 10.4%
West Virginia 89.5% 87.0% 2.5%
Wisconsin 92.7% 67.0% 25.7%
Wyoming 87.5% 83.0% 4.5%
United States 88.6% 77.8% 10.8%

52 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX D
Appendix D Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Gaps—Hispanic and White Students, by State, 2016–17

Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Graduation Rate Gap between White and
State Rate, White: 2016–17 Rate, Hispanic: 2016–17 Hispanic Students, 2016–17
Alabama 91.0% 88.0% 3.0%
Alaska 82.2% 77.0% 5.2%
Arizona 82.8% 74.5% 8.3%
Arkansas 90.0% 85.7% 4.3%
California 87.3% 80.3% 7.0%
Colorado 83.9% 71.1% 12.8%
Connecticut 92.8% 77.7% 15.1%
DC 85.0% 72.0% 13.0%
Delaware 89.9% 82.0% 7.9%
Florida 86.2% 81.3% 4.9%
Georgia 84.0% 73.6% 10.4%
Hawaii 80.0% 80.0% 0.0%
Idaho 81.1% 74.8% 6.3%
Illinois 90.6% 83.5% 7.1%
Indiana 87.5% 75.8% 11.7%
Iowa 92.7% 82.4% 10.3%
Kansas 88.8% 81.1% 7.7%
Kentucky 91.2% 84.0% 7.2%
Louisiana 83.7% 67.0% 16.7%
Maine 87.4% 89.0% -1.6%
Maryland 92.7% 74.0% 18.7%
Massachusetts 92.6% 74.4% 18.2%
Michigan 83.7% 73.3% 10.4%
Minnesota 88.1% 66.3% 21.8%
Mississippi 87.1% 81.0% 6.1%
Missouri 91.4% 84.4% 7.0%
Montana 88.7% 80.0% 8.7%
Nebraska 92.5% 81.6% 10.9%
Nevada 84.2% 79.7% 4.5%
New Hampshire 89.8% 76.0% 13.8%
New Jersey 94.5% 84.3% 10.2%
New Mexico 76.4% 70.5% 5.9%
New York 89.8% 71.2% 18.6%
North Carolina 89.3% 80.6% 8.7%
North Dakota 90.5% 76.0% 14.5%
Ohio 88.2% 73.6% 14.6%
Oklahoma 83.7% 79.3% 4.4%
Oregon 78.0% 72.5% 5.5%
Pennsylvania 91.0% 73.9% 17.1%
Rhode Island 87.7% 76.0% 11.7%
South Carolina 85.2% 80.5% 4.7%
South Dakota 89.5% 71.0% 18.5%
Tennessee 92.6% 83.8% 8.8%
Texas 93.6% 87.7% 5.9%
Utah 88.3% 77.3% 11.0%
Vermont 89.8% 90.0% -0.2%
Virginia 91.3% 73.0% 18.3%
Washington 81.9% 72.7% 9.2%
West Virginia 89.5% 92.0% -2.5%
Wisconsin 92.7% 80.3% 12.4%
Wyoming 87.5% 80.0% 7.5%
United States 88.6% 80.0% 8.6%

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 53

APPENDIX E
Appendix E Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) by State, Percent Low-Income, ACGR Low-Income, ACGR Estimated Non-Low-Income,
Gap between Low-Income and Non-Low-Income, and Gap Change 2011–2017
Gap between Non-Low- Gap between Non-Low- Gap Change between
Income and Low-Income Percent of Low- Estimated Non- Income and Low-Income Non-Low-Income and Low-
ACGR (Percentage Overall 2017 Income Students in Low-Income 2017 Low-Income ACGR (Percentage Income ACGR (Percentage
State Points), 2011 ACGR (%) the Cohort, 2017 (%) ACGR (%) 2017 ACGR (%) Points), 2017 Points), 2011–17
Alabama 19.73 89.3% 1.5% † † † †
Alaska 18.28 78.2% 43.2% 82.8% 72.1% 10.7 7.5
Arizona 7.94 78.0% 36.5% 81.2% 72.4% 8.8 -0.9
Arkansas 12.14 88.0% 65.3% 93.8% 84.9% 8.9 3.2
California 15.49 82.7% 67.1% 90.6% 78.8% 11.8 3.6
Colorado 19.13 79.1% 47.0% 88.5% 68.5% 20.0 -0.9
Connecticut 27.38 87.9% 43.6% 95.5% 78.1% 17.4 10.0
Delaware 12.40 86.9% 27.4% 90.3% 78.0% 12.3 0.1
Florida 17.86 82.3% 53.5% 88.6% 76.8% 11.8 6.0
Georgia 15.05 80.6% 55.1% 85.8% 76.4% 9.4 5.7
Hawaii 8.43 82.7% 59.9% 89.9% 77.9% 12.0 -3.6
Idaho † 79.7% 54.8% 89.5% 71.6% 17.9 †
Illinois 14.66 87.0% 43.1% 92.7% 79.4% 13.3 1.3
Indiana 10.55 83.8% 35.7% 85.7% 80.3% 5.4 5.1
Iowa 15.48 91.0% 41.4% 96.2% 83.7% 12.5 3.0
Kansas 19.57 86.5% 51.2% 94.8% 78.6% 16.2 3.4
Kentucky † 89.7% 52.6% 92.7% 87.0% 5.7 †
Louisiana 14.11 78.1% 64.1% 87.9% 72.6% 15.3 -1.2
Maine 13.41 86.9% 53.3% 95.6% 79.3% 16.3 -2.9
Maryland 12.62 87.7% 33.0% 91.8% 79.3% 12.5 0.1
Massachusetts 21.53 88.3% 44.5% 95.8% 79.0% 16.8 4.8
Michigan 18.65 80.2% 40.2% 88.5% 67.9% 20.6 -1.9
Minnesota 27.81 82.7% 42.7% 92.9% 69.0% 23.9 3.9
Mississippi 12.52 83.0% 65.4% 88.9% 79.9% 9.0 3.6
Missouri 9.83 88.3% 42.5% 94.4% 80.1% 14.3 -4.4
Montana 18.71 85.8% 47.0% 93.9% 76.6% 17.3 1.4
Nebraska 11.89 89.1% 38.9% 93.7% 81.8% 11.9 -0.1
Nevada 17.22 80.9% 67.0% 89.2% 76.8% 12.4 4.8
New Hampshire 20.69 88.9% 30.3% 93.9% 77.5% 16.4 4.3
New Jersey 15.91 90.5% 33.9% 93.8% 84.0% 9.8 6.1
New Mexico 16.36 71.1% 64.0% 79.4% 66.4% 13.0 3.3
New York 13.24 81.8% 48.1% 87.8% 75.3% 12.5 0.7
North Carolina 11.73 86.6% 40.1% 89.8% 81.8% 8.0 3.7
North Dakota 13.38 87.2% 26.4% 91.9% 74.0% 17.9 -4.6
Ohio 23.35 84.2% 42.5% 92.4% 73.1% 19.3 4.0
Oklahoma † 82.6% 50.1% 88.4% 76.8% 11.6 †
Oregon 13.67 76.7% 56.8% 85.4% 70.1% 15.3 -1.6
Pennsylvania 17.71 86.6% 40.9% 91.3% 79.8% 11.5 6.2
Rhode Island 22.12 84.1% 53.4% 93.4% 76.0% 17.4 4.7
South Carolina 13.26 83.6% 43.5% 82.4% 85.1% -2.7 15.9
South Dakota 22.25 83.7% 29.7% 90.7% 67.0% 23.7 -1.5
Tennessee 14.03 89.8% 32.9% 92.4% 84.5% 7.9 6.1
Texas 3.74 89.7% 51.1% 92.6% 86.9% 5.7 -2.0
Utah 15.46 86.0% 30.4% 90.1% 76.6% 13.5 2.0
Vermont 16.29 89.1% 45.3% 95.8% 81.0% 14.8 1.5
Virginia 17.06 86.9% 33.3% 91.4% 77.8% 13.6 3.4
Washington 17.38 79.4% 50.5% 89.0% 70.0% 19.0 -1.6
West Virginia 19.86 89.4% 76.8% 96.4% 87.3% 9.1 10.8
Wisconsin 18.00 88.6% 30.7% 93.6% 77.4% 16.2 1.8
Wyoming 21.66 86.2% 13.4% 89.5% 65.0% 24.5 -2.8
United States † 84.6% 47.2% 90.2% 78.3% 12.1 †
Note. † = Not applicable: Data are not expected to be reported by the SEA for SY2010–11 or SY2015–16. Percent of Low-Income Students in the Cohort, 2016 (%)
= the number of low-income students divided by the total cohort size within each state. Estimated Non-Low-Income ACGR (%) = the estimated graduates from all
students minus low-income graduates divided by the estimated total cohort of all students minus low-income within the cohort (i.e., using state level ACGRs). Gap
Change Between Non-Low-Income and Low-Income ACGR (Percentage Points), 2011–17 = the gap between the estimated non-low-income and low-income ACGRs
from 2010–11 to 2016–17. Therefore, positive values indicate gap closure and negative values indicate gap widening.
Sources: U.S. Department of Education through provisional data file of SY2010–11 and SY 2016–17 State Level Four-Year Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates
and Cohort Counts. Retrieved on February 7, 2018 from http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/state-tables-main.cfm.

54 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX F
Appendix F Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR, 2016–17) for Students with Disabilities (SWD) versus Non-SWD Students
Percent of Students with Disabilities Estimated Non-SWD Gap between Non-SWD and SWD 2017
State within the 2017 Cohort (%) 2017 ACGR (%) SWD 2017 ACGR (%) ACGR (Percentage Points)
Alabama 0.7% † † †
Alaska 12.1% 80.8% 59.0% 21.8
Arizona 9.3% 79.2% 66.4% 12.8
Arkansas 11.4% 88.5% 83.8% 4.7
California 11.5% 85.0% 65.0% 20.0
Colorado 10.2% 81.6% 56.8% 24.8
Connecticut 15.5% 91.8% 66.7% 25.1
Delaware 14.3% 89.9% 69.0% 20.9
Florida 11.0% 84.3% 66.0% 18.3
Georgia 10.5% 83.1% 58.9% 24.2
Hawaii 12.3% 85.2% 65.0% 20.2
Idaho 9.4% 81.6% 61.0% 20.6
Illinois 12.8% 89.3% 71.2% 18.1
Indiana 11.7% 85.5% 70.9% 14.6
Iowa 12.6% 93.4% 74.3% 19.1
Kansas 12.9% 87.7% 78.4% 9.3
Kentucky 8.7% 91.2% 74.4% 16.8
Louisiana 8.6% 80.5% 52.5% 28.0
Maine 22.0% 91.0% 72.5% 18.5
Maryland 9.8% 89.9% 67.5% 22.4
Massachusetts 19.2% 92.0% 72.8% 19.2
Michigan 11.5% 83.3% 56.7% 26.6
Minnesota 14.8% 86.4% 61.2% 25.2
Mississippi 9.8% 88.1% 36.4% 51.7
Missouri 11.0% 89.7% 76.9% 12.8
Montana 12.5% 87.1% 77.0% 10.1
Nebraska 11.1% 91.4% 71.0% 20.4
Nevada 12.2% 83.2% 64.7% 18.5
New Hampshire 16.9% 91.9% 74.0% 17.9
New Jersey 15.0% 92.6% 78.8% 13.8
New Mexico 13.1% 72.5% 61.5% 11.0
New York 15.6% 86.7% 55.4% 31.3
North Carolina 10.5% 88.5% 70.3% 18.2
North Dakota 11.0% 89.8% 66.0% 23.8
Ohio 14.8% 86.6% 70.5% 16.1
Oklahoma 14.9% 83.6% 77.0% 6.6
Oregon 14.0% 79.6% 58.8% 20.8
Pennsylvania 15.0% 88.9% 73.6% 15.3
Rhode Island 16.3% 88.2% 63.0% 25.2
South Carolina 10.9% 87.3% 53.5% 33.8
South Dakota 9.6% 86.2% 60.0% 26.2
Tennessee 12.6% 92.3% 72.7% 19.6
Texas 7.9% 90.7% 77.4% 13.3
Utah 9.8% 87.8% 69.4% 18.4
Vermont 16.2% 91.6% 76.0% 15.6
Virginia 11.8% 90.5% 59.8% 30.7
Washington 12.3% 82.2% 59.4% 22.8
West Virginia 13.4% 91.5% 76.0% 15.5
Wisconsin 11.3% 91.2% 68.2% 23.0
Wyoming 11.1% 88.5% 68.0% 20.5
United States 11.8% 86.9% 67.1% 19.8
Note. Total Cohort Size (N) = the sum of all students in the 9th grade cohort in the district level ACGR file listed below. Percent of Students with Disabilities within
the Cohort (%) = the number of SPED students divided by the total cohort size within each state. Estimated Non-SPED ACGR (%) = the estimated graduates from
all students minus SPED graduates divided by the estimated total cohort of all students minus SPED within the cohort (i.e., using state level ACGRs). SPED ACGR
(%) = the actual state level ACGR from 2016–17. Gap between Non-SPED and SPED 2017 ACGR (Percentage Points) = the estimated non-SPED ACGR minus
the SPED ACGR.
Sources: U.S. Department of Education through provisional data file of SY2016–17 District and State Level Four-Year Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates.

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 55

APPENDIX G
Appendix G Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR, 2016–17) for English Language Learners (ELs) Students versus Non-EL Students

Percent of English Language Learners Gap between Non-ELs and ELs

State within the 2017 Cohort (%) Estimated Non-ELs 2017 ACGR (%) ELs 2017 ACGR (%) 2017 ACGR (Percentage Points)
Alabama 0.0% † † †
Alaska 7.4% 79.8% 58.0% 21.8%
Arizona 1.6% 78.8% 30.0% 48.8%
Arkansas 7.4% 88.5% 82.0% 6.5%
California 14.7% 85.4% 67.2% 18.2%
Colorado 12.0% 81.1% 64.6% 16.5%
Connecticut 5.6% 89.1% 68.0% 21.1%
Delaware 4.9% 87.8% 69.0% 18.8%
Florida 8.2% 83.6% 67.3% 16.3%
Georgia 3.3% 81.3% 59.0% 22.3%
Hawaii 10.7% 84.3% 69.0% 15.3%
Idaho 7.8% 80.1% 75.0% 5.1%
Illinois 4.9% 87.7% 73.6% 14.1%
Indiana 2.3% 84.6% 50.0% 34.6%
Iowa 3.9% 91.4% 80.0% 11.4%
Kansas 9.9% 87.3% 79.7% 7.6%
Kentucky 1.4% 90.0% 67.0% 23.0%
Louisiana 2.0% 78.9% 36.0% 42.9%
Maine 3.8% 87.1% 81.0% 6.1%
Maryland 3.6% 89.3% 45.0% 44.3%
Massachusetts 7.7% 90.4% 63.4% 27.0%
Michigan 3.3% 80.6% 69.4% 11.2%
Minnesota 7.7% 84.2% 64.7% 19.5%
Mississippi 0.8% 83.1% 67.0% 16.1%
Missouri 1.3% 88.6% 67.0% 21.6%
Montana 4.0% 86.7% 63.0% 23.7%
Nebraska 3.7% 90.6% 50.0% 40.6%
Nevada 22.6% 80.7% 81.7% -1.0%
New Hampshire 2.7% 89.2% 78.0% 11.2%
New Jersey 4.1% 91.1% 76.1% 15.0%
New Mexico 31.1% 72.5% 68.1% 4.4%
New York 4.4% 84.2% 30.8% 53.4%
North Carolina 2.5% 87.3% 58.0% 29.3%
North Dakota 2.6% 87.7% 69.0% 18.7%
Ohio 1.6% 84.7% 55.0% 29.7%
Oklahoma 2.7% 83.3% 57.0% 26.3%
Oregon 4.1% 77.6% 55.0% 22.6%
Pennsylvania 2.7% 87.2% 65.0% 22.2%
Rhode Island 7.7% 85.1% 72.0% 13.1%
South Carolina 4.0% 83.9% 77.0% 6.9%
South Dakota 2.1% 84.2% 59.0% 25.2%
Tennessee 3.0% 90.3% 74.0% 16.3%
Texas 8.4% 91.0% 75.5% 15.5%
Utah 3.8% 86.7% 67.0% 19.7%
Vermont 1.9% 89.5% 66.0% 23.5%
Virginia 7.7% 89.4% 57.3% 32.1%
Washington 6.2% 80.8% 57.8% 23.0%
West Virginia 0.0% † † †
Wisconsin 2.3% 89.2% 65.0% 24.2%
Wyoming 1.1% 86.3% 77.0% 9.3%
United States 6.3% 85.8% 66.4% 19.4%
Note. Total Cohort Size (N) = the sum of all students in the 9th grade cohort in the district level ACGR file listed below. Percent of Limited English Proficient Students
within the Cohort (%) = the number of LEP students divided by the total cohort size within each state. Estimated Non-LEP ACGR (%) = the estimated graduates from
all students minus LEP graduates divided by the estimated total cohort of all students minus LEP within the cohort (i.e., using state level ACGRs). LEP ACGR (%) =
the actual state level ACGR from 2016–17. Gap between Non-LEP and LEP 2017 ACGR (Percentage Points) = the estimated non-LEP ACGR minus the LEP ACGR.
Sources: U.S. Department of Education through provisional data file of SY2016–17 District and State Level Four-Year Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates.

56 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX H
Appendix H Estimated Number of Additional Graduates Needed to Reach a 90 Percent Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) by State and Subgroup, 2016–17
American Indian/ Asian/Pacific Two or More Students with Limited English
State All Students (N) Alaska Native (N) Islander (N) Black (N) Hispanic (N) White (N) Identities (N) Disabilities (N) Low-Income (N) Proficiency (N)
Alabama 384 † - 660 56 - - † † †
Alaska 1,158 455 55 53 87 383 121 367 759 232
Arizona 10,161 973 26 747 5,652 2,505 † 1,857 5,437 799
Arkansas 709 2 33 493 172 - 24 250 1,181 211
California 31,332 559 - 4,350 21,646 2,927 2,542 12,303 32,236 14,411
Colorado 6,991 143 22 575 3,894 2,163 219 2,176 6,480 1,952
Connecticut 893 2 - 577 1,071 - 17 1,535 2,204 524
Delaware 312 6 - 213 114 5 - 303 331 104
Florida 15,724 81 - 6,955 5,311 3,240 392 5,404 14,412 3,802
Georgia 11,984 7 - 5,869 2,509 3,288 263 4,146 9,555 1,299
Hawaii 932 7 648 27 91 157 † 394 926 287
Idaho 2,334 66 20 51 573 1,554 70 619 2,286 265
Illinois 4,473 37 - 2,858 2,255 - 150 3,586 6,804 1,210
Indiana 4,959 29 189 1,945 1,141 1,416 244 1,788 2,767 720
Iowa - 8 - 142 234 - 49 687 908 136
Kansas 1,264 41 - 314 552 291 98 539 2,107 370
Kentucky 144 8 - 446 128 - 33 655 759 155
Louisiana 5,687 33 - 3,581 558 1,433 48 1,535 5,326 508
Maine 400 15 2 31 2 302 39 496 736 44
Maryland 1,454 6 - 1,020 1,409 - - 1,396 2,231 1,012
Massachusetts 1,247 15 - 683 1,914 - 85 2,420 3,592 1,509
Michigan 11,679 203 - 4,494 1,244 5,218 491 4,577 10,588 822
Minnesota 4,787 386 199 1,657 1,199 889 332 2,786 5,883 1,282
Mississippi 2,366 6 - 1,792 80 449 26 1,781 2,234 63
Missouri 1,122 18 - 1,551 184 - 15 951 2,778 191
Montana 448 280 - 15 43 112 † 174 672 114
Nebraska 202 65 52 122 323 - 28 473 715 331
Nevada 3,109 56 - 799 1,407 698 161 1,058 3,021 642
New Hampshire 156 5 - 32 94 25 11 385 538 46
New Jersey - - - 1,133 1,387 - - 1,781 2,154 606
New Mexico 4,662 829 22 127 2,890 813 † 918 3,723 1,683
New York 17,047 267 429 7,078 8,878 200 171 11,232 14,690 5,425
North Carolina 3,904 97 - 1,856 1,428 422 230 2,372 3,772 932
North Dakota 211 141 16 48 37 - † 199 318 41
Ohio 7,932 30 56 4,505 936 1,827 619 3,934 9,822 780
Oklahoma 3,568 535 46 428 724 1,596 243 933 3,190 427
Oregon 6,083 236 87 262 1,644 3,569 321 2,005 5,172 655
Pennsylvania 4,623 36 - 3,270 2,103 - 292 3,347 5,670 931
Rhode Island 587 13 6 78 315 142 31 439 745 138
South Carolina 3,469 45 - 1,689 336 1,431 † 2,161 1,154 278
South Dakota 581 399 9 30 69 36 25 266 630 61
Tennessee 143 2 - 1,072 303 - † 1,567 1,297 349
Texas 1,075 56 - 1,816 4,109 - - 3,544 5,672 4,350
Utah 1,853 92 49 117 979 589 33 931 1,887 403
Vermont 53 † 10 17 - 11 12 135 242 27
Virginia 2,966 21 - 1,591 2,150 - - 3,413 3,883 2,417
Washington 8,166 285 307 638 2,635 3,709 515 2,902 7,781 1,542
West Virginia 117 † - 30 - 89 16 364 403 †
Wisconsin 920 82 - 1,438 622 - 88 1,626 2,541 380
Wyoming 1,380 142 24 19 330 783 63 887 1,221 53
United States 199,466 7,286 - 70,282 86,486 26,793 † 99,877 203,907 54,689
Note. † = Not applicable: Data are not expected to be reported by the SEA for SY2016–17. The number of additional graduates needed to reach 90 percent graduation
rate(s) for all students and each subgroup was calculated using the aggregated 2016–17 state level ACGR file (i.e., for the state level cohort sizes) and the 2016–17
graduation rates. The Asian/Pacific Islander column represents either the value reported by the state to the Department of Education for the major racial and ethnic
group “Asian/Pacific Islander” or an aggregation of values reported by the state for the major racial and ethnic groups “Asian,” “Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or
Pacific Islander,” and “Filipino.” (California is the only state currently using the major racial and ethnic group “Filipino.”)
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2019). Provisional data file: SY2016–17 State Level Four-Year Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates (ACGR).

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 57

APPENDIX I
Appendix I Percentage of Four-Year Non-Graduates, by State and Subgroup, 2016–17
Percent of Non- Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Nongraduates
Total Number of Graduates that Nongraduates that Nongraduates that Nongraduates that that are Students Percent of Nongraduates
State Non-Graduates are Black are Hispanic are White are Low-Income with Disabilities that are English Learners
Alabama 5876 43.3% 5.7% 47.8% † † †
Alaska 2140 4.0% 7.2% 40.9% 55.3% 22.7% 14.2%
Arizona 18629 6.5% 49.9% 32.1% 45.8% 14.2% 5.0%
Arkansas 4251 29.1% 13.5% 52.5% 82.2% 15.4% 11.1%
California 74251 9.3% 59.2% 18.5% 82.2% 23.2% 27.9%
Colorado 13405 6.7% 44.4% 42.6% 70.8% 21.1% 20.3%
Connecticut 5144 22.5% 37.7% 35.1% 78.9% 42.7% 14.8%
Delaware 1319 39.9% 19.5% 37.6% 46.0% 33.9% 11.7%
Florida 36146 31.9% 31.6% 32.5% 70.1% 21.2% 15.2%
Georgia 24732 43.2% 16.3% 35.4% 67.0% 22.2% 6.9%
Hawaii 2209 2.4% 8.3% 14.2% 76.6% 25.0% 19.2%
Idaho 4600 1.7% 20.7% 71.7% 76.7% 18.1% 9.6%
Illinois 19382 28.0% 29.5% 37.5% 68.2% 28.3% 10.0%
Indiana 12956 22.8% 15.0% 54.6% 43.4% 21.0% 6.9%
Iowa 3134 10.2% 17.3% 65.2% 75.0% 35.9% 8.6%
Kansas 4876 11.8% 24.0% 55.8% 81.1% 20.6% 14.9%
Kentucky 4951 19.7% 6.9% 68.9% 66.4% 21.7% 4.5%
Louisiana 10466 54.1% 7.6% 35.4% 80.1% 18.6% 5.8%
Maine 1692 4.5% 1.4% 86.5% 84.2% 46.1% 5.5%
Maryland 7778 41.6% 29.4% 24.3% 55.5% 25.9% 15.9%
Massachusetts 8579 15.9% 36.6% 41.4% 79.9% 44.6% 24.2%
Michigan 23596 27.9% 8.4% 57.2% 65.2% 25.2% 5.2%
Minnesota 11346 20.4% 15.0% 49.1% 76.5% 33.1% 15.8%
Mississippi 5747 60.3% 3.0% 34.7% 77.3% 36.8% 1.6%
Missouri 7722 34.3% 6.6% 54.0% 72.3% 21.7% 3.6%
Montana 1515 2.0% 5.7% 64.1% 77.4% 20.3% 10.4%
Nebraska 2445 10.6% 29.0% 47.7% 64.9% 29.5% 16.9%
Nevada 6526 17.7% 42.5% 29.1% 81.4% 22.6% 21.7%
New Hampshire 1578 3.8% 10.2% 81.3% 61.4% 39.7% 5.4%
New Jersey 10050 28.4% 38.0% 29.3% 57.2% 33.5% 10.4%
New Mexico 7128 2.6% 61.3% 19.8% 74.4% 17.4% 34.4%
New York 37836 28.8% 35.9% 27.0% 65.2% 38.3% 16.8%
North Carolina 15387 31.8% 19.2% 41.9% 54.4% 23.2% 8.0%
North Dakota 963 8.3% 6.5% 60.6% 53.6% 29.3% 6.3%
Ohio 21609 30.6% 7.0% 55.4% 72.3% 27.5% 4.6%
Oklahoma 8390 10.4% 16.7% 49.2% 66.8% 19.7% 6.6%
Oregon 10657 3.6% 24.2% 61.4% 72.9% 24.8% 7.9%
Pennsylvania 18220 29.0% 18.7% 46.9% 61.6% 29.6% 7.2%
Rhode Island 1583 10.4% 34.1% 48.0% 80.7% 38.0% 13.5%
South Carolina 8888 40.8% 7.8% 49.7% 39.5% 31.0% 5.5%
South Dakota 1504 3.6% 7.0% 50.5% 60.1% 23.6% 5.4%
Tennessee 7302 39.1% 10.9% 47.7% 50.1% 33.9% 7.8%
Texas 36899 17.5% 59.5% 19.1% 65.0% 17.2% 19.9%
Utah 6486 2.9% 27.0% 62.5% 50.8% 21.3% 8.9%
Vermont 647 4.7% 1.8% 84.5% 78.9% 35.8% 5.9%
Virginia 12534 30.3% 27.2% 34.9% 56.4% 36.2% 25.2%
Washington 15869 6.2% 26.2% 52.2% 73.6% 24.3% 12.7%
West Virginia 2062 6.3% 1.0% 90.6% 92.0% 30.3% †
Wisconsin 7492 27.5% 16.9% 47.2% 60.8% 31.7% 7.1%
Wyoming 5012 0.9% 13.2% 78.1% 34.1% 25.7% 1.9%
United States 568846 22.5% 30.4% 38.4% 66.5% 25.2% 13.7%

58 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX J
Appendix J ESSA High Schools (100 or more students) with ACGR of 67 Percent or Below, by State and Type, 2016–17
Number of Schools with ACGR Less Number Percent
than or Equal to 67% & Enrollment Number Special Number Number Percent Special Percent Percent
State Greater than or Equal to 100 Regular Education Vocational Alternative Regular Education Vocational Alternative
Alabama 6 4 2 0 0 67% 33% 0% 0%
Alaska 29 20 1 0 8 69% 3% 0% 28%
Arizona 99 89 0 1 9 90% 0% 1% 9%
Arkansas 13 12 0 0 1 92% 0% 0% 8%
California 444 144 40 0 260 32% 9% 0% 59%
Colorado 94 42 1 2 49 45% 1% 2% 52%
Connecticut 14 14 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Delaware 6 1 4 0 1 17% 67% 0% 17%
District of Columbia 14 11 0 0 3 79% 0% 0% 21%
Florida 178 24 39 2 113 13% 22% 1% 63%
Georgia 39 31 1 0 7 79% 3% 0% 18%
Hawaii 4 4 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Idaho 33 10 0 0 23 30% 0% 0% 70%
Illinois 37 36 0 0 0 97% 0% 0% 0%
Indiana 37 37 0 0 1 100% 0% 0% 3%
Iowa 9 3 1 0 5 33% 11% 0% 56%
Kansas 11 11 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Kentucky 12 1 1 0 10 8% 8% 0% 83%
Louisiana 51 50 0 0 1 98% 0% 0% 2%
Maine 3 3 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Maryland 28 15 5 2 6 54% 18% 7% 21%
Massachusetts 34 28 0 2 4 82% 0% 6% 12%
Michigan 188 48 30 0 110 26% 16% 0% 59%
Minnesota 61 31 1 0 29 51% 2% 0% 48%
Mississippi 11 11 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Missouri 23 21 0 2 0 91% 0% 9% 0%
Montana 5 5 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Nebraska 5 5 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Nevada 16 5 3 0 8 31% 19% 0% 50%
New Hampshire 3 3 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
New Jersey 11 11 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
New Mexico 59 49 1 0 9 83% 2% 0% 15%
New York 205 176 5 4 20 86% 2% 2% 10%
North Carolina 19 5 4 0 10 26% 21% 0% 53%
North Dakota 5 5 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Ohio 109 101 8 0 0 93% 7% 0% 0%
Oklahoma 23 23 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Oregon 43 30 0 0 13 70% 0% 0% 30%
Pennsylvania 44 42 0 2 0 95% 0% 5% 0%
Rhode Island 5 5 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
South Carolina 12 10 1 0 1 83% 8% 0% 8%
South Dakota 5 3 0 0 2 60% 0% 0% 40%
Tennessee 17 15 2 0 0 88% 12% 0% 0%
Texas 92 4 1 0 87 4% 1% 0% 95%
Utah 32 16 0 0 16 50% 0% 0% 50%
Vermont 1 1 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Virginia 9 4 0 0 5 44% 0% 0% 56%
Washington 82 12 2 0 68 15% 2% 0% 83%
Wisconsin 33 21 0 0 12 64% 0% 0% 36%
Wyoming 8 8 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% 0%
Total 2321 1260 153 17 891 54% 7% 1% 38%

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 59

APPENDIX K
Appendix K Low-Graduation Schools (ACGR Less than or Equal to 67% & Enrollment Greater than or Equal to 100) and Number of Non-Graduates Produced by
Them, by State and Locale Code, 2016–17

All Schools City Suburb Town Rural

Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of
State Schools Non-Graduates Schools Non-Graduates Schools Non-Graduates Schools Non-Graduates Schools Non-Graduates
Alabama 6 52 2 25 2 15 2 12 0 0
Alaska 29 935 5 192 2 133 7 238 15 372
Arizona 99 9,836 65 5,690 14 3,235 16 729 4 182
Arkansas 13 282 7 191 3 65 1 4 2 22
California 444 41,042 232 24,513 169 14,166 17 499 26 1,864
Colorado 94 6,654 53 4,162 31 2,019 4 165 6 308
Connecticut 14 692 11 515 2 114 1 63 0 0
Delaware 6 177 0 0 5 171 1 6 0 0
District of Columbia 14 706 14 706 0 0 0 0 0 0
Florida 178 13,554 71 5,326 81 7,166 8 307 18 755
Georgia 39 6,237 10 1,682 19 2,737 7 1,175 3 643
Hawaii 4 54 0 0 0 0 1 15 3 39
Idaho 33 2,109 7 727 14 886 8 407 4 89
Illinois 37 2,902 27 2,395 9 460 0 0 1 47
Indiana 37 6,798 29 5,976 5 520 2 265 1 37
Iowa 9 502 6 390 0 0 1 76 2 36
Kansas 11 858 6 369 1 42 0 0 4 447
Kentucky 12 844 9 766 2 57 1 21 0 0
Louisiana 51 3,157 28 2,084 11 575 6 308 6 190
Maine 3 85 1 33 0 0 1 41 1 11
Maryland 28 1,761 21 1,149 6 608 0 0 1 4
Massachusetts 34 2,234 16 1,057 17 1,140 1 37 0 0
Michigan 188 6,544 59 2,162 85 3,054 18 567 26 761
Minnesota 61 3,138 24 1,465 18 996 9 287 10 390
Mississippi 11 316 2 171 0 0 4 77 5 68
Missouri 23 1,581 19 1,484 4 97 0 0 0 0
Montana 5 145 0 0 0 0 1 28 4 117
Nebraska 5 389 3 297 0 0 0 0 2 92
Nevada 16 1,208 11 618 3 434 1 34 1 122
New Hampshire 3 121 1 80 2 41 0 0 0 0
New Jersey 11 933 8 743 3 190 0 0 0 0
New Mexico 59 3,164 27 1,527 8 595 13 642 11 400
New York 205 13,089 194 12,464 8 576 2 39 1 10
North Carolina 19 482 8 272 3 69 4 59 4 82
North Dakota 5 187 2 141 0 0 0 0 3 46
Ohio 109 10,759 82 8,069 15 1,357 11 1,279 1 54
Oklahoma 23 2,110 10 1,520 4 248 6 251 3 91
Oregon 43 2,705 10 709 11 573 12 690 10 733
Pennsylvania 44 4,899 31 2,584 10 1,254 2 1,040 1 21
Rhode Island 5 264 5 264 0 0 0 0 0 0
South Carolina 12 1,751 8 1,561 3 170 0 0 1 20
South Dakota 5 312 1 145 0 0 0 0 4 167
Tennessee 17 915 16 897 0 0 1 18 0 0
Texas 92 6,711 65 5,034 21 1,428 2 32 4 217
Utah 32 2,426 10 793 18 1,505 1 45 3 83
Vermont 1 26 0 0 1 26 0 0 0 0
Virginia 9 856 3 285 5 556 0 0 1 15
Washington 82 5,836 38 2,867 28 1,756 11 984 5 229
Wisconsin 33 2,368 29 1,999 2 118 1 227 1 24
Wyoming 8 1,224 2 437 0 0 3 110 3 677

60 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX L
Appendix L Low-Performing High Schools, by Type and State, 2016–17
Regular or Vocational Schools that have ACGR
Regular or Vocational Schools that have ACGR Greater than 67% but Promoting Power Less
Less than or Equal to 67%, are not Virtual and than or Equal to 60%, are not Virtual and
All Schools have Greater than or Equal to 100 Students have Greater than 100 Students

Total # of Schools Total # of # of # of % of # of # of % of

State 2017 ACGR reporting ACGR Non-Graduates Schools Non-Graduates Non-Graduates Schools Non-Graduates Non-Graduates
Alabama 89.3% 371 5,783 4 27 0% 10 474 8%
Alaska 78.2% 164 2,070 20 521 25% 16 95 5%
Arizona 78.0% 497 18,396 76 5,137 28% 23 227 1%
Arkansas 88.0% 289 4,157 12 243 6% 4 72 2%
California 82.7% 2,352 79,006 104 17,553 22% 61 1,802 2%
Colorado 79.1% 452 13,462 31 1,831 14% 21 301 2%
Connecticut 87.9% 215 3,473 14 692 20% 5 147 4%
Delaware 86.9% 45 1,299 1 127 10% 3 108 8%
District of Columbia 73.2% 38 1,117 11 557 50% 10 193 17%
Florida 82.3% 858 35,395 19 935 3% 39 1,703 5%
Georgia 80.6% 463 22,322 27 3,665 16% 49 2,619 12%
Hawaii 82.7% 60 2,175 4 54 2% 6 239 11%
Idaho 79.7% 204 4,684 3 49 1% 9 66 1%
Illinois 87.0% 721 16,426 36 2,879 18% 37 1,370 8%
Indiana 83.8% 404 12,924 33 4,884 38% 6 87 1%
Iowa 91.0% 342 3,133 3 112 4% 1 4 0%
Kansas 86.5% 351 4,684 6 424 9% 4 268 6%
Kentucky 89.7% 306 4,363 1 96 2% 3 29 1%
Louisiana 78.1% 350 9,462 48 2,865 30% 17 436 5%
Maine 86.9% 123 1,766 1 11 1% 2 5 0%
Maryland 87.7% 245 7,641 17 1,240 16% 11 309 4%
Massachusetts 88.3% 384 7,700 28 1,850 24% 7 208 3%
Michigan 80.2% 1,016 16,740 45 1,793 11% 46 827 5%
Minnesota 82.7% 636 10,644 20 831 8% 1 2 0%
Mississippi 83.0% 248 5,677 11 316 6% 7 229 4%
Missouri 88.3% 539 6,760 23 1,581 23% 8 107 2%
Montana 85.8% 146 1,580 5 145 9% 1 17 1%
Nebraska 89.1% 265 2,729 4 356 13% 0 0 0%
Nevada 80.9% 153 6,810 3 209 3% 3 16 0%
New Hampshire 88.9% 93 1,564 2 95 6% 3 32 2%
New Jersey 90.5% 416 9,657 11 933 10% 12 500 5%
New Mexico 71.1% 207 7,429 46 2,734 37% 19 992 13%
New York 81.8% 1,230 32,211 180 11,266 35% 58 1,895 6%
North Carolina 86.6% 609 12,885 5 154 1% 25 498 4%
North Dakota 87.2% 152 1,097 5 187 17% 3 36 3%
Ohio 84.2% 894 21,140 86 5,518 26% 113 1,492 7%
Oklahoma 82.6% 470 8,298 19 1,027 12% 9 211 3%
Oregon 76.7% 316 9,547 21 922 10% 1 6 0%
Pennsylvania 86.6% 680 16,035 35 2,841 18% 14 557 3%
Rhode Island 84.1% 61 1,327 5 264 20% 0 0 0%
South Carolina 83.6% 234 8,906 5 230 3% 26 653 7%
South Dakota 83.7% 159 1,503 2 72 5% 3 100 7%
Tennessee 89.8% 369 7,290 14 861 12% 12 436 6%
Texas 89.7% 1,674 33,276 3 197 1% 64 1,627 5%
Utah 86.0% 188 6,334 10 280 4% 5 43 1%
Vermont 89.1% 60 660 1 26 4% 0 0 0%
Virginia 86.9% 328 12,346 4 278 2% 9 482 4%
Washington 79.4% 551 16,369 12 718 4% 4 15 0%
West Virginia 89.4% 115 2,026 0 0 0% 2 144 7%
Wisconsin 88.6% 539 7,567 18 1,513 20% 5 32 0%
Wyoming 86.2% 91 5,023 8 1,224 24% 1 56 1%
US Totals 84.6% 21,673 534,868 1,102 82,323 15% 798 21,767 4%

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 61

APPENDIX L
Appendix L Low-Performing High Schools, by Type and State, 2016–17 (continued)
Regular or Vocational Schools that have ACGR Greater than 67% Regular or Vocational Schools that have ACGR Greater than or
and Promoting Power Greater than 60% but ACGR Less than 84.1%, Equal to 84.1% and Promoting Power Greater than 60%, are not
are not Virtual and have Greater than 100 Students Virtual and have Greater than 100 Students

State # of Schools # of Non-Graduates % of Non-Graduates # of Schools # of Non-Graduates % of Non-Graduates

Alabama 42 1,793 31% 302 3,297 57%
Alaska 38 391 19% 40 418 20%
Arizona 53 2,514 14% 209 4,203 23%
Arkansas 35 1,226 29% 215 2,438 59%
California 142 6,417 8% 1,068 21,311 27%
Colorado 84 3,016 22% 169 2,612 19%
Connecticut 15 838 24% 169 1,680 48%
Delaware 8 455 35% 25 546 42%
District of Columbia 3 97 9% 10 119 11%
Florida 114 7,925 22% 365 10,454 30%
Georgia 92 6,028 27% 241 6,632 30%
Hawaii 26 1,257 58% 19 589 27%
Idaho 34 757 16% 89 1,135 24%
Illinois 88 4,040 25% 495 7,537 46%
Indiana 25 1,345 10% 327 4,603 36%
Iowa 10 369 12% 298 2,124 68%
Kansas 34 1,114 24% 228 2,165 46%
Kentucky 10 440 10% 213 2,423 56%
Louisiana 73 3,006 32% 170 2,077 22%
Maine 26 883 50% 79 713 40%
Maryland 29 1,871 24% 151 3,345 44%
Massachusetts 37 1,423 18% 269 3,369 44%
Michigan 76 1,497 9% 472 5,063 30%
Minnesota 43 1,244 12% 328 3,765 35%
Mississippi 108 3,109 55% 113 1,918 34%
Missouri 35 1,060 16% 399 3,760 56%
Montana 16 569 36% 59 689 44%
Nebraska 20 869 32% 171 1,265 46%
Nevada 12 885 13% 78 2,034 30%
New Hampshire 9 316 20% 66 956 61%
New Jersey 40 2,624 27% 340 5,511 57%
New Mexico 44 2,272 31% 33 642 9%
New York 217 8,416 26% 723 8,477 26%
North Carolina 88 4,181 32% 331 6,860 53%
North Dakota 12 205 19% 57 356 32%
Ohio 47 1,841 9% 554 5,858 28%
Oklahoma 83 2,900 35% 210 2,486 30%
Oregon 87 3,749 39% 124 2,202 23%
Pennsylvania 58 3,002 19% 543 6,691 42%
Rhode Island 10 403 30% 40 554 42%
South Carolina 58 3,370 38% 124 3,023 34%
South Dakota 8 308 20% 58 451 30%
Tennessee 29 1,457 20% 282 4,020 55%
Texas 127 4,376 13% 1,177 17,875 54%
Utah 13 986 16% 114 2,568 41%
Vermont 10 197 30% 43 382 58%
Virginia 75 5,027 41% 228 5,923 48%
Washington 87 3,595 22% 210 4,702 29%
West Virginia 11 439 22% 101 1,441 71%
Wisconsin 18 719 10% 381 3,693 49%
Wyoming 6 812 16% 45 2,369 47%
US Totals 2,465 107,633 20% 12,555 189,324 35%

62 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX L
Appendix L Low-Performing High Schools, by Type and State, 2016–17 (continued)
Alternative Schools that are not Virtual and
have Greater than 100 Students Virtual Schools with Greater than 100 Students

State 2017 ACGR # of Schools # of Non-Graduates % of Non-Graduates # of Schools # of Non-Graduates % of Non-Graduates

Alabama 89.3% 0 0 0% 1 24 0%
Alaska 78.2% 8 369 18% 0 0 0%
Arizona 78.0% 9 708 4% 15 4,006 22%
Arkansas 88.0% 1 39 1% 1 15 0%
California 82.7% 363 21,683 27% 66 2,906 4%
Colorado 79.1% 51 4,002 30% 31 1,167 9%
Connecticut 87.9% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Delaware 86.9% 2 10 1% 0 0 0%
District of Columbia 73.2% 3 149 13% 0 0 0%
Florida 82.3% 124 11,819 33% 23 449 1%
Georgia 80.6% 8 589 3% 4 1,998 9%
Hawaii 82.7% 0 0 0% 1 2 0%
Idaho 79.7% 19 996 21% 12 1,075 23%
Illinois 87.0% 3 60 0% 0 0 0%
Indiana 83.8% 0 0 0% 4 1,914 15%
Iowa 91.0% 6 394 13% 0 0 0%
Kansas 86.5% 0 0 0% 8 477 10%
Kentucky 89.7% 15 553 13% 4 288 7%
Louisiana 78.1% 1 77 1% 3 224 2%
Maine 86.9% 0 0 0% 2 74 4%
Maryland 87.7% 6 462 6% 0 0 0%
Massachusetts 88.3% 8 220 3% 2 193 3%
Michigan 80.2% 119 4,217 25% 12 495 3%
Minnesota 82.7% 30 1,570 15% 11 731 7%
Mississippi 83.0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Missouri 88.3% 1 24 0% 0 0 0%
Montana 85.8% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Nebraska 89.1% 0 0 0% 1 33 1%
Nevada 80.9% 10 575 8% 4 454 7%
New Hampshire 88.9% 0 0 0% 1 26 2%
New Jersey 90.5% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
New Mexico 71.1% 11 240 3% 4 193 3%
New York 81.8% 21 1,785 6% 0 0 0%
North Carolina 86.6% 17 371 3% 1 2 0%
North Dakota 87.2% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Ohio 84.2% 0 0 0% 17 5,175 24%
Oklahoma 82.6% 0 0 0% 5 1,083 13%
Oregon 76.7% 12 914 10% 15 930 10%
Pennsylvania 86.6% 0 0 0% 12 2,517 16%
Rhode Island 84.1% 0 0 0% 1 2 0%
South Carolina 83.6% 1 650 7% 5 861 10%
South Dakota 83.7% 1 145 10% 2 95 6%
Tennessee 89.8% 0 0 0% 2 43 1%
Texas 89.7% 146 6,840 21% 3 493 1%
Utah 86.0% 19 1,781 28% 7 401 6%
Vermont 89.1% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Virginia 86.9% 5 578 5% 0 0 0%
Washington 79.4% 90 4,231 26% 9 981 6%
West Virginia 89.4% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Wisconsin 88.6% 16 751 10% 11 243 3%
Wyoming 86.2% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
US Totals 84.6% 1,126 66,802 12% 300 29,570 6%

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 63

APPENDIX L
Appendix L Low-Performing High Schools, by Type and State, 2016–17 (continued)
Special Education Schools that are not Virtual and
have Greater than 100 Students Schools with Less than 100 students

State # of Schools # of Non-Graduates % of Non-Graduates # of Schools # of Non-Graduates % of Non-Graduates

Alabama 2 25 0% 16 124 2%
Alaska 1 45 2% 125 221 11%
Arizona 4 2 0% 141 1546 8%
Arkansas 0 0 0% 18 84 2%
California 48 879 1% 653 6360 8%
Colorado 1 11 0% 89 513 4%
Connecticut 1 15 0% 7 75 2%
Delaware 6 45 3% 5 8 1%
District of Columbia 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Florida 49 535 2% 291 1546 4%
Georgia 2 17 0% 43 511 2%
Hawaii 0 0 0% 7 34 2%
Idaho 0 0 0% 35 440 9%
Illinois 0 0 0% 73 517 3%
Indiana 0 0 0% 7 62 0%
Iowa 1 14 0% 25 116 4%
Kansas 0 0 0% 76 236 5%
Kentucky 1 5 0% 95 527 12%
Louisiana 3 7 0% 38 638 7%
Maine 0 0 0% 10 43 2%
Maryland 13 59 1% 34 349 5%
Massachusetts 0 0 0% 36 342 4%
Michigan 44 439 3% 271 2041 12%
Minnesota 5 16 0% 278 2441 23%
Mississippi 0 0 0% 11 46 1%
Missouri 0 0 0% 130 228 3%
Montana 0 0 0% 87 160 10%
Nebraska 0 0 0% 72 206 8%
Nevada 4 26 0% 45 2596 38%
New Hampshire 0 0 0% 12 132 8%
New Jersey 0 0 0% 11 76 1%
New Mexico 1 8 0% 50 238 3%
New York 7 40 0% 27 321 1%
North Carolina 9 60 0% 66 492 4%
North Dakota 0 0 0% 87 265 24%
Ohio 13 218 1% 67 1031 5%
Oklahoma 0 0 0% 149 495 6%
Oregon 0 0 0% 64 824 9%
Pennsylvania 1 0 0% 13 225 1%
Rhode Island 0 0 0% 5 104 8%
South Carolina 1 10 0% 7 71 1%
South Dakota 0 0 0% 97 332 22%
Tennessee 6 19 0% 27 385 5%
Texas 1 44 0% 194 1700 5%
Utah 0 0 0% 16 235 4%
Vermont 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Virginia 0 0 0% 8 26 0%
Washington 9 27 0% 192 2099 13%
West Virginia 0 0 0% 4 2 0%
Wisconsin 0 0 0% 116 558 7%
Wyoming 0 0 0% 32 561 11%
US Totals 233 2,566 0% 3,962 32,182 6%

64 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX M
Appendix M Secondary School Improvement Index
AP Score 3 or 8th Grade NAEP 8th Grade NAEP ACGR ACGR ACGR Gain,
State Total Gain Index Score ACGR Growth Higher Growth Reading Growth Math Growth 2010–11 2016–17 2011–17
Georgia 30 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 67.0 80.6 13.6
District of Columbia 29 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 59.0 73.2 14.2
California 27 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 76.0 82.7 6.7
Florida 26 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 71.0 82.3 11.3
West Virginia 20 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 78.0 89.4 11.4
Utah 20 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 76.0 86.0 10.0
Nebraska 18 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 86.0 89.1 3.1
Tennessee 17 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 86.0 89.8 3.8
Oregon 17 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 68.0 76.7 8.7
Mississippi 16 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 75.0 83.0 8.0
Iowa 14 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 88.0 91.0 3.0
New Hampshire 14 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 86.0 88.9 2.9
Ohio 13 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 80.0 84.2 4.2
Nevada 28 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 62.0 80.9 18.9
Alabama 25 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 72.0 89.3 17.3
Indiana 17 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 86.0 83.8 -2.2
Rhode Island 16 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 77.0 84.1 7.1
Massachusetts 16 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 83.0 88.3 5.3
New Jersey 14 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 83.0 90.5 7.5
Washington 14 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 76.0 79.4 3.4
Michigan 14 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 74.0 80.2 6.2
Illinois 13 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 84.0 87.0 3.0
South Carolina 13 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 74.0 83.6 9.6
New York 13 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 77.0 81.8 4.8
North Carolina 12 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 78.0 86.6 8.6
Wisconsin 11 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 87.0 88.6 1.6
Louisiana 11 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 71.0 78.1 7.1
Virginia 11 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 82.0 86.9 4.9
Pennsylvania 10 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 83.0 86.6 3.6
Hawaii 10 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 80.0 82.7 2.7
Wyoming 10 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 80.0 86.2 6.2
New Mexico 9 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 63.0 71.1 8.1
Arizona 9 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 78.0 78.0 0.0
Texas 4 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 86.0 89.7 3.7
Kansas 0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 83.0 86.5 3.5
Delaware 11 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 78.0 86.9 8.9
Missouri 11 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 81.0 88.3 7.3
Connecticut 9 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 83.0 87.9 4.9
Minnesota 9 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 77.0 82.7 5.7
Arkansas 8 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 81.0 88.0 7.0
Colorado 6 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 74.0 79.1 5.1
Alaska 2 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 68.0 78.2 10.2
Vermont 1 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 87.0 89.1 2.1
North Dakota -0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 86.0 87.2 1.2
Maryland -1 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 83.0 87.7 4.7
Idaho* 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 77.3 79.7 2.4
Kentucky* 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 86.1 89.7 3.6
Oklahoma* 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 84.8 82.6 -2.2
Maine 0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 86.9 2.9
Montana -10 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.0 85.8 3.8
South Dakota -2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.0 83.7 0.7
National Average 13 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 79.0 84.6 5.6

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 65

 APPENDIX M
Appendix M Secondary School Improvement Index (continued)
Percent of Students Percent of Students Percent of Students Percent of Students 8th Grade Reading Percent of Students
Receiving a 3 or Receiving a 3 or Proficient or Advanced Proficient or Advanced NAEP Proficient Proficient or Advanced
Higher on an AP Higher on an AP AP Gain, on 8th Grade Reading on 8th Grade Reading or Advanced Gain, on 8th Grade Math NAEP,
State Exam, 2010–11 Exam, 2016–17 2011–2017 NAEP, 2010–11 NAEP, 2016–17 2011–2017 2010–11
Georgia 17.8 23.0 5.2 27.6 35.4 7.8 27.8
District of Columbia 9.3 16.8 7.5 16.1 19.9 3.8 17.0
California 22.0 30.3 8.3 23.7 32.2 8.5 25.3
Florida 23.6 30.8 7.2 29.8 35.5 5.7 27.7
West Virginia 8.6 11.1 2.5 24.1 27.8 3.7 21.3
Utah 22.2 25.0 2.8 35.4 38.2 2.8 34.9
Nebraska 7.9 11.7 3.8 34.8 38.0 3.2 32.8
Tennessee 8.5 12.3 3.8 27.0 31.0 4.0 23.9
Oregon 13.6 17.9 4.3 32.7 36.1 3.4 32.7
Mississippi 4.2 6.5 2.3 21.0 24.6 3.6 19.3
Iowa 10.0 13.2 3.2 32.7 36.8 4.1 33.6
New Hampshire 16.9 20.2 3.3 39.6 45.1 5.5 43.6
Ohio 12.4 17.4 5.0 36.9 39.1 2.2 38.9
Nevada 16.3 24.7 8.4 26.3 28.2 1.9 28.6
Alabama 8.4 13.6 5.2 25.6 27.7 2.1 20.1
Indiana 13.3 19.1 5.8 31.8 41.1 9.3 34.1
Rhode Island 12.0 20.8 8.8 33.4 37.4 4.0 33.9
Massachusetts 23.4 32.1 8.7 46.1 49.3 3.2 51.2
New Jersey 20.5 28.0 7.5 44.7 46.6 1.9 46.8
Washington 17.9 22.9 5.0 37.0 41.6 4.6 40.4
Michigan 15.7 20.6 4.9 32.1 34.4 2.3 30.8
Illinois 18.1 26.3 8.2 33.9 36.1 2.2 32.8
South Carolina 14.4 19.8 5.4 26.6 30.0 3.4 31.8
New York 22.7 27.8 5.1 35.1 34.2 -0.9 30.0
North Carolina 17.3 21.0 3.7 31.1 32.9 1.8 37.0
Wisconsin 18.8 25.5 6.7 34.9 39.4 4.5 41.0
Louisiana 4.1 8.5 4.4 22.2 24.9 2.7 22.3
Virginia 24.8 28.5 3.7 35.8 37.2 1.4 39.7
Pennsylvania 13.5 19.0 5.5 38.0 40.0 2.0 38.9
Hawaii 9.9 15.3 5.4 26.0 30.3 4.3 30.0
Wyoming 9.0 11.6 2.6 37.7 37.6 -0.1 37.4
New Mexico 10.1 12.6 2.5 22.1 24.4 2.3 23.8
Arizona 11.9 16.4 4.5 28.2 30.5 2.3 31.5
Texas 15.9 21.6 5.7 26.5 28.0 1.5 40.0
Kansas 9.4 10.4 1.0 35.5 36.7 1.2 40.8
Delaware 14.6 19.7 5.1 32.7 32.8 0.1 31.9
Missouri 7.9 12.2 4.3 35.2 35.4 0.2 31.5
Connecticut 23.9 31.0 7.1 44.7 43.8 -0.9 38.1
Minnesota 17.7 22.3 4.6 39.3 39.3 0.0 47.6
Arkansas 13.6 17.7 4.1 27.8 28.7 0.9 29.3
Colorado 21.3 27.4 6.1 40.3 40.5 0.2 43.5
Alaska 12.5 15.5 3.0 31.0 26.1 -4.9 35.2
Vermont 19.6 24.9 5.3 44.4 44.8 0.4 46.0
North Dakota 7.8 10.5 2.7 34.1 32.7 -1.4 42.6
Maryland 26.5 31.2 4.7 39.9 37.6 -2.3 40.4
Idaho* 11.9 12.7 0.8 33.9 38.7 4.8 36.9
Kentucky* 12.5 18.2 5.7 36.3 34.2 -2.1 30.7
Oklahoma* 10.3 11.7 1.4 26.7 28.0 1.3 27.3
Maine 20.2 19.7 -0.5 38.5 39.0 0.5 38.8
Montana 12.3 13.0 0.7 41.5 35.1 -6.4 45.6
South Dakota 11.8 12.4 0.6 35.3 35.5 0.2 41.7
National Average 17.1 22.8 5.7 31.6 34.7 3.1 35.0

66 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX M
Appendix M Secondary School Improvement Index (continued)
Percent of Students 8th Grade Percent of Percent of 8th Grade Percent of Percent of 8th Grade
Proficient or Math NAEP Students at or Students at or Reading NAEP Students at or Students at or Reading NAEP
Advanced on 8th Proficient or Below Basic on Below Basic on at or Below Below Basic on 8th Below Basic on at or Below
Grade Math NAEP, Advanced Gain, 8th Grade Reading 8th Grade Reading Basic Gain, Grade Math NAEP, 8th Grade Math Basic Gain,
State 2016–17 2011–2017 NAEP, 2010–11 NAEP, 2016–17 2011–2017 2010–11 NAEP, 2016–17 2011–2017
Georgia 31.4 3.6 31 33 1.6 40 45 5.4
District of Columbia 20.9 3.9 27 30 3.3 26 34 8.7
California 29.1 3.8 29 25 -3.5 32 29 -2.5
Florida 29.2 1.5 29 29 -0.7 30 38 7.7
West Virginia 23.9 2.6 35 28 -6.9 39 38 -1.0
Utah 39 4.1 19 21 1.7 20 26 6.4
Nebraska 40.9 8.1 17 20 3.1 25 28 3.3
Tennessee 29.7 5.8 23 28 5.0 26 34 7.5
Oregon 33.7 1.0 49 45 -4.1 52 49 -3.4
Mississippi 21.5 2.2 27 23 -4.1 32 34 1.6
Iowa 37.1 3.5 26 24 -1.5 32 32 0.3
New Hampshire 45.4 1.8 32 28 -4.1 32 34 1.5
Ohio 40.2 1.3 19 19 -0.5 23 26 3.9
Nevada 27.4 -1.2 23 23 -0.1 27 32 4.7
Alabama 20.8 0.7 22 18 -4.6 23 25 2.1
Indiana 37.8 3.7 23 20 -2.8 23 24 0.9
Rhode Island 30.2 -3.7 21 22 1.1 20 26 6.2
Massachusetts 49.7 -1.5 21 25 4.7 28 35 6.3
New Jersey 43.8 -3.0 34 33 -1.6 37 46 9.1
Washington 41.3 0.9 20 21 1.6 22 28 6.6
Michigan 31.2 0.4 20 26 5.6 26 34 8.0
Illinois 32.5 -0.3 23 24 0.6 29 33 4.0
South Carolina 26.3 -5.5 19 21 2.7 17 20 3.0
New York 33.8 3.8 35 34 -1.4 42 41 -1.0
North Carolina 34.9 -2.1 21 23 1.7 27 30 2.6
Wisconsin 39.3 -1.7 14 21 6.4 17 24 6.8
Louisiana 18.8 -3.5 19 21 1.5 26 24 -1.8
Virginia 40.3 0.6 31 29 -1.6 33 38 4.6
Pennsylvania 38.1 -0.8 16 16 0.1 18 19 0.5
Hawaii 27.3 -2.7 16 18 2.5 18 24 5.8
Wyoming 38.4 1.0 32 34 2.0 36 43 6.9
New Mexico 20.3 -3.5 24 27 3.4 30 32 2.2
Arizona 33.5 2.0 26 26 0.2 25 32 7.1
Texas 33 -7.0 17 23 5.4 15 22 6.6
Kansas 35.4 -5.4 21 23 2.8 21 26 4.9
Delaware 28.5 -3.4 27 26 -1.4 28 36 7.3
Missouri 30.2 -1.3 24 24 -0.5 28 30 2.5
Connecticut 36.2 -1.9 23 22 -1.2 26 27 1.2
Minnesota 46.4 -1.2 24 25 0.8 27 34 7.7
Arkansas 25.5 -3.8 28 29 1.3 30 38 7.7
Colorado 38.3 -5.2 17 20 3.0 18 24 5.9
Alaska 29.2 -6.0 30 27 -2.8 36 32 -3.5
Vermont 39.4 -6.6 26 29 3.0 19 30 11.7
North Dakota 39.7 -2.9 21 21 -0.5 27 25 -2.1
Maryland 32.6 -7.8 18 18 0.7 18 24 5.2
Idaho* 35.4 -1.5 22 23 0.7 22 23 1.1
Kentucky* 28.9 -1.8 23 20 -3.2 23 25 1.4
Oklahoma* 24.1 -3.2 32 30 -2.3 35 38 2.9
Maine 36 -2.8 21 21 -0.6 21 24 2.7
Montana 37.4 -8.2 18 20 1.2 20 21 1.2
South Dakota 38.3 -3.4 25 25 -0.6 27 30 3.0
National Average 34 16 15 -0.5 14 19 4.5
* - Initial ACGR scores are taken from 2013 for Kentucky and Oklahoma and from 2014 for Idaho, as those states were not yet reporting Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates
in 2011

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 67

 APPENDIX N
Appendix N State ESSA Plan’s Graduation Rate Goals
ACGR Growth ESSA Plan ESSA Long-Term Goal for Using Extended Year Grad Set Long-Term Extended Year Grad
State 2011 ACGR 2017 ACGR 2011–2017 Approved? All Students Rates in Accountability Plan? Rate Goal(s) for All Students?
Alabama 72% 89.30% 17.30% Y 93.62% by 2030 Yes (5-year rate) Yes (95% by 2030)
Alaska 68% 78.20% 10.20% Y 90% by 2027 Yes (5-year rate) Yes (93% by 2027
Yes (5-, 6-, and
Arizona 78% 78.00% 0.00% Y 90% by 2030 No
7-year rates)
Arkansas 81% 88.00% 7.00% Y 94% by 2028 Yes (5-year rate) Yes (97% by 2028)
By 2022, all HS and
student subgroups will be
No (Exploring use of
California 76% 82.70% 6.70% Y in the 90–95% grad rate No
5-year rates)
range and maintaining or
increasing graduation rate
Yes (Close the between baseline
90.3% by 6 years Yes (5-, 6-, and
Colorado 74% 79.10% 5.10% Y and 100 percent by 25 percent
following baseline 7-year rates)
for 7-year rates within 5 years)
Connecticut 83% 87.90% 4.90% Y 94% by 2029 Yes (6-year rate) No (Set target of 94%)
Yes (92.9% 5-year rate by 2030;
Delaware 78% 86.90% 8.90% Y 92.1% by 2030 Yes (5- and 6-year rates)
93% 6-year rate by 2030)
District of
59% 73.20% 14.20% Y 90% by 2039 No No
Columbia
Florida 71% 82.30% 11.30% Y 85% by 2020 No No
Schools must close the
gap between baseline
and 100% by 45% over Yes (Schools must close gap
15 years (average of 3% between baseline and 100%,
Georgia 67% 80.60% 13.60% Y Yes (5-year rate)
increase per year); once increasing 5-year rate 3% a
schools hit 90%, they will year on average)
be expected to maintain or
increase rate
Hawaii 80% 82.70% 2.70% Y 90% by 2025 No No
No (currently developing a
Idaho † 79.70% † Y 95% by 2023 5-year cohort graduation No
rate calculation)
Yes (92% 5-year rate by 2032;
Illinois 84% 87.00% 3.00% Y 90% by 2032 Yes (5- and 6-year rates)
92.5% 6-year rate by 2032)
No (Will use the 4-year rate,
plus the difference between
Indiana 86% 83.80% -2.20% Y 87.9% by 2023 Yes (5-year rate)
4- and 5-year rates for grad
rate indicator)
Iowa 88% 91.00% 3.00% Y 95% by 2022 Yes (5-year rate) Yes (97% by 2022)
Kansas 83% 86.50% 3.50% Y 95% by 2030 No No
Between 2019 and 2030,
schools must reduce
the number of students Yes (Reduce the number of
not graduting in 4 years students not graduating within
Kentucky † 89.70% † Y by 50%. 2019 baseline Yes (5-year rate) 5 years by 50% by 2030 using
will be determined by same calculation as for 4-year
calculated based on rate goal)
graduation rate data from
2014–2016.
Louisiana 71% 78.10% 7.10% Y 90% by 2025 No No
Maine 84% 86.90% 2.90% Y 90% by 2030 Yes Yes (92% by 2030)
Maryland 83% 87.70% 4.70% Y 88.49% by 2020 Yes (5-year rate) Yes (89.78% by 2020)
Yes (Using “extended
engagement rate” to
Massachusetts 83% 88.30% 5.30% Y 91% by 2020 include 5-year graduates + No
students still enrolled after
5 years as SQSS indicator)
Yes (96.49% 5-year rate by
Michigan 74% 80.20% 6.20% Y 94.44% by 2025 Yes (5- and 6-year rates)
2025; 97% 6-year rate by 2025)
Minnesota 77% 82.70% 5.70% Y 90% by 2020 No No
Mississippi 75% 83.00% 8.00% Y 90% by 2025 No No

68 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX N
Appendix N State ESSA Plan’s Graduation Rate Goals (continued)
ACGR Growth ESSA Plan ESSA Long-Term Goal for Using Extended Year Grad Set Long-Term Extended Year Grad
State 2011 ACGR 2017 ACGR 2011–2017 Approved? All Students Rates in Accountability Plan? Rate Goal(s) for All Students?
Cut failure to graduate rate
(4-years) by half over 10
years; this translates to an
Missouri 81% 88.30% 7.30% Y No No
annual improvement rate of
one-half of one percentage
point gain per year.
Montana 82% 85.80% 3.80% Y 89.5% by 2022 No No
Nebraska 86% 89.10% 3.10% Y 94.4% by 2026 Yes (7-year rate) Yes (96% 7-year rate by 2026)
Nevada 62% 80.90% 18.90% Y 84% by 2022 Yes (5-year rate) Yes (86% by 2022)
No (Will use the 5-year rate
New
86% 88.90% 2.90% Y 93.96% by 2025 Yes (5-year rates) as part of their graduation
Hampshire
rate indicator)
New Jersey 83% 90.50% 7.50% Y 95% by 2030 Yes (5-year rates) Yes (96% by 2030)
Yes (88% 5-year rate by 2021;
New Mexico 63% 71.10% 8.10% Y 84.5% by 2022 Yes (5- and 6-year rates)
90% 6-year rate by 2020)
83.3% by 2022 (Will re- Yes (85.6% by 2022; will
New York 77% 81.80% 4.80% Y evaluate annually to reach Yes (5-year rate) re-evaluate annually to reach
ultimate end goal of 95%) ultimate end goal of 96%)
No (Reports 5-year rates
North Carolina 78% 86.60% 8.60% Y 95% by 2027 but is not including them in No
their accountability plan)
Yes (92% 5-year rate by 2024;
North Dakota 86% 87.20% 1.20% Y 90% by 2024 Yes (5- and 6-year rates)
93% 6-year rate by 2024)
Ohio 80% 84.20% 4.20% Y 93% by 2026 Yes (5-year rate) 95% by 2026
No (Will set goals
Oklahoma † 82.60% † Y 90% by 2025 Yes (5- and 6-year rates)
moving forward)
Oregon 68% 76.70% 8.70% Y 90% by 2025 Yes (5-year rate) Yes (93% by 2025)
Pennsylvania 83% 86.60% 3.60% Y 92.4% by 2030 Yes (5-year rate) Yes (93.5% by 2030)
No (Using an equally-weighted
Rhode Island 77% 84.10% 7.10% Y 95% by 2025 Yes (5- and 6-year rates) composite of 4-, 5-, and 6-year
rates as grad rate indicator)
South Carolina 74% 83.60% 9.60% Y 90% by 2035 No No
South Dakota 83% 83.70% 0.70% Y 100% by 2031 No No
No (will report ER grad
Tennessee 86% 89.80% 3.80% Y 95% by 2025 rates publicy but not count No
towards accountability)
Yes (96% 5-year rate by 2031;
Texas 86% 89.70% 3.70% Y 94% by 2032 Yes (5- and 6-year rates)
97% 6-year rate by 2030)
Utah 76% 86.00% 10.00% Y 90.1% by 2022 No No
90% by 2025; 100% of
schools will have a 90% Yes (By 2025, 100% of schools
graduation rate by 2025; will have 100% of students
Vermont 87% 89.10% 2.10% Y Yes (6-year rate)
grad rate indicator will be meet graduation proficiences
based on average of 4- within 6 years)
and 6-year rate
Yes (85% 5-year rate by 2025;
Virginia 82% 86.90% 4.90% Y 84% by 2025 Yes (5- and 6-year rates)
86% 6-year rate by 2025)
No (Will include upward
adjustment for schools
graduating relatively high
Washington 76% 79.40% 3.40% Y 90% by 2027 No percentages of students in
extended timeframe; will report
5-, 6-, and 7-year grad rates on
state report card)
West Virginia 78% 89.40% 11.40% Y 95% by 2030 Yes (5-year rate) No
Wisconsin 87% 88.60% 1.60% Y 90.4% by 2023 Yes (7-year rate) 93.5% by 2023
Wyoming 80% 86.20% 6.20% Y 88% within 15 years No No

ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 69

APPENDIX O
Appendix O State ESSA Student Subgroup Graduation Rate Goals
Black Long-Term Hispanic Long- White Long-Term
Long-Term Baseline Black 4-Year Grad Baseline Term 4-Year Grad Baseline White 4-Year Grad
State Baseline Year Goal Year ACGR Rate Goal Hispanic ACGR Rate Goal ACGR Rate Goal
Alabama 2015–16 2030 84.51% 92.31% 86.52% 93.28% 88.61% 94.33%
Alaska 2016–17 2026–27 73.90% 90% 77.40% 90% 82.10% 90%
Arizona1 2015 2030 74% 90% 72% 90% 84% 90%
Arkansas 2015–16 2030 81.53% 94% 85.71% 94% 89.20% 94%
California4 2014–15 2021–22 81.50% 90% 86.30% 90% 92.00% 0.50
Colorado 2015–16 2021–22 71.80% 78.90% 69.90% 77.40% 84.40% 88.30%
Connecticut 2015–16 2028–29 78.10% 94% 74.80% 94% 92.70% 94%
Delaware 2014–15 2030 81.80% 90.60% 79.80% 90% 87% 93.50%
District of Columbia 2014–15 2038–39 63.90% 90% 65.60% 90% 84.50% 90%
Florida2 2014–15 2019–20 14.8 9.8 6 4 -8.1 -5.4
Georgia 2017 2031 76.20% 86.85% 73.38% 85.38% 83.05% 90.70%
Hawaii 2016 2025 77% 90% 74% 90% 82% 90%
Idaho 2016 2022 77.80% 94.50% 73.70% 93.40% 81.30% 95.30%
Illinois 2016 2032 74.60% 90% 81.30% 90% 90.40% 90%
Indiana 2016–17 2023 62.10% 81.10% 71.90% 86% 78.40% 89.20%
Iowa 2015–16 2021–22 79.70% 95% 84.50% 95% 92.90% 95%
Kansas 2016 2030 77.10% 95% 79.90% 95% 88.80% 95%
Kentucky 2018–19 2029–30 83.20% 89.10% 85.50% 90.30% 91.90% 93.50%
Louisiana 2014–15 2025 71.40% 90% 74.90% 90% 82.70% 90%
Maine 2016 2030 76.77% 90% 83.46% 90% 87.29% 90%
Maryland 2011 2020 74.02 84.51% 73.44% 84.22% 88.27% 91.64%
Massachusetts 2015 2020 77.50% 84% 72.20% 90% 91.60% 94%
Michigan 2015–16 2024–25 67.31% 94.44% 72.07% 94.44% 83.48% 94.44%
Minnesota 2012 2020 51.49% 85% 54.30% 85% 84.58% 85%
Mississippi 2015–16 2024–25 78.90% 88.60% 81.80% 89.80% 85.80% 91.50%
Missouri 2017 2026 83.70% 89.50% 86.90% 91.60% 93.50% 95.80%
Montana 2016 2022 N/A N/A N/A N/A 87.30% 91.00%
Nebraska 2014–15 2026 75.00% 87.72% 82% 90.80% 93% 96.25%
Nevada 2016 2022 56.50% 75% 69.70% 82% 79.90% 89%
New Hampshire5 2017 2025 80.70% 86.20% 75.73% 81.50% 89.54% 93.96%
New Jersey 2015–16 2029–30 82.14% 95% 83.35% 95% 94.24% 95%
New Mexico 2016 2022 61% 78% 71% 84% 76% 88%
New York6 2015–16 2021–22 69.30% 74.40% 68.90% 74.10% 89.20% 90.40%
North Carolina 2016 2027 82.90% 95.00% 80.10% 95.00% 88.60% 95.00%
North Dakota 2015–16 2023–24 75.60% 90% 74.70% 90% 90.50% 90%
Ohio 2015–16 2025–26 65.00% 82.50% 72.00% 86.00% 87.40% 93.00%
Oklahoma 2016 2025 77.10% 90.00% 77.80% 90.00% 83.20% 90.00%
Oregon 2015–16 2024–25 63% 90% 67% 90% 76% 90%
Pennsylvania 2014–15 2029–30 71.80% 85.90% 69.50% 84.80% 89.30% 94.70%
Rhode Island 2016 2031 81% 95.00% 79.00% 95.00% 88.00% 95.00%
South Carolina7 2017 2035 80.30% 90.00% 79.90% 90.00% 84.10% 90.00%
South Dakota 2016–17 2030–31 77.69% 100.00% 70.77% 100.00% 89.56% 100.00%
Tennessee 2015–16 2024–25 82.30% 92.30% 83.70% 92.90% 91.30% 96.20%
Texas 2015 2032 85.20% 94.00% 86.50% 94.00% 93.40% 94.00%
Utah 2016 2022 74.10% 82.70% 75.10% 83.40% 87.90% 91.90%
Vermont 2016 2025 79.80% 90% 80.90% 90% 88.80% 90%
Maintain
Virginia 2015–16 2024–25 82.00% 84.00% 81.00% 84.00% 86.00%
Progess
Washington 3
2016–17 2027 70.70% 90.00% 72.30% 90.00% 81.50% 90.00%
West Virginia 2015–16 2029–30 87.74% 95.00% 89.04% 95.00% 89.94% 95.00%
Wisconsin 2015 2021 64.00% 80.10% 77.50% 86.80% 92.90% 94.50%
Wyoming 2015–16 2030–31 81.00% 88.00% 74.00% 88.00% 82.00% 88.00%

70 ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION

 APPENDIX O
Appendix O State ESSA Student Subgroup Graduation Rate Goals (continued)
Native American Low-Income Long- SWD Long-Term EL Long-Term
Baseline Native Long-Term 4-Year Baseline Low- Term 4-Year Grad Baseline SWD 4-Year Grad Baseline EL 4-Year Grad
State American ACGR Grad Rate Goal Income ACGR Rate Goal ACGR Rate Goal ACGR Rate Goal
Alabama 86.36% 93.12% 80.92% 90.41% 54.05% 77.06% 64.41% 82.22%
Alaska 68.90% 90% 72.10% 90% 58.70% 90% 57.70% 90%
Arizona1 66% 90% 73% 90% 66% 90% 25%* 90%
Arkansas N/A N/A 83.79% 94% 84.29% 94% 85.71% 94%
California4 82.90% 90% 85.30% 90% 69.00% 90% 77.70% 90%
Colorado 62.00% 71.50% 67.80% 75.90% 57.20% 67.90% 61.40% 71.10%
Connecticut 87.10% 94% 76% 94% 65.60% 94% 66.70% 94%
Delaware 65.80% 82.90% 73.70% 86.80% 63.70% 81.90% 68.70% 84.30%
District of Columbia DS 90% 65.80% 90% 42.90% 90% 59.60% 90%
Florida2 N/A N/A 15.3 10.2 23.8 15.9 19.8 13.2
Georgia 69.34% 83.14% 75.33% 86.43% 56.59% 76.09% 56.46% 76.11%
Hawaii 79% 90% 78% 90% 59% 90% 69% 90%
Idaho 58.50% 89.60% 72% 93% 60.50% 90.10% 73.30% 93.30%
Illinois 79.30% 90% 76.70% 90% 70.60% 90% 71.90% 90%
Indiana 68.90% 84.50% 69.20% 84.60% 43.90% 72% 52.60% 76.30%
Iowa 80.60% 95% 83.90% 95% 69.50% 95% 80.80% 95%
Kansas 72.50% 95% 77.70% 95% 77.40% 95% 77.70% 95%
Kentucky 83.40% 89.20% 88% 91.50% 71.80% 83.40% 72.40% 83.70%
Louisiana N/A N/A 70.80% 90% 44.30% 90% 50.20% 90%
Maine 84.91% 90% 77.77% 90% 72.19% 90% 78.14% 90%
Maryland 75.93% 85.47% 74.11% 84.55% 54.72% 74.86% 56.98% 75.99%
Massachusetts 79.50% 85.40% 78.20% 84.50% 69.90% 78.60% 64% 74.40%
Michigan 70.88% 94.44% 67.48% 94.44% 57.12% 94.44% 72.14% 94.44%
Minnesota 45.20% 85% 61.70% 85% 55.95% 85% 52.46% 85%
Mississippi 87.50% 92.20% 78.80% 88.50% 34.70% 70% 55.90% 78.90%
Missouri 89% 93% 86.10% 91.10% 73.50% 78% 75.20% 84%
Montana 65.60% 76.00% 76.40% 82.90% 77.80% 85.10% 58.70% 73.30%
Nebraska 76% 88.19% 82% 90.69% 70% 86% 55% 77%
Nevada 64.70% 80% 66.70% 81% 29.30% 60% 42.60% 70%
New Hampshire5 75.73% 81.50% 77.42% 83.10% 73.75% 79.62% 77.72% 83.38%
New Jersey 83.22% 95% 82.71% 95% 78.80% 95% 74.65% 95%
New Mexico 63% 79% 67% 82% 62% 79% 67% 82%
New York6 66.50% 72.20% 73.20% 77.60% 55.30% 63.20% 46.60% 56.30%
North Carolina 82.00% 95.00% 80.60% 95.00% 68.90% 95.00% 57.20% 95.00%
North Dakota 59.70% 90% 70% 90% 67.40% 90% 60% 90%
Ohio 76.40% 88.20% 71.40% 85.70% 69.20% 84.60% 54.40% 77.20%
Oklahoma 81.40% 90.00% 75.90% 90.00% 74.40% 90.00% 57.90% 90.00%
Oregon 63% 90% 66% 90% 53.00% 90% 51% 90%
Pennsylvania 76.20% 88.10% 75.90% 88.00% 71.50% 85.80% 62.60% 81.30%
Rhode Island 72.00% 95.00% 79.00% 95.00% 67.00% 95.00% 79.00% 95.00%
South Carolina7 74.10% 90.00% 87.70% 90.00% 52.10% 90.00% 76.00% 90.00%
South Dakota 50.00% 100.00% 66.94% 100.00% 60.42% 100.00% 59.50% 100.00%
Tennessee 86.50% 94.10% 85.50% 93.70% 71.80% 87.70% 75.60% 89.30%
Texas 86.30% 94.00% 85.60% 94.00% 78.20% 94.00% 71.50% 94.00%
Utah 71.40% 80.90% 75.60% 83.70% 70.20% 80.10% 65.70% 77.10%
Vermont 80.40% 90% 78% 90% 71.90% 90% 68.10% 90%
Virginia N/A N/A 77.00% 84.00% 52.00% 84.00% 62.00% 84.00%
Washington3 60.60% 90.00% 69.40% 90.00% 58.10% 90.00% 57.6 90.00%
West Virginia 88.00% 95.00% 83.57% 95.00% 76.87% 95.00% 92.66% 95.00%
Wisconsin 78.10% 87.10% 77.30% 87.30% 67.50% 81.20% 62.20% 77.60%
Wyoming 53.00% 88.00% 69.00% 88.00% 65.00% 88.00% 70.00% 88.00%
All baseline graduation rates reflect what is reported in the state’s approved ESSA plans, as posted by the Department of Education.
DS = Data Suppressed
(1) In 2017, Arizona is changing their methodology for determining EL subgroup graduation from counting only students still considered to be EL in 12th grade to all students
who were ever classified as EL during high school. Baseline and interim progress goals will be adjusted accordingly under new methodology.
(2) Florida’s graduation rate goal for student subgroups is based on closing defined gaps between white and Hispanic students, white and Black students, white and Asian
students, low-income and non-low-income students, students with disabilities and students w/o disabilities, and ELs and non-ELs.
(3) Washington’s projected 2017 Graduation Rates are provided in their state plan, which are used here for the baseline subgroup grad rates
(4) California’s subgroup goal for white students is based on increasing from the baseline.
(5) While New Hampshire is using the 2016–17 school year as their plans baseline, graduation rates for the 2014–15 and 2015–16 school year are used as graduation rate
data are lagged. The 2015–16 baseline numbers from the approved New Hampshire plan are reflected in this appendix.
(6) New York also has an “end goal” of a 95% graduation for all student subgroups but no date by which to reach them
(7) South Carolina has a goal of reducing the number of students who do not graduate within 4-years by 50 percent by 2026.
ANNUAL UPDATE 2019 | BUILDING A GRAD NATION 71