The Great (and Never-Ending) Graduation Rate Debate
May 23, 2006 10:01 AM
UPDATE #2: Think Progress argues the grad rate debate is secondary to "the huge gaps in achievement among graduates" from different backgrounds. Hmmm...TP has a point.
UPDATE #1: Eduwonk read misread this post and somehow concluded I'm arguing below that Jay Greene's work is flawed. I've reread my post. I don't argue that Greene's work is flawed. Eduwonk is wrong.
Jay Mathews is not my favorite journalist, but his piece in today's Washington Post is an excellent review of the great graduation debate.
In case you've forgotten, the debate is this. For the past several years, researcher Jay Greene has been arguing that high school graduation rates are much lower than the widely accepted figures, especially for minority students. Greene's lower numbers became the new conventional wisdom. Then Larry Mishel and Joydeep Roy of the Economic Policy Institute argued that while graduation rates are a serious concern, they're not as low as Greene says.
Mathews and the Post give the researchers room to make their own case in print: Mishel and Joydeep Roy case here, Greene and Marcus Winters here.
Like every debate in education, this one has been politicized. Mishel and Roy work for a think tank that receives some funding from the AFT. (We like public schools, think they often get a bum rap, and want graduation rate measurements to be accurate.) Jay Greene's position at the University of Arkansas is endowed by the Walton Family Foundation. (The WFF provides millions of dollars for vouchers and for politicians who support vouchers. The worse public education looks, the easier it is to gin up support for vouchers.)
Somehow, I think this debate isn't quite over.
Comments
Rotherham's right in this case: focusing on Greene avoids the larger questions in the research, and focusing on Greene's funding sources is ad hominem.
Posted by: Sherman Dorn | May 24, 2006 03:15 PM
Sherman, thanks for the comment.
I'll reiterate: I don't argue here that Greene's numbers are flawed. The point I make is that people will use the funding of both sets of researchers to attack the research. I'll admit that I believe AFT's motives are purer than the WFF's.
I'll leave it up to researchers like you to determine which graduation rates are more accurate. Your latest post on the debate was excellent. You write that Miishel won the debate but that there are flaws in his work.
So clue me in, Sherman, what's the correct graduation rate? Greene's? Mishel's? Something higher than either? Lower? In between?
Posted by: John at AFT | May 24, 2006 04:05 PM
Re funding: yes, the debate's been politicized, but if you start the political analysis, it would be wise to acknowledge the complexities as well as the simple interpretation. Just because others are reductionist doesn't mean you have to follow!
In terms of the "numbers," Warren's 2005 article is the best analysis I know of the assumptions of various methods. One problem is with the reliance on grade-level data, producing the 9th-grade-retention problem for analysis. And, too, I have less confidence today than several years ago that we can accurately know the absolute proportion of those graduating from high school. Migration is a huge problem with estimates, and the expense of auditing the record of transfer students is greater than the relative value of the information, I suspect. But that's one piece of my current work. As I wrote on my blog, I'm working with about 7-8 years' worth of data for Virginia, and I next need to simulate estimates based on different graduation rates.
Posted by: Sherman Dorn | May 24, 2006 09:35 PM
I know I am coming in a bit late...
There is no argumentum ad hominem in the piece. You haven't tried to win an argument by attacking Greene. Your reported on a debate, and doled out equal amount of info about the circumstances of each debater in an attempt to show that the debate had been politicized. No need to rush to apologize for that.
I think graduation rates are easy:
(# over 18 with high school diploma) / (total over 18)
but maybe we should use 20 instead of 18. Of course, if you want to blame particular schools, this is totally unsatisfactory. Depends on where your priorities lie.
Posted by: jonathan/jd2718 | May 28, 2006 01:52 PM
It's not schoo;s to blame. It's the system. The educational program must be rewritten to make it even more strict and difficult. And the exams must be more severe. Only then we'll have the level of education at leastclose to desirable. And I'm not talking about figures but quality.
Posted by: Dave, school teacher | June 12, 2006 04:01 PM