2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

While GED and alternative certificate students are not considered drop outs by state law, they are considered "non-graduates" under this new system of calculating graduation rates. 

I don't think that the answer is to ensure graduates finish high school within four years; the bigger issue is to make sure students are prepared for life after high school (college or career), regardless of how long that takes.

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Here are three composites (based on the stories of many students I’ve worked with over the years) to illustrate my point:

• “Mike” maintained a B average while playing sports.  Unfortunately, in tenth grade year he had a serious health issue and was in the hospital frequently that year.  Mike was not able to finish his high school experience within four years because of his medical issue – but he finished in four and a half years and is now a hardworking young man with a career and a family.
• “Jenny” was a bright student who worried that she would not be able to afford college.  She heard about a new program that would allow her to receive an associate’s degree and her high school diploma within five years.  Jenny worked very hard and graduated at the age of 19 ready to transfer to a university for her final two years of school. 
• “Kyle” did not do well during his first year in high school.  In fact, he failed most of his classes because of his poor attendance.  His mother enrolled him in his district’s alternative school, which had smaller class sizes and a focus on service-learning and Kyle thrived.  He graduated five years after he first entered high school received a job through his internship experience.
• “Anne” was a special education student who was born with brain development issues; doctors did not expect her to be able to learn how to read or write.  Her mother worked very hard to see that Anne had a high quality education and that Anne always believed that she could do anything – her disability was not a limitation.  Anne graduated within four years, but she received a modified diploma.  Anne now holds a job with a childcare facility and she lives on her own.

I doubt that people would consider these students unsuccessful. The notion that students who graduate within four years are more successful or more prepared for life than those who don’t is based on a faulty premise.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no research within our state that looks at a large cohort of students for several years beyond high school completion to determine whether the amount of time spent within high school correlates to success post-high school. 

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context

It is interesting that yesterday’s new graduation rate is that it is based on two underlying assumptions:

1) students who graduate in four years are successful

2) those who don’t are failures

Research does not validate either premise.  I am an educator who has spent years teaching in conventional and alternative high schools.  Currently, I am working on my doctoral dissertation and the topic is on success within alternative education, so this issue of graduation rates and how they are calculated is important to me. 

Each year in education, we learn how to accommodate different learning needs so that children can be successful.  Usually we assume that “success” is based on whether a child is learning and progressing toward graduation; we know that children learn at various rates and so while we would like every third, fifth, eighth, or tenth grade student to reach a certain benchmark, the Oregon Department of Education adopted a “Student Growth Model” in 2009 that is much more realistic.  It looks at students as individuals and monitors their progress.

This new way of calculating graduation rates – proposed by the federal government and endorsed by our state – is in direct conflict with the Student Growth Model.  It no longer looks at students as individuals.  Instead, it defines a successful high school student very narrowly – as one who graduates within four years.  I would argue that this definition is inaccurate and may potentially be harmful. 

By lumping together the students who take longer to graduate, who get a GED or modified diploma, or alternative certificate into the category “non-graduate,” we are doing a great disservice to our children.  We equate them and their efforts to students who drop out completely and never finish.  Having a high school education is very important; graduating from high school accords an individual with a certain amount of respect.  By categorizing 34% of students as “non-graduates”  we are telling that portion of the population that they are failures.  This is tragic.  Our definition of “successful student” needs to change.  We can begin that change by demanding a graduation rate that accurately reflects the reality within our schools – more than 66% of students complete high school. 

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context