Body
Building a Grad Nation – 2010 -2011 Annual Update, written by Robert Balfanz, Joanna Hornig Fox, John M. Bridgeland and Laura A. Moore, for the Everyone Graduates Center, reports on US efforts to meet the high school dropout challenge. Dropout factories are high schools that graduate only 60% or less of their students. This report is part of a series, continuing until 2020, and focusing on progress in eliminating dropout factories.
To combat low graduation rates a Civic Marshall Plan was established. The Civic Marshall Plan provides actionable steps that states and districts can take to raise graduation rates. It recommends three specific approaches with specific steps to improve the education system.
|
|
Start with early reading
|
|
Focus on the Middle grades
|
|
|
Take Action Within Low Graduation Rate Communities
|
Turn Around or Replace the Nation’s Dropout Factories
|
|
|
Harness the Power of Nonprofits to provide Expanded Student supports
|
|
Link Researchers to Practitioners and Policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Build Early Warning and Interventions Systems
|
|
Create a Multi-Sector and community-Based Effort
|
|
|
Enhance High School and College Graduation Rate Data
|
|
|
Build and Enable State and District Capacity to Improve Graduation and College Readiness Rates
|
Develop New Education Options Based on Student and Community Needs and Interests
|
|
|
Develop Parent Engagement Strategies
|
|
Elicit Perspectives of Students, Educators, and Parents
|
|
|
Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Build linked, Common Data Systems and Enhance Data-Driven Decision Making
|
|
Accelerate Graduation rates by Strengthening the Public Education System
|
Set High Expectations and Provide Engaging Coursework
|
|
|
Train and Support Highly Effective and Accountable Teachers
|
|
Connect the Postsecondary Completion Agenda with High School Graduation
|
|
Overall, between 2008 and 2009, 25 of the 50 states decreased the number of dropout factory high schools, 17 states increased the number of dropout factories, and 8 states stayed the same. The states that increased by 5 or more included Georgia (10), New York (10), and Ohio (5). States that decreased by 10 or more included California (25), South Carolina (25), Illinois (20), North Carolina (16), Connecticut (13), and Tennessee (10). The number of students attending a dropout factory declined by 8% (2.6 million students in 2002 to 2.1 million students in 2009).
National progress and challenge in reducing the number of dropout factories
|
Progress
|
Challenges
|
|
112 fewer dropout factories in 2009 than in 2008
|
1,634 remain
|
|
183,701 fewer students attended dropout factories in 2009 than in 2008
|
2.1 million students still attend dropout factories
|
|
Six states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) had a reduction of at least 10 dropout factories in the last year.
|
Three states (Georgia, New York, and Ohio) experienced an increase of five or more dropout factories.
|
|
All 50 states have the capacity to follow individual students over time.
|
Only 23 states provide data on student progress to schools, teachers, and parents.
|
|
212 early college high schools have opened since 2002
|
Less than half of all students nationally graduate college-ready
|
|
16 states produce early warning indicator reports using student-level longitudinal data
|
Most states do not have early warning and intervention systems and do not yet track attendance or behavior
|
|
The Serve America Act created an Education Corps to increase national service supports in low-performing schools
|
Congress is considering a bill to eliminate funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service.
|
|
A range of federal and state legislation aimed at reducing the dropout crisis has been introduced
|
ESEA should be reauthorized and other legislation that could help reduce the dropout crisis should be considered by Congress and state legislatures
|
To conclude the writers recommended that seven specific principles become part of federal education policy:
- High standards
- Focus on the lowest performing schools
- Graduation rate accountability – Hold states and districts accountable for graduation levels
- Flexibility and data-driven decision-making – Allow states to determine what is best for them
- Wraparound services – Utilize many community-focused partnerships
- Community-led efforts – Federal support for district, statewide, and community school support
- National service – Utilize volunteerism such as the Save America Act.


