The College Completion - ERICThe College Completion Agenda 2011 Progress Report The College Board is...

TheCollege Completion Agenda2011Progress Report

The College Board is a mission-driven not-for-profit organization that connects students to college success and opportunity. Founded in 1900, the College Board was created to expand access to higher education. Today, the membership association is made up of more than 5,900 of the world’s leading educational institutions and is dedicated to promoting excellence and equity in education. Each year, the College Board helps more than seven million students prepare for a successful transition to college through programs and services in college readiness and college success — including the SAT® and the Advanced Placement Program®. The organization also serves the education community through research and advocacy on behalf of students, educators and schools.

For further information, visit www.collegeboard.org.

The College Board Advocacy & Policy Center was established to help transform education in America. Guided by the College Board’s principles of excellence and equity in education, we work to ensure that students from all backgrounds have the opportunity to succeed in college and beyond. We make critical connections between policy, research and real-world practice to develop innovative solutions to the most pressing challenges in education today. This report can be downloaded at completionagenda.collegeboard.org. Hard copies may be ordered by contacting [email protected].

advocacy.collegeboard.org

© 2011 The College Board. College Board, Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement Program, AP, SAT and the acorn logo are registered trademarks of the College Board. PSAT/NMSQT is a registered trademark of the College Board and National Merit Scholarship Corporation. All other products and services may be trademarks of their respective owners. Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.org.

110854705 11b-3269

Th

e College

Co

mp

letion A

gend

a2011 Prog

ress Rep

ort

Acknowledgments This report was written and edited by John Michael Lee Jr., policy director of the College Board Advocacy and Policy Center; Anita Rawls, assistant research scientist in Research and Development; Kelcey Edwards, senior research analyst at the College Board; and Roxanna Menson, director in Advanced Placement. The authors would like to thank Christen Pollock, vice president of advocacy and director of the College Board Advocacy & Policy Center, for her unwavering support of this project. We would further like to thank Rosalina Colon, project manager in the College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, who provided excellent oversight for the entire project and ensured that we completed this project; and a special thanks is given to Mike Hurowitz, associate policy research scientist in the College Board Advocacy & Policy Center who provided invaluable contributions to chapters seven and eight of this report. The authors would also like to thank Wayne Camara, vice president of Research & Development at the College Board; Thanos Patelis, vice president in Research & Analysis Services at the College Board; and Ellen Sawtell, senior director of research services at the College Board who provided edits and analysis for this report.

The authors would also like to thank the College Completion Agenda Advisory Committee Members who helped to shape this document into an even better document. These advisory members include Patrick Kelly, senior associate at the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS); Michael Nettles, senior vice president at Educational Testing Services (ETS); Bruce Walker, vice provost and director of admissions at The University of Texas at Austin; Trevor Packer, senior vice president at the College Board; Patricia Martin, assistant vice president and director of NOSCA at the College Board; and Sandy Baum, independent senior policy analyst at the College Board. Each provided invaluable advice and direction for this project.

We heartily acknowledge the efforts of each of these individuals in the process of conducting this research. We also recognize that the responsibility for the content of this report, including errors, lies solely with the authors.


John Michael Lee, Jr.Kelcey EdwardsRoxanna MensonAnita Rawls

The Goal: Increase the proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds who hold an associate degree or higher to 55 percent by the year 2025 in order to make America the leader in educational attainment in the world.

55% by2025

Recommendations So Important They Cannot Be IgnoredWhen the Commission on Access, Admissions and Success in Higher Education

(subsequently referred to as the commission) convened in fall 2008, the

educational landscape was facing a number of issues that the commission’s

members recognized as formidable challenges to those students who aspire

to enroll and succeed in college. Summarizing the commission’s 2008 report,

Coming to Our Senses: Education and the American Future, college and high

school completion rates had dropped dramatically; the proportion of adults

with postsecondary credentials was not keeping pace with other industrialized

nations; and signifi cant disparities existed for low-income and minority students.

As such, the commission was faced with two key questions: What must be

done to improve the nation’s educational system, and how will we know if the

changes that are made are successful?

Echoing the fi ndings of other key educational policymakers, the commission

declared that it is critical — and thus should be a primary goal — that

55 percent of the nation’s young adults attain an associate degree or higher.

The commission further offered a 10-part action plan in the form of 10

recommendations.

The commission noted that these recommendations are so important they

must be measured on a regular basis to help us understand the state of the

educational landscape in the nation and how it changes over time. This report

is designed to illustrate the degree to which the nation is moving toward —

or away from — taking the necessary steps for ensuring an educated and

enlightened citizenry.

OneProvide a program of voluntary preschool education, universally available to children from low-income families.

TwoImprove middle and high school college counseling.

ThreeImplement the best research-based dropout prevention programs.

FourAlign the K–12 education system with international standards and college admission expectations.

FiveImprove teacher quality and focus on recruitment and retention.

SixClarify and simplify the admission process.

SevenProvide more need-based grant aid while simplifying the fi nancial aid system and making it more transparent.

EightKeep college affordable.

NineDramatically increase college completion rates.

TenProvide postsecondary opportunities as an essential element of adult education programs.

iii

The Commission on Access, Admissions and Success in Higher Education

Commission Members

Gaston Caperton, President College Board

William “Brit” Kirwan (Chairman), Chancellor University System of Maryland

Jerome Lucido (Vice Chairman), Executive Director and Professor of Research

University of Southern California

Molly Broad, President, Education American Council on

Joyce Brown, Manager of Secondary School Counselors Chicago Public Schools

Arlene Wesley Cash, Vice President for Enrollment Management Spelman College

Frank Chong, President Laney College

Carl Cohn, Former Superintendent San Diego Unifi ed School District

Tom Dawson, Senior Policy Offi cer The Gates Foundation

Janice Doyle, Chief of Staff to Chancellor University System of Maryland

Susan Gendron, Commissioner of Education Maine

Barbara Gill, Director of Undergraduate Admissions University of Maryland

Natala “Tally” Hart, Senior Advisor for Economic Access The Ohio State University

Terry Hartle, Senior Vice President American Council on Education

Kati Haycock, President The Education Trust

Mary Lee Hoganson, Past President National Association for College Admission Counseling

Don Hossler, Executive Director National Student Clearinghouse

Joseph McDonald, President & Founder Salish Kootenai College

James Moeser, Chancellor Emeritus University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Lester Monts, Senior Vice Provost University of Michigan

Charlene Nunley, President Emerita Montgomery College

Shirley Ort, Associate Provost and Director of Scholarships & Student Aid

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Charles Reed, Chancellor California State University

Manuel Rivera, Former Deputy Secretary of Education New York

Barbara Snyder, President Case Western Reserve University

Gordon Stanley, Director of Counseling Marist School

Bruce Walker, Vice Provost and Director of Admissions University of Texas at Austin

Gregory Williams, President City College of New York

James Wright, President Emeritus Dartmouth College

Mark Yudof, President University of California

College Board Staff

Tom Rudin, Senior Vice President

Wayne Camara, Vice President

Christen Pollock, Vice President

Bradley Quin, Executive Director

Sandy Baum, Independent Senior Policy Analyst for the College Board

iv

Advisory Committee Members

Patrick Kelly, Senior Associate National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS)

Patricia Martin, Assistant Vice President The College Board

Michael Nettles, Senior Vice President Educational Testing Service

Trevor Packer, Senior Vice President The College Board

Bruce Walker, Vice Provost and Director of Admissions University of Texas-Austin

Advocacy and Policy Center Staff

Christen Pollock, Vice President

Jessica Morffi , Director

John Michael Lee, Jr., Policy Director

Rosalina Colon, Project Manager

The College Completion Agenda 2011 Progress Report Advisory Committee

v

Contents

1 Continuing the Conversation: An overview of the measurement of progress on the commission’s recommendations

4 The Commission’s Approach to Assessing the Current Status on

the Recommendations

6 A Year in Review

10 Overall Goal of the Commission

10 Reading the Document

11 Measuring the Goal: U.S. Educational Attainment Among 25- to 34-Year-Olds

17 Recommendation One: Provide a program of voluntary preschool education, universally available to children from low-income families

19 General Findings for This Recommendation

20 Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool Programs

33 Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K Programs

38 Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs

43 Recommendation Two: Improve middle and high school counseling


45 Student-to-Counselor Ratio

49 Statewide Comprehensive School Counseling Programs

51 Professional Development for Secondary School Counselors

53 Percentage of Counselors’ Time Spent on Tasks

55 Eight Components of College and Career Readiness Counseling

57 Recommendation Three: Implement the best research-based dropout prevention programs


61 Graduation Rates of Public High School Students

74 National Status Dropout Rate — Excluding Institutional Populations

78 National Status Dropout Rate — Including Institutional Populations

81 National Event Dropout Rate

vi

97 Recommendation Four: Align the K–12 education system with international standards and college admission expectations


101 Percentage of Public High Schools Offering AP® or IB Courses in the

Four Core Subject Areas

111 Percentage of Schools Offering Dual Enrollment

115 Percentage of States with Alignment Between K–12 and Higher

Education Standards

119 Percentage of Students in Remedial College Classes

127 Recommendation Five: Improve teacher quality and focus on recruitment and retention


130 State Encouragement and Support for Teacher Professional Development

134 Percentage of Public School Teachers of Grades Nine Through 12 by Field

137 State Policies on Out-of-Field Teachers

139 Percentage of Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral Degrees Earned

in Education

145 Percentage of Teachers Leaving the Profession

149 Data Systems to Monitor Teacher Quality

152 Percentage of Teachers by Full-Time Teaching Experience by State

155 Recommendation Six: Clarify and simplify the admission process


158 Percentage of Four-Year Colleges with Admission Applications

Available Online

161 Percentage of Four-Year Colleges That Accept Admission

Applications Online

164 Percentage of Four-Year Colleges That Participate in National and State

Application Systems

169 Immediate Enrollment Rate of High School Graduates

vii

177 Recommendation Seven: Provide more need-based grant aid while simplifying the fi nancial aid system and making it more transparent


180 Grant Aid for Students from Low-Income Families

188 Student Loan Debt Levels

193 Simplifying the Federal Student Aid System and the

Application Process

195 Implementation of Policies Designed to Provide Incentives for

Institutions to Promote Enrollment and Success of Low-Income

and First-Generation Students

197 Recommendation Eight: Keep college affordable199 General Findings for This Recommendation

200 State Appropriations to Fund Higher Education

205 Tuition, Fees and Other Costs of Attendance at Colleges and Universities

213 Net Price Students Pay for College

215 Changes in Family Income Levels

217 Earnings of College Graduates

219 Recommendation Nine: Dramatically increase college completion rates


223 Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention

230 Graduation Rates of Associate Degree– and Certifi cate-Seeking Students

249 Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students

268 Degrees Awarded at Colleges and Universities

279 Recommendation Ten: Provide postsecondary opportunities as an essential element of adult education programs


282 Educational Attainment for Adults Ages 25 to 34

288 Adults Ages 25 to 34 with No High School Diploma Who Attain a GED

294 Enrollment of Nontraditional Students in Postsecondary Education

viii

297 Appendix: Data Book298 Overall Goal of the Commission

300 Recommendation One: Provide a program of voluntary preschool education,

universally available to children from low-income families

302 Recommendation Two: Improve middle and high school counseling

304 Recommendation Three: Implement the best research-based dropout

prevention programs

307 Recommendation Four: Align the K–12 education system with international

standards and college admission expectations

310 Recommendation Five: Improve teacher quality and focus on recruitment

and retention

313 Recommendation Six: Clarify and simplify the admission process

316 Recommendation Seven: Provide more need-based grant aid while

simplifying the fi nancial aid system and making it more transparent

322 Recommendation Eight: Keep college affordable

329 Recommendation Nine: Dramatically increase college completion rates

334 Recommendation Ten: Provide postsecondary opportunities as an essential

element of adult education programs

337 List of Figures

353 National Summary

359 State Summaries

ix

Continuing the Conversation: An overview of the measurement of progress on the commission’s recommendations

completionagenda.collegeboard.org

The 10 RecommendationsThe commission believes that American education is the nation’s greatest

strength and most powerful force for advancing the common good in America.

To once again return America to its place as the global leader in educational

attainment, the commission recommended the following 10-part action agenda:

One. Provide a program of voluntary preschool education, universally available to children from low-income families, such that all children at or

below 200 percent of the offi cial poverty line have a chance to enter school

ready to learn.

Two. Improve middle and high school college counseling by meeting

professional staffi ng standards for counselors and involving colleges and

universities in college planning.

Three. Implement the best research-based dropout prevention programs, which include early identifi cation of those students who are at risk

of dropping out and subsequently providing them with a safety net.

Four. Align the K–12 education system with international standards and college admission expectations so that all students are prepared for

future opportunities in education, work and life.

Five. Improve teacher quality and focus on recruitment and retention;

an education system can only be as good as its teachers.

Six. Clarify and simplify the admission process; a transparent and less

complex process will encourage more fi rst-generation students to apply.

Seven. Provide more need-based grant aid while simplifying the fi nancial aid system and making it more transparent; to minimize student

debt and at least keep pace with infl ation, make fi nancial aid processes more

transparent and predictable, and provide institutions with incentives to enroll

and graduate more low-income and fi rst-generation students.

Eight. Keep college affordable by controlling college costs, using available

aid and resources wisely, and insisting that state governments meet their

obligations for funding higher education.

Nine. Dramatically increase college completion rates by reducing

the number of dropouts, easing transfer processes and using “data-based”

approaches to improve completion rates at both two- and four-year institutions.

Ten. Provide postsecondary opportunities as an essential element of adult education programs by supplementing existing basic skills training

with a new “honors GED” and through better coordination of existing adult

education, veterans benefi ts, outreach programs and student aid.

Overview 2


Completion at Every StageIn order to reach the goal of 55 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds obtaining

an associate degree or higher by the year 2025, the commission has put

forth a 10-part recommendation agenda that is aimed at strengthening

the educational pipeline at every stage throughout a student’s trajectory

from the cradle to college completion.

Preschool Elementary Middle School High School Higher Education

One

Two

Three

Four

Six

Eight

Five

Seven

Nine

Ten

33


The Commission’s Approach to Assessing the Current Status on the RecommendationsThe commission’s goal of 55 percent of young adults, ages 25 to 34, receiving

a postsecondary credential by 2025 will be measured on a regular basis, and

this annual publication can be used to measure progress toward this goal. The

measures identifi ed in this report give some indication of the current status

of where the nation and state are on the overall goal and with each of the

recommendations. As such, one or more indicators have been identifi ed that,

when taken together, allow one to infer the current status and trends over

time. The 2010 progress report served as a gauge of the current state of affairs

based on these indicators. This report will add to the data collected in the 2010

progress report and will aid in understanding trends and in measuring change

for each of the recommendations.

Enhancements to the ReportThe 2011 progress report has many new additions that are worth noting.

Although the source of most of the indicators are the same in the 2011 report

as they were in the 2010 report, it was necessary to change the source or

discontinue the use of data for some indicators. This was primarily due to

changes to the original data or the need to collect data from the primary source

(e.g., IPEDS1). In a few cases, the data were discontinued. These sources have

been replaced with the best data available, if any. Another notable change in

the 2011 report is the addition of many more disaggregations of data to the

state level and by race/ethnicity. This report also includes a state-level overview

chart at the end of each chapter and a national level overview to more easily

summarize the data presented in the chapter. These changes continue to

strengthen this report and make the data more easily digestible for the reader.

In addition, it is important to note that the recommendations drove the

decisions about which indicators to include in the fi nal report. In some cases,

data are not yet available to measure some of the indicators identifi ed in the

1. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

Helpful Icons

Students

Institutions

Gender Progress Indicators & Figures

Category

Female

Male

Positive change

Negative change

No change

Updated

New

Overview 4


report. This is an important testament to the need to continue the national

dialogue about developing effective data sources to measure educational

endeavors. The commission recognizes that the measurement of educational

efforts can take many forms. Because of the nature of the commission’s goal

and 10 recommendations, some of the indicators take the form of traditional

quantitative statistics, whereas others are in the form of narratives. Wherever

possible, data and indicators represent the most current nationally recognized

sources. Rather than create new measures to assess the educational climate,

this report seeks to determine the degree to which the commission’s goal and

10 recommendations are being met. Many high-quality data sources and reports

exist that can be used to inform current status and future progress on the goal

and recommendations. This report employs data provided by well-respected

organizations such as the National Center for Education Statistics, the National

Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, and the U.S. Census Bureau,

among others.

In the selection of the indicators to measure the commission’s goal and10 recommendations, the statistics were vetted using the following criteria:

• The indicators are rigorous. All data must meet the generally accepted

standards for rigor within the fi eld of educational measurement. All data

and collection methods are examined to ensure policymakers, educators,

parents and students can make valid inferences about the nation’s current

status on each indicator.

• The indicators are measurable on a regular basis. A key concern for

the commission is determining the degree to which progress is made

over time on the goal and 10 recommendations. Therefore, only data

sources available on a regular basis are included in this report. One-time

reports, although helpful in providing a snapshot of the status of the nation

on the goal and recommendations, will not aid in helping track progress

over the coming years.

• The indicators can be disaggregated. Whenever possible, indicators

are applicable to the nation and comparable across the 50 states and

the District of Columbia. The commission’s recommendations concern

the entire nation, thus the indicators have a national focus. Importantly,

individual states are conducting excellent work to allow policymakers

and citizens within those states to track the status and note the trends

on the goal and recommendations put forth by the commission. Many

states, such as Florida, have already built state-level data systems that are

being used to track students from preschool to college completion. Only

indicators available on a national basis are featured herein. This is a report

on the nation’s status on the commission’s goal and 10 recommendations.

The indicators highlighted in this report represent those data that are

available to help policymakers, educators, parents and students understand

where the nation stands on the goal. As policies and practices continue

to change, future iterations of this report may include new indicators that

may be added or obsolete indicators removed to ensure that the indicators

associated with each recommendation note the nation’s status and

subsequent progress on the commission’s goal and 10 recommendations.

5


A Year in ReviewSince The College Completion Agenda 2010 Progress Report was released,

the educational landscape has continued to change dramatically. These

changes directly impact the goal of the commission and each of the proposed

recommendations. In fall 2008, the nation began feeling the effects of one of

the worst periods of recession in our history since World War II. The 18-month

recession offi cially began in December 2007 and, though this recession

offi cially ended in June 2009, the effects of the recession are still lingering in

the United States today. During the recession, unemployment increased, as

did the number of home foreclosures, and budgets for both federal and state

governments declined.

The 44th president of the United States, Barack Obama, continued the road to

recovery with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009, an

economic stimulus bill that provided $787 billion to stimulate the economy, and

his administration made education a major part of this investment.2 The initial

stimulus package provided money to states to help close funding gaps and

avoid massive layoffs of teachers and professors. The Obama administration also

set aside $4 billion to fund its Race to the Top initiative, which provides grants

to states to implement education reforms that work. Several states, including

New York, Delaware, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina and Tennessee, received

these grants to improve education. The Obama administration clearly recognizes

the importance of education in securing the future of America and initiated

these major investments in education. As of 2011, much of the temporary ARRA

funding has been used, and now many states once again face the prospects

of massive layoffs of both teachers and professors. Amid this challenging

economy, it is diffi cult to imagine the effect the lingering fi scal constraints of the

recession will have on the College Completion Agenda as we move forward.

While the nation struggles to strengthen the economy, the educational

capacity of our country continues to decline. The most recent fi gures from

the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show

that the United States does not rank fi rst in the attainment of “tertiary” or

postsecondary degrees among adults in developed countries. As we continue

to decline in global competitiveness, our economic strength also continues to

weaken. In order to increase our economic position in the world, it is important

that we turn around this important trend.

According to the OECD, in 2008 our nation ranked fi fth (see Figure B) in

postsecondary attainment in the world among 25- to 64-year-olds. Figure C

shows that the United States ranked third in postsecondary attainment

for citizens ages 55 to 64 in 2008. The United States trails both the Russian

Federation and Israel in this age group. As America’s aging and highly

educated workforce moves into retirement, the nation will rely on young

2. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 2009.

Overview 6


Americans to increase our standing in the world. Figure A illustrates that among

citizens between the ages of 25 and 34 in developed countries, America ranks

12th. In this key demographic group, Republic of Korea, Canada, the Russian

Federation, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Israel, Belgium and

Australia are ahead of the United States. Also, Sweden and France are close to

parity with America. If America is to regain its status as the leader in educational

attainment and increase its economic competitiveness, the nation must make an

investment in higher education access, admission and success for all students.

Much progress has also been documented within the past year. There has been

a continued movement by states to adopt common core standards in language

arts and mathematics. To date, 45 states have adopted these standards to

provide a clear and consistent framework to prepare our children for college

and the workforce. The goal is to make sure that these students are college

and career ready and have access to a multitude of postsecondary options.

Many states are also trying new ways to increase accountability and teacher

quality. While some states like Colorado have developed evaluation systems

that tie student outcomes to teacher evaluations, other states have focused

on teacher professional development to ensure that all educators are ready to

prepare a new generation of students. Reform in relation to educator quality

has become even more prevalent due to the economic crisis. States are facing

serious decisions about teacher layoffs, which have further invigorated the

discussion about performance pay. There has also been a robust movement

around the nation toward college completion at every level (e.g., federal, state

and local). The Obama administration,3 Lumina Foundation, Bill and Melinda

Gates Foundation, the College Board, National Governors Association,4 states,

school systems, and colleges and universities around the country are trying to

fi nd ways to increase college completion despite the harsh economic climate

that has made further investments in education very scarce.

3. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fi les/college_completion_tool_kit.pdf

4. See http://www.subnet.nga.org/ci/1011/dashboards.htm

7


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Kor

ea

Can

ada

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Japa

n

New

Zea

land

Nor

way

Irel

and

Den

mar

k

Bel

gium

Isra

el

Aus

tral

ia

UN

ITED

STA

TES

Sw

eden

Fran

ce

Net

herl

ands

Spa

in

Luxe

mbo

urg

Sw

itzer

land

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Finl

and

Esto

nia

OEC

D A

vera

ge

Chi

le

Icel

and

EU19

Ave

rage

Pol

and

Slo

veni

a

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Ger

man

y

Por

tuga

l

Ital

y

Mex

ico

Aus

tria

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Turk

ey

Bra

zil

57.9

%

55.9

%

55.5

%

55.1

%

47.6

%

45.6

%

45.1

%

43.1

%

42.3

%

42.3

%

41.7

%

41.6

%

40.8

%

40.7

%

39.8

%

38.8

%

38.7

%

38.5

%

38.4

%

38.3

%

35.8

%

35.4

%

33.7

%

32.8

%

32.2

%

32.1

%

30.0

%

28.2

%

24.0

%

23.9

%

23.2

%

19.9

%

19.7

%

19.4

%

18.4

%

17.7

%

15.5

%

11.0

%

Goal

55%

Percentage of 25- to 34-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree or Higher, 2008Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010

A Updated data source

11

United States

24

Countries

Countries

Overview 8



B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70R

ussi

an F

eder

atio

n

Can

ada

Isra

el

Japa

n

UN

ITED

STA

TES

New

Zea

land

Finl

and

Kor

ea

Nor

way

Aus

tral

ia

Den

mar

k

Esto

nia

Irel

and

Sw

itzer

land

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Bel

gium

Net

herl

ands

Sw

eden

Icel

and

Spa

in

OEC

D A

vera

ge

Luxe

mbo

urg

Fran

ce

EU19

Ave

rage

Ger

man

y

Chi

le

Gre

ece

Slo

veni

a

Pol

and

Hun

gary

Aus

tria

Mex

ico

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Ital

y

Por

tuga

l

Turk

ey

Bra

zil

54.0

%

48.8

%

44.0

%

42.8

%

41.1

%

40.0

%

36.6

%

36.6

%

36.0

%

35.6

%

34.5

%

34.3

%

33.9

%

33.7

%

32.5

%

32.3

%

32.2

%

32.0

%

31.3

%

29.2

%

28.4

%

27.7

%

27.4

%

25.4

%

25.4

%

24.2

%

23.4

%

22.6

%

19.6

%

19.2

%

18.1

%

16.0

%

14.8

%

14.5

%

14.4

%

14.3

%

12.0

%

10.8

%

Updated data source

4

United States

31

Countries

Countries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Isra

el

UN

ITED

STA

TES

Can

ada

New

Zea

land

Esto

nia

Finl

and

Aus

tral

ia

Nor

way

Sw

itzer

land

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Sw

eden

Net

herl

ands

Den

mar

k

Japa

n

Ger

man

y

Icel

and

Bel

gium

OEC

D A

vera

ge

Luxe

mbo

urg

Irel

and

EU19

Ave

rage

Fran

ce

Chi

le

Slo

veni

a

Hun

gary

Spa

in

Gre

ece

Aus

tria

Kor

ea

Pol

and

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Ital

y

Mex

ico

Turk

ey

Bra

zil

Por

tuga

l

44.5

%

44.1

%

40.0

%

39.9

%

34.0

%

31.6

%

28.5

%

28.2

%

28.0

%

27.3

%

27.2

%

26.5

%

26.5

%

26.3

%

26.0

%

24.4

%

23.6

%

22.3

%

20.1

%

19.4

%

18.6

%

18.5

%

17.4

%

17.1

%

16.1

%

16.1

%

16.0

%

15.5

%

15.2

%

12.0

%

12.0

%

10.6

%

10.6

%

9.8%

9.6%

9.5%

9.1%

7.7%


C Updated data source

2

United States

33

Countries

Countries

9


Overall Goal of the CommissionThe commission believes the United States should take immediate action to

reverse its fall from the top ranks of countries with a college-educated workforce.

It warns that if postsecondary success is not made a national priority, the

country’s economic and social health will continue to weaken.

For America to be among the leaders in education and to maintain its economic

competitiveness throughout the world, the commission established a goal of

ensuring that by the year 2025, 55 percent of young Americans ages 25 to 34

earn an associate degree or higher. Part of the challenge in reaching the goal

is in increasing educational attainment for fi rst-generation, low-income and/or

underrepresented minority students. By eliminating the severity of disparities

between underrepresented minorities and white Americans, it is estimated that

more than half the degrees needed to meet the 55 percent goal will be realized.5

Reading the DocumentThe chapters in this document address the indicators used to assess the status

of the nation in achieving the commission’s goal and recommendations. Each

chapter gives an overview of the identifi ed measures, a description of their

importance, possible issues faced by policymakers, the current statistics and

points to consider when interpreting the measures. Each measure originates

from a well-respected source, and readers are encouraged to inform their

inferences about the nation’s educational progress toward the overall goal by

using the data presented in this report.

5. National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, “Adding It Up: State Challenges for Increasing

College Access and Success” (Boulder: NCHEMS, 2007).

Overview 10


Measuring the Goal: U.S. Educational Attainment Among 25- to 34-Year-Olds What is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

measures the percentage of adults in the United States between 25 and 34

years old who have at least an associate degree. The indicator is important in

assessing the postsecondary attainment of a new generation of workers in

the United States. It can be used to monitor the progress that America makes

toward the goal of being a world leader in educational attainment.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Although

completion rates refer only to the percentage of students who enter a college

or university and who actually go on to earn their degree (associate, bachelor’s,

master’s, or doctoral) at that particular institution, the completion rate refers

to the percentage of the population that eventually goes on to earn a college

degree. Current completion rate metrics for colleges and universities currently

do not account for those who persist to earn degrees after the specifi ed time

period (e.g., four years, six years or eight years), and do not currently count

the percentage of part-time students or transfer students who go on to earn

degrees. However, attainment rates capture those students who are currently

left out of the defi nition of completion rates. Also, because of the attainment

level goals that have been set by the Obama Administration, Lumina and the

College Board, attainment sets goals for both access and completion.

While colleges and universities could decrease access in an effort to meet

narrow completion goals, the same cannot be said for broader attainment

goals that are also concerned about the percentage of the population who

earn a degree. Although degree production is yet another way to measure

the attainment goal that also accounts for part-time students and those who

transfer, they are imperfect in determining institutional effi ciency (e.g., time

to degree) for colleges and universities. For example, even through colleges

and universities could meet degree production goals, students could take 10

years to complete these degrees, and that would not be an effi cient use of

money when the expectation is from four years to six years. However, it is

hard to ignore the fact that it is taking students more time to graduate from

college because of many factors, including inadequate amounts of fi nancial aid

available to students, the under-preparedness of students entering colleges and

universities and requiring remediation, and student responsibilities outside of

school (in addition to other student, institutional and environmental factors).

41.1% As of 2009, 41.1 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds have an associate degree or higher in the United States.

0.5ppts 2008–2009

69.1% As of 2009, 69.1 percent of Asians ages 25 to 34 have an associate degree or higher in the United States.

1.6ppts 2008–2009

29.4% As of 2009, 29.4 percent of African Americans ages 25 to 34 have an associate degree or higher in the United States.

0.9ppts 2008–2009

Note: PPTS stands for percentage points.

11


19.2% As of 2009, 19.2 percent of Hispanics ages 25 to 34 have an associate degree or higher in the United States.

0.6ppts 2008–2009

48.7% As of 2009, 48.7 percent of whites ages 25 to 34 have an associate degree or higher in the United States.

2008–2009

Where are we now? As of 2009, 41.1 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds have an

associate degree or higher (please note that the data presented in Figures A, B

and C are from 2008, which represents the most recent OECD data, while this

percentage represents the most recent census data from 2009). The nation is

13.9 percentage points away from the goal of obtaining 55 percent by 2025.

The percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 with an associate degree or higher

increased marginally from 38.1 percent in 2000 to 41.1 percent in 2009. If the

nation stays on its current path of growth, it is projected that we will reach 46.0

percent of 25- to 34-year-olds with an associate degree or higher by the year

2025. The projections of the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds needed to reach

the 55 percent goal by the year 2025 are also shown in Figure D. If the United

States is to achieve the goal of 55 percent by 2025, the growth in attainment

must be signifi cantly larger over the next 14 years than it was in the previous

decade; we must increase nearly one point (.86675 percent) per year.

As of 2009, 41.2 percent of adults ages 25 to 64 in the United States have an

associate degree or higher (Figure F). Just 40.8 percent of adults ages 55 to

64 have an associate degree or higher, and 41.1 percent of adults ages 25 to

34 have an associate degree or higher. What is of great concern is how the

educational attainment has changed signifi cantly between generations in other

countries, yet it remains relatively fl at in the United States. For example, 57.9

percent of adults ages 25 to 34 in the Republic of Korea have an associate

degree or higher (Figure A), compared to 12.0 percent of adults ages 55 to 64

(Figure C). In Canada, 55.9 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 have an associate

degree or higher compared to 39.9 percent of adults ages 55 to 64. Thus,

the leading countries, in terms of educational attainment of young adults, are

making signifi cant progress in building an educated workforce.

It is important for all citizens of the United States to access and succeed in

higher education. Persistent racial/ethnic gaps in educational attainment are

a daunting problem for our country and may prove to be more challenging to

overcome as the demographics of our society continue to change. Among

adults ages 25 to 34, 69.1 percent of Asians and 48.7 percent of whites have

an associate degree or higher as of 2009 (Figure E). However, only 29.4 percent

of African Americans and 19.2 percent of Hispanics have an associate degree

or higher. Differences also emerge within race/ethnicities, such that younger

Asians and whites are more educated than their older counterparts, while

young African Americans and Hispanics are not. We must make larger gains

for underrepresented minorities in the United States.

About 64.0 percent of the citizens in the District of Columbia have an associate

degree or higher, which exceeds the national goal of 55 percent that other

states should strive to reach (Figure G). More than half of the population in the

District of Columbia and Massachusetts have an associate degree or higher.

However, less than 30.0 percent of young adults in Arkansas, Nevada, New

Mexico, Louisiana and West Virginia have an associate degree or higher.

Overview 12


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2009 2025

38.1%41.1%

55.0%

46.0%

Goal

55%

Percentage of 25- to 34-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree or Higher in the United States, 2000–2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2000–2009

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Asian AfricanAmerican

Hispanic White

62.8%

46.4%48.7%

44.3%

69.1%

52.8%

29.9% 29.4% 28.5%

20.0% 19.2% 20.6%

Goal

55%

25- to 34-Year-Olds

25- to 64-Year-Olds

55- to 64-Year-Olds

Projections to

Reach the Goal

of 55% by 2025

Current Path

Projections

Percentage of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher in the United States by Race/Ethnicity and Age, 2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009

E

Updated data source

Updated data source

13


Percentage of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher in the United States by Age, 2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009

F

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

25 to 64 25 to 34 55 to 64

41.2% 41.1% 40.8%

Goal

55%

Updated data source

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? For the

United States to make headway in reaching the goal of 55 percent of young

American adults with an associate degree or higher, all Americans must have

the preparation and resources to access and successfully complete a higher

education. A major part of the challenge lies in diminishing disparities in primary

and secondary education so that low-income students and underrepresented

minority populations have the foundation needed to complete degrees without

adversely affecting other populations. For this reason, we must monitor the

educational attainment of all citizens, as well as further analyze the educational

attainment of each race/ethnicity and income group.

Overview 14


Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with an Associate Degree or Higher in the United States by State Rank, 2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey and Current Population Survey 2009Note: State-level data are calculated using ACS, while the national percentage is based on CPS.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

District of Columbia

Massachusetts

North Dakota

Minnesota

New York

New Jersey

Maryland

New Hampshire

Connecticut

Iowa

Rhode Island

Illinois

Vermont

Virginia

Nebraska

Pennsylvania

Colorado

Hawaii

Montana

Kansas

UNITED STATES

Washington

Wisconsin

South Dakota

Missouri

North Carolina

California

Utah

Ohio

Oregon

Maine

Delaware

Michigan

Georgia

South Carolina

Florida

Indiana

Kentucky

Tennessee

Wyoming

Arizona

Alabama

Texas

Oklahoma

Idaho

Louisiana

Mississippi

Alaska

West Virginia

Nevada

New Mexico

Arkansas

67.5%

53.7%

50.5%

49.4%

49.2%

46.2%

46.1%

45.9%

45.8%

45.7%

45.3%

45.2%

44.2%

44.0%

43.4%

43.4%

42.2%

41.8%

41.7%

41.1%

41.1%

40.5%

40.5%

39.6%

38.6%

38.5%

38.0%

37.8%

37.6%

37.6%

37.5%

36.9%

36.1%

35.7%

35.7%

35.5%

35.4%

33.7%

33.4%

33.3%

32.4%

32.1%

31.6%

31.5%

31.4%

31.0%

29.9%

29.6%

29.6%

29.0%

28.9%

28.6%Goal

55%AVG

41.1%

G

15


Updated data source

20

U.S. Average

31

States

States

Overview 16

OneProvide a program of voluntary preschool education, universally available to children from low-income families

WE RECOMMEND that states provide a program of voluntary high-quality, preschool education, which is universally available to 3- and 4-year-old children from families at or below 200 percent of the poverty line.


The commission believes that preschool6 education should be available

universally to ensure that all children develop the skills needed to be successful

later in school. While children of more highly educated and higher-income

families are more likely to take advantage of preschool programs, most children

from low-income families are not afforded the same opportunities.7 Preschool

programs offer children the opportunity to develop cognitive skills and prepare

them for success in later grades.8 It will be important for local, state and federal

agencies to work together to provide universal access to high-quality preschool

programs for all children, especially those from low-income families.

Programs such as Head Start are targeted for this recommendation because

they are designed to provide comprehensive school readiness to low-income

students. Preschool education can impact positively the lives of students,

parents, teachers and others. Some of the major issues in preschool education

are insuffi cient enrollment and the variety of quality programs within a state and

across the nation.

In this era of accountability, policymakers are interested in understanding what

research reveals about the impact and importance of state-funded preschool

programs. Data are being collected, but they are fragmented. The Early

Childhood Data Collaborative is committed to creating a common integrated

approach for data collection.9 Data collected from this collaborative can be used

by policymakers to make informed decisions.

The following indicators provide insight into the accessibility of preschool education to children from low-income families:

• Percentage of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool or kindergarten

programs;

• Percentage of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in state-funded pre-K

programs; and

• Percentage of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in Head Start programs.

6. The terms preschool and pre-K are used interchangeably.

7. Barnett, W. S., and Yarosz, D. J. (2007). Who Goes to Preschool and Why Does It Matter. Retrieved

June 1, 2011, from http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/15.pdf

8. Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., and Ramey, C. T. The Development

of Cognitive and Academic Abilities: Growth Curves from an Early Childhood Educational Experiment,

Developmental Psychology 37(2) (2001): 231–242.

9. The Early Childhood Data Collaborative. Retrieved May 6, 2011, from http://www.ecedata.org

Recommendation One 18


General Findings for This Recommendation• As of 2008, 47.5 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool or

kindergarten programs.

• As of 2008, 34.4 percent of 3-year-olds are in preschool or kindergarten

programs.

• As of 2008, 60.7 percent of 4-year-olds are in preschool or kindergarten

programs.

• As of 2008, 53.3 percent of Asian 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool or


• As of 2008, 45.0 percent of Native American or Alaska Native 3- and 4-year-

olds are in preschool or kindergarten programs.

• As of 2008, 52.5 percent of African American 3- and 4-year-olds are in

preschool or kindergarten programs.

• As of 2008, 38.5 percent of Hispanic 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool or


• As of 2008, 49.8 percent of white 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool or


• As of 2009, 14.6 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are in state-funded pre-K

programs.

• As of 2009, 3.7 percent of 3-year-olds are in state-funded pre-K programs.

• As of 2009, 25.4 percent of 4-year-olds are in state-funded pre-K programs.

• As of 2009, 8.6 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are in Head Start programs.

• As of 2009, 7.1 percent of 3-year-olds are in Head Start programs.

• As of 2009, 10.0 percent of 4-year-olds are in Head Start programs.

19


47.5% As of 2008, 47.5 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool or kindergarten programs.

1.5ppts 2007–2008*

34.4%As of 2008, 34.4 percent of 3-year-olds are in preschool or kindergarten programs.

1.5ppts 2007–2008*

60.7%As of 2008, 60.7 percent of 4-year-olds are in preschool or kindergarten programs.

1.7ppts 2007–2008*

Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool Programs or Kindergarten ProgramsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? The data for

this indicator represent the percentage of 3- and 4-year-olds in preschool or

kindergarten programs. It is important to monitor the percentage of particular

subgroups in preschool education to ensure that children from low-income

or minority populations have access to preschool programs. The measure is

presented by age, race/ethnicity, state rank, age by state rank and race/ethnicity

by state rank.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Preschool or

kindergarten programs help individuals develop a variety of skills that will

contribute to a productive workforce in the future.10 In an effort to assess the

relationship between the quality of preschool education and later academic and

life outcomes, the Early Learning Challenge Fund11 provides funding to support

states in building a longitudinal data system to track the educational progress

of students. In addition, the Data Quality Campaign12 is another organization

committed to providing guidance and training in the use of the longitudinal data

systems. The goals of the longitudinal data systems are to link preschool to

workforce systems, but many states have only just adopted the basic elements

needed to adequately track individuals through these systems. Policymakers

need to appreciate that even once these systems are in place, it may take

many years before there are enough data to evaluate the effi cacy of preschool

on college and career outcomes. The knowledge of these outcomes requires

a sustained commitment and likely additional funding to create shorter term

research agendas with which to address these questions.

Where are we now? As of 2008, 47.5 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are in

preschool or kindergarten programs. There are a higher percentage of 4-year-

olds (60.7 percent) than 3-year-olds (34.4 percent) in preschool or kindergarten

programs (Figure 1.1a). When disaggregated by race/ethnicity, there are fi ve

subgroups with nearly half of the subgroup in preschool education: (1) Asian

(53.3 percent); (2) African American (52.5 percent); (3) two or more races (49.9

percent); (4) white (49.8 percent); and (5) American Indian or Alaska Native (45.0

percent; Figure 1.1b). In addition, 38.5 percent of Hispanics and 30.5 percent of

Native Hawaiian/Pacifi c Islanders are in preschool programs during this time.

10. Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., and Ramey, C. T. (2001). The Development

of Cognitive and Academic Abilities: Growth Curves from an Early Childhood Educational Experiment,

Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 231–242.

11. The Early Learning Challenge Fund. Retrieved May 6, 2011, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/

earlylearning/elcf-factsheet.html

12. The Data Quality Campaign. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/

* Data are not comparable to data in 2010 Progress Report and change is based on calculation from new source.

New indicator



The District of Columbia has the highest percentage (68.5 percent) of 3- and

4-year-olds in preschool or kindergarten programs, and Nevada has the lowest

percentage (27.6 percent; Figure 1.1c). New Jersey has the highest percentage

(53.5 percent) of 3-year-olds in preschool programs, and Nevada has the lowest

percentage (19.7 percent; Figure 1.1d). The District of Columbia has the highest

percentage (84.7 percent) of 4-year-olds in preschool or kindergarten programs,

and Nevada has the lowest percentage (35.6 percent, Figure 1.1e).

Many states and the District of Columbia do not have data available by all racial/

ethnic groups for the percentage of each ethnicity in preschool or kindergarten

programs (Figure 1.1f). There are 34 states with data available for the percentage

of Asian 3- and 4-year-olds in preschool or kindergarten programs. Michigan has

the highest percentage (66.5 percent) of Asian 3- and 4-year-olds in preschool or

kindergarten programs, and Alabama has the lowest percentage (29.7 percent).

There are 16 states with data available for American Indian or Alaska Native

3- and 4-year-olds in preschool or kindergarten programs (Figure 1.1g). Wisconsin

has the highest percentage (65.1 percent) of American Indian or Alaska Native

3- and 4-year-olds in preschool programs, and North Dakota has the lowest

percentage (28.8 percent).

There are 38 states and the District of Columbia with data available for African

American 3- and 4-year-olds in preschool or kindergarten programs (Figure 1.1h).

New Jersey has the highest percentage (69.4 percent) of African American

3- and 4-year-olds in preschool programs, and Nebraska has the lowest


There are 44 states and the District of Columbia with data available for Hispanic

3- and 4-year-olds in preschool or kindergarten programs (Figure 1.1i). The District

of Columbia has the highest percentage (76.5 percent) of Hispanic 3- and

4-year-olds in preschool or kindergarten programs, and Nevada has the lowest


Data are available for all 50 states and the District of Columbia for white 3- and

4-year-olds in preschool or kindergarten programs (Figure 1.1j). The District

of Columbia has the highest percentage (79.8 percent) of white 3- and 4-year-

olds in preschool programs, and North Dakota has the lowest percentage

(34.5 percent).

There are 42 states with data available for 3- and 4-year-olds who are two or

more races in preschool or kindergarten programs (Figure 1.1k). New Jersey has

the highest percentage (66.8 percent) of 3- and 4-year-olds of two or more races

in preschool or kindergarten programs, and Nevada has the lowest percentage

(23.3 percent).

53.3% As of 2008, 53.3 percent of Asian 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool or kindergarten programs.

3.0ppts 2007–2008*

45.0% As of 2008, 45.0 percent of Native American or Alaska Native 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool or kindergarten programs.

2007–2008

52.5% As of 2008, 52.5 percent of African American 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool or kindergarten programs.

2.0ppts 2007–2008*


21


38.5% As of 2008, 38.5 percent of Hispanic 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool or kindergarten programs.

1.6ppts 2007–2008*

49.8% As of 2008, 49.8 percent of white 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool or kindergarten programs.

1.6ppts 2007–2008*

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The information in this indicator describes the proportion of 3- and 4-year-olds

in a preschool or kindergarten program. These data are not detailed enough

to parse out enrollment in preschool programs versus that of kindergarten

programs. In addition, there are a variety of preschool or kindergarten programs,

each with a different focus. The foci of the program may include but are not

limited to the following topics or approaches to teaching: child/play-centered,

teacher-directed/academic, cooperative, Montessori, Reggio Emilia and

Waldorf.13 Families are given the opportunity to choose which program may

work best for their child. Some families may be limited by their selection

because of cost, distance, transportation or other competing values.

Finally, the data presented in this measure are from the American Community

Survey and are based on three-year estimates, which mean they represent

the characteristics of the population from 2006–2008. These estimates are

available over one year, three years or fi ve years. The three-year estimates are

more precise than the one-year estimates and more current than the fi ve-year

estimates. The three-year estimates also have a larger sample size than the one-

year estimates. Use of the three-year estimates reduces the size of sampling

errors, which lead to more stable estimates than the one-year estimates.

13. Wana, J. (2010). How to choose the best preschool for your child: The ultimate guide to fi nding, getting into,

and preparing for nursery school (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc.).



National Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by Age, 2006–2008Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates

Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by Race/Ethnicity, 2006–2008Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates

1.1a

1.1b New fi gure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3-Year-Olds 4-Year-Olds

34.4%

60.7%

AVG

47.5%

American Indian/

Alaska Native

AsianAfricanAmerican

Hispanic WhiteNative Hawaiian/

Pacific Islander

Two ormore races

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30.5%

45.0%

53.3%52.5%

38.5%

49.8% 49.9%AVG

47.5%

Updated data source

23


Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates

1.1c

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


New Jersey

Connecticut

Massachusetts

New York

Illinois

Vermont

Hawaii

Louisiana

Mississippi

Florida

Georgia

Maryland

Arkansas

California

New Hampshire

Virginia

South Carolina

Pennsylvania

Michigan

Delaware

North Carolina

Rhode Island

UNITED STATES

Colorado

Kansas

Kentucky

Alabama

Minnesota

Iowa

Ohio

Oklahoma

Wisconsin

Missouri

Wyoming

Texas

Oregon

Washington

Alaska

Indiana

Nebraska

South Dakota

Tennessee

Utah

Montana

New Mexico

Maine

West Virginia

North Dakota

Idaho

Arizona

Nevada

68.5%

65.2%

61.8%

60.4%

57.7%

53.6%

53.4%

52.8%

52.2%

51.5%

50.9%

50.4%

50.1%

49.8%

49.7%

49.6%

48.8%

48.6%

48.4%

47.8%

47.6%

47.6%

47.6%

47.5%

45.6%

45.0%

44.7%

44.5%

44.4%

44.3%

44.3%

43.0%

43.0%

42.7%

42.5%

42.0%

41.0%

41.0%

40.5%

40.1%

39.9%

39.7%

39.3%

39.2%

38.7%

38.5%

37.4%

37.1%

35.8%

33.6%

33.3%

27.6%

23

U.S. Average

28

States

States

AVG

47.5%

New fi gure



Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates

1.1d

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

New Jersey


Connecticut

Massachusetts

New York

Vermont

Hawaii

Florida

Illinois

Mississippi

Arkansas

Virginia

Maryland

New Hampshire

North Carolina

Georgia

California

Louisiana

Delaware

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Rhode Island

UNITED STATES

Alabama

Colorado

Oregon

Michigan

Wyoming

Missouri

Kansas

Ohio

Washington

Minnesota

Alaska

Kentucky

Wisconsin

Montana

Iowa

Tennessee

Texas

South Dakota

North Dakota

Maine

New Mexico

Indiana

Oklahoma

Utah

Nebraska

Idaho

Arizona

West Virginia

Nevada

53.5%

51.5%

49.2%

48.1%

43.5%

43.1%

40.7%

39.5%

39.1%

39.0%

38.5%

37.1%

37.0%

36.6%

36.4%

36.0%

35.9%

35.9%

35.8%

35.6%

35.1%

34.7%

34.4%

33.4%

33.2%

32.3%

31.6%

31.4%

31.2%

31.1%

30.9%

30.9%

30.7%

30.1%

30.1%

29.3%

28.3%

28.2%

28.2%

27.7%

27.5%

27.2%

27.1%

26.7%

26.1%

26.0%

26.0%

25.1%

24.1%

23.4%

21.2%

19.7%

22

U.S. Average

29

States

States

AVG

34.4%

New fi gure

25


Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates

1.1e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


New Jersey

Connecticut

Massachusetts

New York

Louisiana

Illinois

Hawaii

Georgia

Mississippi

Michigan

California

Maryland

Vermont

South Carolina

Florida

New Hampshire

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Delaware

Arkansas

UNITED STATES

Virginia

Oklahoma

Iowa

Kansas

North Carolina

Minnesota

Colorado

Kentucky

Ohio

Wisconsin

Texas

Alabama

Nebraska

Missouri

Indiana

Utah

South Dakota

Wyoming

Washington

West Virginia

Alaska

New Mexico

Tennessee

Oregon

Maine

Montana

North Dakota

Idaho

Arizona

Nevada

84.7%

77.1%

73.8%

72.8%

72.4%

68.6%

67.8%

65.5%

65.2%

64.4%

63.7%

63.4%

63.2%

62.8%

62.1%

62.0%

61.6%

61.6%

61.4%

60.9%

60.8%

60.7%

60.3%

59.8%

59.6%

58.8%

58.8%

58.5%

58.2%

58.0%

57.8%

57.0%

56.5%

54.9%

54.5%

54.3%

53.8%

53.2%

53.1%

53.1%

51.7%

51.5%

51.4%

50.2%

50.2%

50.0%

48.1%

47.9%

44.6%

44.4%

43.2%

35.6%

21

U.S. Average

30

States

States

AVG

60.7%

New fi gure



Percentage of Asian 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates

1.1f

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Michigan

Illinois

Missouri

New Jersey

Oklahoma

Massachusetts

California

Hawaii

Virginia

Kansas

Connecticut

Ohio

Pennsylvania

UNITED STATES

Indiana

Oregon

Georgia

Florida

North Carolina

Texas

Washington

New York

Louisiana

Tennessee

Iowa

Minnesota

Arizona

Kentucky

Colorado

Maryland

Wisconsin

South Carolina

Utah

Nevada

Alabama

Alaska

Arkansas

Delaware


Idaho

Maine

Mississippi

Montana

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Mexico

North Dakota

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Vermont

West Virginia

Wyoming

66.5%

64.8%

62.6%

60.2%

59.6%

57.5%

56.6%

56.5%

55.8%

55.7%

55.6%

53.4%

53.4%

53.3%

51.7%

50.9%

50.1%

50.0%

50.0%

49.5%

49.5%

49.1%

49.0%

48.7%

47.2%

44.8%

44.4%

42.1%

41.7%

41.2%

40.9%

40.3%

33.2%

31.7%

29.7%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

13

U.S. Average

21*

States

States

AVG

53.3%

* Indicator data not available for all states.

New fi gure

27


Percentage of American Indian or Alaska Native 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates

1.1g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Wisconsin

South Dakota

Michigan

Alaska

Montana

Texas

California

New York

Washington

Oklahoma

UNITED STATES

New Mexico

North Carolina

Minnesota

Arizona

Oregon

North Dakota

Alabama

Arkansas

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware


Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Mississippi

Missouri

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

West Virginia

Wyoming

65.1%

60.4%

57.3%

55.9%

52.8%

51.1%

48.4%

48.3%

47.7%

47.1%

45.0%

42.9%

40.7%

37.6%

33.7%

31.3%

28.8%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

10

U.S. Average

6*

States

States

AVG

45.0%


New fi gure



Percentage of Black 3- and 4-Year Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates

1.1h

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

New Jersey

Massachusetts

Mississippi

New York

Arkansas


Connecticut

Illinois

West Virginia

Florida

Louisiana

Kentucky

Pennsylvania

Georgia

California

UNITED STATES

Iowa

South Carolina

Delaware

North Carolina

Wisconsin

Alabama

Michigan

Maryland

Rhode Island

Missouri

Texas

Tennessee

Virginia

Ohio

Indiana

Kansas

Oregon

Minnesota

Colorado

Oklahoma

Washington

Arizona

Nevada

Nebraska

Alaska

Hawaii

Idaho

Maine

Montana

New Hampshire

New Mexico

North Dakota

South Dakota

Utah

Vermont

Wyoming

69.4%

66.1%

65.5%

64.6%

63.0%

62.0%

58.5%

57.0%

56.8%

56.7%

56.1%

53.8%

53.8%

53.3%

52.7%

52.5%

51.7%

51.6%

50.7%

50.0%

49.9%

49.2%

48.8%

48.6%

48.5%

46.5%

46.1%

44.9%

44.9%

44.8%

44.5%

43.7%

43.3%

41.7%

40.7%

38.0%

34.1%

31.7%

30.9%

22.7%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

15

U.S. Average

24*

States

States

AVG

52.5%


New fi gure

29


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


New Jersey

Connecticut

Hawaii

New York

Massachusetts

Delaware

Michigan

Louisiana

Florida

Ohio

Kentucky

Wisconsin

California

Illinois

Nebraska

UNITED STATES

Pennsylvania

Arkansas

Wyoming

Missouri

New Hampshire

Iowa

Texas

Virginia

New Mexico

Maryland

Minnesota

Indiana

Colorado

Oklahoma

Kansas

Montana

South Carolina

Oregon

North Carolina

Georgia

Utah

Rhode Island

Washington

Tennessee

Arizona

Alabama

Idaho

Mississippi

Nevada

Alaska

Maine

North Dakota

South Dakota

Vermont

West Virginia

76.5%

59.6%

50.7%

49.2%

48.9%

46.1%

44.6%

44.5%

44.2%

42.9%

42.9%

42.5%

42.4%

42.0%

39.7%

39.7%

38.5%

38.4%

37.3%

37.1%

37.0%

36.8%

36.6%

36.1%

35.7%

35.5%

35.3%

34.5%

33.2%

33.0%

32.3%

32.2%

32.2%

31.0%

30.9%

30.4%

29.9%

27.6%

27.2%

26.5%

24.0%

23.3%

21.8%

21.6%

20.8%

19.2%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

16

U.S. Average

29*

States

States

AVG

38.5%

Percentage of Hispanic 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates

1.1i


New fi gure



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


New Jersey

Connecticut

Massachusetts

New York

California

Illinois

Rhode Island

Maryland

Georgia

Colorado

Florida

Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Louisiana

New Hampshire

UNITED STATES

Vermont

Pennsylvania

Arkansas

Texas

Kansas

Michigan

Delaware

Hawaii

Minnesota

Oklahoma

Iowa

Alabama

Kentucky

New Mexico

Oregon

Ohio

Washington

Arizona

Wyoming

Wisconsin

Mississippi

Missouri

Utah

Nebraska

Indiana

Tennessee

Maine

Alaska

South Dakota

Montana

Nevada

West Virginia

Idaho

North Dakota

79.8%

67.5%

66.7%

63.2%

60.9%

59.5%

57.8%

55.3%

55.2%

54.3%

53.2%

53.2%

52.4%

51.3%

50.0%

49.9%

49.9%

49.8%

49.6%

48.6%

48.4%

48.3%

47.6%

47.4%

46.8%

46.2%

45.9%

45.3%

44.8%

44.6%

44.4%

44.4%

44.4%

44.1%

43.8%

43.4%

43.4%

42.2%

42.0%

41.9%

41.9%

40.9%

40.1%

39.3%

38.3%

37.4%

37.3%

36.3%

35.7%

35.3%

35.0%

34.5%

17

U.S. Average

34

States

States

AVG

49.8%

Percentage of White 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates

1.1j New fi gure

31


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

New Jersey

Massachusetts

New York

Illinois

California

Hawaii

Georgia

Connecticut

Louisiana

Maryland

Idaho

Florida

Mississippi

Washington

UNITED STATES

Alabama

West Virginia

Michigan

Virginia

Arizona

Pennsylvania

Kansas

Colorado

Texas

Ohio

Minnesota

North Carolina

South Carolina

Missouri

Oklahoma

Indiana

Tennessee

Iowa

Nebraska

Rhode Island

Wisconsin

Arkansas

New Mexico

Utah

Kentucky

Alaska

Oregon

Nevada

Delaware


Maine

Montana

New Hampshire

North Dakota

South Dakota

Vermont

Wyoming

66.8%

64.7%

62.6%

60.4%

59.5%

57.8%

55.6%

54.9%

54.3%

54.0%

53.4%

52.4%

50.1%

50.0%

49.9%

48.2%

47.7%

47.1%

47.1%

46.7%

46.7%

46.5%

46.1%

45.9%

44.4%

43.9%

43.8%

43.7%

43.2%

42.8%

42.7%

42.6%

42.2%

41.6%

40.5%

40.4%

40.0%

38.7%

35.6%

35.2%

34.2%

33.9%

23.3%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAAVG

49.9%

14

U.S. Average

28*

States

States

AVG

49.9%

Percentage of Two or More Races 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates

1.1k


New fi gure



Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K ProgramsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

measures the percentage of 3- and 4-year-olds in state-funded preschool

education programs. The measure presents an overview of data representing

enrollment in state-funded child care for 3- and 4-year-olds at the state level. It is

important because it represents the percentage of 3- and 4-year-olds who have

access to state-funded pre-K programs.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? The commission

notes the importance of states developing funding formulas to assist

communities in establishing high-quality preschool programs. Also, the

commission recommends that local school boards and districts play a role in

helping to establish preschool programs. Local school boards can do this by

offering space for preschool programs to operate and by utilizing best practices

for the alignment of a preschool curriculum with the learning expectations

in kindergarten.

Where are we now? As of 2009, 14.6 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are in state-

funded pre-K programs (Figure 1.2a). Thirty-eight states reported the percentage

of 3- and 4-year-olds in state-funded pre-K programs. Vermont has the highest

percentage (35.4 percent) of 3- and 4-year-olds in state-funded pre-K programs.

Nevada has the lowest percentage (1.4 percent).

Nearly 3.7 percent of 3-year-olds in the nation are in state-funded preschool

education programs (Figure 1.2b). All of the 38 reporting states have less than

25.0 percent of 3-year-olds in state-funded preschool education, 16 of which

are less than 1.0 percent. Illinois has the highest percentage (21.2 percent) of

3-year-olds in state-funded pre-K programs.

About 25.4 percent of 4-year-olds in the United States are in state-funded pre-K

programs (Figure 1.2c). Oklahoma has the highest percentage (71.0 percent)

of 4-year-olds in state-funded pre-K programs. Minnesota has the lowest


14.6% As of 2009, 14.6 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are in state-funded pre-K programs.

0.8ppts 2008–2009

3.7% As of 2009, 3.7 percent of 3-year-olds are in state-funded pre-K programs.

2008–2009

25.4% As of 2009, 25.4 percent of 4-year-olds are in state-funded pre-K programs.

1.4ppts 2008–2009

33


When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The State

Preschool Yearbook data provide information for each state on access, quality

standards and resources for state-funded preschool programs.14 It is important

to note that preschools are only one type of educational program that districts

can target with Title I funds. The Title I funds are to support schools and districts

with the highest percentage of low-income students, which can include all K–12

students. In addition, there are several states that do not offer state-funded

pre-K programs: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, New

Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

Other states did not provide data about their enrollment disaggregated by age,

including Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wisconsin.

14. Barnett, W., Epstein, D., Carolan, M., Fitzgerald, J., Ackerman, D., and Friedman, A. “The State of Preschool

2010” (New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER, 2010).



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

**Vermont

Oklahoma

Florida

West Virginia

Georgia

Illinois

Texas

**Wisconsin

Arkansas

New Jersey

New York

South Carolina

Kentucky

Maryland

Louisiana

Iowa

UNITED STATES

Colorado

North Carolina

Tennessee

Kansas

**Pennsylvania

Connecticut

Maine

Michigan

California

New Mexico

**Massachusetts

Virginia

Ohio

Oregon

Nebraska

Washington

Delaware

Missouri

Alabama

Arizona

**Minnesota

Nevada

*Alaska

*Hawaii

*Idaho

*Indiana

*Mississippi

*Montana

*New Hampshire

*North Dakota

*Rhode Island

*South Dakota

*Utah

*Wyoming

35.4%

35.1%

33.1%

29.9%

26.7%

25.0%

25.0%

24.8%

24.6%

22.0%

21.5%

21.1%

19.1%

18.2%

15.9%

14.9%

14.6%

13.0%

12.4%

11.2%

10.6%

10.6%

9.6%

9.6%

9.6%

9.0%

8.1%

7.1%

7.1%

6.7%

6.5%

5.1%

4.8%

3.6%

2.9%

2.8%

2.7%

1.4%

1.4%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

16

U.S. Average

22*

States

States

AVG

14.6%

Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K Programs by State Rank, 2009Source: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers Graduate School of Education, The State of Preschool, 2009Note: The District of Columbia is not included.

1.2a

* No State Funded Program. ** At least one program in these states did not break down total enrollment fi gures into specifi c numbers of 3- and 4-year-olds served.

As a result, the fi gures in this table are estimates.

New fi gure

35


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Illinois

New Jersey

**Vermont

Kentucky

West Virginia

Connecticut

Colorado

Arkansas

California

Ohio

Oregon

**Pennsylvania

Texas

South Carolina

UNITED STATES

**Massachusetts

Nebraska

Washington

Missouri

Iowa

Maryland

**Minnesota

**Wisconsin

Tennessee

Nevada

New York

Alabama

Arizona

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

New Mexico

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Virginia

*Alaska

*Hawaii

*Idaho

*Indiana

*Mississippi

*Montana

*New Hampshire

*North Dakota

*Rhode Island

*South Dakota

*Utah

*Wyoming

21.2%

17.3%

17.3%

10.0%

8.5%

8.2%

6.0%

5.9%

5.4%

5.3%

4.8%

4.8%

4.7%

4.1%

3.7%

2.9%

2.9%

2.4%

1.9%

1.3%

1.2%

1.1%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

14

U.S. Average

24*

States

States

AVG

3.7%

Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K Programs by State Rank, 2009Source: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers Graduate School of Education, The State of Preschool, 2009Note: The District of Columbia is not included.

1.2b

* Indicator data not available for all states.** At least one program in these states did not break down total enrollment fi gures into specifi c numbers of 3- and 4-year-olds served.




0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Oklahoma

Florida

Georgia

**Vermont

West Virginia

**Wisconsin

Texas

Arkansas

New York

South Carolina

Maryland

Louisiana

Illinois

Iowa

Kentucky

New Jersey

UNITED STATES

North Carolina

Tennessee

Kansas

Colorado

Michigan

Maine

New Mexico

**Pennsylvania

Virginia

California

**Massachusetts

Connecticut

Oregon

Ohio

Delaware

Nebraska

Washington

Alabama

Arizona

Missouri

Nevada

**Minnesota

*Alaska

*Hawaii

*Idaho

*Indiana

*Mississippi

*Montana

*New Hampshire

*North Dakota

*Rhode Island

*South Dakota

*Utah

*Wyoming

71.0%

66.7%

53.4%

53.0%

50.1%

48.4%

45.4%

43.7%

42.6%

38.1%

35.1%

31.7%

28.7%

28.7%

28.3%

26.5%

25.4%

25.0%

21.6%

21.2%

20.2%

19.1%

19.0%

16.5%

16.4%

14.1%

12.6%

11.3%

10.9%

8.3%

8.1%

7.3%

7.3%

7.2%

5.5%

5.4%

3.9%

2.3%

1.6%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

16

U.S. Average

22*

States

States

AVG

25.4%

Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K Programs by State Rank, 2009Source: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers Graduate School of Education, The State of Preschool, 2009Note: The District of Columbia is not included.

1.2c

* Indicator data not available for all states.** At least one program in these states did not break down total enrollment fi gures into specifi c numbers of 3- and 4-year-olds served.


37


Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start ProgramsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

shows the percentage of 3- and 4-year-olds in federally funded Head Start

education programs. Head Start funding provides preschool education,

medical care, dental care, nutrition services and mental health services to its

participants.15 These multifaceted services aim to improve the overall quality

of life and provide the skills necessary to succeed later in life.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Head Start is a

federally funded program whose existence is based on yearly decisions made

by the federal government. Each year the level of funding may change based on

a variety of factors, including but not limited to the number of eligible children in

a state, approval of the federal budget and supplemental state appropriations.

For several years, the federal government has expressed concern about the

use of funds for Head Start programs across the nation. With this possibility of

variation in funding, states are increasing the amount of evidence they collect

and disseminate about the use of Head Start funds in their state.

Where are we now? As of 2009, 8.6 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds in the United

States are in Head Start programs (Figure 1.3a). Mississippi has the highest

percentage (29.4 percent) of 3- and 4-year-olds in Head Start programs, and

Nevada has the lowest percentage (2.4 percent).

Among 3-year-olds in the United States, 7.1 percent are in Head Start programs

(Figure 1.3b). Mississippi has the highest percentage (23.9 percent) of 3-year-

olds in Head Start programs. Nevada has the lowest percentage (1.4 percent).

The percentage of 4-year-olds in Head Start programs in the United States is

10.0 percent (Figure 1.3c). Mississippi has the highest percentage (34.9 percent)

of 4-year-olds in Head Start programs. Nevada has the lowest percentage

(3.3 percent).

15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (January 2010).

Head Start Impact Study. Final Report (Washington, DC), 9.

8.6% As of 2009, 8.6 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are in Head Start programs.

2008–2009

7.1% As of 2009, 7.1 percent of 3-year-olds are in Head Start programs.

2008–2009

10.0% As of 2009, 10.0 percent of 4-year-olds are in Head Start programs.

2008–2009



When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Despite every state having access to federal funds for implementing a Head

Start program, the methods and level of implementation may vary from state to

state. Participating students may receive various types of instruction.16 All Head

Start programs focus on helping children to learn, but many also focus on other

aspects of childhood.

Data presented in this measure are from The State of Preschool, which are

estimates based on data from the Head Start Program Information Reports

for 2000–2010, and the Association for Children and Families. The data do not

include children funded by state match; as such, the numbers for some states

may underestimate the percentage of students who receive services from a

Head Start program despite the source of funding.

16. Mathematica Policy Research. Results from the “I Am Moving, I Am Learning” Stage 1 Survey, 2007.

Retrieved June 17, 2010, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/eval_move_learn/reports/stage1_

survey/stage1_survey.pdf

39


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mississippi


West Virginia

Louisiana

Kentucky

North Dakota

Alabama

Michigan

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Montana

Ohio

Wyoming

New Mexico

South Carolina

South Dakota

Missouri

Illinois

Pennsylvania

Tennessee

New York

Maine

UNITED STATES

Vermont

California

Iowa

Wisconsin

Hawaii

Kansas

Nebraska

Texas

Georgia

Rhode Island

Florida

Indiana

Massachusetts

Connecticut

North Carolina

Maryland

Minnesota

New Jersey

Colorado

Alaska

Oregon

Virginia

Arizona

Washington

Delaware

Idaho

Utah

New Hampshire

Nevada

29.4%

17.7%

16.8%

15.9%

13.1%

12.8%

12.5%

12.4%

12.2%

12.0%

10.8%

10.6%

9.9%

9.8%

9.8%

9.8%

9.6%

9.5%

9.3%

9.1%

9.0%

8.9%

8.6%

8.5%

8.4%

8.3%

8.2%

8.0%

8.0%

8.0%

7.7%

7.4%

7.4%

7.1%

7.1%

7.1%

6.8%

6.7%

6.4%

6.2%

6.1%

6.0%

5.9%

5.8%

5.8%

5.4%

5.4%

5.3%

5.1%

4.8%

4.5%

2.4%

22

U.S. Average

29

States

States

AVG

8.6%

Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs by State Rank, 2009Source: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers Graduate School of Education, The State of Preschool, 2009

1.3a



Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs by State Rank, 2009Source: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers Graduate School of Education, The State of Preschool, 2009

1.3b

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mississippi

Louisiana


Arkansas

Oklahoma

West Virginia

Michigan

Kentucky

South Carolina

North Dakota

Alabama

Ohio

Montana

Missouri

Illinois

Georgia

Wisconsin

Vermont

New York

Pennsylvania

New Mexico

Kansas

Wyoming

Maine

Iowa

South Dakota

UNITED STATES

Texas

Maryland

Tennessee

Massachusetts

Nebraska

California

Connecticut

Hawaii

New Jersey

Florida

Rhode Island

Indiana

North Carolina

Minnesota

Alaska

Virginia

Colorado

Oregon

Washington

New Hampshire

Delaware

Arizona

Utah

Idaho

Nevada

23.9%

16.8%

12.9%

11.5%

11.0%

10.8%

10.1%

9.9%

9.8%

9.7%

9.3%

9.0%

8.9%

8.5%

8.3%

8.2%

8.2%

7.9%

7.9%

7.8%

7.7%

7.6%

7.5%

7.4%

7.1%

7.1%

7.1%

6.9%

6.6%

6.3%

6.2%

6.2%

5.8%

5.7%

5.7%

5.7%

5.5%

5.4%

5.3%

5.2%

5.0%

4.9%

4.9%

4.8%

4.4%

3.9%

3.6%

3.5%

3.4%

2.9%

2.3%

1.4%

26

U.S. Average

25

States

States

AVG

7.1%

41


Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs by State Rank, 2009Source: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers Graduate School of Education, The State of Preschool, 2009

1.3c

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mississippi

West Virginia


Kentucky

North Dakota

Alabama

Louisiana

Michigan

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Montana

South Dakota

Wyoming

Ohio

New Mexico

Tennessee

California

Missouri

Pennsylvania

Illinois

Maine

New York

Hawaii

UNITED STATES

South Carolina

Nebraska

Iowa

Rhode Island

Vermont

Indiana

Florida

Texas

Kansas

North Carolina

Wisconsin

Massachusetts

Idaho

Connecticut

Arizona

Minnesota

Oregon

Colorado

Delaware

Alaska

Virginia

Washington

Georgia

Utah

New Jersey

Maryland

New Hampshire

Nevada

34.9%

22.7%

22.5%

16.2%

15.9%

15.7%

15.0%

14.8%

13.0%

13.0%

12.7%

12.6%

12.4%

12.3%

12.0%

11.8%

11.0%

10.8%

10.7%

10.6%

10.5%

10.2%

10.1%

10.0%

9.8%

9.7%

9.5%

9.2%

9.1%

8.9%

8.8%

8.6%

8.3%

8.3%

8.1%

8.0%

7.8%

7.8%

7.5%

7.4%

7.3%

7.2%

7.1%

6.9%

6.8%

6.8%

6.7%

6.7%

6.4%

6.1%

5.5%

3.3%

23

U.S. Average

28

States

States

AVG

10.0%


TwoImprove middle school and high school counseling

WE RECOMMEND that states and localities move toward professional norms for staffi ng middle and high school counseling offi ces and that colleges and universities collaborate actively to provide college information and planning services to all students (with a special focus on low-income students).


Middle and high school counseling programs have the potential to build a

college-going culture and help students understand the value of and prepare

for college. To create this culture, school counselors must ensure that students

and families understand the importance of taking college-preparatory courses

and know how to navigate the college admission and fi nancial aid processes.

Middle school counseling programs are critical to ensuring that students

complete course work that will allow them to participate in a college-preparatory

curriculum upon entering high school. Middle school is not too early to start

implementing some, if not all, aspects of college counseling, and it is often too

late to begin preparing students after they reach high school.

A major function of the college counseling program in high schools is to expose

students to various colleges, universities and other postsecondary opportunities

that may fi t their career and personal goals. College counselors should help

students understand the importance of college and other postsecondary

educational opportunities and guide students through the often complex college

admission and fi nancial aid processes.17 Counselors should use their knowledge

of postsecondary options to help students choose the path that is best for their

future goals and expectations. The information provided in college and career

counseling is invaluable for low-income, fi rst-generation and other traditionally

underrepresented students who may not have access to this information.

The earlier college and career counseling begins, the better prepared students

will be for life after high school.

One comprehensive, systemic approach for providing college and career

counseling to various populations is outlined in the National Offi ce for School

Counselor Advocacy’s Eight Components of College and Career Readiness

Counseling.18 These components encourage counselors to increase student

college aspirations, aid in college and career exploration and selection, aid in

college admission processes, and aid in college affordability planning at a young

age, among other things.

The following indicators refl ect the state of middle and high school college counseling:

• Student-to-counselor ratio;

• Student-to-college-counselor ratio;

• Number of statewide comprehensive school counseling programs;

• Professional development for secondary school college counselors;

• Percentage of counselors’ time spent on tasks; and

• Implementation of the Eight Components of College and Career

Readiness Counseling.

17. American School Counselor Association, School counselor competencies. Retrieved Feb. 2, 2010,

from the ASCA website: http://www.schoolcounselor.org/fi les/SCCompetencies.pdf, 68

18. Eight Components of College and Career Readiness Counseling. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from

http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/fi les/10b_2217_EightComponents_WEB_100625.pdf

Recommendation Two 44


General Findings for This Recommendation• As of 2008, 457:1 is the average student-to-counselor ratio in the

United States.

• As of 2008, 320:1 is the average student-to-college-counselor ratio in

the United States.

• As of 2009, 36 states have a statewide comprehensive school counseling

program.

• As of 2009, 31.2 percent of secondary schools require counselors to

participate in professional development.

• As of 2009, 32.2 percent of secondary schools cover all professional

development costs.

• As of 2009, counselors spend 26.0 percent of their time on postsecondary

admission counseling.

Student-to-Counselor RatioWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

provides the student-to-counselor and student-to-college-counselor ratios. The

student-to-counselor ratio identifi es the potential access a student may have

to the counseling services provided in a particular school, district or state. The

student-to-college-counselor ratio describes the access a student may have

to an individual who is responsible for providing college counseling. These

college counselors include those who are solely responsible for providing

college counseling and those who provide college counseling among other

counseling responsibilities.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? While counselors work in schools across the nation, many of the state-level

student-to-counselor ratios suggest that school counselors are overloaded

with the number of students to whom they must provide college counseling

services. Overburdened counselors may not be able to effectively implement

a comprehensive college and career counseling program. States should adopt

policies that move toward reducing the number of students who are assigned

to a counselor. Attention should be paid also to increasing the number of school

counselors in a school, district or state to meet the recommended student-

to-counselor ratio. Some schools are trying to increase student access to

college counseling by hiring counselors who are only responsible for helping

the students complete college admission paperwork in high school. By not

providing students with college counseling in middle school, students may

be limited in their access to an academic trajectory necessary to attend the

college of their choice. For example, if a student does not take Algebra I by

457:1 As of 2008, 457:1 is the average student-to-counselor ratio in the United States.

10:1 2007–2008

320:1 As of 2008, 320:1 is the average student-to-college-counselor ratio in the United States.

4:1 2007–2008

45


eighth grade, he or she will not have access to a calculus course in high school,

which is desired by many colleges for students who want to major in science,

technology, engineering or mathematics fi elds.

Where are we now? On average, each counselor in the United States is

responsible for 457 students (Figure 2.1a). This is the lowest student-

to-counselor ratio for the nation since 1997. This is nearly two times the

recommended ratio from the American School Counselor Association of 250:1.19

Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire, Mississippi and Louisiana have less than

the recommended ratio (Figure 2.1b). California, Minnesota, Arizona, Utah and

Illinois are among the states with the highest student-to-counselor ratios.

The average student-to-college-counselor ratio trend decreases between

2005 and 2007 (Figure 2.1c). Since 2007, the student-to-college-counselor ratio

remains relatively stable at 320:1. The trend for public schools is somewhat

different from the trend for private schools. The public school student-to-college-

counselor ratio trend decreases from 383:1 in 2005 to 325:1 in 2009. The

student-to-college-counselor ratio trend for private schools fl uctuates between

214:1 and 300:1. The student-to-college-counselor ratio trend for private schools

slightly decreases between 2007 and 2008, but the latest ratio increases

toward the higher end of the spectrum, 283:1.

19. American School Counselor Association, Student-to-counselor ratios. Retrieved March 5, 2010,

from the ASCA website: http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=460

0

110

220

330

440

550

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

506 500 490 483 476 477 488 479 473 480 457467

National Student-to-Counselor Ratio, 1998–2009Source: NCES Common Core of Data, State Nonfi scal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education, 1998–2009

2.1a



Student-to-Counselor Ratio by State Rank, 2009Source: NCES Common Core of Data, State Nonfi scal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education, 2009

2.1b

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

197

209

233

234

238

272

275

308

309

318

333

335

348

353

354

356

366

372

374

381

383

386

387

387

391

398

399

411

419

432

434

434

435

440

449

457

459

464

467

491

499

507

511

522

540

613

638

672

733

743

759

814

Wyoming

Vermont

New Hampshire

Mississippi

Louisiana

Hawaii


Virginia

Montana

Maine

Arkansas

North Dakota

Maryland

Tennessee

Iowa

Rhode Island

Nebraska

Missouri

North Carolina

Oklahoma

South Carolina

Pennsylvania

Colorado

West Virginia

New Mexico

Alabama

South Dakota

New York

Kansas

Massachusetts

Florida

Idaho

Texas

Delaware

Georgia

UNITED STATES

Kentucky

Wisconsin

Alaska

Washington

Ohio

Connecticut

Nevada

Oregon

Indiana

New Jersey

Michigan

Illinois

Utah

Arizona

Minnesota

California

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35

U.S. Average

16

States

States

Goal

250AVG

457

47


When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The student-to-counselor ratio data include all school counselors and do not

identify how much time, if any, they spend providing college counseling to

students. It is important that all students receive college and career counseling

early, particularly by middle school. Middle school is a critical point at which they

must begin taking the necessary academic trajectory to prepare for college.

School and college counselors are essential to students because the counselors

improve student access to information about college and career options.

The student-to-college-counseling ratio is based on both the number of

counselors who solely provide college counseling services and those who

provide college counseling services among other services, thus it overestimates

the focus on college counseling. The data for the student-to-college-counselor

ratio are from an annual survey by the National Association for College

Admission Counseling (NACAC). As with data from any survey, responses are

requested from a sample of the population, and of those from whom responses

are solicited, only a small percentage respond to the request. The sample

for the 2009 NACAC Counseling Trends Survey is somewhat unique in that

private, nonparochial schools are overrepresented and private, parochial schools

are underrepresented.

0

110

220

330

440

550

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

383358

321 331325

348 345311 316

320

214

300254 250

283

Public

Private

Total

National Student-to-College-Counselor Ratio by School Type, 2005–2009Source: NACAC State of College Admission, 2006–2010

2.1c New fi gure



Statewide Comprehensive School Counseling ProgramsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

is the percentage of states whose pre-K–12 schools offer a statewide

comprehensive school counseling program. A comprehensive school counseling

program is one in which a plan or framework is in place that provides a

structured program and guidelines for school counselors such that counselors

are able to work with all students on career, academic and personal/social

development. Monitoring the existence of such programs is important in

order to understand how many states encourage school counselors to provide

support, encouragement and guidance to students, particularly in helping

students prepare for and succeed in college.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? While most states

have a comprehensive school counseling program, many school counselors

are often assigned to complete auxiliary tasks. The American School Counselor

Association (ASCA) recommends appropriate and inappropriate work activities

for school counselors.20 Some appropriate activities include academic planning,

interpretation of achievement tests, and advocating for students at individual

education plan meetings. Some inappropriate activities for counselors include

registration and scheduling of all new students, performing of disciplinary

actions, clerical record keeping and teaching classes when teachers are absent.

State policies should make an effort to remind and encourage teachers,

school administrators and other school offi cials to allow school counselors

the opportunity to participate in appropriate activities as suggested by ASCA

and to implement the national model of comprehensive school counseling.21

State policies should also make an effort to move toward the development of a

measure and collection of data that will determine the level of implementation

of the comprehensive school counseling programs in the state.

Where are we now? As of 2009, 36 states (70.6 percent) have a statewide

comprehensive school counseling program (Figure 2.2). The District of

Columbia and 14 states (29.4 percent) do not have a comprehensive school

counseling program.

20. American School Counselor Association, “Appropriate and inappropriate activities for school

counselors,” Retrieved from American School Counselor Association website on Feb. 2, 2010:

http://www.schoolcounselor.org/fi les/appropriate.pdf, 2008, 1.

21. American School Counselor Association, ASCA National Model. Retrieved March 5, 2010,

from ASCA website: http://www.ascanationalmodel.org/

70.6% As of 2009, 36 states have a statewide comprehensive school counseling program.

7.8ppts 2008–2009

49


When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Currently, no rigorous data are regularly available for the percentage of students

who have access to college counseling in middle and high school. Although

estimates for the student-to-counselor ratio are available, these estimates

do not take into account the myriad functions fi lled by contemporary school

counselors in addition to college counseling. Disciplinary issues, scheduling

and other guidance issues tend to crowd the schedule for the nation’s middle

and high school counselors, leaving little time to implement the ASCA national

model. Policymakers and educators must discuss ways to create a measure

that can gauge the degree to which students have access to high-quality college

counselors. Further, it is believed that more data must be collected on the

interactions between counselors and students.

States with Comprehensive School Counseling ProgramsSource: American School Counselor Association, 2011

2.2

YES 71%

NO 29%

YESAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasLouisianaMaineMassachusettsMichiganMissouri

MontanaNebraskaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaOklahomaOregonRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVirginiaWest VirginiaWisconsin

NO CaliforniaColoradoDistrict of ColumbiaHawaiiKentuckyMarylandMinnesotaMississippiNevadaNorth DakotaOhioPennsylvaniaVermontWashingtonWyoming



Professional Development for Secondary School CounselorsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? The continued

development or education of employees is a common practice across many

professions. Professional development is critical to a counselor’s ability to

provide students with current and complete access to resources for preparing

for college. This indicator measures the percentage of secondary schools that

require their counselors to participate in professional development. The measure

also gives the percentage of schools that cover all of the costs associated with

the required professional development.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure?

Although schools, districts and states require counselors to participate in

professional development, many of them do not provide the necessary funding

to enroll in courses. Policymakers should ensure that budget appropriations are

adequate to support the cost of the required professional development for all

counselors, such that counselors are not making choices related to professional

development based on convenience as opposed to quality/content. Support

for school counselors to attend professional development activities related

to college counseling may increase the potential for counselors to provide

students with the most current and useful information about college.

Where are we now? As of 2009, 31.2 percent of secondary schools require

school counselors to participate in professional development (Figure 2.3a). This

is a substantial drop from 45.1 percent in 2006. A higher percentage of private

schools (50.6 percent) than public schools (28.5 percent) require counselors to

participate in professional development. The trend decreases from 41.0 percent

in 2006 to 28.5 percent in 2009 for the percentage of public schools that require

counselors to participate in professional development. The trend varies more

over time for the percentage of private schools that require counselors to

participate in professional development.

The trend decreases from 50.5 percent in 2006 to 32.2 percent in 2009 for

the percentage of schools that cover all costs associated with professional

development (Figure 2.3b). This decreasing trend is also true for the percentage

of public and private schools that cover all costs associated with professional

development. However, a higher percentage of private schools provide their

counselors with support for professional development. The range in the

percentage of schools that support counselor professional development is

between 67.2 percent and 79.4 percent.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Another important aspect of professional development is maintaining fi delity

when implementing ideas, services and products by the trainees. Currently, the

nation lacks a measure to assess the effectiveness of professional development

for school counselors; an understanding of the variety, or lack thereof, of

professional development opportunities for counselors; and an understanding

31.2% As of 2009, 31.2 percent of secondary schools require counselors to participate in professional development.

8.7ppts 2008–2009

32.2% As of 2009, 32.2 percent of secondary schools cover all professional development costs.

2.8ppts 2008–2009

51


of the percentage of counselor professional development that is specifi c to

college counseling. It is unknown whether the common practices of a school

counselor change after participating in professional development related to

career and college readiness counseling. This indicator does not eliminate the

gap in the data; however, it will indirectly provide information about the level of

importance placed on professional development by schools, districts and states.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2006 2007 2008 2009

60.1%

41.0%

45.1%49.2%

36.6%

34.2%

61.3%

35.0%

39.9%

50.6%

28.5%

31.2%

Public

Private

Total

Percentage of Secondary Schools That Require Professional Development by School Type, 2006–2009Source: NACAC State of College Admission, 2007–2010

2.3a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2006 2007 2008 2009

79.4%

41.2%

50.5%

70.3%

39.2%

33.3%

72.2%

31.7%

39.2%

67.2%

27.6%

32.2%

Public

Private

Total

Percentage of Secondary Schools That Cover All Professional Development Costs by School Type, 2006–2009Source: NACAC State of College Admission, 2007–2010

2.3b



Percentage of Counselors’ Time Spent on TasksWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? The day-to-

day role and responsibilities of the school counselor can vary from building

to building. This measure presents the average percentage of time spent

on various tasks. The measure seeks to raise awareness of the roles and

responsibilities of school counselors and, in particular, how often the counselors

are engaged in postsecondary admission counseling. It is important to monitor

the amount of time spent on postsecondary education to ensure that students

are receiving the information, services and support they need to gain access

to college.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? When administrators gain a thorough understanding of the most appropriate

roles and responsibilities,22 they will be able to advocate for the tools necessary

for school counselors to fulfi ll their duties. Policymakers are encouraged to use

this measure in combination with the others presented in this recommendation

to ensure that there are no confl icting policies that will prevent school

counselors from working to the best of their ability.

Where are we now? The national trend is decreasing from 38.8 percent in

2006 to 26.0 percent in 2009 for the percentage of school counselors’ time spent

on postsecondary admission counseling (Figure 2.4a). The public school trend

is decreasing from 28.0 percent to 22.3 percent for the percentage of school

counselors’ time spent on postsecondary admission counseling. The private

school trend is decreasing from 60.8 percent to 53.6 percent for counselors’

time spent on postsecondary admission counseling. The nature of the public and

private school counselor’s roles differ tremendously. For example, while many

public school survey respondents are general school counselors, many of the

private school survey respondents are specifi cally college counselors.

School counselors spend their time providing postsecondary admission

counseling (26.0 percent), scheduling high school courses (23.7 percent),

providing personal needs counseling (19.5 percent) and administering various

levels of academic testing (14.0 percent; Figure 2.4b). School counselors

from public schools are similar to the general population; they spend their

time scheduling high school courses (25.1 percent), providing postsecondary

admission counseling (22.3 percent), providing personal needs counseling

(20.5 percent) and administering various levels of academic testing (14.7

percent). School counselors in private schools focus on providing postsecondary

admission counseling (53.6 percent). The next largest categories for private

school counselors are scheduling high school courses (12.8 percent) and

providing personal needs counseling (11.5 percent).

22. American School Counselor Association, “Appropriate and inappropriate activities for school counselors,”

Retrieved from American School Counselor Association website on Feb. 2, 2010:

http://www.schoolcounselor.org/fi les/appropriate.pdf, 2008.

26.0% As of 2009, counselors spend 26.0 percent of their time on postsecondary admission counseling.

2.8ppts 2008–2009

53


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2006 2007 2008 20092004 2005

60.8%

28.0%

38.8%

57.8%

32.2%

24.6%

56.4%

22.9%

29.9%

57.5%

23.1%

28.7%

54.4%

22.8%

28.8%

53.6%

22.3%

26.0%

Public

Private

Total

Percentage of Counselors’ Time Spent on Postsecondary Admission Counseling by School Type, 2004–2009Source: NACAC State of College Admission, 2005–2010

2.4a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PostsecondaryAdmissionCounseling

Choice andSchedulingHS Courses

PersonalNeeds

Counseling

AcademicTesting

OccupationalCounseling andJob Placement

Teaching OtherNon-Guidance

Activities

22.3

%

53.6

%

26.0

%

25.1

%

12.8

%

23.7

%

20.5

%

11.5

% 19.5

%

14.7

%

9.2% 14

.0%

7.6%

2.6% 7.

0%

4.8% 5.6%

4.9%

5.0%

4.7%

4.9%

Public

Private

Total

Percentage of Counselors’ Time Spent on Tasks by School Type, 2009Source: NACAC State of College Admission, 2010

2.4b



When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The percentage of time a school counselor spends on one task can vary

depending on the grade levels assigned to the school counselor. This measure

looks primarily at secondary school counselors; it does not account for the

role of the elementary school counselor. Caution should also be taken when

interpreting this measure because it is not all inclusive of every task a school

counselor must undertake. This measure reports the most common tasks

for school counselors. The American School Counselor Association highlights

all of the tasks in which a school counselor should be competent.23 ASCA

recommends counselors address the educational, vocational and personal/

social development of students. When counselors spend more time on

college counseling, there is less time to meet the demands of the other areas

recommended by ASCA.

Eight Components of College and Career Readiness CounselingWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? Eight Components of College and Career Readiness Counseling24 is a

comprehensive, systematic counseling approach for students in K–12 schools.

The approach as described in this measure is especially important for traditionally

underrepresented students because it provides them with access to information

and resources to help prepare for college opportunity and success.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? There are other

highly structured programs offering college counseling services to students

that are supported by institutions of higher education and state and federal

governments. Some of the programs include the following: Mathematics,

Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA); AVID; Upward Bound; “I Have

A Dream”; Puente; College Summit; GEAR UP; and other local programs.

The above-mentioned programs target specifi c groups of students and are

attractive to students when states, districts and schools are experiencing

budget cuts, which often lead to the elimination of a school counselor position.

When counseling positions are eliminated in schools, it is more diffi cult for the

remaining counselors to implement the eight components and prepare students

for college and career success.

Where are we now? The Eight Components of College and Career Readiness

Counseling, released in April 2010 at the annual conference of the National

Offi ce for Student Counselor Advocacy, should be applied by counselors in

23. American School Counselor Association, “School Counselor Competencies.” Retrieved on Feb. 2, 2010, from

the ASCA website: http://www.schoolcounselor.org/fi les/SCCompetencies.pdf

24. Eight Components of College and Career Readiness Counseling. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from

http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/fi les/10b_2217_EightComponents_WEB_100625.pdf

55


elementary, middle and high schools across the nation in developmentally

appropriate formats. The eight components are:

1. College Aspirations — Increase student awareness to inspire them to

attend college;

2. Academic Planning for College and Career Readiness — Help students

plan and prepare for rigorous K–12 course work that will prepare them

for college;

3. Enrichment and Extracurricular Engagement — Encourage students

to participate in activities to build their character and increase student

engagement;

4. College and Career Exploration and Selection Processes — Expose

students to a variety of colleges and careers;

5. College and Career Assessments — Promote student preparation and

participation in college and career assessments;

6. College Affordability Planning — Provide resources to help students fi nd

funding for college;

7. College and Career Admission Processes — Provide students with

information about college application requirements and deadlines for

completion; and

8. Transition from High School Graduation to College Enrollment —

Provide support for students to help them complete the fi nal steps for

enrollment in college after high school graduation.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? This indicator requires counselors to implement models that are equitable for

the students they serve. This means the method of implementation may vary

from student to student and from school to school. There are no measures

to evaluate the effi cacy of the components of college and career counseling.

An examination of the effi cacy of the components will allow counselors to

demonstrate a need for their skills in a school building, thus reducing the

possibility of losing their jobs.

In addition, policymakers and counselors should be aware that the components

in this indicator are not the only approaches for creating a college-going culture.

For example, Tierney and Hagedorn wrote a guide for improving college

preparation programs.25 The guide describes a college preparation model and

nine strategies for improving program effectiveness. The University of California

provides ideas about how to create a college-going culture; many of the ideas

are specifi c to California schools, but the concepts related to creating a college-

going culture may be applied in various settings.26 In addition, Tierney, Corwin

and Colyar edited a book that describes nine elements of effective outreach

with the intent of preparing students for college.27 Schools, districts and/or

states should work to fi nd the best approach for their students.

25. Tierney, W., and Hagedorn, L. (2002). Making the Grade in College Prep. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from

http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/pdf/makinggrade.pdf

26. University of California Los Angeles. Advancing College-Going: What Is a College-Going Culture?

Retrieved June 2, 2011, from http://collegetools.berkeley.edu/resources.php?cat_id=6

27. Tierney, W., Corwin, Z., and Colyar, J. (2005). Preparing for College (Albany: State University of

New York Press).


ThreeImplement the best research-based dropout prevention programs

WE RECOMMEND that states and local educational agencies adopt targeted interventions (starting in elementary and middle schools) focused on early warning signs of students in danger of dropping out in order to identify such students and put an “educational safety net” under them.


Measuring and understanding the numerous factors associated with dropping

out of school is daunting, and fi nding solutions to this problem is just as

challenging. The commission suggests that educators pay close attention to the

early warning signs of dropping out and that state and local educators take the

lead in implementing dropout prevention programs.

To develop an effective dropout prevention program, it is important to study

the trends and patterns of students who drop out of school in this country.

Specifi cally, it is important to know whether the dropout rate is increasing or

decreasing and which students are most likely to drop out of high school.

The following indicators can aid legislators in understanding these questions:

• Graduation rates of public high school students;

• National status dropout rates — excluding institutional populations;

• National status dropout rates — including institutional populations; and

• National event dropout rates.

Understanding the Difference: Status Versus Event DropoutThe status rates show the percentage of the population in a given age range

who have not fi nished high school or are not enrolled in school at a given point

in time. In contrast, the event dropout rates refl ect the percentage of students

who drop out of grades nine through 12 within a single year without completing

high school. Status dropout rates are generally higher than event rates, since

they refl ect the number of students in a given age range who have dropped

out of school over a number of years, rather than in a one-year snapshot. For

example, the status dropout rate (excluding institutionalized persons) was 8.0

percent in 2008, while the national event dropout rate in grades nine through 12

for 2008 was 4.1 percent.

Recommendation Three 58


General Findings for This Recommendation • As of 2008, 74.9 percent of students who enter public high school as

freshmen graduate within four years.

• As of 2008, 61.5 percent of African American students who enter public

high school as freshmen graduate with a high school diploma.

• As of 2008, 63.5 percent of Hispanic students who enter public high school

as freshmen graduate with a high school diploma.

• As of 2008, 64.2 percent of Native American students who enter public high

school as freshmen graduate with a high school diploma.

• As of 2008, 91.4 percent of Asian students who enter public high school as

freshmen graduate with a high school diploma.

• As of 2010, 25 states require exit examinations for students to earn a high

school diploma.

• As of 2010, 10 states use end-of-course examinations as the exit exam to

earn a high school diploma.

• As of 2010, seven states allow credit for exit examinations taken in other

states to earn a high school diploma.

• As of 2010, 12 states have substitute exit examination assessments to allow

students to earn a high school diploma.

• As of 2010, nine states have an alternative diploma or certifi cate that

students can earn in the place of a high school diploma.

• As of 2008, status dropouts account for 8.0 percent of the 37.6 million

noninstitutionalized civilians ages 16 to 24 living in the nation.

• As of 2008, the noninstitutional status dropout rate of American Indians or

Alaska Natives is 14.6 percent.

• As of 2008, the noninstitutional status dropout rate of Hispanics is 18.3

percent.

• As of 2008, the status dropout rate is 9.1 percent for 16- to 24-year-olds

(including institutional populations).28

• As of 2008, the status dropout rate for Hispanics is 19.0 percent (including

institutional populations).

• As of 2008, the status dropout rate for American Indians or Alaska Natives

is 16.3 percent (including institutional populations).

• As of 2008, the status dropout rate for African Americans is 10.4 percent

(including institutional populations).

• As of 2008, the status dropout rate for Asians is 3.2 percent (including


28. The status dropout rate represents the percentage of 16- through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school

and have not earned a high school credential.

59


• As of 2008, the status dropout rate for whites is 6.2 percent (including


• As of 2008, the national event dropout rate is 4.1 percent for public high

school students in grades nine through 12.29

• As of 2010, 19 states have a legal age of 16 for students to legally drop out

of school.


of school.


of school.

• As of 2008, the event dropout rate for African Americans is 6.7 percent.

• As of 2008, the event dropout rate for American Indians or Alaska Natives

is 7.3 percent.

• As of 2008, the event dropout rate for Asian or Pacifi c Islanders is 2.4

percent.

• As of 2008, the event dropout rate for Hispanics is 6.0 percent.

• As of 2008, the event dropout rate for whites is 2.0 percent.

29. The event dropout rate represents the proportion of public high schools students who drop out of grades nine

through 12 in a 12-month period.



Graduation Rates of Public High School StudentsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measures

the percentage of students who enter public high school as freshmen and

graduate with a diploma in four years. The measure is important in assessing

whether students are completing high school within four years. Graduation

rates of public high school students also show whether adequate supports are

in place to graduate students.

This indicator also provides the states that require exit examinations, states that

use end-of-course tests as the exit examinations, states that allow reciprocity

with other states’ exit examinations, states that allow substitute assessments

to count for exit examinations, and states that allow graduates to obtain

alternative credentials or diplomas. These measures are important for allowing

the reader to understand the differences in policies that exist among states that

can directly affect the graduation rates of students.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? In order to

understand the dropout problem, it is important to know the percentage of

students who enter high school as freshmen and graduate on time with a

diploma. This will help policymakers gauge the success of high schools in

getting students from the beginning of freshman year to the end of senior year

in a timely manner. Reducing the dropout rate and increasing the graduation

rate in each state will ensure that students will be eligible for postsecondary

options in higher education and in the workforce.

While not all states require exit examinations, many states do provide these

exams. However, the implementation of exit examinations and the accompanying

policies associated with exit examinations vary signifi cantly by state. While exit

examinations can inhibit students from graduating, some states accompany

these exit exams with other policies that provide opportunities for students to

show competency and obtain a high school diploma. However, other states allow

exit exams to serve as the sole determinant of graduation without accompanying

policies that allow students who fail these exams to earn diplomas.

Where are we now? As of 2008, 74.9 percent of all students in the United

States who enter public high school as freshmen graduate on time (Figure 3.1a).

The national graduation rate is relatively stable since 2003, peaking at 75.0

percent in 2004.

Despite the slight gain in the overall graduation rate, the racial gaps in

graduation rates remain strikingly large (Figure 3.1b). With African American,

Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native students from the class of

2008 graduating at rates of no more than 64.2 percent, a gap of as much

74.9% As of 2008, 74.9 percent of students who enter public high school as freshmen earn a high school diploma within four years.

1.5ppts 2007–2008

61.5% As of 2008, 61.5 percent of African American students who enter public high school as freshmen graduate with a high school diploma.

1.2ppts 2007–2008

63.5% As of 2008, 63.5 percent of Hispanic students who enter public high school as freshmen graduate with a high school diploma.

1.2ppts 2007–2008

61


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

73.9% 75.0% 74.7% 73.2% 73.9% 74.9%

National Average Graduation Rates for Public High School Students, 2003–2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: This is based on the percentage of public high school students who enter school as freshmen and graduate in four years.

3.1a64.2% As of 2008, 64.2 percent of Native American students who enter public high school as freshmen graduate with a high school diploma.

2.9ppts 2007–2008

91.4% As of 2008, 91.4 percent of Asian students who enter public high school as freshmen graduate with a high school diploma.

2007–2008

49.0% As of 2010, 25 states require exit examinations for students to earn a high school diploma.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AfricanAmerican

AmericanIndian/

Alaska Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic White

89.9

%

156,687

138,589

144,675

61.8

%

31,707

29,724

28,060

59.1

%

60.3

%

61.5

%

61.4

%

443,328

376,396

377,499

80.6

%

1,853,476

1,723,915

1,634,143

80.3

%

81.0

%

61.3

%

64.2

%

91.4

%

91.4

%

62.3

%

63.5

%

415,111

374,075

335,746

New indicator for 2011

National Average Graduation Rates for Public High School Students by Race/Ethnicity, 2006–2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data, 2008–2010Note: (1) This is based on the percentage of public high school students who enter school as freshmenand graduate in four years. (2) Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specifi ed.

3.1b 2008

2007

2006



Average Graduation Rates for Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: (1) NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report diploma count. (2) Maine reported 1,161 diplomas that were awarded to students attending private high schools who received a majority of their funding from public sources. These 1,161 diplomas were included in Maine and the Reporting States counts but were not included in the graduation rate calculations for the state and for the reporting states total. The diploma counts used to calculate the graduation rates for Maine and for the United States were 13,189 and 2,964,125, respectively. (3) This is based on the percentage of public high school students who enter school as freshmen and graduate in four years.

3.1c

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Wisconsin

Vermont

Iowa

Minnesota

New Jersey

South Dakota

Nebraska

North Dakota

New Hampshire

Pennsylvania

Missouri

Connecticut

Montana

Massachusetts

Illinois

Maryland

Idaho

Kansas

Maine

Ohio

Oklahoma

West Virginia

Virginia

Oregon

Arkansas

Rhode Island

Michigan

Hawaii

Wyoming

Colorado

Tennessee

UNITED STATES

Kentucky

Utah

Indiana

Texas

North Carolina

Delaware

Washington

California

New York

Arizona

Alaska

Alabama

Florida

New Mexico

Georgia

Mississippi

Louisiana


Nevada

South Carolina

89.6%

89.3%

86.4%

86.4%

84.6%

84.4%

83.8%

83.8%

83.4%

82.7%

82.4%

82.2%

82.0%

81.5%

80.4%

80.4%

80.1%

79.1%

79.1%

79.0%

78.0%

77.3%

77.0%

76.7%

76.4%

76.4%

76.3%

76.0%

76.0%

75.4%

74.9%

74.9%

74.4%

74.3%

74.1%

73.1%

72.8%

72.1%

71.9%

71.2%

70.8%

70.7%

69.1%

69.0%

66.9%

66.8%

65.4%

63.9%

63.5%

56.0%

51.3%

NA

65,183

7,392

34,573

60,409

94,994

8,582

20,035

6,999

14,982

130,298

61,717

38,419

10,396

65,197

135,143

59,171

16,567

30,737

14,350

120,758

37,630

17,489

77,369

34,949

28,725

10,347

115,183

11,613

5,494

46,082

57,486

2,965,286

39,339

28,167

61,901

252,121

83,307

7,388

61,625

374,561

176,310

61,667

7,855

41,346

149,046

18,264

83,505

24,795

34,401

3,352

17,149

NA

31

U.S. Average

19*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

74.9%


63


19.6%As of 2010, 10 states use end-of-course examinations as the exit exam to earn a high school diploma.

13.7% As of 2010, 7 states allow credit for exit examinations taken in other states to earn a high school diploma.

as 29 percentage points divide these historically underserved students of

color/underrepresented populations from their Asian/Pacifi c Islander peers.

The gap between the underserved students and their white peers is 16.8

percentage points.

When disaggregated by state, the average freshman graduation rate for public

high school students ranges from 51.3 percent in Nevada to 89.6 percent in

Wisconsin (Figure 3.1c). When placed in rank order, the states with the highest

graduation rates are Wisconsin, Vermont, Iowa, Minnesota and New Jersey.

The states with the lowest graduation rates are Nevada, the District of

Columbia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia.

The average freshman graduation rate for Asian American or Pacifi c Islander

public high school students ranges from 73.5 percent in Utah to 100.0 percent

in 12 states (Figure 3.1d). When placed in rank order, the states with the highest

graduation rates for Asian American or Pacifi c Islander students are Arkansas,

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New

Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and West Virginia (Figure 3.1d). The states

with the lowest graduation rates for these students are Utah, Rhode Island,

the District of Columbia, Alaska and Hawaii.

The average freshman graduation rate for American Indian or Alaska Native public

high school students ranges from 38.5 percent in Wyoming to 100.0 percent

in the District of Columbia and New Jersey (Figure 3.1e). When placed in rank

order, the states with the highest graduation rates for American Indian or Alaska

Native students are the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri and

Arkansas (Figure 3.1e). The states with the lowest graduation rates for these

students are Wyoming, North Dakota, Washington, Kentucky and South Dakota.

The average freshman graduation rate for African American public high school

students ranges from 51.8 percent in Alaska to 100.0 percent in New Hampshire

(Figure 3.1f). When placed in rank order, the states with the highest graduation

rates for African American students are New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont,

South Dakota and Idaho (Figure 3.1f). The states with the lowest graduation rates

for these students are Alaska, Indiana, Louisiana, Utah and New York.

The average freshman graduation rate for Hispanic public high school students

ranges from 48.1 percent in New Hampshire to 100.0 percent in Vermont (Figure

3.1g). When placed in rank order, the states with the highest graduation rates for

Hispanic students are Vermont, Alaska, West Virginia, Missouri and Arkansas. The

states with the lowest graduation rates for these students are New Hampshire,

Utah, New York, the District of Columbia and Georgia.

The average freshman graduation rate for white public high school students

ranges from 67.0 percent in Mississippi to 94.0 percent in Wisconsin (Figure

3.1h). When placed in rank order, the states with the highest graduation rates

for white students are Wisconsin, Minnesota, District of Columbia, Nebraska

and New Jersey (Figure 3.1h). The states with the lowest graduation rates are

Mississippi, Florida, Alaska, Georgia and Louisiana.



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Arkansas

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Maryland

Missouri

Montana

New Jersey

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

New Hampshire

Virginia

Connecticut

Texas

Arizona

Wyoming

Nebraska

Wisconsin

South Dakota

Ohio

Michigan

Tennessee

Kansas

Iowa

Georgia

Colorado

Idaho

Florida

UNITED STATES

Oregon

California

Massachusetts

Mississippi

Minnesota

Alabama

North Carolina

Louisiana

North Dakota

Washington

New York

Vermont

Hawaii

Alaska


Rhode Island

Utah

Maine

Delaware

Nevada

South Carolina

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

99.2%

99.1%

99.0%

98.6%

98.5%

98.5%

97.8%

97.5%

97.4%

95.3%

94.8%

94.3%

93.4%

93.2%

92.9%

92.1%

91.5%

91.4%

91.4%

91.2%

91.1%

89.1%

88.3%

87.9%

87.3%

86.9%

86.1%

85.9%

84.4%

84.2%

81.8%

77.3%

76.6%

74.4%

74.4%

73.5%

RSNM

NA

NA

NA

513

6,000

844

390

3,392

1,024

133

7,501

297

867

3,439

147

257

4,689

1,307

9,750

1,878

67

355

2,428

111

1,749

2,807

906

710

631

2,868

1,617

279

4,255

156,687

1,811

54,019

3,072

280

3,351

474

1,944

622

55

5,496

13,720

99

8,718

575

58

314

868

234

NA

1,678

NA

30

U.S. Average

17*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

91.4%

Average Graduation Rates for Asian American or Pacifi c Islander Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: (1) NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report diploma count by race/ethnicity. Nevada did not report membership data needed to calculate the graduation rate by race/ethnicity. (2) RSNM is Reporting standards not met. Maine reported 1,161 diplomas that were awarded to students attending private high schools who received a majority of their funding from public sources. Because the racial/ethnic breakdown of these students was not known, and because these students were not reported on Maine’s state-level reporting in the past, the graduation rate was not calculated by race/ethnicity, nor were Maine’s data included among the United States total. (3) This is based on the percentage of public high school students who enter school as freshmen and graduate in four years. (4) This race category excludes persons of Hispanic origin.

3.1d


New fi gure

65


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


New Jersey

Illinois

Missouri

Arkansas

Vermont

Alabama

Hawaii

Texas

Rhode Island

Oklahoma

Ohio

Wisconsin

Maryland

Georgia

Tennessee

Florida

West Virginia

Indiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Connecticut

Idaho

California

Louisiana

UNITED STATES

Kansas

Pennsylvania

Iowa

Montana

Oregon

Colorado

New Mexico

North Carolina

New Hampshire

Mississippi

Utah

Arizona

Minnesota

New York

Virginia

Nebraska

Alaska

South Dakota

Kentucky

Washington

North Dakota

Wyoming

Maine

Delaware

Nevada

South Carolina

100.0%

100.0%

95.8%

93.2%

86.9%

83.9%

82.3%

80.3%

80.1%

78.0%

76.4%

74.1%

73.9%

73.4%

72.1%

71.9%

70.3%

70.0%

69.8%

66.8%

66.6%

65.8%

65.8%

65.3%

65.2%

64.2%

63.9%

63.8%

63.6%

63.3%

62.8%

62.0%

61.0%

60.7%

60.0%

58.0%

57.6%

56.3%

55.6%

55.5%

55.2%

55.1%

51.9%

51.3%

51.0%

50.6%

47.0%

38.5%

RSNM

NA

NA

NA

3

227

318

273

185

47

437

53

944

64

6,770

160

800

193

145

105

443

14

141

161

967

104

202

3,071

238

31,707

382

146

159

904

725

438

2,177

1,010

30

40

382

3,625

830

599

200

228

1,523

515

53

1,219

357

100

73

NA

252

NA

25

U.S. Average

22*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

64.2%

3.1e


Average Graduation Rates for American Indian or Alaska Native Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: (1) NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report diploma count by race/ethnicity. Nevada did not report membership data needed to calculate the graduation rate by race/ethnicity. (2) Note: RSNM is Reporting standards not met. Maine reported 1,161 diplomas that were awarded to students attending private high schools who received a majority of their funding from public sources. Because the racial/ethnic breakdown of these students was not known, and because these students were not reported on Maine’s state-level reporting in the past, the graduation rate was not calculated by race/ethnicity, nor were Maine’s data included among the United States total. (3) This is based on the percentage of public high school students who enter school as freshmen and graduate in four years. (4) This race category excludes persons of Hispanic origin.

New fi gure



Average Graduation Rates for African American Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: (1) NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report diploma count by race/ethnicity. Nevada did not report membership data needed to calculate the graduation rate by race/ethnicity. (2) RSNM is Reporting standards not met. Maine reported 1,161 diplomas that were awarded to students attending private high schools who received a majority of their funding from public sources. Because the racial/ethnic breakdown of these students was not known, and because these students were not reported on Maine’s state-level reporting in the past, the graduation rate was not calculated by race/ethnicity, nor were Maine’s data included among the United States total. (3) This is based on the percentage of public high school students who enter school as freshmen and graduate in four years. (4) This race category excludes persons of Hispanic origin.

3.1f

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

New Hampshire

North Dakota

Vermont

South Dakota

Idaho

Arizona

Rhode Island

Maryland

New Jersey

Oklahoma

West Virginia

Iowa

New Mexico

Connecticut

Arkansas

Hawaii

Massachusetts

Missouri

Kentucky

Tennessee

Minnesota

Oregon

Texas

Virginia

Colorado

Kansas

Montana

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

North Carolina

Wyoming

Illinois

UNITED STATES

Alabama

Mississippi

Michigan


Washington

California

Georgia

Nebraska

Florida

Ohio

New York

Utah

Louisiana

Indiana

Alaska

Maine

Delaware

Nevada

South Carolina

100.0%

95.1%

91.2%

88.4%

78.2%

76.9%

74.7%

73.0%

72.9%

72.4%

72.3%

71.9%

71.4%

71.1%

70.2%

69.6%

69.6%

68.0%

67.8%

67.4%

66.6%

65.8%

65.7%

65.3%

65.1%

64.7%

64.6%

64.5%

63.1%

61.9%

61.8%

61.5%

61.5%

60.6%

60.5%

59.2%

58.8%

58.2%

57.4%

57.4%

57.0%

55.7%

55.5%

54.7%

54.4%

53.3%

52.6%

51.8%

RSNM

NA

NA

NA

320

98

93

129

133

3,398

890

20,602

14,776

3,926

724

1,266

467

4,775

6,132

217

5,161

9,178

3,769

13,207

3,678

830

33,873

17,960

2,498

2,217

53

16,111

4,827

23,002

55

21,728

415,111

13,343

11,660

19,158

2,871

2,699

25,911

29,010

1,049

30,239

14,956

28,814

229

13,253

5,564

262

285

NA

1,449

NA

32

U.S. Average

15*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

61.5%


New fi gure

67


Average Graduation Rates for Hispanic Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: (1) NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report diploma count by race/ethnicity. Nevada did not report membership data needed to calculate the graduation rate by race/ethnicity. (2) RSNM is Reporting standards not met. Maine reported 1,161 diplomas that were awarded to students attending private high schools who received a majority of their funding from public sources. Because the racial/ethnic breakdown of these students was not known, and because these students were not reported on Maine’s state-level reporting in the past, the graduation rate was not calculated by race/ethnicity, nor were Maine’s data included among the United States total. (3) This is based on the percentage of public high school students who enter school as freshmen and graduate in four years.

3.1g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Vermont

Alaska

West Virginia

Missouri

Arkansas

New Jersey

Maryland

Kentucky

Wisconsin

Oklahoma

Louisiana

Tennessee

Hawaii

Oregon

South Dakota

Virginia

Iowa

Rhode Island

Illinois

Montana

Idaho

Pennsylvania

Nebraska

Arizona

Indiana

Mississippi

Texas

Connecticut

Ohio

Wyoming

Massachusetts

Florida

Michigan

North Carolina

North Dakota

UNITED STATES

Minnesota

New Mexico

Alabama

Kansas

California

Washington

Colorado

Georgia


New York

Utah

New Hampshire

Maine

Delaware

Nevada

South Carolina

100.0%

90.7%

87.8%

83.6%

77.9%

76.4%

75.9%

75.6%

75.0%

73.0%

72.3%

72.3%

71.3%

71.0%

71.0%

70.5%

70.2%

70.1%

69.6%

69.5%

68.7%

67.8%

67.2%

66.7%

66.6%

65.9%

65.9%

65.8%

65.6%

65.5%

64.7%

63.9%

63.8%

63.7%

63.7%

63.5%

62.3%

62.3%

62.2%

62.2%

61.2%

60.3%

56.7%

55.4%

54.2%

53.1%

50.6%

48.1%

RSNM

NA

NA

NA

72

389

115

1,498

1,421

14,593

3,555

585

2,840

2,476

672

1,567

468

3,849

125

4,394

1,267

1,605

18,411

191

1,632

5,978

1,434

20,276

2,433

271

94,571

4,451

2,046

381

6,377

31,721

3,500

4,228

79

443,328

1,788

8,740

684

2,474

142,491

5,678

8,454

4,309

277

26,698

2,063

201

129

NA

3,620

NA

35

U.S. Average

12*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

63.5%


New fi gure



Average Graduation Rates for White Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: (1) NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report diploma count by race/ethnicity. Nevada did not report membership data needed to calculate the graduation rate by race/ethnicity. (2) Note: RSNM is Reporting standards not met. Maine reported 1,161 diplomas that were awarded to students attending private high schools who received a majority of their funding from public sources. Because the racial/ethnic breakdown of these students was not known, and because these students were not reported on Maine’s state-level reporting in the past, the graduation rate was not calculated by race/ethnicity, nor were Maine’s data included among the United States total. (3) This is based on the percentage of public high school students who enter school as freshmen and graduate in four years. (4) This race category excludes persons of Hispanic origin.

3.1h

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Wisconsin

Minnesota


Nebraska

New Jersey

South Dakota

Iowa

North Dakota

Illinois

Connecticut

Pennsylvania

Missouri

Maryland

Montana

Massachusetts

Ohio

New Hampshire

Colorado

New York

Kansas

Idaho

Michigan

Texas

Vermont

UNITED STATES

Virginia

California

Oklahoma

Rhode Island

Wyoming

Utah

Arkansas

North Carolina

Tennessee

West Virginia

Oregon

Indiana

New Mexico

Kentucky

Alabama

Arizona

Washington

Hawaii

Louisiana

Georgia

Alaska

Florida

Mississippi

Maine

Delaware

Nevada

South Carolina

94.0%

90.3%

88.9%

88.6%

88.3%

88.3%

88.0%

87.8%

87.7%

87.5%

86.9%

85.2%

84.9%

84.7%

84.4%

84.4%

83.3%

82.9%

82.7%

82.4%

81.7%

81.6%

81.6%

81.1%

81.0%

80.8%

80.1%

79.0%

79.0%

78.5%

77.9%

77.7%

77.3%

77.3%

77.3%

77.1%

75.9%

74.7%

74.2%

73.9%

73.6%

73.6%

72.7%

71.9%

70.7%

70.3%

70.1%

67.0%

RSNM

NA

NA

NA

54,288

50,762

144

16,969

57,702

7,707

31,250

6,410

87,097

27,782

104,355

49,744

31,429

9,115

49,566

99,936

14,174

33,075

106,219

24,349

14,321

88,225

112,983

6,408

1,853,476

49,155

141,011

23,591

7,474

4,891

24,549

20,474

51,582

41,700

16,489

26,846

51,810

6,583

34,185

26,375

32,490

45,905

2,157

19,616

45,701

4,742

79,596

12,544

13,629

NA

10,150

NA

24

U.S. Average

23*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

81.0%


New fi gure

69


States with Exit Examinations, 2010Source: Education Commission of the States, 2010Note: Indiana — beginning with the class of 2012, students will be required to pass end-of-course assessments instead of the GQE. Oklahoma — effective with the class of 2012.

States Where End-of-Course Exams Are Used as the Exit Exam, 2010Source: Education Commission of the States, 2010

3.1i

3.1j

YES 49.0% NO 51.0%

YESAlabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Florida Georgia Idaho Indiana Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Mississippi Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina

Ohio Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Washington Minnesota

NOColorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Hawaii Illinois Iowa Kansas

Kentucky Maine Michigan Missouri Montana Nebraska New Hampshire North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Utah Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

YES 19.6%

NO 31.4%

NO EXIT

EXAM 49.0%

YESArkansas Maryland Mississippi New York North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia

NOAlabama Alaska Arizona California Florida Georgia Idaho Indiana Louisiana Massachusetts Minnesota Nevada New Jersey New Mexico Ohio Washington

NO EXIT EXAMColorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Hawaii Illinois Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Michigan Missouri Montana Nebraska New Hampshire North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Utah Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

New fi gure

New fi gure



States That Have Reciprocity with Other States’ Exit Exams, 2010Source: Education Commission of the States, 2010

States with Substitute Assessments, 2010Source: Education Commission of the States, 2010

3.1k

3.1l

NO 37.3%

YES

13.7%

NO EXIT

EXAM 49.0%

YESAlaska Arizona Idaho Indiana Maryland Mississippi Ohio

NOAlabama Arkansas California Florida Georgia Louisiana Massachusetts Minnesota Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Washington


New fi gure

New fi gure

NO 27.5%

YES 23.5%

NO EXIT

EXAM 49.0%

YESAlabama Arkansas Florida Idaho Maryland New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Texas Virginia Washington

NOAlaska Arizona California Georgia Indiana Louisiana Massachusetts Minnesota Mississippi Nevada Ohio Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee


71


States with Alternative Diploma or Certifi cate, 2010Source: Education Commission of the States, 2010

3.1m

NO 33.3%

YES 17.6%

NO EXIT

EXAM 49.0%

YESAlaska Florida Georgia Nevada New Mexico North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia

NOAlabama Arizona Arkansas California Indiana Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Mississippi New Jersey New York Ohio Oklahoma Texas Washington Idaho


New fi gure



Figure 3.1i shows that 26 states require exit examinations for students to earn

a high school diploma. Ten states use end-of-course examinations as the exit

exam or as part of the exit examination requirements in that state (Figure 3.1j).

Seven states allow credit for exit examinations taken in other states to count

toward earning a high school diploma in that state (Figure 3.1k). Twelve states

allow the use of substitute exit examinations such as the ACT or the SAT® to take

the place of the regular exit examination if the student fails to pass the state-level

examination (Figure 3.1l). Nine states allow students to earn an alternative diploma

or certifi cate if they fail to pass the exit examination in that state (Figure 3.1m).

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? When comparing the graduation rates across the nation, readers should

consider that the requirements for graduation may vary from state to state. In

many states, students are required to pass a state examination and complete

varying years of course work in English language arts, mathematics, science

and social studies.30

While graduation rates vary across states, there is also great variability within

states. State graduation rates can be heavily infl uenced by a small number

of districts. Recent studies undertaken for Diplomas Count 2010 reveal that a

number of states such as California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada and New York are

impacted by these dropout epicenters.31

It is also important to note the relationship between dropout rates and

graduation rates. Students who receive an alternative high school credential

(i.e., a certifi cate of attendance or a high school equivalency degree) and those

who take more than four years to complete high school are not considered

on-time completers or dropouts. Thus one should not expect the averaged

freshmen graduation rates and the dropout rates to account for all high school

students. This considered, one would expect a high dropout rate to accompany

a low graduation rate and vice versa. This relationship is found for some states

but not for every state.

Finally, the U.S. Department of Education issued regulations in January 2009

that established a single graduation rate calculation across all states. States will

be required to establish an accurate method of calculating a graduation rate that

is uniform across states. The rate must be disaggregated by student subgroups

for both reporting and accountability purposes. The purpose of establishing a

single graduation rate calculation is to improve the accuracy of graduation rate

calculations. Written confi rmation will also ensure that dropout students and

students who have transferred are accounted for appropriately.32

When examining data on graduation rates, it is important to understand what

exit examination policies, if any, exist for students in a state. These policies, or

the lack of these policies, can have a direct infl uence on graduation rate. The

reader is cautioned to take these policies into account when examining and

comparing graduation rates.

30. Doughnay, J. (2006). Alignment of high school graduation requirements and state-set college admissions

requirements. Retrieved June 17, 2010, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/68/60/6860.pdf

31. www.edweek.org/go/dc10

32. Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary, April 1, 2009: www.usde.com

23.5% As of 2010, 12 states have substitute exit examination assessments to allow students to earn a high school diploma.

17.6% As of 2010, 9 states have an alternative diploma or certifi cate that students can earn in the place of a high school diploma.

73


8.0% As of 2008, status dropouts account for 8.0 percent of the 37.6 million noninstitutionalized civilians ages 16 to 24 living in the nation.

0.7ppts 2007–2008

18.3% As of 2008, the noninstitutional status dropout rate of Hispanics is 18.3 percent.

3.1ppts 2007–2008

National Status Dropout Rate — Excluding Institutional PopulationsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measures

the percentage of noninstitutionalized individuals ages 16 through 24 who are

not enrolled in high school and who do not have a high school credential (e.g.,

diploma or certifi cate of General Education Development [GED]). It refl ects the

percentage of this age group who do not have a basic high school education.

It excludes individuals living in military barracks, adult or juvenile correctional

facilities, or nursing or other health care facilities and is irrespective of when the

individual dropped out of school. This measure helps gauge the challenges to

overall educational attainment at the national level across years.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? It is important

for states to identify and support students who drop out. Minority and fi rst-

generation students are reported as more likely to be at risk of dropping out of

K–12 schools. States should implement a dropout prevention program as well as

work to improve the high school performance of their at-risk students overall.

Where are we now? As of 2008, just over three million 16- to 24-year-olds

are not enrolled in high school and have not earned a high school diploma or

alternative credential. These dropouts account for 8.0 percent of the 37.6 million

noninstitutionalized civilians ages 16 through 24 in the nation. This estimate

decreased since 1999 when the status dropout rate of noninstitutionalized

16- to 24-year-olds was 11.2 percent (Figure 3.2a).

While the noninstitutionalized status dropout rate decreased overall, the rates

are still high for many racial and ethnic groups. As of 2008, the status dropout

rate for those of two or more races is 4.2 percent and 4.4 percent for Asian or

Pacifi c Islanders, and the dropout rate is considerably higher among Hispanics

and American Indian or Alaska Natives (18.3 percent and 14.6 percent,

respectively) (Figure 3.2b). African Americans’ status dropout rate is 9.9 percent.



0

5

10

15

20

25

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

11.2% 10.9% 10.7% 10.5% 9.9% 10.3%9.4% 9.3%

8.0%8.7%

0

5

10

15

20

25

AfricanAmerican

AmericanIndian/

Alaska Native


Hispanic White(Non-Hispanic)

Two orMoreRaces

4.8%

18.3%

4.4%

14.6%

9.9%

535,000 43,000

4.2%

67,000 30,0001,232,000 1,103,000

AVG

8.0%

National Status Dropout Rates — Excluding Institutional Populations, 1999–2008Source: NCES, Condition of Education, 2010

3.2a

National Status Dropout Rates by Race/Ethnicity — Excluding Institutional Populations, 2008Source: NCES, Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States, 2010Note: (1) Respondents were able to identify themselves as being two or more races. The white (non-Hispanic), African American (non-Hispanic), Asian/Pacifi c Islander (non-Hispanic) and American Indian/Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) categories consist of individuals who considered themselves to be one race and who did not identify as Hispanic. Non-Hispanics who identifi ed themselves as multiracial are included in the Two or More Races (non-Hispanic) category. The Hispanic category consists of Hispanics of all races and racial combinations. (2) Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin unless specifi ed.

3.2b

75


The dropout rate for noninstitutional males is 8.5 percent, compared to 7.5

percent for females (Figure 3.2c).

The status dropout rate is the highest among 19-year-olds (Figure 3.2d). The

rate ranges from 2.2 percent for 16-year-olds, 7.8 percent for 18-year-olds, to 9.9

percent for 19-year-olds.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The status

dropout rates in this indicator are calculated using the United States Census

Current Population Survey (CPS), which is based on the noninstitutionalized

population in the United States. This rate does not provide information about

military personnel or individuals residing in group quarters, such as prison

inmates or patients in long-term medical facilities. The data from this indicator

should be interpreted with caution because of the inclusion of immigrants (e.g.,

individuals who may have never attended a school in the United States). In

addition, these data from the CPS are not directly comparable to the dropout

rates from the American Community Survey (ACS).33 One advantage of the data

from the CPS over that of the ACS is the ability to examine historical trends.

33. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/factsheet.html

14.6% As of 2008, the noninstitutional status dropout rate of American Indians or Alaska Natives is 14.6 percent.

4.8ppts 2007–2008

9.9% As of 2008, the noninstitutional status dropout rate of African Americans is 9.9 percent.

1.5ppts 2007–2008



4.4% As of 2008, the noninstitutional status dropout rate of Asians is 4.4 percent.

1.7ppts 2007–2008

4.8% As of 2008, the noninstitutional status dropout rate of whites is 4.8 percent.

0.5ppts 2007–2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

Female Male

8.5%7.5%

1,403,000 1,606,000

AVG

8.0%

0

5

10

15

20

25

16 17 18 19 20–24

93,000 216,000 337,000 413,000 1,951,000

5.0%

2.2%

7.8%

9.9% 9.5%AVG

8.0%

National Status Dropout Rates by Gender — Excluding Institutional Populations, 2008Source: NCES, Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States, 2010

3.2c

National Status Dropout Rates by Age — Excluding Institutional Populations, 2008Source: NCES, Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States, 2010

3.2d

77


National Status Dropout Rate — Including Institutional PopulationsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measures

the overall percentage of individuals ages 16 through 24 who are not enrolled in

high school and who do not have a high school credential (e.g., diploma or GED),

irrespective of when they dropped out or whether they are in an institutional or

noninstitutional setting. It refl ects the percentage of this age group that does

not have a basic high school education. The measure is based on the American

Community Survey (ACS) and includes those living in military barracks in the

United States and those who are institutionalized, which provides us with a

broader, more inclusive population.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? It is important that

states understand the dropout rate of institutionalized and noninstitutionalized

individuals so that early intervention programs can position students to choose

positive postsecondary options (i.e., college, military and/or employment). While

there is much debate over whether dropout rates that include institutionalized

individuals or noninstitutionalized dropout rates are more accurate, there

is no debate about the fact that society benefi ts when more people attain

a college degree.

Where are we now? As of 2008, the status dropout rate is 9.1 percent for

16- to 24-year-olds (Figure 3.3a), including those living in military barracks and

institutionalized persons. The status dropout rates are very high for many racial

and ethnic groups. While the status dropout rates are lowest among Asians (3.2

percent), whites (6.2 percent) and students of two or more races (7.3 percent),

status dropout rates are considerably higher among Hispanics (19.0 percent),

American Indians or Alaska Natives (16.3 percent), and African Americans (10.4

percent) (Figure 3.3b).

The national dropout rate for males is 10.4 percent compared to 7.9 percent

for females (Figure 3.3c). The status dropout rate ranges from 2.8 percent for

16-year-olds to 11.2 percent for 20- to 24-year-olds (Figure 3.3d).

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? This status

dropout rate is calculated using the American Community Survey, which

includes residents of military barracks in the United States and individuals

living in institutionalized group quarters such as adult and juvenile correctional

facilities, nursing facilities and other health care facilities. The data from this

indicator should be interpreted with caution because of the inclusion of

immigrants (e.g., individuals who may have never attended a school in the

United States). In addition, these data from the ACS are not directly comparable

to the dropout rates from the CPS.34

34. The Condition of Education. (2010). Retrieved June 2, 2011, from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/supnotes/2010-n06.asp

9.1% As of 2008, the status dropout rate is 9.1 percent for 16- to 24-year-olds (including institutional populations).

2007–2008

19.0% As of 2008, the status dropout rate for Hispanics is 19.0 percent (including institutional populations).

0.9ppts 2007–2008



16.3% As of 2008, the status dropout rate for American Indians or Alaska Natives is 16.3 percent (including institutional populations).

1.0ppts 2007–2008

10.4% As of 2008, the status dropout rate for African Americans is 10.4 percent (including institutional populations).

1.1ppts 2007–2008

National Status Dropout Rates — Including Institutional Populations, 1999–2008Source: NCES, The Condition of Education, 2010

3.3a

DROPOUT RATE9.1%

CONTINUING RATE90.7%

National Status Dropout Rates by Race/Ethnicity — Including Institutional Populations, 2008Source: NCES, The Condition of Education, 2010Note: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin unless specifi ed.

3.3b

0

5

10

15

20

25

AfricanAmerican

American Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian Hispanic White(Non-

Hispanic)

Native Hawaiian/

PacificIslander

Two or More Races

9.5%

19.0%

3.2%

16.3%

10.4%

6.2%7.3%

528,000 49,000 45,000 1,322,000 54,0001,234,000 7,000

AVG

9.1%

79


3.2% As of 2008, the status dropout rate for Asians is 3.2 percent (including institutional populations).

2007–2008

6.2% As of 2008, the status dropout rate for whites is 6.2 percent (including institutional populations).

2007–2008

National Status Dropout Rates by Gender — Including Institutional Populations, 2008Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2010

National Status Dropout Rates by Age — Including Institutional Populations, 2008Source: NCES, The Condition of Education, 2010

3.3c

3.3d

0

5

10

15

20

25

Female Male

10.4%7.9%

1,373,000 1,876,000

AVG

9.1%

0

5

10

15

20

25

16 17 18 19 20–24

4.7%

2.8%

9.0%

11.1

%

11.2

%

117,000 199,000 356,000 388,000 2,190,000

AVG

9.1%



National Event Dropout Rates of Public High School Students in Grades 9–12, 2003–2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010

3.4a

0

5

10

15

20

25

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

3.9% 4.1% 3.9% 3.9% 4.4% 4.1%

National Event Dropout RateWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

refl ects the annual rate at which public high school students in the United

States leave grades nine through 12 during a 12-month period without a

successful outcome (i.e., October 2007 to October 2008). This measure can

be used to study student experiences in high school in a given year. It helps

understand which students drop out of school during a particular period of time.

This is different from the status dropout rate that measures the percentage

of a target population (e.g., ages 16 through 24) who are not enrolled in high

school and who do not have a high school credential, irrespective of when they

dropped out of school.

This indicator also shows the age at which students can legally drop out of

school in each state. This measure is important for allowing the reader to

understand the differences in policies that exist among states that can directly

affect the dropout rates of students.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? It is important for

states to identify and support students who are most likely to drop out. States

should be aware that it is important to implement dropout prevention programs

as well as understand the experiences and challenges of the students who

are dropping out. It is also important that states understand the relationship

between policies that allow students to legally drop out of school and the effect

that these policies have on dropout rates.

4.1% As of 2008, the national event dropout rate is 4.1 percent for public high school students in grades nine through 12.

2007–2008

37.3% As of 2010, 19 states have a legal age of 16 for students to drop out of school.



81


6.7% As of 2008, the event dropout rate for African Americans is 6.7 percent.

2007–2008

7.3% As of 2008, the event dropout rate for American Indians or Alaska Natives is 7.3 percent.

2007–2008

2.4% As of 2008, the event dropout rate for Asians or Pacifi c Islanders is 2.4 percent.

2007–2008

National Event Dropout Rates of Public High School Students in Grades 9–12 by Race/Ethnicity, 2006–2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data, 2008, 2010 Note: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic origin unless specifi ed.

3.4b

0

5

10

15

20

25

AfricanAmerican

AmericanIndian/

Alaska Native



2.6% 3.0%

2.8%

5.8% 6.

5%

6.0%

2.4%

2.4%

6.9% 7.

6%

7.3%

6.3% 6.8%

6.7%

2.6%

16,576

16,059

15,698

13,003

12,993

9,976

163,389

156,026

148,515

234,121

219,474

195,079

159,407

136,311

124,636

2008

2007

2006

National Event Dropout Rates of Public High School Students in Grades 9–12 by Gender, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010

3.4c

0

5

10

15

20

25

Female Male

4.6%3.5%

248,415 335,900

AVG

4.1%



Where are we now? As of 2008, the national event dropout rate is 4.1 percent

for public high school students (Figure 3.4a). This includes all students who drop

out in grades nine through 12. The national event dropout rate remains relatively

stable at approximately 4 percent since 2003, peaking at 4.4 percent in 2007

(Figure 3.4a).

While Asians or Pacifi c Islanders have the lowest event dropout rate at 2.4

percent, the dropout rates are more than two times higher among American

Indians or Alaska Natives, African Americans, and Hispanics (Figure 3.4b).

Nationally, a slightly higher percentage of males drop out compared to females

(Figure 3.4c). The event dropout rate for males is 4.6 percent compared to 3.5

percent for females.

Figure 3.4d shows that the average age at which students can legally drop out

of school in the United States is 17 years old, yet this age varies from state to

state. As of 2010, 19 states have a legal dropout age of 16 years old, 11 states

have a legal dropout age of 17 years old, and 21 states have a legal dropout age

of 18 years old.

When disaggregated by state, the percentages range from 1.7 percent in

Indiana and New Jersey to 7.5 percent in Louisiana (Figure 3.4e). When placed

in rank order, Indiana, New Jersey, Idaho, Alabama and South Dakota have the

lowest event dropout rates (Figure 3.4e). Louisiana, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado

and Michigan have the highest event dropout rates.

The event dropout rates for Asian American or Pacifi c Islander public high school

students range from 0.5 percent in New Jersey to 6.9 percent in Alaska (Figure

3.4f). The states with the lowest event dropout rates for this group are New

Jersey, Indiana, Alabama, Florida and Idaho (Figure 3.4f). The states with the

highest event dropout rates are Alaska, Hawaii, Rhode Island, North Dakota

and Montana.

The event dropout rates for American Indian or Alaska Native public high school

students range from 0.0 percent in South Carolina to 12.2 percent in Alaska

(Figure 3.4g). The states with the lowest event dropout rates for this group

are South Carolina, Alabama, Idaho, Connecticut and Florida (Figure 3.4g). The

states with the highest event dropout rates are Alaska, Montana, Minnesota,

Arizona and Washington.

The event dropout rates for African American public high school students range

from 1.9 percent in Idaho to 12.9 percent in Missouri (Figure 3.4h). The states

with the lowest event dropout rates for this group are Idaho, Alabama, South

Dakota, Indiana and New Jersey (Figure 3.4h). The states with the highest event

dropout rates are Missouri, Michigan, Louisiana, Colorado and Ohio.

6.0% As of 2008, the event dropout rate for Hispanics is 6.0 percent.

0.5ppts 2007–2008

2.8% As of 2008, the event dropout rate for whites is 2.8 percent.

2007–2008

83


The event dropout rates for white public high school students range from 1.0

percent in New Jersey to 5.9 percent in Hawaii (Figure 3.4i). The states with

the lowest event dropout rates for this group are New Jersey, South Dakota,

Wisconsin, Connecticut and Indiana (Figure 3.4i). The states with the highest

event dropout rates are Hawaii, Arizona, Alaska, Washington and Delaware.

The event dropout rates for Hispanic public high school students range from 2.2

percent in Alabama to 12.1 percent in Colorado (Figure 3.4j). The states with the

lowest event dropout rates for this group are Alabama, Indiana, New Hampshire,

New Jersey and Idaho (Figure 3.4j). The states with the highest event dropout

rates are Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

While the national event dropout rate is 4.1 percent for all students in grades

nine through 12, the rate varies greatly by grade level. The national event

dropout rate is more than two times higher among 12th-grade students

compared to ninth-grade students (Figures 3.4l–n). The national event dropout

rate is 3.0 percent for ninth-grade students, 3.6 percent for 10th-grade students,

4.0 percent for 11th-grade students and 6.1 percent for 12th-grade students

(Figure 3.4k–n).

The ninth-grade public school event dropout rates range from 0.2 percent

in Indiana and New Hampshire to 8.9 percent in Louisiana (Figure 3.4k). The

states with the lowest event dropout rates for ninth-graders are Indiana, New

Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota. The states with the highest

rates are Louisiana, Delaware, District of Columbia, North Carolina and Missouri.

The 10th-grade public school event dropout rates range from 0.8 percent in

Indiana to 6.6 percent in Louisiana (Figure 3.4l). The states with the lowest

event dropout rates for 10th-graders are Indiana, Wisconsin, New Hampshire,

Iowa and Minnesota (Figure 3.4l). The states with the highest rates are

Louisiana, Michigan, Delaware, Hawaii and Wyoming.


New Jersey to 9.0 percent in Alaska (Figure 3.4m). The states with the lowest

event dropout rates for 11th-graders are New Jersey, Indiana, Wisconsin, Idaho

and South Dakota (Figure 3.4m). The states with the highest rates are Alaska,

Colorado, Arizona, Washington and Louisiana.


Alabama to 11.0 percent in California (Figure 3.4n). The states with the lowest

event dropout rates for 12th-graders are Alabama, New Jersey, Kentucky,

Connecticut and Idaho (Figure 3.4n). The states with the highest rates are

California, Arizona, Alaska, Colorado and Maine.



When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? A dropout

is an individual who enrolls at some point during the prior academic year, does

not enroll at the beginning of the following school year, has not graduated or

earned a GED, and does not meet the test for exclusion. Students are excluded

from the count if they transfer to another public school district, private school,

or state- or district-approved education program; if they have a temporary

absence due to suspension or school-approved illness; or because of death.35

This is a very detailed defi nition of a dropout; however, it does not address what

happens to students who repeat a grade. It is not well suited for studying how

many people in the country lack a high school credential, since students may

reenter the school system at a later time or go on to earn a GED through adult

education programs.

When comparing graduation rates, the reader is encouraged to also take into

account the age at which students are legally able to drop out of school in a

given state. States that allow students to legally drop out of school at age 16

may see more students who drop out in the ninth and 10th grades, while states

that allow students to legally drop out of school at ages 17 or 18 may experience

higher dropout rates in the 11th or 12th grades. This context is especially

important when analyzing dropout rates by grade level.

35. National Center for Education Statistics. Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the

Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08. (NCES 2010-341). Retrieved June 3, 2011, from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010341.pdf

85


State Statutory Age When Students Can Legally Drop Out, 2010Source: Education Commission of the States, 2010Note: Indiana: An individual is required to stay in school until he or she: graduates; is between 16 and 18 and meets the requirements for an exit interview; or reaches at least 18 years of age. Withdrawal before 18 requires parent’s/guardian’s and principal’s written permission. Louisiana: “A child between the ages of seventeen and eighteen may withdraw from school prior to graduation if both the following circumstances exist: (a) The written consent of his parents, tutor, or legal guardian. (b) An exit interview is conducted where the student and his parent, tutor, or legal guardian provide written acknowledgment that withdrawal from school shall likely reduce the student’s future earning potential and increase the student’s likelihood of being unemployed in the future. During such exit interview, a student who is withdrawing from school shall be given information that has been prepared and supplied by the Louisiana Workforce Commission regarding available training and employment opportunity programs, provided such information is available.” Montana: requires that a child shall remain in school until the latter of either the child’s 16th birthday or the date of completion of the work of the eighth grade. New Hampshire: The superintendent may grant waivers upon proof that the pupil is 16 years of age or older and has an alternative learning plan for obtaining either a high school diploma or its equivalent. New York: Both New York City and Buffalo require minors to attend school from the age of 6 until the age of 17. Each district in the state is authorized to require minors between 16 and 17 who are not employed to attend school. The board of education of the Syracuse city school district is authorized to require minors who are 5 years of age on or before December fi rst to attend kindergarten instruction. Texas: School districts may require persons who voluntarily enroll in school or voluntarily attend school after their 18th birthday to attend school until the end of the school year. Virginia: “For a student who is at least 16 years of age, there shall be a meeting of the student, the student’s parents, and the principal or his designee of the school in which the student is enrolled in which an individual student alternative education plan shall be developed in conformity with guidelines prescribed by the Board … .”

3.4d

18California Connecticut District of Columbia Hawaii IndianaKansas LouisianaMichigan Nebraska Nevada New HampshireNew Mexico Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota TexasUtah Virginia Washington Wisconsin

17Alabama ArkansasColorado Illinois MaineMississippiMissouriPennsylvaniaSouth CarolinaTennesseeWest Virginia

16Alaska Arizona Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Iowa Kentucky Maryland MassachusettsMinnesota MontanaNew Jersey New YorkNorth Carolina North Dakota Rhode Island Vermont Wyoming

16 38%

17 22%

18 40%

New fi gure



Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report dropout counts or reported counts that did not conform to the NCES defi nition.

3.4e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indiana

New Jersey

Idaho

Alabama

South Dakota

Wisconsin

North Dakota

Kansas

Nebraska

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Connecticut

Kentucky

Minnesota

Iowa

New Hampshire

Oklahoma

Florida

Massachusetts

Maryland

Oregon

New York

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

UNITED STATES

Utah

Georgia

Ohio

Maine

West Virginia

Mississippi

Arkansas

Missouri

California

Wyoming

Nevada

Illinois

Montana

New Mexico

North Carolina

Rhode Island

Hawaii


Washington

Delaware

Michigan

Colorado

Arizona

Alaska

Louisiana

Vermont

1.7%

1.7%

2.0%

2.2%

2.3%

2.3%

2.4%

2.5%

2.5%

2.6%

2.7%

2.8%

2.8%

2.8%

2.9%

3.0%

3.1%

3.3%

3.4%

3.6%

3.8%

3.9%

3.9%

3.9%

4.0%

4.1%

4.2%

4.3%

4.3%

4.4%

4.4%

4.6%

4.7%

4.9%

5.0%

5.0%

5.1%

5.2%

5.2%

5.2%

5.2%

5.3%

5.4%

5.5%

5.7%

6.0%

6.2%

6.4%

6.7%

7.3%

7.5%

NA

5,417

6,320

1,589

4,654

871

6,659

754

3,497

2,244

15,288

10,135

4,906

5,516

7,826

4,437

1,987

5,598

26,635

9,957

9,816

6,676

34,069

8,013

11,200

51,369

613,379

6,920

20,135

24,980

2,642

3,680

6,399

6,492

13,931

98,230

1,366

6,170

32,638

2,435

5,132

21,477

2,559

2,922

1,175

18,976

2,212

34,702

15,119

21,034

3,040

13,580

NA

25

U.S. Average

25*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

4.1%


New fi gure

87


Event Dropout Rates for Asian American or Pacifi c Islander Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010 Note: (1) NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report dropout counts or reported counts that did not conform to the NCES defi nition. (2) This race category excludes persons of Hispanic origin.

3.4f

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

New Jersey

Indiana

Alabama

Florida

Idaho

Georgia

Texas

Virginia

West Virginia

Nebraska

New Hampshire

Connecticut

Kansas

Pennsylvania

Kentucky

Illinois

Ohio

South Carolina

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Massachusetts

Tennessee

California

Oklahoma

New York

UNITED STATES

Iowa

Missouri

Oregon

Arkansas

Minnesota

New Mexico

Louisiana

Nevada

Michigan

Maine

Arizona

Colorado

Utah

Washington

Montana

North Dakota

Rhode Island

Hawaii

Alaska

Delaware


Maryland

Vermont

0.5%

0.7%

1.1%

1.1%

1.2%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.4%

1.4%

1.5%

1.5%

1.6%

1.6%

1.7%

1.8%

1.8%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.1%

2.1%

2.3%

2.3%

2.4%

2.4%

2.6%

2.7%

2.7%

2.8%

3.1%

3.2%

3.4%

3.4%

3.6%

3.7%

3.8%

3.8%

3.9%

4.0%

4.1%

4.5%

4.8%

5.1%

6.9%

NA

NA

NA

NA

137

27

26

209

16

189

583

263

8

22

15

84

53

237

30

397

137

50

25

186

9

200

6

274

87

5,467

86

1,520

16,576

75

122

217

62

497

42

100

343

434

31

325

284

222

1,104

23

13

69

2,063

207

NA

NA

NA

NA

28

U.S. Average

19*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

2.4%


New fi gure



Event Dropout Rates for American Indian or Alaska Native Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: (1) NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report dropout counts or reported counts that did not conform to the NCES defi nition. (2) This race category excludes persons of Hispanic origin.

3.4g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

South Carolina

Alabama

Idaho

Connecticut

Florida

Kentucky

New Jersey

Mississippi

Texas

Oklahoma

Georgia

Indiana

Missouri

Illinois

Virginia

Kansas

Pennsylvania

Tennessee

Arkansas

Nevada

New York

Maine

Wisconsin

Oregon

West Virginia

California

Hawaii

Louisiana

North Dakota

UNITED STATES

Massachusetts

Utah

Nebraska

North Carolina

Ohio

Michigan

New Hampshire

Iowa

New Mexico

Delaware

South Dakota

Rhode Island

Wyoming

Colorado

Washington

Arizona

Minnesota

Montana

Alaska


Maryland

Vermont

0.0%

1.8%

2.3%

2.5%

2.5%

2.5%

2.7%

3.0%

3.2%

3.3%

3.6%

3.6%

3.7%

3.8%

3.8%

3.9%

4.1%

4.7%

4.9%

4.9%

5.7%

5.8%

5.8%

6.1%

6.5%

6.6%

7.2%

7.2%

7.3%

7.3%

7.5%

7.5%

7.6%

7.7%

8.2%

8.3%

8.3%

9.1%

9.2%

9.4%

9.9%

10.3%

11.0%

11.3%

11.3%

11.4%

11.6%

11.7%

12.2%

NA

NA

NA

0

37

28

14

57

6

16

7

145

1,106

26

30

47

64

43

91

38

27

49

97

215

22

248

235

6

1,075

21

98

195

13,003

62

236

106

427

66

422

15

80

1,169

12

343

32

96

328

981

2,211

668

554

1,152

NA

NA

NA

29

U.S. Average

19*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

7.3%


New fi gure

89


Event Dropout Rates for African American Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: (1) NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report dropout counts or reported counts that did not conform to the NCES defi nition. (2) This race category excludes persons of Hispanic origin.

3.4h

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Idaho

Alabama

South Dakota

Indiana

New Jersey

Oklahoma

Kansas

North Dakota

Virginia

South Carolina

Georgia

Florida

Kentucky

West Virginia

Maine

Connecticut

Mississippi

Pennsylvania

Massachusetts

New Mexico

Nebraska

Iowa

New York

North Carolina

Montana

Nevada

Texas

Utah

Arkansas

UNITED STATES

Arizona

Minnesota

Hawaii

Delaware

Tennessee

Rhode Island

Wisconsin

Oregon

Wyoming

Washington

California

Illinois

Alaska

New Hampshire

Ohio

Colorado

Louisiana

Michigan

Missouri


Maryland

Vermont

1.9%

2.2%

2.4%

2.8%

2.8%

3.5%

3.6%

3.9%

4.0%

4.3%

4.6%

4.7%

4.8%

5.0%

5.4%

5.6%

5.6%

5.7%

5.9%

5.9%

6.0%

6.2%

6.2%

6.2%

6.3%

6.3%

6.3%

6.6%

6.7%

6.7%

7.1%

7.1%

7.3%

7.7%

7.7%

7.8%

7.8%

7.9%

8.1%

8.9%

9.0%

9.1%

9.6%

9.6%

10.1%

10.6%

10.9%

12.6%

12.9%

NA

NA

NA

15

1,765

17

1,019

1,877

664

439

20

3,957

3,578

8,632

8,710

1,018

197

72

1,387

3,946

4,901

1,526

148

395

471

10,800

7,683

20

889

12,116

160

2,131

159,407

1,288

1,778

78

913

5,618

341

2,160

381

30

1,611

14,476

11,360

152

97

9,863

1,544

8,580

14,355

6,229

NA

NA

NA

29

U.S. Average

19*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

6.7%


New fi gure



Event Dropout Rates for White Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: (1) NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report dropout counts or reported counts that did not conform to the NCES defi nition. (2) This race category excludes persons of Hispanic origin.

3.4i

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

New Jersey

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Connecticut

Indiana

Pennsylvania

Idaho

Minnesota

Nebraska

North Dakota

Texas

Virginia

Alabama

Florida

Kansas

Illinois

Massachusetts

Kentucky

New York

Iowa

Tennessee

Oklahoma

UNITED STATES

New Hampshire

Ohio

California

Oregon

Missouri

Utah

New Mexico

South Carolina

Georgia

Mississippi

Colorado

Nevada

Arkansas

Maine

Michigan

Rhode Island

Montana

North Carolina

West Virginia

Wyoming

Louisiana

Delaware

Washington

Alaska

Arizona

Hawaii


Maryland

Vermont

1.0%

1.4%

1.4%

1.6%

1.6%

1.7%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.9%

2.1%

2.1%

2.1%

2.2%

2.3%

2.4%

2.4%

2.5%

2.5%

2.8%

2.8%

2.9%

2.9%

3.1%

3.1%

3.2%

3.4%

3.5%

3.5%

3.6%

3.6%

3.9%

3.9%

4.0%

4.3%

4.3%

4.3%

4.4%

4.4%

4.4%

4.5%

4.8%

4.9%

5.0%

5.1%

5.6%

5.9%

NA

NA

NA

2,158

471

3,171

1,823

3,851

7,660

1,177

3,944

1,277

505

9,177

4,275

2,706

8,249

2,199

8,046

4,757

3,831

10,871

3,332

4,963

3,021

234,121

1,805

13,076

19,409

3,957

6,964

4,549

1,077

3,954

8,165

2,351

6,068

2,258

3,798

2,475

17,086

1,441

1,772

10,541

3,444

1,040

4,483

1,024

11,624

1,189

8,510

597

NA

NA

NA

22

U.S. Average

26*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

2.8%


New fi gure

91


Event Dropout Rates for Hispanic Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report dropout counts or reported counts that did not conform to the NCES defi nition.

3.4j

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Alabama

Indiana

New Hampshire

New Jersey

Idaho

Florida

West Virginia

Kansas

Mississippi

South Dakota

North Dakota

Kentucky

Georgia

Nebraska

Arkansas

Oklahoma

New Mexico

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Virginia

Wisconsin

California

UNITED STATES

Connecticut

Iowa

New York

Montana

Hawaii

Nevada

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Maine

Missouri

Arizona

Illinois

Alaska

Minnesota

North Carolina

Louisiana

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

Delaware

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

Ohio

Michigan

Colorado


Maryland

Vermont

2.2%

2.4%

3.1%

3.1%

3.5%

3.7%

3.8%

3.9%

3.9%

4.0%

4.4%

4.6%

4.8%

4.8%

5.1%

5.2%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.4%

5.4%

6.0%

6.0%

6.1%

6.1%

6.1%

6.5%

6.7%

6.7%

6.7%

6.9%

7.0%

7.2%

7.3%

7.3%

7.5%

7.5%

7.6%

7.8%

8.0%

8.0%

8.0%

8.2%

8.2%

8.3%

8.5%

10.3%

12.1%

NA

NA

NA

108

380

55

2,116

350

6,816

25

595

70

31

21

164

1,593

444

452

721

2,696

397

505

29,348

1,484

880

54,911

163,389

1,598

479

10,606

66

163

2,583

1,611

2,387

42

569

8,700

7,553

164

939

2,139

319

1,732

3,223

194

232

676

3,171

1,051

2,135

6,895

NA

NA

NA

23

U.S. Average

25*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

6.0%


New fi gure



Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in Ninth Grade by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report dropout counts or reported counts that did not conform to the NCES defi nition.

3.4k

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indiana

New Hampshire

Iowa

Minnesota

North Dakota

Idaho

Kansas

Nebraska

New Jersey

Maine

Oregon

Utah

Wisconsin

South Dakota

Wyoming

Alabama

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Kentucky

Texas

California

Connecticut

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Florida

Tennessee

UNITED STATES

Massachusetts

Montana

New York

Mississippi

South Carolina

Illinois

Hawaii

Washington

Colorado

West Virginia

Maryland

Arizona

Georgia

Alaska

Nevada

Ohio

Michigan

New Mexico

Rhode Island

Missouri

North Carolina


Delaware

Louisiana

Vermont

0.2%

0.2%

0.8%

0.9%

1.0%

1.1%

1.2%

1.3%

1.3%

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

1.5%

1.8%

1.9%

1.9%

2.1%

2.2%

2.4%

2.5%

2.6%

2.7%

2.8%

2.8%

2.8%

3.0%

3.1%

3.1%

3.1%

3.5%

3.5%

3.6%

3.7%

3.8%

3.9%

3.9%

4.0%

4.2%

4.2%

4.3%

4.6%

4.6%

4.7%

4.9%

5.0%

5.3%

5.4%

5.7%

6.3%

8.9%

NA

182

31

291

604

84

237

453

321

1,346

213

621

599

997

161

126

1,256

2,984

2,296

1,248

9,358

13,316

1,233

1,309

1,076

6,393

2,270

126,057

2,400

375

7,823

1,497

2,334

6,427

593

3,423

2,469

930

3,066

3,538

6,126

455

1,857

7,501

7,061

1,468

681

4,110

6,841

436

710

4,931

NA

26

U.S. Average

24*

States

States

0

No. ofStudents

AVG

3.0%


New fi gure

93


Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in 10th Grade by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2007-08, 2010Note: NA is not available. State or jurisdiction did not report dropout counts or reported counts that did not conform to the NCES defi nition.

3.4l

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Indiana

Wisconsin

New Hampshire

Iowa

Minnesota

New Jersey

Idaho

Kansas

Nebraska

North Dakota

Virginia

Alabama

Oregon

South Dakota

Utah

Maine

Pennsylvania

Connecticut

California

Florida

Ohio

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Kentucky

Massachusetts

Texas

UNITED STATES

Maryland

Arkansas

New York

South Carolina

Illinois

Georgia

Mississippi

West Virginia

Missouri

Washington

Nevada

Colorado

Arizona

Montana

North Carolina

New Mexico

Rhode Island

Alaska


Wyoming

Hawaii

Delaware

Michigan

Louisiana

Vermont

0.8%

1.0%

1.4%

1.6%

1.6%

1.6%

1.8%

2.2%

2.2%

2.3%

2.3%

2.4%

2.4%

2.4%

2.4%

2.6%

2.6%

2.9%

3.0%

3.0%

3.1%

3.1%

3.2%

3.3%

3.6%

3.6%

3.6%

3.7%

4.2%

4.2%

4.2%

4.3%

4.4%

4.4%

4.4%

4.6%

4.6%

4.7%

4.8%

5.1%

5.1%

5.5%

5.6%

5.7%

5.8%

5.9%

6.0%

6.2%

6.4%

6.5%

6.6%

NA

660

678

226

630

1,064

1,588

373

801

510

185

2,256

1,335

1,071

243

1,039

400

3,828

1,271

15,150

6,212

4,528

1,446

2,380

1,704

2,663

11,760

135,244

2,547

1,561

9,845

2,319

7,143

5,419

1,631

927

3,352

3,910

1,582

2,915

4,141

613

5,740

1,491

700

607

314

434

847

622

9,476

3,107

NA

26

U.S. Average

24*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

3.6%


New fi gure




3.4m

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

New Jersey

Indiana

Wisconsin

Idaho

South Dakota

Alabama

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Nebraska

Kansas

Connecticut

Florida

Iowa

Kentucky

Maryland

North Dakota

Texas

Massachusetts

Ohio

New Hampshire

Oklahoma

New York

Oregon

UNITED STATES

California

South Carolina

Georgia

Illinois

Nevada

Tennessee

Mississippi

Utah

Maine

West Virginia

Missouri

Delaware


New Mexico

North Carolina

Arkansas

Rhode Island

Hawaii

Wyoming

Michigan

Montana

Louisiana

Washington

Arizona

Colorado

Alaska

Vermont

1.8%

1.9%

2.0%

2.3%

2.4%

2.5%

2.7%

2.7%

2.7%

2.8%

3.0%

3.1%

3.1%

3.2%

3.2%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

3.4%

3.6%

3.7%

3.7%

3.9%

4.0%

4.0%

4.1%

4.1%

4.2%

4.2%

4.2%

4.2%

4.6%

4.6%

4.7%

4.8%

5.0%

5.2%

5.2%

5.3%

5.5%

5.7%

5.7%

5.8%

5.9%

6.1%

6.2%

6.5%

6.5%

6.8%

7.2%

9.0%

NA

1,710

1,458

1,444

445

211

1,221

1,806

3,775

2,464

606

1,016

1,296

5,954

1,212

1,502

2,083

259

9,688

2,374

5,027

599

1,573

7,754

1,745

139,144

19,468

1,893

4,416

6,255

1,085

2,888

1,450

1,899

704

959

3,357

422

226

1,192

5,273

1,922

644

764

384

8,034

700

2,666

5,206

5,108

4,067

940

NA

24

U.S. Average

26*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

4.0%


New fi gure

95



3.4n

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Alabama

New Jersey

Kentucky

Connecticut

Idaho

North Dakota

South Dakota

Georgia

Oklahoma

Maryland

Pennsylvania

Florida

Nebraska

Kansas

Massachusetts

South Carolina

Virginia

Mississippi

North Carolina

Indiana

New York


West Virginia

Missouri

Rhode Island

Wisconsin

New Mexico

Illinois

Tennessee

Minnesota

Ohio

Iowa

UNITED STATES

Delaware

Arkansas

Hawaii

Montana

Wyoming

New Hampshire

Nevada

Texas

Louisiana

Oregon

Michigan

Washington

Utah

Maine

Colorado

Alaska

Arizona

California

Vermont

1.8%

1.9%

2.5%

2.7%

2.9%

2.9%

2.9%

3.1%

3.2%

3.4%

3.4%

3.6%

3.6%

3.7%

3.7%

3.7%

3.7%

4.0%

4.3%

4.4%

4.4%

4.7%

4.7%

4.8%

5.0%

5.0%

5.1%

5.7%

5.8%

5.9%

5.9%

6.0%

6.1%

6.2%

6.3%

6.4%

6.6%

6.8%

7.1%

7.5%

7.5%

7.6%

7.6%

7.9%

8.2%

8.4%

8.8%

10.2%

10.4%

10.8%

11.0%

NA

842

1,676

1,062

1,106

534

226

256

3,001

1,270

2,120

4,689

5,882

807

1,227

2,520

1,467

3,119

1,139

3,623

3,117

8,374

199

864

3,112

534

3,540

981

8,032

3,662

4,352

7,924

2,304

203,630

458

1,933

718

726

422

1,131

1,646

20,563

2,876

3,238

10,131

6,437

3,383

1,325

5,668

1,038

8,247

50,129

NA

32

U.S. Average

18*

States

States

No. ofStudents

AVG

6.1%


New fi gure


FourAlign the K–12 education system with international standards and college admission expectations

WE RECOMMEND that governors, legislators and state education agencies work to provide a world-class education to every American student by aligning high school programs with international benchmarks tied to the demands of college and career.


The commission believes that the academic intensity of the high school

curriculum is the most important predictor of college success. However, many

students do not have access to a rigorous high school curriculum and graduate

unprepared to succeed in college or in careers.

The knowledge and skills for success in the workplace are increasingly similar

to those required for college.36 This lack of preparation is affecting the economic

viability of the United States and our competitiveness with other industrialized

nations around the world. Leaders in K–12 and higher education must work

together to align these educational systems. States must align standards,

pedagogy, assessment and professional development activities to meet the

expectations of college and workforce readiness.

Since the commission released its initial recommendations in 2008, there is

an increasing national interest and momentum in aligning the K–12 education

system with college and career readiness standards. The Common Core State

Standards Initiative, launched in 2009 by the National Governors Association

and the Council of Chief State School Offi cers, has resulted in the development

of K–12 English Language Arts and Mathematics standards that outline the

knowledge and skills students need in order to be prepared for college and

careers. As of June 2011, 45 states have already taken formal steps to adopt

these common standards. The federally funded Race to the Top initiative has

also sharpened the focus and attention on the importance of aligning the K–12

system to college and career readiness expectations. The 45 states participating

in the two common assessment consortia, which are funded through the

Race to the Top initiative, are working together to create common assessment

systems that are closely aligned to these new rigorous Common Core

State Standards.

Four indicators are presented to monitor the degree to which the nation is aligning K–12 education systems with international standards and college admission expectations:

• Percentage of public high schools offering Advanced Placement® (AP®) or

International Baccalaureate (IB) courses in the four core subject areas;

• Percentage of schools offering dual enrollment;

• Percentage of states with alignment between K–12 and higher education

standards; and

• Percentage of students in remedial college classes.

36. American Diploma Project, What Is College- and Career-Ready? (Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc., 2009).

Recommendation Four 98


General Findings for This Recommendation• As of 2010, 33.7 percent of public schools in the United States offer

AP or IB courses in the four core subject areas: English language arts,

mathematics, natural sciences and social studies.

• As of 2010, 32.6 percent of public high schools in the United States offer AP

courses in the four core subject areas: English language arts, mathematics,

science and social studies.

• As of 2010, 508,818 students of the 853,314 students in the class of 2010

who take an AP Exam scored a 3 or higher.

• As of 2010, 28.3 percent of public high school students take an AP Exam in

the United States.

• As of 2010, 16.9 percent of public high school students scored a 3 or higher

on at least one AP Exam in the United States.

• As of 2010, 2.9 percent of public high schools in the United States offer IB

courses in the four core subject areas: English language arts, mathematics,

science and social studies.

• As of 2010, 83.6 percent of schools in the United States offer dual

enrollment.

• As of 2010, 31 states have alignment between high school standards and

college and workplace expectations.

• As of 2010, 21 states and the District of Columbia have alignment

between high school graduation requirements and college and workplace

expectations.

• As of 2010, 14 states have a college- and career-ready assessment system.

• As of 2010, 16 states have P–20 longitudinal data systems.

• As of 2010, 42 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the

Common Core State Standards.

• As of 2008, 37.6 percent of fi rst- and second-year undergraduates in the

United States are in remedial courses after high school graduation.

• As of 2008, 47.3 percent of African American fi rst- and second-year

undergraduate students in the United States are in remedial courses after

high school graduation.

• As of 2008, 45.1 percent of Hispanic fi rst- and second-year undergraduate

students in the United States are in remedial courses after high school

graduation.

• As of 2008, 43.9 percent of Native American fi rst- and second-year

undergraduate students in the United States are in remedial courses after

high school graduation.

• As of 2008, 33.1 percent of white fi rst- and second-year undergraduate


graduation.

• As of 2008, 38.1 percent of Asian fi rst- and second-year undergraduate


graduation.

99


Percentage of Public High Schools Offering AP® or IB Courses in the Four Core Subject AreasWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

measures the percentage of public high schools in the United States that offer

AP or IB courses in each of the four core subject areas: English language arts,

mathematics, science and social studies.

Advanced Placement® is a cooperative endeavor between secondary

schools and colleges; college faculty connect college-level standards into the

development, validation, and scoring processes. Comparability studies ensure

that the performance of students on AP Exams is aligned to the performance of

students in the comparable college course.

In 2009, a study revealed that IB standards were highly aligned to the

Knowledge and Skills for University Success (KSUS) college-ready standards

in terms of both cognitive strategies and individual subject area knowledge.37

Both programs are a good measure of the alignment of high school standards to

college expectations.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? There is

considerable variation among colleges and universities in policies that specify

the score a student must achieve on an AP and/or IB exam to receive college

course credit or advanced standing. As more academically prepared high school

students gain access to AP, IB and other rigorous course work, state leaders

and policymakers should consider the extent to which the variance among

institutions’ credit-granting policies present barriers for these students as they

transition to college. State policymakers and higher education agencies can

agree that successful performance on external examinations offered by AP

and IB is recognized as a measure of academic profi ciency for college credit

accepted toward a bachelor’s degree.

37. Conley, D. T., and Ward, T. (2009). Summary Brief: International Baccalaureate Standards Development and

Alignment Project. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.

33.7% As of 2010, 33.7 percent of public high schools in the United States offer AP or IB courses in English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies.

1.1ppts 2009–2010

32.6% As of 2010, 32.6 percent of public high schools in the United States offer AP courses in the four core subject areas: English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies.

1.3ppts 2009–2010



Aligned standards for college readiness will streamline and strengthen an

effective K–16 educational system. Two in three postsecondary students

attend two or more institutions before obtaining a bachelor’s degree. Student

and credit transition between institutions is often complicated, and AP and IB

students presenting qualifying exam scores for college credit can encounter

similar frustrations in the transfer process. The lack of consistent or transparent

credit granting polices for AP and IB can negatively impact these students trying

to maximize the application of credit and save tuition costs. States can direct,

encourage and reward institutions who implement comprehensive policies for

qualifying AP and IB exams that promote seamless transfer and articulation

of college credit to satisfy common introductory requirements. (See K. Peter

and E. F. Cataldi, The Road Less Traveled? Students Who Enroll in Multiple

Institutions [Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2005], http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005157.pdf)

While state policymakers often face challenges reconciling the competing

values of system effi ciency/accountability and institutional autonomy, research

fi ndings confi rm that earning credit through AP and IB yields a range of positive

outcomes, including improved academic persistence and enhanced disciplinary

focus. Policymakers can review and compare state policies for awarding credit

for AP and IB by using the Education Commission of the States searchable

database.38

Through efforts like the College Board AP Florida Partnership promoting

educational excellence and equity for all students, and state requirements to

administer the PSAT/ NMSQT® or PLAN in grade 10, students can be identifi ed

for rigorous course work early in their high school years, encouraging increased

access and success.

Where are we now? As of 2010, 33.7 percent of public high schools across the

nation offer AP or IB courses in the four core subject areas (English language

arts, mathematics, science and social studies).

The percentage of public high schools that offer AP or IB courses in the four

core subject areas (English language arts, mathematics, science and social

studies) ranges from 5.5 percent in North Dakota to 84.2 percent in Arkansas.

When placed in rank order, the states with the highest percentage are

Arkansas, Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts (Figure 4.1a).

The states with the lowest percentage are North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota,

Montana and Nebraska.

The percentage of public high schools that offer AP courses in the four

core subject areas ranges from 5.5 percent in North Dakota to 84.2 percent

in Arkansas (Figure 4.1b). When placed in rank order, the states with the

highest percentages are Arkansas, Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey and

Massachusetts. The states with the lowest percentages are North Dakota,

Alaska, South Dakota, Montana and Nebraska.

38. Database can be accessed at: http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=2134

28.3% As of 2010, 28.3 percent of public high school students in the graduating class of 2010 took an AP Exam in the United States.

16.9% As of 2010, 16.9 percent of public high school students in the graduating class of 2010 scored a 3 or higher on at least one AP Exam in the United States.

2.9% As of 2010, 2.9 percent of public high schools in the United States offer IB courses in the four core subject areas: English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies.

2009–2010

101


Figure 4.1c shows the distribution of AP examinees by race/ethnicity for the

graduating class of 2010. AP examinees are very diverse; 8.6 percent of AP

examinees are African American and 16.0 percent are Hispanic. Similarly,

0.6 percent of the class of 2010 is American Indian or Alaska Native and

10.2 percent of the class is Asian American or Pacifi c Islander. Furthermore,

57.9 percent of AP examinees in the Class of 2010 are white.

The percentage of public high school students in the class of 2010 who took an

AP Exam in the United States was 28.3 percent (Figure 4.1d). This percentage

of public high school students who took an AP Exam ranges from 10.4 percent

in North Dakota to 43.5 percent in Florida. When placed in rank order, the

states with the highest percentages are Florida, Maryland, Virginia, New

York and Georgia. The states with the lowest percentages are North Dakota,

Louisiana, Nebraska, Missouri and Mississippi.

The percentage of public high school students in the class of 2010 who scored

a 3 or higher on at least one AP Exam in the United States was 16.9 percent

(Figure 4.1e). This percentage of public high school students who took an

AP Exam ranges from 4.4 percent in Mississippi to 26.4 percent in Maryland.

When placed in rank order, the states with the highest percentages are

Maryland, New York, Virginia, Connecticut and Massachusetts. The states with

the lowest percentages are Mississippi, Louisiana, North Dakota, the District of

Columbia and Nebraska.



Percentage of Public High Schoolsa Offering AP or IB Courses in the Four Core Subject Areas,b 2010Source: The College Board and International Baccalaureate, 2010a. Number of public high schools in the United States, as maintained by the College Board b. Core subject areas include courses in English, mathematics, science and social studies

4.1a

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Arkansas

Maryland

Connecticut

New Jersey

Massachusetts

Virginia

Delaware

New Hampshire

Georgia

Kentucky

Vermont

North Carolina

Florida

Pennsylvania

Maine

Indiana

Hawaii

Rhode Island

South Carolina

California

Utah

Nevada

Washington

Colorado

UNITED STATES

West Virginia

New York

Wisconsin

Illinois


Texas

Tennessee

Ohio

Arizona

Michigan

Oregon

Alabama

Mississippi

Minnesota

New Mexico

Idaho

Oklahoma

Kansas

Missouri

Wyoming

Iowa

Louisiana

Nebraska

Montana

South Dakota

Alaska

North Dakota

84.2%

64.2%

59.9%

59.2%

58.0%

57.2%

55.8%

55.2%

55.1%

53.1%

53.1%

49.5%

46.1%

43.4%

42.0%

41.8%

41.3%

40.7%

40.3%

39.3%

38.8%

37.4%

36.9%

34.3%

33.7%

32.1%

31.9%

31.8%

31.3%

30.8%

29.5%

29.1%

27.5%

26.8%

25.2%

22.0%

21.2%

20.3%

19.7%

17.0%

16.4%

14.4%

14.0%

14.0%

13.8%

12.3%

11.6%

9.6%

9.4%

8.8%

7.9%

5.5%

316

274

207

483

383

381

43

87

472

273

64

584

796

774

138

409

63

54

243

2,075

165

131

425

402

21,756

137

1,396

494

764

26

2,073

371

891

414

828

318

382

291

508

188

189

499

344

556

80

365

361

280

171

170

254

164

No. ofInsts.

24

U.S. Average

27

States

States

AVG

33.7%

103


Percentage of Public High Schoolsa Offering Advanced Placement (AP) in the Four Core Subject Areas,b 2010Source: The College Board, 2010a. Number of public high schools in the United States, as maintained by the College Board b. Core subject areas include courses in English, mathematics, science and social studies

4.1b

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Arkansas

Maryland

Connecticut

New Jersey

Massachusetts

Delaware

New Hampshire

Georgia

Vermont

Virginia

Kentucky

North Carolina

Florida

Pennsylvania

Hawaii

Maine

Rhode Island

Indiana

Utah

California

Nevada

South Carolina

Washington

Colorado

UNITED STATES

West Virginia


Illinois

New York

Wisconsin

Tennessee

Texas

Ohio

Arizona

Michigan

Alabama

Mississippi

Minnesota

Oregon

New Mexico

Idaho

Oklahoma

Kansas

Missouri

Wyoming

Iowa

Louisiana

Nebraska

Montana

South Dakota

Alaska

North Dakota

84.2%

63.5%

58.9%

58.0%

56.4%

55.8%

54.0%

53.6%

53.1%

52.5%

52.0%

48.1%

45.4%

43.0%

41.3%

41.3%

40.7%

40.6%

38.8%

38.1%

37.4%

36.6%

33.6%

32.8%

32.6%

31.4%

30.8%

30.6%

30.5%

30.4%

29.1%

29.0%

27.2%

25.1%

23.9%

20.7%

19.2%

17.3%

17.3%

16.5%

14.8%

14.4%

13.4%

13.1%

12.5%

12.3%

11.1%

9.3%

8.8%

8.8%

7.5%

5.5%

316

274

207

483

383

43

87

472

64

381

273

584

796

774

63

138

54

409

165

2,075

131

243

425

402

21,756

137

26

764

1,396

494

371

2,073

891

414

828

382

291

508

318

188

189

499

344

556

80

365

361

280

171

170

254

164

No. ofInsts.

24

U.S. Average

27

States

States

AVG

32.6%



Student Population of Public High School and AP Examinees by Race/Ethnicity for the Class of 2010Source: College Board, 7th Annual AP Report to the Nation, 2011.Note: Because some AP Exam takers identify themselves as ‘’Other’’ for ethnicity or do not provide ethnicity, the ‘’AP Examinee Population’’ in this fi gure only represents 93.2 percent of the AP population in 2010 and the AP 3+ or higher represents only 89.8 percent of the AP 3 or higher population. 1. These examinees include all public school students in the class of 2010 who took an AP Exam at any point in high school. 2. “Knocking at the College Door” (2008), Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

4.1c

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Hispanic Asian,Asian American, or

Pacific Islander

American Indian orAlaska Native

AfricanAmerican

White

441,946 34,481 166,290 1,825,962

73,270 4,891 86,659

505,777

136,717 493,979

14.6%8.6%

16.8% 16.0%

1.1% 0.6%5.5%

10.2%

60.5% 57.9%

Overall Student

Population1

AP Examinee

Population2

105


Percentage of Public High School Students Taking an AP Exam, Class of 2010Source: College Board, 7th Annual AP Report to the Nation, 2011.

4.1d

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Florida

Maryland

Virginia

New York

Georgia

Arkansas

Colorado

California

Massachusetts

Connecticut

Vermont

Maine

Texas

Indiana

North Carolina

Utah

UNITED STATES

Nevada

Delaware

Washington

South Carolina

Minnesota

Illinois

Wisconsin

New Jersey


Kentucky

Oregon

Michigan

New Hampshire

Alaska

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Hawaii

Alabama

Ohio

Tennessee

South Dakota

West Virginia

Montana

Rhode Island

Idaho

Kansas

Wyoming

Arizona

Iowa

Mississippi

Missouri

Nebraska

Louisiana

North Dakota

43.5%

43.4%

38.1%

38.0%

37.3%

36.6%

34.6%

34.0%

33.2%

32.2%

31.8%

31.6%

30.2%

29.3%

28.8%

28.4%

28.3%

28.3%

28.1%

28.0%

26.8%

26.4%

26.3%

26.3%

25.6%

25.1%

24.4%

23.4%

23.2%

22.7%

22.3%

22.3%

20.8%

19.7%

19.6%

19.5%

18.9%

18.6%

18.4%

18.4%

18.0%

17.9%

16.3%

16.0%

15.7%

15.6%

14.4%

14.1%

13.4%

12.4%

11.4%

10.4%

65,741

24,961

30,781

60,856

30,643

10,635

16,740

131,123

20,352

11,952

2,126

4,034

82,249

18,425

24,629

9,614

853,314

5,949

2,149

18,296

9,626

15,354

35,133

16,691

25,016

1,037

9,779

7,584

24,658

3,160

1,683

3,980

7,853

25,561

2,095

7,710

23,045

9,637

1,481

3,204

1,802

1,795

2,816

4,705

827

12,335

5,135

3,576

8,364

2,498

3,198

721

No. ofStudents

16

U.S. Average

35

States

States

AVG

28.3%



Percentage of Public High School Students Scoring 3 or Higher on an AP Exam, Class of 2010Source: College Board, 7th Annual AP Report to the Nation, 2011.

4.1e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Maryland

New York

Virginia

Connecticut

Massachusetts

California

Florida

Vermont

Colorado

Utah

Georgia

Maine

New Jersey

Wisconsin

North Carolina

Illinois

Washington

UNITED STATES

Minnesota

New Hampshire

Texas

Delaware

South Carolina

Michigan

Nevada

Alaska

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Arkansas

Indiana

Kentucky

Ohio

Montana

Idaho

South Dakota

Rhode Island

Oklahoma

New Mexico

Tennessee

Kansas

Hawaii

Alabama

Arizona

Iowa

Wyoming

West Virginia

Missouri

Nebraska


North Dakota

Louisiana

Mississippi

26.4%

24.6%

23.7%

23.2%

23.1%

22.3%

22.3%

21.8%

21.4%

19.2%

19.1%

19.0%

18.6%

18.3%

17.5%

17.2%

17.1%

16.9%

16.8%

16.6%

15.5%

15.4%

15.1%

15.0%

15.0%

14.3%

14.1%

12.7%

12.5%

12.4%

12.2%

11.8%

11.7%

11.0%

11.0%

10.9%

10.3%

10.2%

9.7%

9.5%

9.4%

9.0%

8.8%

8.8%

8.5%

7.6%

7.5%

7.4%

6.9%

6.8%

4.6%

4.4%

15,167

39,463

19,162

8,629

14,122

85,890

33,712

1,460

10,330

6,503

15,668

2,430

18,214

11,618

15,019

23,028

11,182

508,818

9,797

2,311

42,254

1,180

5,409

15,914

3,148

1,080

4,580

16,488

3,623

7,807

4,903

14,323

1,174

1,893

885

1,095

3,895

1,820

5,017

2,805

1,001

3,573

6,963

3,145

450

1,328

4,682

1,497

285

474

1,307

1,115

No. ofStudents

17

U.S. Average

34

States

States

AVG

16.9%

107


Percentage of Public High Schoolsa Offering IB Courses in the Four Core Subject Areas,b 2010Source: The College Board and International Baccalaureate, 2010a. Number of public high schools in the United States, as maintained by the College Board b. Core subject areas include courses in English, mathematics, science and social studies

4.1f

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

South Carolina

Virginia

Maryland

Florida

Colorado

Oregon

Georgia

North Carolina

Indiana

Utah


Minnesota

California

Washington

Arizona

Hawaii

Alabama

New York

UNITED STATES

Wyoming

Tennessee

Delaware

Nevada

Michigan

New Jersey

Texas

Illinois

Ohio

Arkansas

Massachusetts

Missouri

Wisconsin

Idaho

Kansas

Kentucky

Connecticut

Maine

Mississippi

Pennsylvania

New Hampshire

Alaska

Louisiana

Nebraska

West Virginia

Montana

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Iowa

North Dakota

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Vermont

10.3%

8.9%

8.0%

7.5%

7.2%

6.0%

4.9%

4.5%

4.2%

4.2%

3.8%

3.7%

3.6%

3.5%

3.4%

3.2%

2.9%

2.9%

2.9%

2.5%

2.4%

2.3%

2.3%

2.2%

2.1%

2.1%

2.0%

2.0%

1.9%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.6%

1.5%

1.5%

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

1.1%

0.8%

0.8%

0.7%

0.7%

0.6%

0.5%

0.4%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

243

381

274

796

402

318

472

584

409

165

26

508

2,075

425

414

63

382

1,396

21,756

80

371

43

131

828

483

2,073

764

891

316

383

556

494

189

344

273

207

138

291

774

87

254

361

280

137

171

188

499

365

164

54

170

64

No. ofInsts.

18

U.S. Average

33

States

States

AVG

2.9%



Given that schools must adopt a comprehensive IB program as opposed to

individual courses, an IB school automatically meets the requirement of offering

course work in the four core subject areas. The percentage of public high schools

offering the IB program ranges from 0.0 percent in North Dakota, Rhode Island,

South Dakota and Vermont to 10.3 percent in South Carolina (Figure 4.1f). When

placed in rank order, the states with the highest percentage are South Carolina,

Virginia, Maryland, Florida and Colorado.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind?

The presentation of AP and IB courses should not be misconstrued as the

only types of rigorous high school curricula. This measure should be used as

one gauge of the amount of rigor available to student in public high schools

across the nation. Rigorous course work can also be found in magnet and

honors programs throughout the country; however, data for these programs are

limited and do not meet the standards for inclusion in this report. While there is

cause for concern about limited availability of AP core course curricula in some

schools, a list of 171 online AP course providers is available through the AP

Course Ledger website.

Readers should also consider the fact that a school is counted whether or not

it offers one or 30 AP courses. This indicator only addresses participation (i.e.,

access) and not performance, which is more closely tied to college readiness.

Taking IB, for example, is not the same thing as earning the IB diploma.

College and career readiness pertains to the skills and content knowledge that

students should possess in reading, mathematics, writing and communications

in order to be successful in the workforce or in college.39

39. Wiley, A., Wyatt, J., and Camara, W. J. (2010). The Development of a Multidimensional College Readiness

Index (College Board Research Report No. 2010-3) (New York: The College Board).

109


A growing number of educational leaders contend that institutional, state, and

federal policies can create unintended barriers for low-income and minority

students. Several states have enacted legislation to reduce these barriers and

improve higher education system accountability by (1) ensuring that AP and

IB credit policies accurately inform prospective students and families about

credit-granting and tuition saving options; (2) supporting seamless articulation

of postsecondary credit for qualifying AP and IB exam scores; and (3) ensuring

broader consistency among the state’s postsecondary institutions to maximize

students’ application and transfer of credit to reduce the accumulation of excess

credits. The Education Commission of the States provides a searchable database

comparing state policies on awarding credit for AP and IB exam scores.40

While low-income and minority students continue to struggle with access to

college for a number of reasons, states should not focus solely on affordability.

There are a number of exemplary state models and initiatives that have

expanded access to AP and IB courses.41 Promising practices underscore

the need to create greater access to college admission exams (SAT and ACT)

and simplify the fi nancial aid application process, while promoting a resolute

commitment to eliminate barriers that restrict underserved and low-income

students from access to rigorous course work.

40. The Education Commission of the States, Advanced Placement: State Requires Postsecondary Institutions to

Award Credit for AP Exam Scores (2010). http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=2134

41. The Education Commission of the States Policy Brief, Strategies to Empower Low-Income and Minority

Students in Gaining Admission to and Paying for College, (2008).



Percentage of Schools Offering Dual EnrollmentWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? Dual enrollment

programs provide high school students the opportunity to take courses with

advanced curricula that are aligned with college standards and earn college

credit and save money. Dual enrollment programs differ from other programs

like Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate in that dual enrollment

students take a course with a college curriculum and receive college credit

when passing the course without additional end-of-course exams.

Dual enrollment programs can be offered whereby students enroll and take

courses concurrently at a college or university as well as at their high school, or

college-level courses can be offered at the local high school by college faculty

for credit. This indicator includes both types of dual enrollment offerings.

This indicator is important because it measures the percentage of high schools

in the United States that offer dual enrollment and therefore provide concurrent

access to postsecondary courses. Data from both the school and student

perspectives are presented in order to provide a more complete picture of

access and participation across the country.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? The funding

streams, student eligibility and tuition requirements for dual enrollment can

vary from state to state.42 Policymakers should integrate policies and practices

related to dual enrollment to ensure that all students have an opportunity and

appropriate support to engage in this level of course work. Policies should also

discuss how the credits earned from dual enrollment can be used to meet

graduation requirements and/or college credit.

Where are we now? As of 2009, 83.6 percent of high schools offer dual

enrollment (Figure 4.2a). While the school perspective suggests broad access to

dual enrollment, the student perspective reveals that only a fraction of students

in these schools take advantage of these opportunities. For example, only 14.3

percent of 11th- and 12th-grade students in these schools participate in dual

enrollment courses.

When the data are disaggregated by control of institution, school enrollment and

percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches, differences emerge

in both dual enrollment offerings and participation. Public high schools are more

likely than private high schools to offer dual enrollment, 89.9 percent versus

36.1 percent (Figure 4.2b). However, the percentage of 11th- and 12th-graders

pursuing dual enrollment courses does not differ between public and private

institutions (14.3 and 13.6, respectively).

42. Krueger, C. (2006). Dual Enrollment: Policy Issues Confronting State Policymakers (Denver: Education

Commission of the States). Retrieved June 3, 2011, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/67/87/6787.pdf

83.6% As of 2009, 83.6 percent of schools in the United States offer dual enrollment.

New indicator

111


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Schools offeringenrollment

Mean studentsenrolled

83.6%

14.3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public Private

89.9%

36.1%

14.3% 13.6%

National Percentage of Schools That Offer Dual Enrollment and Mean Percentage of Students Enrolled in Dual Enrollment, 2009Source: NACAC, State of College Admission, 2010

4.2a

National Percentage of Schools That Offer Dual Enrollment and Mean Percentage of Students Enrolled in Dual Enrollment, by Control of Institution, 2009Source: NACAC, State of College Admission, 2010

4.2b Schools Offering

Enrollment

Mean StudentsEnrolled

New fi gure

New fi gure



Schools with 1,500 to 1,999 students are most likely to offer dual enrollment

(92.6 percent), while smaller schools with fewer than 500 students are least

likely to offer dual enrollment (79.6 percent). However, a higher percentage of

11th- and 12th-grade students participate in dual enrollment in smaller schools.

An average of 19.0 percent of 11th- and 12th-grade students in schools with

fewer than 500 students participate in dual enrollment (Figure 4.2c), compared

to 12.8 percent or less in schools with 500 or more students.

There is little variability in the percentage of schools that offer dual enrollment

based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

programs (FRPL) (Figure 4.2d).

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The terms

dual enrollment, middle college high schools and early college high schools are

used interchangeably, but are structured in very different ways. Dual enrollment

programs have the most fl exible locations — on high school campuses, on

college campuses or through distance-learning programs. Middle college

high schools are less fl exible with location and are only available on college

campuses. Early college high schools combine the resources of high school

and college to provide an advanced curriculum for students. The presentation

of schools offering dual enrollment courses should not be misconstrued as

the only type of rigorous high school curriculum. It is the best measure that is

available to date.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fewer than500 students

500to 999

1,000to 1,499

1,500to 1,999

2,000or more

79.6%

19.0%

82.0%

12.8%

86.5%

9.6% 11.8%

92.6% 91.1%

10.2%

National Percentage of Schools That Offer Dual Enrollment and Mean Percentage of Students Enrolled in Dual Enrollment, by School Enrollment, 2009Source: NACAC, State of College Admission, 2010

4.2c Schools Offering

Enrollment


New fi gure

113


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 to 25Percent

26 to 50Percent

51 to 75Percent

76 to 100Percent

87.5%

13.8%

91.7%

14.8%

89.9%

14.6%

86.6%

13.7%

National Percentage of Schools That Offer Dual Enrollment and Mean Percentage of Students Enrolled in Dual Enrollment Who Receive Free or Reduced-Price Lunches, 2009Source: NACAC, State of College Admission, 2010

4.2d Schools Offering

Enrollment


New fi gure



Percentage of States with Alignment Between K–12 and Higher Education StandardsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

measures the degree to which states have coordinated K–12 and postsecondary

expectations to ensure that students have access to and complete a high

school curriculum that will prepare them for success after graduation.

Measures include the percentage of states that have aligned high school

standards and college and workplace expectations; the percentage of states

with alignment between high school graduation requirements and college and

workplace expectations; the percentage of states with college- and career-

ready assessment systems; the percentage of states with longitudinal data

systems connecting preschool through graduate study educational data; and

the percentage of states committed to adopting the Common Core State

Standards. These measures are important because they establish the state

environment necessary to foster student access to a curriculum that will ensure

that they are ready for college and work after leaving high school.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? These measures

are important because they refl ect policies that have the potential to improve

educational and workforce outcomes. States that encourage collaboration and

alignment between K–12 and higher education benefi t when students need less

remediation in order to be successful in college or the workplace.

Where are we now? As of 2010, 31 states (60.8 percent) have alignment

between high school standards and college and workplace expectations (Figure

4.3a). However, only 20 states and the District of Columbia (41.2 percent)

have alignment between high school graduation requirements with college

and workplace expectations (Figure 4.3b). Fourteen states (27.5 percent) have

a college- and career-ready assessment system (Figure 4.3c). Sixteen states

(31.4 percent) have P–20 longitudinal data systems that integrate educational

information from preschool through graduate school (Figure 4.3d). Forty-one

states and the District of Columbia (82.4 percent) have adopted the Common

Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics (Figure 4.3e).

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? There is

a lot of variation in high school graduation requirements across states. High

schools and institutions of higher education may work together to align courses

within a state, but until these standards are implemented nationwide students

who attend college out-of-state may fi nd diffi culty in making sure these

systems are aligned.

60.8% As of 2010, 31 states have alignment between high school standards and college and workplace expectations.

15.8ppts 2009–2010

41.2% As of 2010, 20 states and the District of Columbia have alignment between high school graduation requirements and college and workplace expectations.

2.2ppts 2009–2010

115


YES 60.8%

NO 39.2%

YESAlabamaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoDelawareFloridaGeorgiaIndianaKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMichiganMinnesotaMississippiNebraskaNew JerseyNew Mexico

New YorkNorth CarolinaOhioOklahomaOregonRhode IslandSouth CarolinaTennesseeTexasVirginiaWashingtonWest Virginia

NO AlaskaConnecticutDistrict of ColumbiaHawaiiIdaho

IllinoisIowaKansasMassachusettsMissouriMontanaNevadaNew HampshireNorth DakotaPennsylvaniaSouth DakotaUtahVermontWisconsinWyoming

YES 41.2%

NO 58.8%

YESAlabamaArizonaArkansasDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaGeorgiaIndianaKentuckyMichiganMinnesotaMississippiNebraskaNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaOhioOklahomaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasWashington

NO AlaskaCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutFloridaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIowaKansasLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMissouriMontanaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNorth DakotaOregon

PennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaUtahVermontVirginiaWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Percentage of States with Alignment Between High School Standards and College and Workplace Expectations, 2010Source: Achieve, Inc., 2010

Percentage of States with Alignment Between High School Graduation Requirements and College and Workplace Expectations, 2010Source: Achieve, Inc., 2010

4.3a

4.3b



27.5% As of 2010, 14 states have a college- and career-ready assessment system.

7.5ppts 2009–2010

31.4% As of 2010, 16 states have P–20 longitudinal data systems.

8.4ppts 2009–2010

82.4%As of 2010, 41 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core State Standards.

13.6ppts 2009–2010

YES 27.5%

NO 72.5%

YESAlabamaCaliforniaColoradoGeorgiaHawaiiIllinoisKentuckyLouisianaMaineMichiganNew YorkTennesseeTexasWisconsin

NO AlaskaArizonaArkansasConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaIdahoIndianaIowaKansasMarylandMassachusettsMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew Jersey

New MexicoNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWyoming

YESAlabamaAlaskaArkansasDelawareFloridaGeorgiaIowaLouisianaMissouriNevadaOregonPennsylvaniaTexasUtahWashingtonWyoming

NO ArizonaCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDistrict of ColumbiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaKansasKentuckyMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMontanaNebraskaNew Hampshire

New JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeVermontVirginiaWest VirginiaWisconsin

YES 31.4%

NO 68.6%

Percentage of States with College- and Career-Ready Assessment Systems, 2010Source: Achieve, Inc., 2010

Percentage of States with P–20 Longitudinal Data Systems, 2010Source: Achieve, Inc., 2010

4.3c

4.3d

117


YES 82.4%

NO

17.6%

YESAlabamaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMississippiMissouriNevada

New HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeUtahVermontWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

NOAlaskaMaineMinnesotaMontanaNebraskaNorth DakotaTexasVirginiaWashington

Percentage of States That Have Adopted the National Common Core Standards, 2010Source: National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Offi cers, Common Core Standards Initiative, 2010

4.3e



Percentage of Students in Remedial College ClassesWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

measures the percentage of fi rst- and second-year undergraduate students

who participate in remedial or developmental classes to improve basic skills

in reading, writing, mathematics or study skills. This can be used to examine

whether students are prepared adequately for college-level work and illustrates

the consequences of misaligned expectations for high school graduates and

beginning college students. The data contained in this indicator refl ect both

degree- and nondegree-seeking students (i.e., those pursuing certifi cates and/or

not enrolled in a degree program).

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Central to this

discussion is the question of whether remedial course offerings are appropriate

at the college level and whether those courses should be offered at all colleges

or be restricted to two-year colleges.43 There are concerns about the costs

of remedial course offerings and the impact of remedial course offerings on

academic standards at four-year institutions.44 In response to these pressures,

some states have taken steps to reduce or eliminate remedial course offerings

at four-year institutions and to restrict the use of public funds for such courses.

Policies should be in place to ensure that students who are in remedial courses

are aware of the implications this may have on their educational trajectory and/

or expected graduation date. But fundamentally, the policy issue is that students

are not arriving at college ready to participate in classes. Unfortunately, minority

students are typically overrepresented in these remedial classes.

Where are we now? As of 2008, 37.6 percent of fi rst- and second-year

undergraduate students are in at least one remedial college class (Figure 4.4a).

While the remediation rates are lowest for students who identify as white (33.1

percent), “two or more races” (35.5 percent), “other” (37.0 percent) and Asian

(38.1 percent); the remediation rates are considerably higher among students

who identify as African American (47.3 percent), Hispanic (45.1 percent) and

American Indian (43.9 percent; Figure 4.4b).

Females have a higher remediation rate than males (40.2 percent versus 34.2

percent; Figure 4.4c). The remediation rate is higher for 30- to 39-year-olds

(Figure 4.4d). The remediation rate ranges from 29.7 percent for students who

are 18 years old or younger to 43.2 percent for students who are 30 to 39

years old.

43. McCabe, R. No One to Waste (Denver: Community College Press, 2000); Shults, C. Institutional Policies and

Practices in Remedial Education: A National Study of Community Colleges (ED447884) (Washington, DC:

American Association of Community Colleges, 2000).

44. Hoyt, J., and Sorenson, C. (2001). High School Preparation, Placement Testing, and College Remediation.

Journal of Developmental Education, 25(2): 26–33.

37.6% As of 2008, 37.6 percent of fi rst- and second-year undergraduate students in the United States are in remedial courses after high school graduation.

47.3% As of 2008, 47.3 percent of African American fi rst- and second-year undergraduate students in the United States are in remedial courses after high school graduation.

Updated data source

119


45.1% As of 2008, 45.1 percent of Hispanic fi rst- and second-year undergraduate students in the United States are in remedial courses after high school graduation.

43.9% As of 2008, 43.9 percent of Native American fi rst- and second-year undergraduate students in the United States are in remedial courses after high school graduation.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AfricanAmerican

AmericanIndian

Asian Hispanic OtherPacificIslander

Two orMoreRaces

White

47.3%43.9%

38.1%45.1%

37.0%40.6%35.5%33.1%

AVG

37.6%

Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Race/Ethnicity, 2008Source: NCES, Profi le of Undergraduate Students: 2007-08, 2010

4.4b

ENROLLED

37.6% NOT

ENROLLED

62.4%

Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in Remedial Courses After High School Graduation, 2008Source: NCES, Profi le of Undergraduate Students: 2007-08, 2010

4.4a New fi gure

New fi gure



Across income levels, the remediation rate is higher among low-income fi rst-

and second-year undergraduate students. The remediation rate for students

in the lowest income quartile is 41.9 percent compared to 31.3 percent for

students in the highest income quartile (Figure 4.4e).

In general, remediation rates are higher for public institutions versus private

institutions. Public two-year institutions have the highest remediation rates

(44.5 percent; Figures 4.4f and 4.4g). Exclusively, part-time students have

higher remediation rates compared to full-time students (42.5 percent and 34.5

percent, respectively (Figure 4.4h). A slightly higher proportion of second-year

undergraduate students (39.9 percent) take at least one remedial course

when compared to fi rst-year students (36.2 percent; Figure 4.4i).

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The National Center for Education Statistics generally defi nes postsecondary

remedial education as courses in reading, writing, mathematics or study skills

for college-level students lacking the skills necessary to perform at the level

required by the institution.45 Students participating in remedial education in

college may not earn credit toward their degrees following course completion.

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) data, unlike the other

indicators in this report, include Puerto Rico. The NPSAS is based on a nationally

representative sample of all students in postsecondary education institutions,

which comprises undergraduate, graduate and fi rst-professional students.

Despite the number of students with access to the survey, only the responses

from fi rst- and second-year undergraduates or undergraduates not in a degree

program are considered for the question related to remedial courses. A study

of this type, designed to collect data on signifi cant fi nancial aid issues, has not

been replicated since 2008.

45. Parsad, B., Lewis, L., and Greene, B. (November 2003). Remedial Education at Degree-Granting

Postsecondary Institutions in Fall 2000 (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics).

33.1% As of 2008, 33.1 percent of white fi rst- and second-year undergraduate students in the United States are in remedial courses after high school graduation.

38.1% As of 2008, 38.1 percent of Asian fi rst- and second-year undergraduate students in the United States are in remedial courses after high school graduation.

121


Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Gender, 2008Source: NCES, Profi le of Undergraduate Students: 2007-08, 2010

4.4c

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

MaleFemale

34.2%40.2% AVG

37.6%

New fi gure



Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Income, 2008Source: NCES, Profi le of Undergraduate Students: 2007-08, 2010

4.4e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Highest25 percent

Lowest25 percent

Middle50 percent

41.9%38.1%

31.3%

AVG

37.6%

New fi gure

Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Age, 2008Source: NCES, Profi le of Undergraduate Students: 2007-08, 2010

4.4d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

18 or younger 19–23 24–29 30–39 40 or older

29.7%

36.1%42.5% 43.2% 40.8% AVG

37.6%

New fi gure

123


Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Institutional Type, 2008Source: NCES, Profi le of Undergraduate Students: 2007-08, 2010

4.4f

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total(For-profit)

TotalPublic

TotalPrivate

(Nonprofit)

40.6%

24.8%29.5%

AVG

37.6%

New fi gure



Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Attendance Intensity, 2008Source: NCES, Profi le of Undergraduate Students: 2007-08, 2010

4.4h

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Exclusivelypart-time

Anyfull-time

34.5%42.5%

AVG

37.6%

New fi gure

Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Institutional Type, 2008Source: NCES, Profi le of Undergraduate Students: 2007-08, 2010

4.4g

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

For-profit(Lessthan

2-year)

For-profit(2 yearsor more)

Public(Less than

2-year)

Public(2-year)

Private(Nonprofit,

Lessthan

4-year)

Public(4-year

doctorate-granting)

Public(4-year

non-doctorate-granting)

Private(Nonprofit,

4-yearnon-

doctorate-granting)

Private(Nonprofit,

4-yeardoctorate-granting)

44.5%

35.8%

26.4%21.4%

26.1% 30.7%32.3% 37.6%

23.7%

AVG

37.6%

New fi gure

125


Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Class Level, 2008Source: NCES, Profi le of Undergraduate Students: 2007-08, 2010

4.4i

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Second-yearundergraduate

First-yearundergraduate

36.2%39.9% AVG

37.6%

New fi gure


FiveImprove teacher quality and focus on recruitment and retention

WE RECOMMEND that states, localities and the federal government step up to the crisis in teaching by providing market-competitive salaries, creating multiple pathways into teaching, and fi xing the math and science crisis.


It is critical for the United States to substantially improve the quality of

teachers to ensure that students have the benefi t of learning from the most

highly qualifi ed and innovative teachers possible. Professional development

is important to constantly improving the quality of teachers, yet more must

be done to encourage more highly qualifi ed individuals to choose teaching as

a profession. The issue is so important that the National Council on Teacher

Quality (NCTQ) began creating a biennial State Teacher Policy Yearbook that

identifi es critical areas in which teacher policy needs to improve for every state

in the nation.46

NCTQ’s Yearbook evaluates states based on fi ve goals: (1) teacher preparation;

(2) teacher recruitment; (3) identifi cation of effective teachers; (4) retention of

effective teachers; and (5) exiting of ineffective teachers. In general, these goals

cover the areas of recruitment and retention of teachers. In the Yearbook, each

state receives an overall grade and a grade in each of the fi ve areas mentioned

above. In the 2010 Yearbook, most of the states received an overall grade of

C or D. The recruitment and retention for individuals in the teaching profession

is complex, yet it is necessary to ensure that teacher quality is constantly

improving.

There are multiple approaches to assessing teacher quality; those featured in this report include:

• State encouragement and support for teacher professional development;

• Percentage of public school teachers of grades nine through 12 by fi eld;

• State policies on out-of-fi eld teachers;

• Percentage of bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees earned in

education;

• Percentage of teachers leaving the profession;

• Data systems to monitor teacher quality; and

• Percentage of teachers by full-time teaching experience.

46. National Council on Teacher Quality. Blueprint for Change: 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook. Retrieved from

http://www.nctq.org/stpy09/updates/national.jsp

Recommendation Five 128


General Findings for This Recommendation• As of 2010, 40 states have professional development standards for teachers.

• As of 2010, 24 states fi nance professional development for all districts.

• As of 2010, 16 states require districts/schools to set aside time for

professional development.

• As of 2010, 31 states require districts to align professional development with

local priorities and goals.

• As of 2008, English or language arts teachers represent 15.9 percent of the

public secondary school teachers, followed by 13.4 percent for mathematics,

12.8 percent for vocational/technical, 11.6 percent for natural sciences, 11.4

for social sciences, 10.2 percent for special education, and less than 8.0

percent each for arts and music, foreign languages and health and physical

education.

• As of 2010, six states require parental notifi cation of out-of-fi eld teachers.

• As of 2010, four states have a ban or cap on the number of out-of-fi eld

teachers allowed in K–12 classrooms.

• As of 2008, education degrees represent 6.6 percent of bachelor’s degrees,

28.1 percent of master’s degrees, and 13.3 percent of doctoral degrees

earned in one year.

• As of 2008, 8.0 percent of public school teachers and 15.9 percent of private

school teachers do not return to the teaching profession the following

academic year.

• As of 2010, 13 states include student achievement as a part of the teacher

evaluation process.

• As of 2010, 20 states are able to match student and teacher records by

course/subject with state assessment results.

• As of 2008, 13.4 percent of teachers have less than three years , 33.6

percent of teachers have three to nine years, 29.3 percent of teachers have

ten to 20 years, and 23.7 percent of teachers have more than 20 years of

full-time teaching experience.

129


State Encouragement and Support for Teacher Professional DevelopmentWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? To ensure that

teachers continue to build upon the knowledge and skills developed through

undergraduate and/or graduate education, they must participate in ongoing quality

professional development initiatives. The content of professional development

activities for teachers may be guided by a set of agreed upon standards by a local

education agency, the decision of the building administrator and/or the decision

of an individual teacher. Thus, the quality of these experiences must be closely

monitored to assure teachers are gaining access to knowledge that will provide

more opportunity for students to attain college and career success. One such

entity that monitors and identifi es teachers who have met high standards based

on what teachers know and should be able to do is the National Board

for Professional Teaching Standards.47

47. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. For more information, see http://www.nbpts.org/

78.4% As of 2010, 40 states have professional development standards for teachers.

1.6ppts 2009–2010

47.1% As of 2010, 24 states fi nance professional development for all districts.

2009–2010

States with Professional Development Standards, 2010Source: Education Week, Quality Counts, 2010

5.1a

YES 78%

NO 22%

YESAlabamaArizonaArkansasColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippi

MissouriMontanaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaTennesseeUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest Virginia

NOAlaskaCaliforniaDistrict of ColumbiaIdahoIllinoisNebraskaNevadaSouth DakotaTexasWisconsinWyoming



What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Schools and

districts are encouraged to implement policies and procedures that provide

quality professional development for their teachers. Professional development

opportunities should align with other goals and objectives within a school,

district and/or state. This type of districtwide or schoolwide professional

development compensates for the varied types of instruction teachers may

receive in their preservice programs and will help to alleviate the large-

scale concerns across a local education agency. This will also ensure that

the knowledge and skills of the teachers are being developed in the most

effective areas.

Where are we now? As of 2010, 40 states (78.4 percent) have professional

development standards for K–12 teachers (Figure 5.1a). Funding is provided for

all districts in the state to provide professional development for teachers in 24

states (47.1 percent; Figure 5.1b). Only 16 states (31.4 percent) require districts/

schools to set aside time for professional development (Figure 5.1c), while 31

states (60.8 percent) require districts to align professional development with

local priorities and goals (Figure 5.1d). Finally, 31 states (60.8 percent) provide

incentives for teachers to earn National Board Certifi cation (Figure 5.1e).

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Professional development models come in many different forms, with varying

degrees of effectiveness. Although tracking the number of states with

professional development initiatives is helpful in understanding the degree to

which teachers have further educational opportunities beyond formal schooling,

it is also important to track the effectiveness and quality of professional

development courses.

31.4% As of 2010, 16 states require districts/schools to set aside time for professional development.

2009–2010

60.8% As of 2010, 31 states require districts to align professional development with local priorities and goals.

1.8ppts 2009–2010

131


YES 47% NO 53%

YESAlabamaArkansasDelawareGeorgiaHawaiiIowaKentuckyLouisianaMarylandMinnesotaMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth Carolina

UtahVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsin

NO AlaskaArizonaCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaIdahoIllinoisIndianaKansasMaine

MassachusettsMichiganMississippiNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkOhioOklahomaOregonSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasVermontWyoming

YES 31%

NO 69%

YESAlabamaArkansasConnecticutDelawareGeorgiaKentuckyLouisianaMichiganMontanaNebraskaNew YorkNorth DakotaSouth CarolinaTennesseeVermontWest Virginia

NOAlaskaArizonaCaliforniaColoradoDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasMaineMarylandMassachusettsMinnesotaMississippiMissouri

NevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNorth CarolinaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth DakotaTexasUtahVirginiaWashingtonWisconsinWyoming

States That Finance Professional Development for All Districts, 2010Source: Education Week, Quality Counts, 2010

States That Require Districts/Schools to Set Aside Time for Professional Development, 2010Source: Education Week, Quality Counts, 2010

5.1b

5.1c



YES 61% NO 39%

YESArkansasFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMissouriMontanaNevadaNew JerseyNew MexicoNew York

North CarolinaOklahomaPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaTennesseeUtahVermontVirginiaWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

NOAlabamaAlaskaArizonaCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaIdahoIllinoisMaineMississippiNebraskaNew HampshireNorth DakotaOhioOregonSouth DakotaTexasWashington

YES 61% NO 39%

YESAlabamaArkansasCaliforniaDelawareFloridaHawaiiIdahoIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMississippiMontanaNevadaNew York

North CarolinaNorth DakotaOklahomaPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

NOAlaskaArizonaColoradoConnecticutDistrict of ColumbiaGeorgiaIllinoisIndianaMinnesotaMissouriNebraskaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoOhioOregonSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtah

States That Require Districts to Align Professional Development with Local Priorities and Goals, 2010Source: Education Week, Quality Counts, 2010

States That Provide Incentives for Teachers to Earn National Board Certifi cation, 2010Source: Education Week, Quality Counts, 2010

5.1d

5.1e

133


Percentage of Public School Teachers of Grades Nine Through 12 by FieldWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? The data in

this measure present the primary teaching assignments of public school

teachers for grades nine through 12. This highlights the demand for teachers

in the mathematics and science fi elds — disciplines that have long struggled

with recruitment and retention issues. Highly qualifi ed teachers in this area

are necessary to build the pipeline of students who will be able to work in

the mathematics and science fi elds. The United States Department of Labor

recommends building the gateway to science, technology, engineering and

mathematics career fi elds through K–12 education.48 Thus, the identifi cation of

STEM teachers is a pivotal role in the nation’s ability to remain competitive with

other countries in economic growth and sustainability.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? The number of

teachers of grades nine through 12 in a specifi c subject area is closely related to

the course requirements for graduation. If states require students to complete

a specifi c sequence of courses to receive a high school diploma, it is expected

that the schools offer these courses to students. Thus states, districts and

schools may be limited in the number of mathematics and science teachers

they can hire if these courses are not required for graduation. Policymakers

should strive to ensure that their graduation standards require students to

complete rigorous mathematics and science courses, specifi cally with the intent

of preparing students for the demands of the workforce.

Where are we now? As of 2008, 15.9 percent of public high school teachers

teach English or language arts while 11.4 percent teach social sciences

(Figure 5.2a). Collectively, one out of four public high school teachers teaches

mathematics or science, 13.4 percent teach mathematics and 11.6 percent

teach natural sciences. Vocational/technical teachers constitute 12.8 percent of

public high school teachers, and special education teachers represent a slightly

smaller portion of teachers (10.2 percent). Arts and music, foreign languages,

and health and physical education teachers each represent less than 8.0 percent

of public high school teachers.

48. United States Department of Labor. (2007). The STEM Workforce Challenge: The role of the public workforce

system in a national solution for a competitive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

workforce. Retrieved from http://www.doleta.gov/youth_services/pdf/STEM_Report_4%2007.pdf

15.9% As of 2008, 15.9 percent of public high school teachers teach English or language arts classes.

13.4% As of 2008, 13.4 percent of public high school teachers teach mathematics classes.

11.6% As of 2008, 11.6 percent of public high school teachers teach science classes.



When disaggregated by race/ethnicity, 81.2 percent of mathematics teachers and

86.4 percent of natural science teachers are white (Figure 5.2b). In comparison,

African Americans represent 7.3 percent of mathematics teachers and 5.5 percent

of natural science teachers. Nearly, seven percent (6.9 percent) of mathematics

teachers and 4.2 percent of natural science teachers are Hispanic.

As of 2008, the majority of teachers teaching mathematics and natural science

are women (Figure 5.2c). Women account for 56.8 percent of mathematics

teachers and 53.8 percent of science teachers in public high schools.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? In many

instances, teachers may teach more than one subject in a school. This measure

accounts for the primary teaching assignment of teachers who are responsible

for courses in grades nine through 12. In addition, the measure does not

address the academic rigor of the courses being taught. Currently, the level of

rigor in all high school courses is not measured; however, the Classifi cation of

Secondary School Courses49 provides an inventory of all high school courses

taught across the nation in a standardized format. This system provides the

ability to identify the same course across the nation by standardizing the name

of the course being offered.

49. National Center for Education Statistics (2011). High School Transcript Studies. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hst/courses.asp

0

5

10

15

20

25

Arts andMusic

English orLanguage

Arts

ForeignLanguages

Health andPhysical

Education

Math NaturalSciences

SocialSciences

SpecialEducation

Vocational/Technical

All Other

13.4%11.6%

6.7%5.9%7.5%

15.9%

11.4%10.2%

12.8%

4.7%

81,059 172,198 64,162 125,065 123,879 110,064 138,379 50,64172,104 144,750

Percentage of Public School Teachers of Grades 9 Through 12 by Field, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2009

5.2a

135


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

AfricanAmerican

AsianAmericanIndian/

Alaska Native

PacificIslander

Hispanic White Two or More Races

2.9%

2.0%

0.4%

0.7%

0.2%

0.4% 1.1%

0.8%7.

3%

5.5% 6.9%

4.2%

81.2

%

86.4

%

10,567 579 4,198 117,537 1,5929,988 290

6,879 875 2,501 108,057 1,0015,253 500

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Female Male

56.8%53.8%

43.2%46.2%

82,218 62,532

67,285 57,780

Percentage of Public School Teachers of Grades 9 Through 12 in Mathematics and Science Fields by Race/Ethnicity, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2009

Percentage of Public School Teachers of Grades 9 Through 12 in Mathematics and Science Fields by Gender, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2009

5.2b

5.2c

Mathematics

Natural Sciences

Mathematics

Natural Sciences



State Policies on Out-of-Field TeachersWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? A teacher with

content knowledge in the area in which they teach is more likely to be qualifi ed.

This measure seeks to gain an understanding of the number and percentage of

states that notify parents when a teacher is teaching out of fi eld, or in an area

in which he or she may not have received formal training. The measure also

provides the number and percentage of states that have a ban or cap on the

number of out-of-fi eld teachers permissible in classrooms. Providing parents

with this knowledge gives them the opportunity to decide whether or not the

teacher provided for their child meets their personal expectations.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Identifi cation of out-of-fi eld teachers may adversely affect the schools’

accreditation or reputation.50 Implementing policies that require states to send

parental notifi cation or place a ban or cap on the number of out-of-fi eld teachers

will encourage schools to put more highly qualifi ed teachers in place to teach

students. States should focus on policies and practices that help these out-of-

fi eld teachers acquire appropriate licensure and/or certifi cation.

Where are we now? As of 2010, only six states (11.8 percent) require parental

notifi cation of out-of-fi eld teachers (Figure 5.3a). These states are Arkansas,

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, New Mexico and Texas. Only four states (7.8 percent)

place a ban or cap on the number of out-of-fi eld teachers who are allowed in

K–12 classrooms (Figure 5.3b). These states are Florida, Kentucky, Nebraska and

South Carolina.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Although parental notifi cation and bans or caps on the number of out-of-fi eld

teachers can, in part, aid in improving the quality of teachers in the United

States, this indicator does little to protect students from teachers who received

their degree in the fi eld in which they teach, yet, as evidenced through teacher

evaluations, are failing to provide an acceptable teaching experience. Students

of these failing teachers are not receiving access to a high-quality education

despite the teacher’s perceived qualifi cations. On the other hand, parental

notifi cation, as well as caps and bans, can also be problematic in regions in

which there are simply not enough teachers to fi ll classrooms.

50. Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualifi ed teachers in American secondary schools. Educational

Researcher, 28(2): 26–37; Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Out-of-fi eld teaching and the limits of teacher policy (Center

for the Study of Teaching and Policy and The Consortium for Policy Research in Education).

http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/LimitsPolicy-RI-09-2003.pdf

11.8% As of 2010, six states require parental notifi cation of out-of-fi eld teachers.

1.8ppts 2009–2010

7.8% As of 2010, four states have a ban or cap on the number of out-of-fi eld teachers allowed in K–12 classrooms.

2009–2010

137


YES 8%

NO 92%

YESFloridaKentuckyNebraskaSouth Carolina

NO AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaGeorgiaHawaii

IdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew Mexico

New YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

YES

12%

NO 88%

YESArkansasFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiNew MexicoTexas

NO AlabamaAlaskaArizonaCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaIdahoIllinois

IndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew YorkNorth Carolina

North DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

States That Require Parental Notifi cation of Out-of-Field Teachers, 2010Source: Education Week, Quality Counts, 2010

States That Have a Ban or Cap on the Number of Out-of-Field Teachers, 2010Source: Education Week, Quality Counts, 2010

5.3a

5.3b



Percentage of Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral Degrees Earned in EducationWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? The percentage

of degrees earned in education indirectly refl ects the proportion of graduates

who may be eligible for teacher licensure. Obtaining teacher licensure is a

critical step in becoming a highly qualifi ed teacher.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Students seeking

teacher licensure or certifi cation upon graduation are encouraged to attend

an institution with an approved education program. The National Council for

Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)51 is a membership organization that

provides standards by which schools of education are assessed to determine

the level of rigor in the curriculum and the quality of the teacher preparation

programs. Policymakers should ensure that their decisions about improving

teacher education programs in their state are supported by organizations such

as NCATE and are grounded in evidence-based research.

Where are we now? The trend is decreasing for the percentage of graduates

who earn a bachelor’s degree in education (Figure 5.4a). Conversely, the trend is

slightly increasing for the percentage of graduates who earn a master’s degree

in education. The trend is relatively stable for percentage of graduates who earn

a doctoral degree in education with the highest percentage (14.8 percent) in

2002 and 2003.

When disaggregated by race/ethnicity, whites represent 84.4 percent of

bachelor’s degrees, 76.7 percent of master’s degrees and 65.8 percent of

doctoral degrees conferred in education (Figure 5.4b). African Americans earn

6.4 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 10.2 percent of master’s degrees and 16.9

percent of doctoral degrees in education. Nonresident aliens represent about

8.0 percent of doctoral degrees in education.

When disaggregated by gender, women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees

(78.7 percent), master’s degrees (77.2 percent) and doctoral degrees (67.3

percent) in education (Figure 5.4c).

51. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2010). Retrieved March 21, 2010, from

http://www.ncate.org/

6.6% As of 2008, education degrees represent 6.6 percent of the bachelor’s degrees earned in one year.

2007–2008*

28.1% As of 2008, education degrees represent 28.1 percent of master’s degrees earned in one year.

1.1ppts 2007–2008*


139


13.3% As of 2008, education degrees represent 13.3 percent of doctoral degrees earned in one year.

2007–2008*

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

25.9%

13.7%

9.0%

26.4%

13.6%

8.9%

26.8%

14.5%

8.9%

26.9%

14.3%

8.7%

27.3%

14.0%

8.5%

28.0%

14.8%

8.2%

28.8%

14.8%

7.8%

29.0%

14.7%

7.6%

29.1%

14.6%

7.3%

29.4%

13.5%

7.2%

29.2%

13.6%

6.9%

28.1%

13.3%

6.6%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


AmericanIndian/

Alaska Native

AfricanAmerican

(Non-Hispanic)


NonresidentAlien

2.1%

2.6%

3.3%

0.9%

0.7%

0.7%

6.4% 10

.2% 16

.9%

5.3% 6.8%

5.2%

84.4

%

76.7

%

65.8

%

1.0% 3.0% 8.

0%

2,154

4,573

280

923

1,231

59

5,437

11,960

442

86,579

134,900

5,587

1,026

5,276

679

6,565

17,940

1,435

Bachelor’s

Master’s

Doctoral

Bachelor’s

Master’s

Doctoral

Updated data source

Updated data source


Percentage of Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctoral Degrees Earned in Education, 1997–2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2009

Percentage of Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctoral Degrees Earned in Education by Race/Ethnicity, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2009

5.4a

5.4b



When placed in rank order by state, Minnesota has the highest percentage

(22.4 percent) of bachelor’s and master’s degrees earned in education (Figure

5.4d). Mississippi, Kentucky, Arizona and Delaware are among the states

with the highest percentage of bachelor’s and master’s degrees earned in

education. The District of Columbia has the lowest percentage (5.5 percent)

of bachelor’s and master’s degrees earned in education. Colorado, Texas,

California and Rhode Island are among the states with the lowest percentage of

bachelor’s and master’s degrees earned in education. Wyoming has the highest

percentage (13.9 percent) of bachelor’s degrees earned in education (Figure

5.4e). Colorado has the lowest percentage (0.7 percent) of bachelor’s degrees

earned in education. Minnesota has the highest percentage (46.0 percent) of

master’s degrees earned in education (Figure 5.4f). The District of Columbia has

the lowest percentage (10.3 percent) of master’s degrees earned in education.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Education degree programs include various areas of education beyond

teacher education, such as educational psychology, religious education, school

counseling, athletic training, curriculum and instruction, educational statistics

and educational evaluation, among other areas. The number of graduates in

education is not a direct measure of the number of graduates completing an

approved teacher education program.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

MaleFemale

80,732

135,779

5,714

21,850

40,101

2,777

21.3

%

22.8

%

32.7

%

78.7

%

77.2

%

67.3

%

Percentage of Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctoral Degrees Earned in Education by Gender, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2009

5.4c Bachelor’s

Master’s

Doctoral

Updated data source

141


Percentage of Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees Earned in Education by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2009

5.4d

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Minnesota

Mississippi

Kentucky

Arizona

Delaware

New Mexico

Nevada

Arkansas

Alabama

Nebraska

Wyoming

Illinois

Idaho

Maine

Kansas

New York

Ohio

South Carolina

Alaska

Georgia

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Michigan

Indiana

West Virginia

Montana

Missouri

Oregon

Utah

Pennsylvania

North Dakota

Tennessee

UNITED STATES

Oklahoma

Hawaii

Massachusetts

North Carolina

Iowa

New Jersey

Connecticut

Florida

New Hampshire

Louisiana

Maryland

Vermont

Washington

Virginia

Rhode Island

California

Texas

Colorado


22.4%

19.9%

19.0%

18.3%

18.1%

18.0%

17.8%

17.4%

16.6%

16.6%

16.4%

16.3%

16.1%

16.1%

15.8%

15.7%

15.4%

15.0%

14.5%

14.3%

14.1%

14.0%

13.8%

13.6%

13.6%

13.4%

13.1%

13.1%

13.1%

12.9%

12.8%

12.8%

12.7%

12.4%

11.9%

11.7%

11.7%

11.6%

11.4%

11.3%

11.0%

11.0%

10.8%

10.7%

10.0%

9.8%

9.3%

9.2%

8.1%

6.8%

6.3%

5.5%

32

U.S. Average

19

States

States

AVG

12.7%

New fi gure



Percentage of Bachelor’s Degrees Earned in Education by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2009

5.4e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Wyoming

Mississippi

Idaho

Arkansas

New Mexico

Kentucky

North Dakota

Utah

Nebraska

Maine

Indiana

Montana

Georgia

Ohio

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Alabama

Kansas

South Carolina

Delaware

Illinois

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Michigan

North Carolina

Minnesota

Missouri

Iowa

Louisiana

Pennsylvania

Nevada

Florida

Hawaii

Rhode Island

UNITED STATES

Arizona

New York

New Jersey

New Hampshire

Tennessee

Vermont

Washington

Maryland

Alaska

Oregon

Connecticut

Massachusetts

Texas

Virginia

California


Colorado

13.9%

13.5%

12.5%

12.4%

12.3%

11.2%

11.1%

10.9%

10.8%

10.8%

10.5%

10.3%

10.1%

10.0%

9.9%

9.7%

9.6%

9.6%

9.5%

9.3%

9.2%

9.2%

9.0%

8.8%

8.5%

8.4%

8.2%

7.9%

7.6%

7.5%

7.3%

7.3%

6.8%

6.7%

6.6%

6.2%

6.2%

5.6%

5.6%

5.4%

5.1%

4.9%

4.6%

4.5%

4.0%

3.8%

2.7%

2.2%

2.0%

1.8%

0.9%

0.7%

34

U.S. Average

17

States

States

AVG

6.6%

New fi gure

143


Percentage of Master’s Degrees Earned in Education by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2009

5.4f

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Minnesota

Nevada

Kentucky

Oregon

Mississippi

Maine

Delaware

South Carolina

Alaska

Tennessee

Arizona

Idaho

Arkansas

Nebraska

New York

Wisconsin

Kansas

Alabama

South Dakota

New Mexico

Ohio

Virginia

Illinois

Iowa

UNITED STATES

Montana

Pennsylvania

Connecticut

Wyoming

Hawaii

Georgia

Michigan

Massachusetts

West Virginia

Washington

New Jersey

New Hampshire

California

Indiana

Missouri

Utah

Louisiana

North Carolina

Maryland

Florida

Oklahoma

Vermont

Rhode Island

Texas

Colorado

North Dakota


46.0%

45.7%

40.8%

40.6%

39.2%

38.9%

38.5%

36.3%

36.1%

35.1%

35.0%

34.3%

34.1%

34.1%

33.1%

33.1%

32.7%

32.1%

32.0%

31.2%

30.8%

29.4%

28.9%

28.9%

28.1%

27.9%

27.7%

27.7%

27.2%

27.2%

26.9%

26.9%

26.9%

26.5%

26.4%

26.2%

25.1%

24.9%

23.5%

23.1%

22.2%

22.2%

21.7%

21.7%

21.6%

21.5%

21.5%

20.5%

20.4%

20.2%

19.8%

10.3%

24

U.S. Average

27

States

States

AVG

28.1%

New fi gure



Percentage of Teachers Leaving the ProfessionWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

tracks the percentage of teachers leaving the profession from one school year to

the next. It provides insight into the number of teachers needed to be recruited

and trained to replace those leaving the profession.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Teacher attrition occurs for a variety of reasons; however, many teachers have

cited dissatisfaction with the various aspects of the job as their reason for

leaving.52 Teacher turnover can be very costly. These teachers have received

professional development and other support services during their tenure that

will have to be repeated for their replacement counterparts. Schools with

high poverty rates and high populations of African American and/or Latino

students lose teachers at a higher rate than other schools.53 The Alliance for

Excellent Education estimates that the cost of replacing teachers who leave

the profession is $2.2 billion per year.54

Where are we now? Overall the annual rate of public and private school teachers

leaving the profession has increased from 1989 to 2009, although there was a

slight decrease for public school teachers from 2005–2009 (Figure 5.5a). As of

2008, 8.0 percent of public school teachers and 15.9 percent of private school

teachers do not return to the teaching profession the following academic year.

When disaggregated by race/ethnicity, the attrition rate is highest among African

American teachers in both public (9.0 percent) and private (24.2 percent) schools

(Figure 5.5b). In public schools, Hispanic teachers have the lowest attrition

rate (5.6 percent). In private schools, the attrition rate is lowest among white

teachers (14.7 percent).

52. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American

Educational Research Journal, 38(3): 499–534.

53. Barnes, G., Crowe, E., and Schafer, B. (2007). The cost of teacher turnover in fi ve school districts:

A pilot study. Retrieved Feb. 19, 2010, from http://www.nctaf.org/resources/demonstration_projects/turnover/

TeacherTurnoverCostStudy.htm

54. Alliance for Excellent Education (2005). Teacher attrition: A costly loss to the nation and to the states. Retrieved

Feb. 19, 2010, from http://www.all4ed.org/fi les/archive/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf p.1.

8.0% As of 2008, 8.0 percent of public school teachers do not return to the teaching profession the following academic year.

2007–2008

15.9% As of 2008, 15.9 percent of private school teachers do not return to the teaching profession the following academic year.

2.3ppts 2007–2008

145


The attrition rate for public school teachers does not vary by gender (Figure

5.5c). As of 2008, 8.0 percent of male and female public school teachers

do not return to the teaching profession the following academic year. In the

private sector, however, a slightly higher percentage of females (16.4 percent)

than males (14.3 percent) do not return to the teaching profession after the

academic year.

When disaggregated by age, the attrition rate in public schools is highest among

teachers ages 50 and over (10.0 percent; Figure 5.5d). Public school teachers

ages 40 to 49 have the lowest attrition rate (3.9 percent) among public school

teachers. In private schools the attrition rate is highest among teachers who are

younger than 30 years old (21.1 percent). Private school teachers ages 40 to 49

have the lowest attrition rate (10.9 percent).

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? This measure describes teachers who left the profession entirely. Individual

schools, districts and states may face additional attrition challenges when staff

pursue teaching opportunities in other schools, districts or states. This measure

also does not consider the factors that result in teachers leaving the profession.

National Percentage of Teachers Leaving the Profession by School Type, 1989–2009Source: NCES, Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results From the 2008-09 Teacher Follow-up Survey, 2010

5.5a

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1989 1992 1995 2001 2005 2009

12.7% 13.6%

5.6%

12.3%

5.1%

11.9%

6.6%

12.5%

7.4%8.4%

15.9%

8.0%

Public

Private



National Percentage of Teachers Leaving the Profession by Race/Ethnicity, 2009Source: NCES, Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results From the 2008-09 Teacher Follow-up Survey, 2010*Data not available

National Percentage of Teachers Leaving the Profession by Gender, 2009Source: NCES, Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results From the 2008-09 Teacher Follow-up Survey, 2010

5.5b

5.5c

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Asian/ Pacific Islander*

American Indian/ Alaska Native*

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic White Total

8.0%9.0%

24.2%

5.6%

23.7%

8.0%

14.7%

8.0%

15.9%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MaleFemale Total

7.9%

14.3%

8.0%

16.4%

8.0%

15.9%

Public

Private

Public

Private

147


National Percentage of Teachers Leaving the Profession by Age, 2009Source: NCES, Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results From the 2008-09 Teacher Follow-up Survey, 2010

5.5d

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Less Than 30 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 and Over Total

9.2%

21.1%

8.4%

18.2%

3.9%

10.9%10.0%

14.7%

8.0%

15.9%

Public

Private



Data Systems to Monitor Teacher QualityWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

identifi es states that are able to match student and teacher records for the

purpose of evaluating teachers and monitoring student achievement. These

systems allow for the evaluation of teachers based on how their students

perform on state assessments. Teacher quality is evaluated via student

performance across courses/subject areas. Overall these data systems allow

for a more detailed look at the quality of a teacher.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? The Educational

Technical Assistance Act of 2002 provides grant funding to states to support

the design, development and implementation of a statewide longitudinal data

system.55 With this funding came strong recommendations for best practices

for use of these data systems. States should be sure that their longitudinal data

systems provide them with the most information and align with federal policies

related to privacy, security and confi dentiality.

Where are we now? As of 2010, only 13 states (25.5 percent) can link teacher

evaluation to student achievement in their state data systems (Figure 5.6a).

Twenty states (39.2 percent) have the ability to link teacher and student records

by course/subject (Figure 5.6b). All states and the District of Columbia have

assigned unique identifi cation numbers to teachers (Figure 5.6c).

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The creation

of integrated, statewide longitudinal data systems is a relatively new concept

in the fi eld of education. The knowledge and information that can be gleaned

from such longitudinal data systems are invaluable. The existence of these

longitudinal data systems is only one step; future efforts to improve teacher

quality should advocate for increased and appropriate usage of the data from

the longitudinal data systems to inform decision making.

55. National Center for Education Statistics. Statewide longitudinal data systems grant programs. Retrieved May

13, 2011, from http://nces.ed.gov/Programs/SLDS/index.asp

25.5% As of 2010, 13 states include student achievement as a part of the teacher evaluation process.

39.2% As of 2010, 20 states are able to match student and teacher records by course/subject with state assessment results.

New indicator

149


YES 25%

NO 75%

YESDelawareFloridaGeorgiaIowaNew YorkNorth CarolinaOhioOklahomaSouth CarolinaTennesseeTexasUtahVirginia

NO AlabamaAlaskaArizona

ArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDistrict of ColumbiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippi

MissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNorth DakotaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth DakotaVermontWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

YES 39% NO 61%

YESAlabamaArkansasCaliforniaDelawareFloridaHawaiiLouisianaMississippiMissouriNew MexicoOhioOklahomaPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaTennesseeUtahWashington

West VirginiaWyoming

NO AlaskaArizonaColoradoConnecticutDistrict of ColumbiaGeorgiaIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyMaineMaryland

MassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOregonSouth DakotaTexasVermontVirginiaWisconsin

Percentage of States in Which Teacher Evaluation Is Tied to Student Achievement, 2010Source: Education Week, Quality Counts, 2010

Percentage of States in Which Teacher and Student Records Can Be Matched by Course/Subject and State Assessment Results, 2010Source: Education Week, Quality Counts, 2010

5.6a

5.6b New fi gure

New fi gure



YES 100%

YESAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentucky

LouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhio

OklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Percentage of States in Which Teachers Are Assigned a Unique Identifi cation Number, 2010Source: Education Week, Quality Counts, 2010

5.6c New fi gure

151


Percentage of Teachers by Full-Time Teaching Experience by StateWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

describes teachers in terms of their years of full-time teaching experience.

This helps states plan strategies to recruit and retain teachers. For example,

states should consider the implications of when the percentage approaching

more than 20 years is relatively high and/or when the percentage of those

with three to 19 years of experience is decreasing. States will need to develop

and implement different strategies to retain teachers when the percentage of

teachers with less than three years of experience is relatively high.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? The recruitment,

preparation and retention of teachers via competitive compensation and

benefi ts are important policy issues in many states. Some states are examining

these issues collectively, while others are focusing on the area of immediate

need. There is a need for states to collaborate more on these efforts by

providing licensure reciprocity between more states for families who relocate.

Where are we now? As of 2008, 13.4 percent of teachers in the United States

have less than three years of full-time teaching experience (Figure 5.7). When

disaggregated by state, Arizona has the highest percentage (21.0 percent) of

teachers with less than three years of full-time teaching experience. Rhode

Island has the lowest percentage (7.7 percent) of teachers with less than three

years of full-time teaching experience.

As of 2008, 33.6 percent of the teachers in the United States have three to nine

years of experience. Delaware has the highest percentage (43.3 percent) of

teachers with three to nine years of full-time teaching experience. North Dakota

has the lowest percentage (23.3 percent) of teachers with three to nine years

of full-time teaching experience.

As of 2008, 29.3 percent of the teachers in the United States have 10 to

20 years of experience. Alaska has the highest percentage (39.7 percent)

of teachers with 10 to 20 years of experience. New Jersey has the lowest

percentage (22.8 percent) of teachers with 10 to 20 years of experience.

13.4% As of 2008, 13.4 percent of teachers have less than three years of full-time teaching experience.

33.6% As of 2008, 33.6 percent of teachers have three to nine years of full-time teaching experience.

New indicator



29.3% As of 2008, 29.3 percent of teachers have 10 to 20 years of full-time teaching experience.

23.7% As of 2008, 23.7 percent of teachers have more than 20 years of full-time teaching experience.

The remaining 23.7 percent represent teachers with more than 20 years of

full-time teaching experience. West Virginia has the highest percentage (37.4

percent) of teachers with more than 20 years of teaching experience. Colorado

has the lowest percentage (16.8 percent) of teachers with more than 20 years

of teaching experience.

States such as Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and West Virginia will face

unique challenges in coming years given that over one-third of their teachers

have more than 20 years of experience and may be nearing retirement.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The number

of years of teaching experience is a strong measure to help states understand

the teacher pipeline for their state. States should also consider these data

in conjunction with demographic information. For example, having a high

percentage of relatively inexperienced teachers may, in fact, refl ect a surge

in student enrollment that necessitated the hiring of new teachers. Also, the

percentage of teachers within a state by years of experience does not provide

any information about the quality of those teachers.

153


Percentage of Public K–12 Teachers by Years of Teaching Experience by State, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2009

5.7

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 4090 80 70

Colorado

Alabama

Delaware

Arizona

Hawaii

Nevada

California

New York

Alaska

Missouri

Oregon

Utah

Georgia

New Mexico

Illinois

Massachusetts

Michigan

North Carolina

Florida

Idaho

Rhode Island

Minnesota

UNITED STATES

Texas

New Jersey

Kentucky

Maryland

Mississippi


Washington

New Hampshire

Louisiana

Ohio

Wisconsin

Virginia

Tennessee

Oklahoma

Connecticut

Pennsylvania

Vermont

Iowa

South Carolina

Maine

Indiana

Kansas

Wyoming

Arkansas

South Dakota

Montana

Nebraska

North Dakota

West Virginia

17.2

14.4

10.6

21.0

18.6

15.6

13.5

12.8

12.0

13.3

18.0

19.9

10.3

13.3

13.4

11.1

9.4

15.6

14.8

12.5

7.7

12.7

13.4

17.1

12.3

10.2

12.0

17.1

20.0

14.1

13.3

12.7

12.1

9.8

14.1

13.6

10.9

12.2

12.5

11.7

11.4

12.8

12.3

9.2

13.0

10.3

10.7

11.4

11.0

11.4

12.0

13.1

37.9

31.3

43.3

34.6

34.3

37.3

35.9

38.0

27.5

34.2

31.5

32.9

32.4

35.6

35.6

39.9

32.5

37.3

35.0

31.0

37.0

28.5

33.6

31.2

40.8

35.5

37.1

31.8

29.9

27.8

31.7

33.3

29.9

32.4

32.8

28.8

31.4

29.7

33.6

30.5

30.5

31.5

27.0

32.3

30.2

27.3

25.7

23.7

26.9

24.2

23.3

26.4

28.1

36.1

27.9

26.1

28.6

27.8

30.3

28.5

39.7

31.6

29.5

26.0

35.9

29.6

29.3

27.2

36.3

25.0

27.4

33.6

32.2

35.3

29.3

27.7

22.8

30.1

26.2

26.1

24.6

32.6

29.1

27.6

31.6

31.4

26.6

30.8

30.7

31.1

26.7

30.5

29.9

27.3

31.5

29.1

27.2

32.5

32.1

32.5

28.8

30.2

30.0

23.1

16.8

18.2

18.2

18.4

18.6

19.4

20.3

20.6

20.7

20.8

21.0

21.2

21.4

21.5

21.6

21.8

21.8

22.0

22.8

22.8

23.1

23.6

23.7

24.0

24.1

24.2

24.8

25.1

25.5

25.5

26.0

26.3

26.3

26.4

26.5

26.8

27.0

27.1

27.2

27.3

28.2

28.5

29.1

29.4

29.6

29.9

31.6

32.4

33.3

34.2

34.7

37.4

Over 20 years

10 to 20 years

3 to 9 years

Less than 3 years

New fi gure


SixClarify and simplify the admission process

WE RECOMMEND that public and private institutions of higher education continue to uphold the highest professional standards in admission and fi nancial aid, and collaborate to make the admission process more transparent and less complex.

The commission believes that all students should easily navigate the college

admission process and that higher education should take steps to reduce the

complexity and mystery surrounding the process. Simplifying the admission

process does not necessarily mean requiring fewer application components.

Application requirements should offer suffi cient insight into the student’s

potential for success and provide a complete picture of the applicant. Applicants

will benefi t from increased transparency in admission terminology and greater

clarity in how admission decisions are made. For example, many students

agonize over the subtleties of recommended versus required application

components. Others devote an extraordinary amount of time to interviews,

many of which will play little to no role in admission decisions. Limiting

application requirements to elements that lend meaningful insight into the

student and to those that are truly factored into decisions will benefi t applicants,

as well as the admission offi cers tasked with reading applications.

Complexity is relative to the student, and no single metric exists with which

to assess it. While many applicants approach the admission process as well-

informed consumers with a comprehensive support system (e.g., counselors,

tutors and parents who have experienced the admission process), far more —

especially those from underrepresented minority, low-income and fi rst-generation,

college-going backgrounds — encounter the admission process without this

backing. Modern technology has led to several innovations that ultimately serve to

streamline and simplify the admission process and have the potential to reach a

broader array of applicants. Thus, we focus here primarily on the growth of online

application tools.

We look at the admission process from both the student’s and the institution’s perspective and focus on four indicators:

• Percentage of four-year colleges with applications available online;

• Percentage of four-year colleges to which students can submit

applications online;

• Percentage of four-year colleges that participate in national application

systems; and

• Immediate enrollment rate for high school graduates.

Recommendation Six 156completionagenda.collegeboard.org

General Findings for This Recommendation• As of 2009, 82.0 percent of four-year colleges report that their applications

are available online through their websites.

• As of 2009, applicants are able to submit applications online to 75.2 percent

of four-year colleges.

• As of 2009, 22.8 percent of four-year institutions participate in national

application systems that aim to streamline the admission process.

• As of 2010, 16 states and the District of Columbia have statewide

application systems for public four-year institutions that aim to streamline

the admission process.

• As of 2008, 68.6 percent of high school completers enroll in a two- or four-

year college immediately after completing high school.

• As of 2008, 55.7 percent of African American high school completers enroll

in a two- or four-year college immediately after completing high school.

• As of 2008, 63.9 percent of Hispanic high school completers enroll in a two-

or four-year college immediately after completing high school.

• As of 2008, 63.8 percent of high school graduates attend a two- or four-year

institution.


college located in the student’s home state.


college located outside of the student’s home state.

157 completionagenda.collegeboard.org

Percentage of Four-Year Colleges with Admission Applications Available OnlineWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? The admission

profession fundamentally changed with the emergence of the Internet.

Institutions made great strides over the past decade and a half in utilizing the

Internet as an outreach tool for a new generation of technologically savvy

applicants. Admission offi cers quickly recognized the potential of the Internet

to disseminate applications to a broader range of applicants than the institution

might have attracted through traditional mailings.

One of the fi rst steps toward simplifying the process for all students is for

institutions to make their applications readily available online. This removes

potential obstacles for applicants, such as having to call during the school

day in order to reach the admission offi ce during business hours or missing

a deadline because of insuffi cient turnaround time to request, complete and

return the application.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Institutions and

their applicants benefi t from policies that increase the availability of applications

online. For most institutions, this means ensuring that adequate staff and

fi nancial resources are in place to develop, maintain and improve the admission

website. In addition, outreach efforts that aim to connect students with the

online application must be in place.

Where are we now? As of 2009,56 82.0 percent of four-year colleges and

universities in the United States have admission applications available online

for students. The percentage of colleges with an admission application available

online has grown from a low of 53.1 percent in 2001 to a high of 82.0 percent

in 2009 (Figure 6.1a).

56. These data refl ect policies that were in place during the 2008–2009 admission cycle, affecting students

who enrolled in fall 2009.

82.0% As of 2009, 82.0 percent of four-year colleges report that their application is available online through their website.

1.1ppts 2008–2009


When disaggregated by state, the percentage ranges from 38.5 percent in

Arizona to 100 percent in Colorado, Hawaii and Wyoming. When placed in rank

order, the states with the highest percentage of institutions with admission

applications online are Colorado, Hawaii, Wyoming, Vermont and Iowa (Figure

6.1b). The states with the lowest percentage of institutions with admission

applications online are Arizona, Delaware, New York, Mississippi and Utah.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The Annual Survey of Colleges data are based on self-reported information from

the institutions, and colleges do not necessarily respond to all questions on the

survey. This indicator is calculated solely from affi rmative responses (i.e., those

institutions that explicitly indicate the application is available online through the

college’s website). This method may slightly underestimate the proportion of

four-year colleges with the option.

National Percentage of Four-Year Colleges with Admission Applications Available Online, 2001–2009Source: College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges, 2000–2008; NCES, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics Survey, 2001–2009

6.1a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

82.0%

53.1%60.6%

66.2%69.7%

74.4% 76.8%80.6% 80.9%


Percentage of Four-Year Colleges with Admission Applications Available Online by State Rank, 2009Source: College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges, 2008; NCES, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics Survey, 2009Note: Values listed under Number of Institutions on the left hand side is the number of institutions with admission applications online, not total institutions.

6.1b

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Colorado

Hawaii

Wyoming

Vermont

Iowa

New Hampshire

Kentucky

Pennsylvania

Tennessee

Virginia

West Virginia

Maine

Montana

New Mexico

Wisconsin

South Carolina

Connecticut

Idaho

Nebraska

Nevada

Ohio

North Carolina

Kansas

Indiana

Illinois

North Dakota

Massachusetts

Michigan

Oklahoma

Minnesota

UNITED STATES

Rhode Island

New Jersey

Louisiana

Georgia

Maryland

Alabama

Arkansas


South Dakota

Oregon

Missouri

Texas

California

Washington

Alaska

Florida

Utah

Mississippi

New York

Delaware

Arizona

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

94.4%

94.3%

93.8%

93.3%

92.9%

91.5%

91.1%

90.5%

90.0%

90.0%

90.0%

89.7%

88.2%

88.0%

87.5%

87.5%

87.5%

87.4%

86.7%

86.2%

86.0%

84.7%

84.6%

84.0%

83.1%

82.8%

82.5%

82.0%

81.8%

81.1%

80.8%

80.7%

80.0%

78.8%

78.3%

77.8%

76.9%

76.7%

76.4%

76.4%

76.2%

75.8%

75.0%

70.4%

70.0%

68.4%

68.3%

66.7%

38.5%

21

7

1

17

33

15

28

117

43

41

19

18

9

9

35

30

22

7

21

7

83

52

25

43

61

11

68

49

24

33

1,612

9

30

21

46

28

26

18

7

10

23

42

68

96

25

3

57

7

13

125

4

5

30

U.S. Average

21

States

States

No. ofInsts.

AVG

82.0%


Percentage of Four-Year Colleges That Accept Admission Applications OnlineWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? The previous

measure demonstrates that the vast majority of four-year institutions have

made their applications available through their websites. This indicator examines

a similar issue but focuses more specifi cally on the ability to submit the

application electronically.

The technology with which to submit the application online has lagged slightly

behind the general availability of online applications. This is understandable

given the relative ease with which an institution can post a PDF of the

application compared to the amount of work required to develop a tool that

captures information entered into an online application. Given the increase

in the proportion of four-year colleges with this technology, it is clear that

institutions are making online applications a priority. The ability to submit the

application online streamlines the process for students and frees up resources

in the admission offi ce. In theory, if these resources are no longer devoted to

the manual entry of data, they can be used in other productive ways to improve

the admission process.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Of increasing

concern is the complexity involved when some, but not all, elements of the

application can be submitted electronically. Institutions should ensure that

students fully understand which requirements have been submitted and which

elements may require additional work on the student’s part. For example,

students may need to contact teachers to send recommendations directly

to the college, or the school may need to send the transcript or counselor

recommendation. Secondary schools and higher education institutions

should improve outreach to help students understand how to use these

tools effectively.

Institutions should make sure that online application tracking technology does

not sacrifi ce accuracy for effi ciency. Online application submission tools should

also ensure the integrity of information, particularly as schools increasingly

use such technology to submit confi dential student information such as

recommendations or transcripts.

75.2% As of 2009, students are able to submit applications online to 75.2 percent of four-year colleges.

1.8ppts 2008–2009


Where are we now? Although many institutions have applications available

online, not all institutions are equipped to accept these applications electronically.

As of 2009, 75.2 percent of four-year colleges and universities in the United

States accept admission applications online from students (Figure 6.2a). The

percentage of colleges that accept admission applications online has grown

from a low of 38.0 percent in 2001 to a high of 75.2 percent in 2009.

When disaggregated by state, the percentage ranges from 46.2 percent in

Arizona to 100 percent in Alaska and Wyoming (Figure 6.2b). When placed in

rank order, the states with the highest percentage of institutions that accept the

admission application online are Alaska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kentucky and New

Mexico. The states with the lowest percentage of institutions that accept the

admission application online are Arizona, District of Columbia, Florida, New York

and California.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? As was the

case with the previous indicator, the Annual Survey of Colleges data are based

on self-reported information from the institution, and colleges do not necessarily

respond to all questions on the survey. This indicator is calculated solely from

affi rmative responses (i.e., those institutions that explicitly indicated that the

application can be submitted online) and may underestimate the proportion of

colleges for which the Internet technology is in place.

National Percentage of Four-Year Colleges to Which Students Can Submit Admission Applications Online, 2001–2009Source: College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges, 2000–2008; NCES, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics Survey, 2001–2009

6.2a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

75.2%

38.0%

47.7%54.2%

59.2%64.6%

67.8%70.9% 73.4%


Percentage of Four-Year Colleges to Which Students Can Submit Admission Applications Online by State Rank, 2009Source: College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges, 2008; NCES, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics Survey, 2009Note: Values listed under Number of Institutions on the left hand side is the number of institutions students can submit applications online, not total institutions.

6.2b

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Alaska

Wyoming

Colorado

Kentucky

New Mexico

Pennsylvania

Vermont

Virginia

Idaho

Wisconsin

Hawaii

West Virginia

Maine

Minnesota

North Carolina

Nebraska

Ohio

Tennessee

Iowa

Massachusetts

Indiana

Rhode Island

New Hampshire

Connecticut

Oklahoma

Michigan

UNITED STATES

Illinois

Nevada

Georgia

Washington

Kansas

Maryland

Texas

Montana

Utah

Alabama

Arkansas

Louisiana

North Dakota

South Dakota

Missouri

South Carolina

Delaware

New Jersey

Oregon

Mississippi

California

New York

Florida


Arizona

100.0%

100.0%

95.2%

90.0%

90.0%

89.7%

88.9%

88.9%

87.5%

87.2%

85.7%

85.7%

85.0%

85.0%

85.0%

83.3%

83.2%

83.0%

82.9%

82.7%

82.0%

81.8%

81.3%

80.0%

79.3%

78.0%

75.2%

75.0%

75.0%

73.7%

72.7%

72.4%

71.4%

70.8%

70.0%

70.0%

69.7%

69.6%

69.2%

69.2%

69.2%

69.1%

67.6%

66.7%

64.9%

63.3%

63.2%

62.7%

62.3%

59.3%

55.6%

46.2%

4

1

20

27

9

113

16

40

7

34

6

18

17

34

51

20

79

39

29

67

41

9

13

20

23

46

1,479

54

6

42

24

21

25

63

7

7

23

16

18

9

9

38

23

4

24

19

12

79

114

48

5

6

26

U.S. Average

25

States

States

No. ofInsts.

AVG

75.2%


Percentage of Four-Year Colleges That Participate in National and State Application SystemsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

represents the proportion of four-year colleges that participate in application

systems that aim to simplify the admission process, and the number of states

that offer statewide application systems for their public four year institutions.

The application systems address the overlap in applications and provide a

platform for students to enter information once and then send the application to

multiple colleges.

Over the past two decades, national application options themselves, as well as

the number of participating institutions, have expanded greatly. The Common

Application (CA), which existed in paper form since 1975, was introduced online

in 1998; and by 2006, all members accepted the application online. Since then,

the CA launched its online school form system and partnered with Naviance to

provide school offi cials the option of submitting transcripts, school forms and

recommendations electronically.

The Universal College Application (UCA), introduced in 2007, expanded the

opportunity for a centralized electronic application to colleges that do not

necessarily use “holistic” review processes. While CA membership is limited to

those requiring components such as teacher recommendations and an essay,

the UCA does not have this stipulation. This potentially opened the door to a

wider range of higher education institutions, particularly in the public sector.

The Common Black College Application (CBCA), started roughly 10 years ago,

originally collaborated with fi ve historically black colleges and universities with

the goal of increasing the presence of these colleges in new markets and

increasing educational options for students. The CBCA participates in a range of

outreach activities in schools and communities. Students pay a single application

fee and are able to apply simultaneously to over 30 colleges with the CBCA.

This measure also shows those states that have statewide application systems

at public, four-year colleges and universities within the state. These application

systems also aim to simplify applying to schools within a given state to make it

simpler for students to apply to public four-year colleges and universities within

that state. There are many variations to these systems among states. While

some states provide online systems that students can use to apply to all public,

four-year universities within that state, others provide a paper application that

can be used to apply to all the public, four-year universities in that system.

22.8% As of 2009, 22.8 percent of four-year institutions participate in national application systems that aim to streamline the admission process.

2.4ppts 2008–2009

33.3%As of 2010, 16 states and the District of Columbia have state-wide application systems for public four-year institutions that aim to streamline the admission process.


What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Perhaps the

greatest concern is access to information and resources — knowing that

the above options exist, having the ability to pay application fees or having

the knowledge to seek fee waivers, and subsequently having access to the

technology with which to complete one of the above options. Institutions should

examine payment and fee-waiver policies in order to ensure that all students

have the ability to participate equally in these application systems. Institutions

that are not current members of a centralized application system and states that

do not currently have a system for all students to apply to all public universities

should examine the costs and benefi ts of participation in or development of such

a system. The K–12 and higher education communities should strive to improve

outreach to underrepresented minority, low-income and fi rst-generation students

about the benefi ts of these application systems.

Where are we now? As of 2009, 22.8 percent of four-year institutions in the

United States participate in these national application systems (Figure 6.3a).

This number has risen steadily from 10.8 percent in 2000 to 22.8 percent in

2009. When disaggregated by state, the percentage ranges from 0.0 percent

in Alaska, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico and North Dakota to 100 percent in

Wyoming (Figure 6.3b). When placed in rank order, states with the highest

percentage of institutions using national application systems are Wyoming,

Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine. As of 2010, 16 states and

the District of Columbia have statewide application systems for public four-year

institutions that aim to streamline the admission process (Figure 6.3c).

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The goal in

this indicator is to describe application systems that connect students to a broad

array of colleges and universities on a state or national level. However, many

four-year institutions that do, in fact, participate in local or regional application

systems are excluded. In addition, other application platforms simplify the

process for school offi cials, which can have an indirect effect on the process

for students. For example, schools that use Naviance’s “College Planner” or

ConnectEDU’s “SuperAPP” are able to send materials electronically to more

than 1,000 colleges.


National Percentage of Four-Year Colleges That Use the Common Application, Universal College Application or Common Black College Application, 2000–2009 Source: Common Application, Universal College Application, Common Black College Application; NCES, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics Survey, 2001–2009

6.3a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20092000

22.8%

10.8% 11.7% 11.9% 12.4% 13.2% 14.2% 15.5% 17.9% 20.4%


Percentage of Four-Year Colleges That Use the Common Application, Universal College Application or Common Black College Application by State Rank, 2009Source: Common Application, Universal College Application, Common Black College Application; NCES, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics Survey, 2009Note: Values listed under Number of Institutions on the left hand side is the number of institutions that use a common application, not total institutions.

6.3b

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Wyoming

Rhode Island

New Hampshire

Vermont

Maine

Massachusetts

New York

Pennsylvania

Delaware


Connecticut

Virginia

Montana

South Carolina

New Jersey

Maryland

Colorado

Oregon

UNITED STATES

Minnesota

Washington

Wisconsin

Ohio

California

Georgia

Florida

North Carolina

Indiana

Mississippi

Louisiana

Alabama

Tennessee

Hawaii

Iowa

Illinois

Idaho

Texas

Missouri

Kentucky

Utah

Arkansas

Michigan

Arizona

South Dakota

Oklahoma

West Virginia

Nebraska

Alaska

Kansas

Nevada

New Mexico

North Dakota

100.0%

63.6%

56.3%

55.6%

55.0%

49.4%

39.9%

35.7%

33.3%

33.3%

32.0%

31.1%

30.0%

29.4%

27.0%

25.7%

23.8%

23.3%

22.8%

22.5%

21.2%

20.5%

20.0%

19.8%

19.3%

17.3%

16.7%

16.0%

15.8%

15.4%

15.2%

14.9%

14.3%

14.3%

13.9%

12.5%

12.4%

10.9%

10.0%

10.0%

8.7%

8.5%

7.7%

7.7%

6.9%

4.8%

4.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1

7

9

10

11

40

73

45

2

3

8

14

3

10

10

9

5

7

448

9

7

8

19

25

11

14

10

8

3

4

5

7

1

5

10

1

11

6

3

1

2

5

1

1

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

18

U.S. Average

33

States

States

No. ofInsts.

AVG

22.8%


States with Statewide Common Applications for Public Four-Year College and Universities, 2011 Note: California has separate applications for the University of California System and the California State University System, though students can apply to any school in each individual system with one application. New York has a statewide application for students applying to the State University of New York. There is a separate application for the City University of New York system institutions. Rhode Island will start in fall 2011. Maryland offers a statewide application for those universities that are in the University of Maryland System. Maryland has several public four-year institutions that fall outside of the system (and three institutions within the system) that are not supported by the statewide common application system.

6.3c

YES 66.7%

NO 33.3%

YESAlaskaCaliforniaDistrict of ColumbiaHawaiiIdahoMaineMarylandMinnesotaNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaRhode IslandSouth DakotaTexasWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

NO AlabamaArizonaArkansasColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMassachusettsMichiganMississippi

MissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaSouth CarolinaTennesseeUtahVermontVirginiaWashington


Immediate Enrollment Rate of High School GraduatesWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? One way to

assess whether efforts to streamline, simplify and demystify the admission

process are effective is to examine the proportion of students applying to

college. This hinges upon an assumption that if the process is perceived to be

less intimidating, then more students will ultimately apply to college. However,

there does not appear to be a comprehensive source for this information. This

can be explored indirectly through the immediate enrollment rate of students

who recently completed high school. If a greater proportion of students enroll,

then a greater proportion of them must have applied to college in the fi rst place.

This measure is fundamental to the overall goal of the commission. These

data indirectly refl ect application behavior and thus provide insight into an

important piece of the education pipeline, in which students must apply, enroll,

return for the sophomore year and ultimately complete their degrees (see

Recommendation Nine for more details on retention and completion).

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Enrollment rates

differ based on family income, parental education, race/ethnicity and gender.

Policies geared toward improving application and enrollment rates for low-

income and underrepresented minority students in particular will contribute

greatly to the commission’s goal.

Where are we now? As of 2008, 68.6 percent of high school completers in the

United States enroll in a two- or four-year college immediately after completing

high school (Figure 6.4a). This includes those who received a high school

diploma or a GED. However, the immediate enrollment rate for African American

(55.7 percent) and Hispanic (63.9 percent) students trails that of white (71.7

percent) students (Figure 6.4b).

The immediate enrollment rate for males (65.9 percent) is lower than the rate

for females (71.6 percent; Figure 6.4c), and enrollment rates vary according

to family income (Figure 6.4d). While 57.1 percent of those in the bottom 20

percent of all family incomes (i.e., low-income students) enroll in two- or four-

year colleges immediately after completing high school, 81.9 percent of those in

the highest 20 percent of all family incomes (i.e., high-income students) enroll

immediately after completing high school. The immediate enrollment rate also

differed according to parental educational attainment (Figure 6.4e). Although

53.8 percent of students whose parents have high school diplomas or less

enroll immediately in college, 72.0 percent of students whose parents have

some college and 82.4 percent of students whose parents have a bachelor’s

degree or higher do so.

68.6% As of 2008, 68.6 percent of high school completers enroll in a two- or four-year college immediately after completing high school.

1.4ppts 2007–2008

55.7% As of 2008, 55.7 percent of African American high school completers enroll in a two- or four-year college immediately after completing high school.

2007–2008


When disaggregated by state, the estimated rate of high school graduates

(excluding those with a GED) going to college ranges from 45.7 percent in

Alaska to 77.4 percent in Mississippi (Figure 6.4f). When placed in rank order,

the states with the highest overall percentage of high school graduates going

to college are Mississippi, Massachusetts, New York, South Dakota and New

Jersey. The states with the lowest percentage of high school graduates going

to college are Alaska, Oregon, Vermont, Idaho and Washington.

The estimated rate of high school graduates (excluding those with a GED)

going to college in their home state ranges from 11.2 percent in the District of

Columbia to 71.7 percent in Mississippi (Figure 6.4g). When placed in rank order,

the states with the highest overall percentage of high school graduates going to

college in their home state are Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, California

and New York. The states with the lowest percentage of high school graduates

going to college in their home state are Idaho, New Hampshire, Alaska, Vermont

and the District of Columbia.

The estimated rate of high school graduates (excluding those with a GED)

going to college outside of their home state ranges from to 4.9 percent in Utah

to 42.3 percent in the District of Columbia (Figure 6.4h). When placed in rank

order, the states with the highest overall percentage of high school graduates

going to college outside of their home state are the District of Columbia, New

Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey and Vermont. The states with the lowest

percentage of high school graduates going to college outside of their home

state are Louisiana, Mississippi, California, Arizona and Utah.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? A student

may complete the admission process only to fi nd that certain factors, such as

family fi nances, prevent him or her from enrolling. Therefore, this measure likely

underestimates the actual proportion of recent high school completers who

applied to college. It is also important to consider that this measure refl ects

students who have made it to a certain point of the educational pipeline and

completed high school. State outcomes may be impacted by differential dropout

rates (see Recommendation Three for additional details).

Readers should note that rates in Figures 6.4a through 6.4e are based on high

school completers, which included both high school graduates and individuals

who earned high school equivalency certifi cates (i.e., GEDs). Rates in Figures

6.4f through 6.4h are based on high school graduates only.

63.9% As of 2008, 63.9 percent of Hispanic high school completers enroll in a two- or four-year college immediately after completing high school.

3.0ppts 2007–2008

63.8% As of 2008, 63.8 percent of high school graduates attend a two- or four-year institution.

1.8ppts 2007–2008


51.8% As of 2008, 51.8 percent of high school graduates attend a two- or four-year college located in the student’s home state.

1.7ppts 2007–2008

12.0% As of 2008, 12.0 percent of high school graduates attend a two- or four-year college located outside of the student’shome state.

2007–2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008200019991998

68.6%65.6% 62.9% 63.3% 61.7%65.2% 63.9% 66.7% 68.6% 66.0% 67.2%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008200019991998

68.5% 66.3% 65.7% 64.2%68.9% 66.2% 68.8%

73.2%68.5% 69.5% 71.7%

59.8%51.9% 58.6%

47.4%

56.3%

48.6% 52.7%56.3% 57.2%

54.7%

60.0%57.7%

58.8%

57.7%58.2%

57.5% 55.6%58.5%

55.7%

62.0%

55.7%

63.9%

African American

Hispanic

White

Percentage of High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-Year Colleges Immediately Following High School Completion, 1998–2008Source: NCES, Condition of Education, 2010Note: High school completer refers to those who received a high school diploma or equivalency certifi cate. This indicator provides data on high school completers ages 16–24, who account for about 98 percent of all high school completers in a given year.

6.4a

Percentage of High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-Year Colleges Immediately Following High School Completion by Race/Ethnicity,a 1998–2008Source: NCES, Condition of Education, 2010Note: High school completer refers to those who received a high school diploma or equivalency certifi cate. This indicator provides data on high school completers ages 16–24, who account for about 98 percent of all high school completers in a given year.a. Due to unreliable (or unstable) estimates associated with small sample sizes for the low-income, African American and Hispanic categories, moving average rates are presented. These rates were generally calculated as the average of the annual rates for the following three adjacent years: the year in question, the year immediately before it and the year immediately after it.

6.4b


Percentage of High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-Year Colleges Immediately Following High School Completion by Family Income, 1998–2008 Source: NCES, Condition of Education, 2010Note: High school completer refers to those who received a high school diploma or equivalency certifi cate. This indicator provides data on high school completers ages 16–24, who account for about 98 percent of all high school completers in a given year.

6.4d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008200019991998

77.5% 76.1% 76.9% 79.9% 78.2% 80.1% 80.1% 81.2% 80.7% 78.2%81.9%

50.9%

64.7%

48.5%

59.4%

47.8%

59.5% 56.3%

50.0% 51.0%

60.7%

52.6%

57.6%

51.4%

63.3%

50.8%

65.1%

54.5%

61.4%

55.3%

63.3%

57.1%

65.2%

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

Percentage of High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-Year Colleges Immediately Following High School Completion by Gender, 1998–2008 Source: NCES, Condition of Education, 2010Note: High school completer refers to those who received a high school diploma or equivalency certifi cate. This indicator provides data on high school completers ages 16–24, who account for about 98 percent of all high school completers in a given year.

6.4c

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008200019991998

62.4%

69.1%

61.4%

64.4%

59.9%

66.2% 63.6%

59.7% 62.1%

68.3%

61.2%

66.5%

61.4%

71.5%

66.5%

70.4%

65.8%

66.1%

66.1%

68.3%

65.9%

71.6%

Male

Female


Percentage of High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-Year Colleges Immediately Following High School Completion by Parental Education,a 1998–2008 Source: NCES, Condition of Education, 2010Note: High school completer refers to those who received a high school diploma or equivalency certifi cate. This indicator provides data on high school completers ages 16–24, who account for about 98 percent of all high school completers in a given year. a. Information on parents’ education was not available for approximately 7–14 percent of high school completers ages 16–24 for the period covered.b. Including vocational/technical

6.4e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008200019991998

82.3% 82.2% 81.2% 81.3% 82.6% 82.1%85.9% 88.8%

78.2%85.8%

82.4%

55.7%

67.7%

49.8%

60.3%

50.1%

63.8% 62.0%

48.9% 49.7%

65.9%

51.6%

62.9%

50.8%

67.0%

57.6%

65.6%

53.2%

67.0%

50.9%

65.2%

53.8%

72.0%

High School or Less

Some Collegeb

Bachelor’s Degree or Higher


Rate of High School Graduates Going to College by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2010Note: North Dakota and Wyoming fi gures only include students graduating from public schools.

6.4f

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mississippi

Massachusetts

New York

South Dakota

New Jersey

South Carolina

Georgia

Minnesota

Virginia

Connecticut

New Mexico

North Dakota

Rhode Island

Alabama

Delaware

North Carolina

Indiana

Nebraska

Kansas

California

Louisiana

Iowa

Pennsylvania

New Hampshire

UNITED STATES

Maryland

Ohio

Colorado

Arkansas

Hawaii

Tennessee

Kentucky

Missouri

Michigan

Wyoming

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Florida

Utah

Illinois

Maine

Texas

Oklahoma

Nevada


Montana

Arizona

Washington

Idaho

Vermont

Oregon

Alaska

77.4%

74.7%

74.2%

72.1%

71.1%

70.4%

69.6%

69.2%

68.7%

68.0%

67.7%

67.6%

67.4%

66.7%

66.1%

66.0%

65.7%

65.5%

65.4%

65.4%

65.3%

64.3%

63.9%

63.9%

63.8%

62.9%

62.7%

62.6%

62.5%

62.3%

61.6%

60.9%

60.0%

59.9%

59.4%

59.1%

59.1%

58.8%

58.5%

57.4%

57.1%

56.9%

56.0%

55.6%

53.5%

51.9%

51.4%

50.7%

49.1%

48.3%

46.5%

45.7%

24

U.S. Average

27

States

States

AVG

63.8%


Rate of High School Graduates Going to College In State by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2010Note: North Dakota and Wyoming fi gures only include students graduating from public schools.

6.4g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mississippi

South Carolina

Alabama

California

New York

North Carolina

Louisiana

Georgia

New Mexico

Indiana

Virginia

Kansas

Arkansas

Iowa

South Dakota

Kentucky

Utah

Nebraska

Michigan

Ohio

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

Tennessee

Florida

UNITED STATES

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Missouri

Texas

Oklahoma

North Dakota

Colorado

Wisconsin

Arizona

Wyoming

Delaware

Rhode Island

Hawaii

Nevada

New Jersey

Illinois

Washington

Montana

Maryland

Maine

Connecticut

Oregon

Idaho

New Hampshire

Alaska

Vermont


71.7%

63.5%

60.4%

59.9%

59.8%

59.1%

59.0%

58.0%

57.9%

57.7%

56.2%

55.7%

55.6%

55.0%

54.9%

54.0%

53.6%

53.5%

53.3%

52.6%

52.5%

52.4%

52.3%

52.0%

51.8%

50.6%

50.0%

49.9%

49.8%

49.5%

48.5%

47.7%

47.7%

45.9%

45.1%

44.7%

44.3%

41.8%

41.8%

41.4%

40.9%

39.9%

39.6%

39.2%

38.7%

37.4%

35.3%

34.4%

33.2%

26.4%

21.4%

11.2%

24

U.S. Average

27

States

States

AVG

51.8%


Rate of High School Graduates Going to College Out of State by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2010Note: North Dakota and Wyoming fi gures only include students graduating from public schools.

6.4h

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


New Hampshire

Connecticut

New Jersey

Vermont

Massachusetts

Maryland

Rhode Island

Delaware

Hawaii

Alaska

Minnesota

North Dakota

Maine

South Dakota

Illinois

Colorado

Idaho

New York

Wyoming

Nevada

Virginia

Montana

UNITED STATES

Nebraska

Georgia

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Oregon

Washington

Ohio

Missouri

New Mexico

Kansas

Iowa

Tennessee

Indiana

Texas

Kentucky

South Carolina

North Carolina

Arkansas

Florida

Michigan

West Virginia

Oklahoma

Alabama

Louisiana

Mississippi

California

Arizona

Utah

42.3%

30.7%

30.6%

29.7%

26.9%

24.0%

23.7%

23.1%

21.5%

20.5%

19.3%

19.2%

19.1%

18.4%

17.1%

16.5%

14.9%

14.6%

14.4%

14.3%

13.8%

12.5%

12.3%

12.0%

11.9%

11.6%

11.4%

11.4%

11.3%

10.8%

10.1%

10.0%

9.8%

9.7%

9.3%

9.3%

7.9%

7.1%

7.0%

6.9%

6.9%

6.9%

6.8%

6.7%

6.7%

6.5%

6.3%

6.3%

5.7%

5.6%

5.5%

4.9%

23

U.S. Average

28

States

States

AVG

12.0%


SevenProvide more need-based grant aid while simplifying the fi nancial aid system and making it more transparent

WE RECOMMEND that federal and state offi cials encourage increased access by providing more need-based grant aid, by making the process of applying for fi nancial assistance more transparent and predictable, and by fi nding ways to inform families, as early as the middle school years, of aid amounts likely to be available to individual students.

It is important that suffi cient need-based aid be available for low- and moderate-

income students to enroll and succeed in college. First-generation students

and underrepresented minorities are particularly vulnerable when our fi nancial

aid system is inadequate. In Coming to Our Senses, the commission called

for an increase in need-based grant aid, for avoidance of excessive reliance

on student debt, and for simplifying fi nancial aid processes and making them

more transparent. The commission also recommended providing institutions

with incentives to enroll and graduate more low-income and fi rst-generation

students. Better information for students is vital as many students, particularly

those whose parents did not go to college, are unaware of the available

fi nancial aid and do not know how to access it.57 The nation must do more to

simplify the fi nancial aid process for all students and to make the process more

transparent for all families. In many cases, social capital58 is directly tied to the

ability of students and families to gain access to higher education.59 Simplifying

the fi nancial aid system and providing early information can improve access to

higher education for low-income and fi rst-generation students.

Indicators of progress on this recommendation include:

• Grant aid for students from low- and moderate-income families;

• Student debt levels;

• Changes in the federal student aid application process and fi nancial aid

programs; and

• Implementation of policies designed to provide incentives for

institutions to promote enrollment and success of low-income

and fi rst-generation students.

57. College Board. (2010). Cracking the Student Aid Code. Retrieved May 13, 2010, from

http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/fi les/11b_3172_Cracking_Code_Update_WEB_110112.pdf

58. Social capital is a sociological concept, which refers to connections within and between social networks.

59. Cracking the Student Aid Code.

completionagenda.collegeboard.org Recommendation Seven 178

General Findings for This Recommendation• As of 2008, the national total grant aid per low-income dependent student

at public two-year institutions is $3,252.

• As of 2008, the national total grant aid per low-income dependent student

at public four-year institutions is $7,364.


at private not-for-profi t four-year institutions is $14,215.


at private for-profi t four-year institutions was $3,745.

• From 2004 to 2008, average grant aid increased by 1.7 percent or $54

per year from 1996 to 2008 (after adjusting for infl ation) for low-income

dependent students at public two-year colleges.

• From 2004 to 2008, average grant aid increased by 4.4 percent or $292 per

year from 1996 to 2008 (after adjusting for infl ation) for low-income students

at public four-year colleges.

• From 2004 to 2008, average grant aid increased by 5.7 percent or $710

per year from 1996 to 2008 (after adjusting for infl ation) for low-income

dependent students at private four-year colleges.

• As of 2008, the median student loan debt for those who borrowed

increased by 1.4 percent per year beyond infl ation.

• As of 2010, average debt per bachelor’s degree recipient spread across all

public four-year college graduates who earned degrees from the institution

at which they began their studies is $12,300 in 2009-10.

• As of 2010, average debt per bachelor’s degree recipient spread across all

private nonprofi t four-year college graduates who earned degrees from the

institution at which they began their studies is $18,300 in 2009-10.

completionagenda.collegeboard.org179

Grant Aid for Students from Low-Income FamiliesWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

measures the amount of grant aid available to students by income level. This

measure includes (1) the total grant aid per low-income dependent student; (2)

the average percentage increase in total grant aid per dependent student; (3)

the average dollar increase in total grant aid per low-income dependent student;

and (4) the average amount of fi nancial aid (grants or loans) used to fi nance

postsecondary education expenses in the United States. These measures are

important because sources of aid help to offset the advertised tuition and fees,

which for many students are prohibitively high. Financial aid for postsecondary

education takes many shapes and forms. Among the different types of aid,

including federal loans, federal work-study, and federal education tax credits and

deductions, grant aid is the most effective at relieving the burdens of college

costs. These scholarships do not need to be repaid, they are not accompanied

by work obligations, and they do not require an understanding of the tax code

or regulations.

During the 2010-11 academic year, grant aid accounted for nearly 53 percent of

the $177.6 billion in fi nancial aid awarded to undergraduate students. The origins

of these grants include the federal government, states, employers and private

entities, as well as the institutions at which the students enroll.

Two broad types of grant aid exist: (1) grant aid that is used to meet a student’s

fi nancial need and (2) grant aid that exceeds a student’s fi nancial need. The

latter category is commonly referred to as “merit aid”, though the lines between

merit aid and need-based aid are blurry. Institutions frequently package and refer

to grant aid as merit aid, when this merit aid is actually being used to meet a

student’s fi nancial need.

Diverting fi nancial resources away from students with need toward students

without need does not enhance college affordability. During the time period

from 2007-08 through 2010-11, both public four-year and private not-for-profi t

four-year postsecondary institutions increased the fraction of total grant aid

awarded that was used to meet the fi nancial need of students.60

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Total grant aid

awarded to postsecondary students, in current dollars, has increased each

year over the past decade. During the 2000-01 academic year, nearly $48 billion

(in 2010 dollars) of grant aid was awarded, and by the 2010-11 academic year

that amount had more than doubled and stood at $107 billion. Postsecondary

enrollment increased by 43 percent during this time period, but the growth in

grant aid outpaced this growth in enrollment, generating a 58 percent increase

in infl ation-adjusted grant dollars per FTE student.

60. College Board. (2011). Trends in Financial Aid. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from

http://trends.collegeboard.org/student_aid/

$3,252 As of 2008, thenational total grantaid per low-incomedependent student at public two-yearinstitutions is $3,252.

$7,364 As of 2008, thenational total grantaid per low-incomedependent student at public four-yearinstitutions is $7,364.

$14,215 As of 2008, the national total grant aid per low-income dependent student at private not-for-profi t four-year institutions is $14,215.


$3,745 As of 2008, the national total grant aid per low-income dependent student at private, for-profi t, four-year institutions was $3,745.

1.7% As of fall 2007, average grant aid has increased by 1.7 percent or $54 per year from 1996 to 2008 (after adjusting for infl ation) for low-income dependent students at public two-year colleges.

The change in grant aid awarded between the 2008-09 academic year and the

2010-11 academic year was dramatic, and much larger than any other two-year

changes in grant aid over the past decade. In fact, the change in total grant aid

awarded, in 2010 dollars, between the 2008-09 academic year and the 2010-11

academic year ($30.9 billion) was actually larger than the change that occurred

between the 2000-01 and the 2008-09 academic years ($28.4 billion).

What explains the recent surge in total grant aid? During the 2008-09 academic

year, the maximum Pell grant was $4,731 ($4,689 in 2010 dollars). During the

2009-10 academic year, the maximum Pell grant jumped by 16 percent over the

previous year in infl ation adjusted dollars to $5,350 ($5,416 in 2010 dollars), and

during the 2010-11 academic year, the maximum Pell grant value was $5,550.

The sizeable change in maximum Pell value in conjunction with a 31 percent

increase in number of recipients between the 2008-09 academic year and the

2009-10 academic year is partially responsible for the increase in share of total

grant aid originating from the federal government from 33 percent to 44 percent

over these two academic years. In fact, Pell grants increased from 24 percent

of total grant aid in 2008-09 to 30 percent in 2009-10. The other major source

of increase between these two years in federal grant aid was the escalation of

veterans’ grants from 5 percent of total grant aid in 2008-09 to 10 percent of

total grant aid in 2009-10.

In an era of economic downtown during which families’ and students’ ability

to pay for college is diminished and state appropriations per student have

decreased while tuition and fee sticker prices have increased, the role of

federal grant aid is of tremendous importance. Furthermore, many college

endowments dropped substantially in the wake of the 2008 stock market crash,

and have not rebounded to their prerecession values. An increased reliance

on institutional grant aid would put substantial pressure on postsecondary

institutions, some of which are already in a precarious state fi nancially.

Where are we now? Though total grant aid is estimable on a year-by-year basis,

an examination of the types of students to whom this aid is awarded requires

student-level data collected through large-scale national surveys of students

like the National Center for Education Statistics administered NPSAS. The last

administration of NPSAS occurred during the 2007-08 academic year, yet these

NPSAS data can offer insight into where we are now in terms of how this aid

is allocated by student or a student’s family’s income, and how grant aid has

changed over time across the income strata. Figure 7.1a shows that the average

total grant aid for full-time students from low-income families attending public

two-year institutions has increased from $1,844 in 1996 to $3,252 in 2008. The

average total grant aid for full-time, low-income students attending public four-

year institutions rose from $4,137 in 1996 to $7,364 in 2008 and from $9,203

in 1996 to $14,215 in 2008 for those attending private, not-for-profi t, four-year

institutions. The average total grant aid for full-time, low-income students

attending private, for-profi t, four-year institutions rose from $2,342 in 1996 to

$3,745 in 2008.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

20001996 2004 2008

In T

hous

ands

$1,844

$4,137

$9,203

$2,611

$5,062

$10,701

$3,036

$6,196

$11,375

$3,252

$7,364

$14,215

$2,342

$3,607 $4,595

$3,745

Private, 4-Year Not-for-Profi t

Private, 4-Year For-Profi t

Public, 4-Year

Public, 2-Year

National Total Grant Aid per Low-Income Dependent Student, 1996–2008 (in Constant 2008 Dollars)Source: NCES, National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, calculations by the College BoardNote: Constant 2008 dollars calculated through the CPI website http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

7.1a4.4%As of fall 2007, average grant aid has increased by 4.4 percent or $292 per year from 1996 to 2008 (after adjusting for infl ation) for low-income dependent students at public four-year colleges.

5.7% As of fall 2007, average grant aid has increased by 5.7 percent or $710 per year from 1996 to 2008 (after adjusting for infl ation) for low-income dependent students at private four-year colleges.

Figure 7.1b shows that the percentage increase in average total grant aid to

low-income dependent students from 2004 to 2008 was 1.7 percent at public

two-year institutions, 4.4 percent at public four-year institutions and 5.7 percent

at private, not-for-profi t, four-year institutions. The average total grant aid to low-

income dependent students declined 5.0 percent from 2004 to 2008 at private,

for-profi t, institutions. Figure 7.1c shows the annual dollar increase in total grant

aid to low-income dependent students from 2004 to 2008 was $54 at public

two-year institutions, $292 at public four-year institutions and $710 at private,

not-for-profi t, four-year institutions. The total grant aid to low-income dependent

students from 2004 to 2008 was $212 at private, for-profi t, four-year institutions.

Figure 7.1d shows the average total aid, average grant aid and average federal

loans awarded to all students (undergraduate and graduate) per FTE. Figure

7.1e shows the average grant aid and average federal loans awarded to all

undergraduate students per FTE. Figure 7.1f shows the average grant aid and

average federal loans awarded to all graduate students per FTE.

Figure 7.1g shows that total undergraduate student aid amounts to $177.6 billion

in 2010–11. Figure 7.1h shows that over 9 million Pell Grant recipients receive an

average Pell award of $3,828.


Average Percentage Change in Total Grant Aid per Dependent Student by Income, 2004–2008 (in Constant 2008 Dollars)Source: NCES, National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, calculations by the College BoardNote: Constant 2008 dollars calculated through the CPI website http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Public2-Year

Public4-Year

Private4-Year

Not-for-Profit

-25

-35

-30

Private4-Year

For-Profit

-40

1.7%

12.5

%

-5.3

%

-4.4

%

4.4%

8.7%

5.5% 6.3%

5.7%

5.1%

4.2%

3.2%

-5.0

%

-7.9

%

-30.

7%

-34.

2%

Low-Income

Mid-Low Income

Mid-High Income

High-Income

7.1b


-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Public2-Year

Public4-Year

Private4-Year

Not-for-Profit

Private4-Year

For-Profit

$54

$186

$-32 $-18

$292 $322

$112

$102

$710

$583

$414

$214

$212

$171

$318

$180

Low-Income

Mid-Low Income

Mid-High Income

High-Income

National Average Dollar Increase in Total Grant Aid per Dependent Student by Income, 2004–2008 (in Constant 2008 Dollars)Source: NCES, National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, calculations by the College BoardNote: Constant 2008 dollars calculated through the CPI website http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

7.1c


Average Aid (Federal Loans & Grant Aid) perFull-Time Equivalent (FTE) Student in Constant 2010Dollars, 1973-74 to 2010-11

1973-74

1976-77

1979-80

1982-83

1985-86

1988-89

1991-92

1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

2003-04

2006-07

2009-10

In T

hous

ands

0

5

10

15

20

25

$6,368

$985 $2,114

$6,566

$3,497 $3,027

$13,914

$4,678 $5,260

New fi gure7.1d

Average Total Aid per FTE

Average Grant Aid per FTE

Average Federal Loans per FTE

Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011Note: Loan numbers do not include nonfederal loans, which provide funding for students but do not involve subsidies. The fi gures reported here refl ect total student aid amounts divided across all students, including those who did not receive aid. Federal Loan dollars refl ect disbursements beginning 1995-96. Loan disbursements are estimated for years prior to 1995-96.


1995-96

1997-98

1999-00

2001-02

2003-04

2005-06

2007-08

2009-10

1996-97

1998-99

2000-01

2002-03

2004-05

2006-07

2008-09

2010-11

In T

hous

ands

0

5

10

15

20

25

$4,907

$2,967$3,241

$6,539

$3,346$4,369

Average Aid (Federal Loans & Grant Aid) perUndergraduate FTE in Constant 2010 Dollars,1995-96 to 2010-11Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011

7.1e New fi gure

Average Grant Aid per FTE

Average Federal Loans per FTENote: Loan numbers do not include nonfederal loans, which provide funding for students but do not involve subsidies. The fi gures reported here refl ect total student aid amounts divided across all students, including those who did not receive aid. Federal Loan dollars refl ect disbursements beginning 1995-96. Loan disbursements are estimated for years prior to 1995-96.


1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

In T

hous

ands

0

5

10

15

20

25

$16,423

$8,425

$10,410

$6,750

$3,984$5,183

Average Aid (Federal Loans & Grant Aid) perGraduate FTE in Constant 2010 Dollars,1995-96 to 2010-11Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011

7.1f New fi gure

Average Federal Loans per FTE

Average Grant Aid per FTENote: Loan numbers do not include nonfederal loans, which provide funding for students but do not involve subsidies. The fi gures reported here refl ect total student aid amounts divided across all students, including those who did not receive aid. Federal Loan dollars refl ect disbursements beginning 1995-96. Loan disbursements are estimated for years prior to 1995-96.


Total Undergraduate Student Aid by Source (in Billions), 2010-11Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011

Number of Recipients of Federal Aid by Program (with Average Aid Received), 2010-11Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011

7.1g

7.1h

0

40

80

120

160

200

Education TaxCredits andDeductions

FederalLoans

TotalFederalWork-Study

InstitutionalGrants

PellGrants

OtherFederal Grant

Programs

In B

illio

ns

Private andEmployer

Grants

StateGrants

$13.4

$70.0

$1.0

$29.7

$13.1

$34.8

$6.6 $9.1

$177.6

ACG FederalEducation Tax

Benefits

FederalPell Grant

FSEOG PerkinsLoan

Post-9/11GI Bill Veterans

Benefits

SMART Work-Study

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

12

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12

In ThousandsIn M

illio

ns

0.79

$697 1.

34$5

66

0.15

$2,5

60

0.71

$1,6

42

0.61

$7,2

82

0.49

$1,9

69

9.08

$3,8

28

12.0

0$1

,236

2010-11 Recipients

2010-11 Aid Per Recipient

New fi gure

New fi gure


Percentage of Undergraduate Students Borrowing Federal Stafford Loans, 2000-01, 2005-06 and 2010-11Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011

7.1i

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000-01(2.5% with PLUS)

2005-06(3.6% with PLUS)

2010-11(3.5% with PLUS)

78%

10%

4%8%

72%

11%5%

13%

66%

25%

4%5%

No Stafford Loans

Subsidized Only

Unsubsidized Only

Both Subsidized & Unsubsidized

New fi gure

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The introduction of the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) in 2009

represented a signifi cant commitment by the federal government to defray

college tuition costs. In 2008, total federal tax benefi ts stood at $6.6 billion and

these benefi ts jumped to $14.7 billion (in constant 2009 dollars) in 2009 — the

last year for which data are available. Unlike Pell grants, the subsidies provided by

the federal government, up to $2,500 per student, are not based on ability to pay,

though only taxpayers with incomes up to $180,000 per year are eligible for the

tax benefi ts. A major perk of the AOTC is partial refundability. Individuals with no

tax liability are eligible for a refund not exceeding $1,000.

The AOTC shifted the distribution of individuals receiving federal tax benefi ts.

In 2008, only 5 percent of the federal tax benefi t recipients had adjusted gross

incomes less than $25,000. In 2009, this percentage had risen to 17 percent.

The percentage of tax benefi ts awarded to families with adjusted gross incomes

between $100,000 and $180,000 increased from 18 percent in 2008 to 26

percent in 2009.

Functioning similarly to grant aid in the sense that it is not accompanied by

any obligations on the part of the student, the AOTC differs from grant aid

because its benefi ts can only be realized if taxpayers are aware of its existence.

Moreover, unlike grant aid, which benefi ts students immediately upon their

enrollment, the benefi ts of tax credits and deductions are delayed until taxes

are fi led. A widespread push to make sure eligible taxpayers are aware of this

tuition assistance has the potential to ease fi nancial strains associated with

college attendance.


Student Loan Debt LevelsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

measures the student loan debt accumulated by students from the 1999-2000

academic year and the 2009-10 academic year. Postsecondary education is

an investment with a high rate of return for most students. However, some

students do not complete the programs they begin and, for others, the payoff

in the labor market is less than they might have anticipated. Although most

students can pay off their education debts without undue diffi culty, debt

burdens are unmanageable for a growing number of students. The need to

borrow at high levels discourages some students from enrolling or persisting

in college and, for others, it creates very diffi cult circumstances during the

repayment period after college.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Many factors,

including income inequality, rising college prices and lifestyle choices, contribute

to the amount students borrow. However, more generous need-based federal,

state and institutional grant programs can mitigate the need for students to rely

on borrowed funds.

Where are we now? Student debt levels in the United States continue to rise

each year for students who persist to bachelor’s degree completion. Figure 7.2a

shows that from 1999–2000 to 2009-10, the average debt per borrower among

public college bachelor’s degree recipients increased at an average annual rate

of 1.1 percent beyond infl ation. The percentage of nontransfer graduates with

debt increased from 54 to 56 percent. Average debt grew by 1.4 percent per

year over the most recent fi ve years of the decade. Figure 7.2b shows that from

1999–2000 to 2009-10, the average debt per borrower among private nonprofi t

bachelor’s degree recipients increased at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent

beyond infl ation. The percentage of nontransfer graduates with debt increased

from 63 to 65 percent. Average debt grew by 1.5 percent per year over the most

recent fi ve years of the decade.

Figure 7.2c shows the distribution of total undergraduate debt by sector and

type of degree or certifi cate in 2007-08. Figures 7.2d, 7.2e and 7.2f show that

among dependent students graduating from public and private nonprofi t four-

year institutions in 2007-08, those from low-income families borrowed only

slightly more than those from middle-income families.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Median student loan debt levels conceal the range of borrowing levels. About

a third of bachelor’s degree recipients graduate with no education debt. In any

given academic year, only about half of all full-time students take education

loans. However, increases in median debt levels for those who do borrow,

combined with information on the proportion of students with debt, provide an

important indicator of reliance on debt.

$12,300 As of 2010, average debt per bachelor’s degree recipient spread across all public four-year college graduates who earned degrees from the institution at which they began their studies is $12,300.

$18,300 As of 2010, average debt per bachelor’s degree recipient spread across all private nonprofi t four-year college graduates who earned degrees from the institution at which they began their studies is $18,300 in 2009-10.


7.2a Public Four Year: Average Total Debt Levels of Bachelor’s Degree Recipients in Constant 2010 Dollars, 1999–2000 to 2009-10Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011Note: Debt fi gures include both federal loans and loans from nonfederal sources that have been reported to the institutions, based on institutional reporting of aggregate debt fi gures. The data are not adequate to allow comparable calculations for-profi t institutions.

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

In T

hous

ands

0

5

10

15

20

30

25

$22,000$19,800

$10,700 $11,200

$20,500

$12,300

Per Borrower

Per Bachelor’s Degree Recipient

Per Borrower

Per Bachelor’s Degree Recipient

Private Nonprofi t Four Year: Average Total Debt Levels of Bachelor’s Degree Recipients in Constant 2010 Dollars, 1999–2000 to 2009-10Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011Note: Debt fi gures include both federal loans and loans from nonfederal sources that have been reported to the institutions, based on institutional reporting of aggregate debt fi gures.

0

5

10

15

20

30

25

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

In T

hous

ands

$28,100

$22,600

$14,200

$16,800

$26,100

$18,300

7.2b


Median Debt Levels of 2007-08 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients at Public Four-Year Institutions Who Borrowed and Percentage with Debt, by Dependency Status and Family IncomeSource: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011

7.2d New fi gure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Less Than $30,000

$30,000 to$59,999

$60,000 to$89,999

$90,000 to$119,999

$120,000 orHigher

IndependentStudents

$16,

500

68%

$17,

400

69%

$17,

000

61%

$16,

300

52%

$14,

500

40%

68%

$20,

000In

Tho

usan

ds

Median Debt

Percentage with Debt

Distribution of Total Undergraduate Debt by Sector and Type of Degree or Certifi cate, 2007-08Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011

New fi gure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public4-Year

(Bachelor'sDegree)

Private Nonprofit

4-Year(Bachelor's

Degree)

For-Profit(Bachelor's

Degree)

Public2-Year

(AssociateDegree)

For-Profit (Associate

Degree)

Public2-Year

(Certificate)

For-Profit(Certificate)

38%

16%

19%

14%

6%6%

28%

10%

19%

17%

10%

15%

4%4%

12%

23%

33%

24%

62%

23%

9%3%1%1%

2%

22%

34%

23%

13%

6%

70%

21%

7%

1%1%0%

10%

46%

34%

8%2%1%

No Debt

Less than $10,000

$10,000 to $19,999

$20,000 to $29,999

$30,000 to $39,999

$40,000 or more

7.2c


Median Debt Levels of 2007-08 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients at For-Profi t Four-Year Institutions Who Borrowed and Percentage with Debt, by Dependency Status and Family IncomeSource: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2010* Small sample size. Interpret with caution.

7.2f New fi gure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Less Than $30,000

$30,000 to$59,999

$60,000 to$89,999

$90,000 to$119,999

$120,000 orHigher

IndependentStudents

$30,

500

$24,

600

99%

99%

99%

99%

*

99%

*

95%

$32,

700

$34,

600

$28,

000

$34,

300

In T

hous

ands

Median Debt


Median Debt Levels of 2007-08 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients at Private Nonprofi t Four-Year Institutions Who Borrowed and Percentage with Debt, by Dependency Status and Family IncomeSource: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011

7.2e New fi gure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Less Than $30,000

$30,000 to$59,999

$60,000 to$89,999

$90,000 to$119,999

$120,000 orHigher

IndependentStudents

$21,

000

$23,

100

84%

83%

75%

68% 74

%

74%

$24,

600

$21,

100

$22,

000

$18,

000In

Tho

usan

ds

Median Debt



Simplifying the Federal Student Aid System and the Application ProcessWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? Even when

suffi cient fi nancial aid funds are available, many students have diffi culty

accessing those funds. Navigating the fi nancial aid process is especially diffi cult

for low-income and fi rst-generation college students.61 A simpler application

process and fi nancial aid programs that are more predictable and transparent

have the potential to increase educational opportunities for all students,

especially for those students from families with low and moderate incomes and

for fi rst-generation students.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? The Department of Education has the authority to modify the student aid

application process in signifi cant ways. Other measures, including removing

questions from the application, modifying the formula used to calculate aid

eligibility and consolidating programs, require congressional action. States

can also integrate state fi nancial aid systems into federal systems to allow

students to understand their full aid eligibility after completing the FAFSA. With

greater coordination of both federal and state aid, students can more easily

obtain the student aid needed to access and complete their higher education.62

The federal and state governments should also do more to make fi nancial aid

eligibility simpler and clearer so that students can determine their full fi nancial

aid eligibility. If these systems are made easier and more transparent, then low-

and moderate-income and fi rst-generation students will see that entering and

completing college is a realistic option.

61. Cracking the Student Aid Code. Retrieved May 12, 2010 from

http://www.advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/fi les/11b_3172_Cracking_Code_Update_WEB_110112.pdf

62. See http://www2.ed.gov/fi naid/info/apply/fafsa-project.html


Where are we now? Many students who would be eligible for federal aid do

not complete the FAFSA, and many students forgo state dollars that they are

eligible to receive. Some of these students would likely apply if the application

processes for the FAFSA and state aid were simpler or if students and parents

were less intimidated by the application. Others might apply if they had better

information about the aid for which they could qualify. In 2009, the Department

of Education made considerable strides toward improving the application

process by implementing the following changes:

• Applicants can populate the FAFSA with data supplied directly from the tax

forms they have fi led with the IRS.

• The online FAFSA has been modifi ed to incorporate increased use of “skip

logic,” reducing the number of questions many applicants must answer.

• Applicants who complete the FAFSA immediately receive information

about the types and amounts of aid they are likely to receive, as well as

information about the colleges to which they are applying, including tuition

and graduation rates.

Congress should consider removing from the FAFSA all fi nancial questions that

cannot be answered with IRS data. This change could allow for the creation

of a formula that would simplify the eligibility formula, making it possible for

students to predict in advance the Pell Grants for which they would be eligible,

and all fi nancial data would come directly from the IRS. However, these changes

to the FAFSA have yet to be enacted by Congress.

Although there has been some movement in simplifying the FAFSA, there have

been some changes that are required of institutions that may go a long way

toward helping students and families. In accordance with the Higher Education

Opportunity Act of 2008, by Oct. 29, 2011, each postsecondary institution

that participates in Title IV federal student aid programs must post a net price

calculator on its website that uses institutional data to provide estimated net

price information to current and prospective students and their families based

on a student’s individual circumstances.63 Though institutions are required to

have net price calculators on their websites for students and their families,

institutions must market this new resource to current and prospective students

and their families if it is to serve as an effective tool.

63. See http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/resource/


Implementation of Policies Designed to Provide Incentives for Institutions to Promote Enrollment and Success of Low-Income and First-Generation StudentsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? Existing student-

aid programs were designed primarily to promote access to postsecondary

education. The nation has done a good job of increasing enrollment rates,

yet there is more that needs to be done in promoting college success and

completion. Too many students — particularly low-income and fi rst-generation

students — are beginning postsecondary education but never earning

a credential.64

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? The federal

government provides funds directly to students and provides some student-

aid funds to campuses to distribute to their students in the form of grants,

loans and work-study programs. The allocation of these funds is unrelated to

institutional success rates.

Where are we now? Our understanding of the best ways to use fi nancial

incentives to promote student success is limited. Any program designed to

further this goal should involve sound evaluation plans to assure that the use

of funds is as productive as possible. The Health Care Reconciliation Act of

2010 passed by Congress in March 2010 includes the Student Aid and Fiscal

Responsibility Act that includes College Access and Completion funds.65 These

funds will allocate $2.5 billion, over the course of fi ve years, in supporting

state efforts to boost the college completion rates of low-income students. An

evaluative component will be created to assess these many efforts in order to

pinpoint the most successful ones. This step that Congress has taken will allow

valuable data to be created that will inform states about effective promotion of

success for low-income students.

64. Choy, Susan P. (2001). Students Whose Parents Did Not Go To College: Postsecondary Access,

Persistence, and Attainment (NCES 2001-126). (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education).

65. Health Care Reconciliation Act, 2010.


EightKeep college affordable

WE RECOMMEND restraining growth in college costs and prices, using available aid and resources wisely, and insisting that state governments meet their obligations for funding higher education.

In Coming to Our Senses, the commission called for assuring college

affordability by restraining increases in college prices. In order to make this a

reality, the state governments must meet their obligations for funding higher

education. State appropriations are not keeping pace with the increasing

enrollments at colleges and universities, contributing to rapid increases in

tuition and fees.66 The lag in appropriations by states is leaving families and

students with the burden of fi nancing an increasing portion of the cost of higher

education. However, state appropriations and tuition prices cannot be viewed in

a vacuum. While state appropriations and tuition are indeed important, ensuring

college affordability also depends on other factors, such as living expenses,

family ability to pay and the availability of fi nancial aid. Each of these factors

affects the affordability of attending a college or university. All of these areas are

refl ected in the measures that have been chosen for this recommendation.

Indicators of progress on this recommendation include:

• State appropriations to fund public higher education;

• Tuition, fees and other costs of attendance at colleges and universities;

• Net price students pay for college;

• Change in family income levels; and

• Earnings of college graduates.

66. College Board. (2011). Trends in College Pricing. Retrieved October 26, 2011, from

http://trends.collegeboard.org/college_pricing/

completionagenda.collegeboard.org Recommendation Eight 198

General Findings for This Recommendation• As of 2010-11, total state appropriations to fund public higher education are

$78.9 billion.

• As of 2010-11, total state appropriations to fund public higher education per

FTE are $7,171.

• From 1980-81 to 2010-11, the change in total state appropriations for public

higher education has increased from $55.3 billion in 1980-81 to $78.9 billion

in 2010-11, or 42.7 percent.

• From 1980-81 to 2010-11, the change in total state appropriations for public

higher education per FTE decreased from $8,326 in 1980-81 to $7,171 in

2010-11, or -13.9 percent.

• As of the 2011-12 academic year, the average estimated undergraduate

budget for public two-year commuter students is $15,286, including tuition

and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation, and other

expenses.


budget for public four-year in-state on-campus students is $21,447, including

tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation, and

other expenses.


budget for public four-year out-of-state on-campus students is $33,973,

including tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies,

transportation, and other expenses.


budget for private nonprofi t four-year on-campus students is $42,224,

including tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies,

transportation, and other expenses.

• As of the 2011-12 academic year, at public two-year institutions, the net

price students pay for tuition and fees is -$810 (after subtracting grants and

federal tax benefi ts).

• As of the 2011-12 academic year, at public four-year institutions, the net

price students pay for tuition and fees is $2,490 (after subtracting grants and

federal tax benefi ts).

• As of the 2011-12 academic year, at private nonprofi t four-year institutions,

the net price students pay for tuition and fees is $12,970 (after subtracting

grants and federal tax benefi ts).

• From 2000 to 2010, the average family income has declined 16 percent

(infl ation adjusted) for low-income families.

• From 2000 to 2010, the average family income has declined 6 percent

(infl ation adjusted) for moderate-income families.

• As of 2009, the average amount of earnings for full-time workers ages

25 to 34 whose highest degree is a high school diploma is $34,594.


25 to 34 whose highest degree is an associate degree is $42,391.


25 to 34 whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree is $53,483.


State Appropriations to Fund Higher EducationWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

measures the state appropriation dollars used to support higher education in

both total dollars and per full-time equivalent (FTE) student in the United States.

Revenues for public colleges and universities, where about 70 percent of

students are enrolled, come primarily from a combination of state appropriations

and the tuition and fees students pay. This measure is important because the

inability of state appropriations to keep up with enrollment growth is a primary

driver of rising tuition levels.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? State funding

levels depend on the interaction of state priorities and philosophies of

educational funding with fi scal constraints. With the pressures on state budgets

from declining revenues and competing demands, only a strong commitment to

affordable, high-quality public higher education on the part of state legislatures

can assure the funding levels required to restrain tuition increases and provide

adequate need-based aid.

Where are we now? In the United States, state fi scal support for education has

increased 42.7 percent from 1981-82 and 2010-11 (after adjusting for infl ation).

Figure 8.1a shows that this increase is despite the adjustment of these

numbers for infl ation. Figure 8.1b shows that after increasing by 6 percent in

the 1980s and by 5 percent in the 1990s, state appropriations per FTE student

declined by 23% in infl ation-adjusted dollars over the decade from 2000-

01 to 2010-11. This decline in fi scal support per FTE can be attributed largely

to the recession that has crippled state and federal budgets in the time of

increasing enrollments at public institutions. The 18 percent real decline in state

appropriations per FTE student from 2007-08 to 2010-11 was the largest three-

year decline in the 30 years of data reported here.

When the data are disaggregated by state, fi scal support for education ranges

from $66.9 million in Vermont to $11.7 billion in California. Figure 8.1c shows

that when states are placed in rank order, states with the highest fi scal support

for education are California, Texas, New York, North Carolina and Florida.

The states with the lowest fi scal support for education are Vermont, New

Hampshire, South Dakota, Rhode Island and Montana.

$78.9 Billion As of 2010-11, total public support for public higher education is $78.9 billion.

$1.6 billion FY2009–FY2010

$7,171 As of 2010-11, total state appropriations to fund higher education per FTE is $7,171.

$319 FY2009–FY2010

Updated data source


When the data are disaggregated by state, state fi scal support for education

per FTE ranges from $2,754 in Vermont to $13,090 in Wyoming. Figure 8.1d

shows that when states are placed in rank order, states with the highest fi scal

support for education per FTE are Wyoming, Alaska, North Carolina, Texas and

Connecticut. The states with the lowest fi scal support for education per FTE

are Vermont, New Hampshire, Colorado, Ohio and Montana.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? State

appropriation levels and patterns differ considerably across states. Both

enrollment levels and economic circumstances must be understood to put

appropriations into context. However, national appropriations do provide an

important snapshot. It is much more important to understand the support in

education per FTE because this value takes into account the enrollment of the

state in addition to the allocation of education dollars. Further, this mitigates the

advantage that larger states have in allocating more money to higher education.

42.7% From 1980-81 to 2010-11 total public support for public higher education increased from $55.3 billion (in 2010 constant dollars) in 1980-81 to $78.9 billion in 2010-11, or 42.7 percent.

-13.9% From 1980-81 to 2010-11 total public support for public higher education per FTE decreased from $8,326 (in 2010 constant dollars) in 1980-81 to $7,171 in 2010-11, or -13.9 percent.


Total Appropriations in Constant 2010 Dollars (in Billions), 1980-81 to 2010-11Sources: College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011Note: Fall 2010 FTE enrollment was based on preliminary IPEDS numbers. Appropriations reported here are for institutional operating expenses, not for capital expenditures. Funding includes both tax revenues and other state funds allocated to higher education.

Appropriations per Public FTE Student in Constant 2010 Dollars (in Thousands), 1980-81 to 2010-11Sources: College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011Note: Fall 2010 FTE enrollment was based on preliminary IPEDS numbers. Appropriations reported here are for institutional operating expenses, not for capital expenditures. Funding includes both tax revenues and other state funds allocated to higher education.

8.1a

8.1b

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2004-05

2006-07

2008-09

2010-11

2002-03

2000-01

1998-99

1996-97

1994-95

1992-93

1990-91

1988-89

1986-87

1984-85

1982-83

1980-81

In B

illio

ns$78.9

$76.1

$55.3$63.5

2004-05

2006-07

2008-09

2010-11

2002-03

2000-01

1998-99

1996-97

1994-95

1992-93

1990-91

1988-89

1986-87

1984-85

1982-83

1980-81

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

In T

hous

ands

$7.2$8.3

$8.2

$6.9

New fi gure

New fi gure

Appropriations

Appropriations Excluding Federal Stimulus

Appropriations per FTE

Appropriations per

FTE Excluding Federal Stimulus


Educational Fiscal Support by State Rank, FY 2010–2011Source: State Higher Education Finance, State Higher Education, Executive Offi cers, 2011

8.1c

California

Texas

New York

North Carolina

Florida

Illinois

Georgia

Michigan

Ohio

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Arizona

Maryland

Wisconsin

Virginia

Washington

Tennessee

Indiana

Minnesota

Massachusetts

Louisiana

Missouri

Alabama

Kentucky

Oklahoma

Connecticut

South Carolina

Colorado

Mississippi

Kansas

Oregon

New Mexico

Iowa

Arkansas

Utah

Nebraska

Nevada

Hawaii

West Virginia

Idaho

Alaska

Wyoming

North Dakota

Maine

Delaware

Montana

Rhode Island

South Dakota

New Hampshire

Vermont


$11,683,824,350

$6,581,785,758

$4,817,473,365

$3,541,451,114

$3,408,549,094

$3,325,837,582

$2,558,404,198

$2,291,948,391

$2,041,142,065

$1,977,641,215

$1,929,769,000

$1,673,804,800

$1,658,253,134

$1,607,966,188

$1,583,189,711

$1,555,846,701

$1,317,599,357

$1,313,270,756

$1,280,857,000

$1,196,403,246

$1,174,964,909

$1,174,959,206

$1,137,010,562

$1,040,087,184

$981,978,880

$889,346,452

$834,817,353

$825,096,369

$796,728,225

$785,116,448

$750,948,945

$747,161,865

$741,743,209

$705,599,663

$672,510,100

$607,145,616

$516,471,637

$461,116,903

$386,020,036

$354,996,631

$302,853,868

$298,261,301

$246,221,389

$237,532,814

$228,167,650

$190,346,889

$168,351,962

$155,341,395

$127,897,496

$66,931,354

N/A

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

In Billions

New fi gure


Educational Fiscal Support per FTE by State Rank, FY 2010–2011Source: State Higher Education Finance, State Higher Education, Executive Offi cers, 2011

8.1d New fi gure

Wyoming

Alaska

North Carolina

Texas

Connecticut

Oklahoma

Illinois

Mississippi

Nevada

New York

Idaho

New Mexico

Kentucky

Tennessee

Hawaii

Georgia

Maryland

Arkansas

New Jersey

Louisiana

Nebraska

North Dakota

Wisconsin

UNITED STATES

Alabama

Arizona

Maine

West Virginia

Missouri

Massachusetts

California

Florida

Washington

Minnesota

Delaware

South Carolina

Utah

Iowa

Kansas

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Michigan

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Oregon

Indiana

Montana

Ohio

Colorado

New Hampshire

Vermont

Distict of Columbia

$13,090

$12,606

$9,007

$8,897

$8,450

$8,400

$8,120

$7,942

$7,800

$7,783

$7,746

$7,589

$7,532

$7,477

$7,451

$7,319

$7,163

$7,144

$7,136

$6,995

$6,731

$6,520

$6,499

$6,451

$6,361

$6,322

$6,215

$6,155

$6,074

$6,006

$5,941

$5,922

$5,831

$5,645

$5,643

$5,477

$5,328

$5,276

$5,191

$5,159

$5,096

$4,822

$4,817

$4,809

$4,538

$4,325

$4,293

$4,293

$3,781

$2,884

$2,754

N/A

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

In Thousands

5.0%

18.6%

10.6%

25.6%

1.4%

25.9%

8.0%

17.2%

-12.2%

5.4%

-10.9%

-20.0%

0.1%

-3.9%

9.6%

-14.9%

5.4%

2.4%

-16.9%

12.1%

7.8%

26.6%

-1.8%

-3.2%

1.2%

0.4%

-6.2%

-0.2%

-10.7%

-8.5%

-7.9%

-19.0%

-7.7%

-3.8%

-1.6%

-16.2%

-6.3%

-1.9%

-18.7%

-14.3%

-8.9%

-19.3%

-27.4%

-6.0%

-9.9%

-16.8%

12.9%

-13.9%

19.1%

-13.1%

-9.3%

N./A

5 YearChange

23

U.S. Average

28*

States

States

AVG

6,451$


Tuition, Fees and Other Costs of Attendance at Colleges and UniversitiesWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

shows the tuition, fees and other costs of attendance at colleges and

universities, the published tuition price by state and the average annual

percentage increase in infl ation-adjusted published prices by decade. Although

published prices can be deceptive because many students receive grant aid

that reduces the price they actually pay, other students do pay the full price.

Moreover, because of incomplete knowledge about the complex system of

fi nancial aid, many students are unaware of the subsidies available to them and

make decisions based on the published prices. Other costs, including room,

board, books and other expenses are larger than tuition for many students and

must also be considered in evaluating fi nancial barriers to college participation.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Prices are

sometimes set by institutions and sometimes by state legislatures or other

public bodies. While it is tempting to push for small tuition increases in order

to promote affordability, the provision of quality education requires adequate

resources, and educational expenditures per student continue to rise across all

postsecondary sectors. Moderate increases in tuition and fees may allow for an

increased commitment to aid for low-income students without disadvantaging

the higher-income students for whom these increases would not pose any

substantial fi nancial barriers. Annual changes in tuition and fees cannot be

viewed in isolation from changes in state appropriations, federal aid programs,

educational expenditures, and strategic priorities with respect to redistributing

educational subsidies across the enrolling students.

Where are we now? In the United States, the average published charges for

undergraduates have continued to increase. Figure 8.2a shows that the average

estimated undergraduate budget, including tuition and fees, room and board,

books and supplies, transportation, and other expenses, is $15,286 for commuter

students at public two-year institutions, $21,447 for in-state on-campus students

at public four-year institutions, $33,973 for out-of-state on-campus students

at public four-year institutions, and $42,224 for on-campus students at private

nonprofi t four-year institutions. On average, tuition and fees at public four-year

colleges are 2.8 times as high as at public two-year colleges. However, the

total budget for a public four-year college student, including housing, food,

transportation, books and supplies, and other expenses, is only about 40 percent

higher than the total budget for a public two-year college student. Tuition and fees

constitute 67 percent of the average total budget for full-time students at private

nonprofi t four-year colleges and universities.

$15,286 As of the 2011-12 academic year, the average estimated undergraduate budget for public two-year commuter students is $15,286, including tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation, and other expenses.

$21,447 As of the 2011-12 academic year, the average estimated undergraduate budget for public four-year in-state on-campus students is $21,447, including tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation, and other expenses.


Figure 8.2b shows that both tuition and fees and room and board differ by the

Carnegie classifi cation of the school. Figure 8.2c shows the annual percentage

increase in infl ation-adjusted tuition and fees by decade. In 2011-12, the average

published tuition and fees at public four-year institutions are 29 percent of the

average published tuition and fees at private nonprofi t four-year institutions, up

from 22 percent a decade earlier.

Figure 8.2d shows that from 1981-82 to 1991-92, average published tuition and

fees increased slightly more rapidly at private than at public four-year colleges

and universities. Over the most recent decade, the average public four-year

price rose more than twice as fast as the average private four-year price.

When the data are disaggregated by state, in-state published tuition prices at

public two-year institutions range from $1,119 in California to $6,741 in New

Hampshire. Figure 8.2e shows that when states are placed in rank order,

the states with the lowest in-state published tuition prices at public two-year

institutions are California, New Mexico, Texas, North Carolina and Arizona.

The states with the highest in-state published tuition prices at public two-

year institutions are New Hampshire, Vermont, Minnesota, South Dakota and

Massachusetts.

When the data are disaggregated by state, in-state published tuition prices

at public four-year institutions range from $4,125 in Wyoming to $13,507 in

New Hampshire. Figure 8.2f shows that when states are placed in rank order,

the states with the lowest in-state published tuition prices at public four-year

institutions are Wyoming, Louisiana, Utah, Alaska, New Mexico and West

Virginia. The states with the highest in-state published tuition prices at public

four-year institutions are New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Jersey

and Illinois.

When the data are disaggregated by state, published tuition prices at private

not-for-profi t four-year institutions range from $6,198 in Utah to $36,724 in

Massachusetts. Figure 8.2g shows that when states are placed in rank order,

the states with the lowest published tuition prices at private not-for-profi t

four-year institutions are Utah, Idaho, Hawaii, Delaware and Mississippi. The

states with the highest published tuition prices at private not-for-profi t four-year

institutions are Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, the District of Columbia

and Maryland.


Focusing on published prices without also considering student aid can give an

exaggerated picture of the fi nancial hurdles facing students. Moreover, there

is considerable variation in the prices charged by colleges and universities in

the United States. Typically, two-year public colleges charge less than four-

year public institutions, which have lower prices than for-profi t institutions and

the highest published prices are in the private not-for-profi t sector. However,

there are also sizable differences within these sectors, particularly by state or

region and among doctoral universities, master’s universities and baccalaureate

colleges. Increasingly, there are also multiple tuition levels within institutions,

depending on program and/or year of study.

$33,973 As of the 2011-12 academic year, the average estimated undergraduate budget for public four-year out-of-state on-campus students is $33,973, including tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation, and other expenses.

$42,224 As of the 2011-12 academic year, the average estimated undergraduate budget for private nonprofi t four-year on-campus students is $42,224, including tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation, and other expenses.


Average Estimated Undergraduate Budgets by Type and Control of Institution, 2011–12 (Enrollment Weighted)Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011Note: Average total expenses include room and board costs for commuter students, which are average estimated living expenses for students living off campus but not with parents. Expense categories are based on institutional budgets for students as reported by colleges and universities in the Annual Survey of Colleges. They do not necessarily refl ect actual student expenditures.

8.2a

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Public 2-Year(Commuter)

Public 4-Year(In-State On-Campus)

Public 4-Year(Out-of-State On-Campus)

Private Nonprofit4-Year

(On-Campus)

In T

hous

ands

35

40

45

$2,963

$7,408

$1,182$1,606

$2,127

$15,286

$8,244

$8,887

$1,168$1,082$2,066

$21,447

$20,770

$8,887

$1,168$1,082$2,066

$33,973

$28,500

$10,089

$1,213$926

$1,496

$42,224

Tuition and Fees

Room and Board

Books and Supplies

Transportation

Other Expenses

New fi gure


Average Published Charges for Undergraduates by Carnegie Classifi cation, 2011-12 (Enrollment Weighted) Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011Note: Enrollment-weighted tuition and fees are derived by weighting the price charged by each institution by the number of full-time students enrolled in fall 2010. Public four-year in-state charges are weighted by total fall 2010 full-time enrollment in each institution. Out-of-state tuition and fees are computed by adding the average in-state price to the out-of-state premium weighted by the number of full-time out-of-state students enrolled at each institution. Room and board charges are weighted by the number of students residing on campus.

8.2b

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Public Doctoral

(In State)

Public Master's

(In State)

Public Bachelor's

(In State)

Private Doctoral

In T

hous

ands

35

Private Master's

40

45

Private Bachelor's

$9,185

$9,353

$18,538

$7,186

$8,153

$15,339

$6,604

$8,251

$14,855 $35,195

$11,806

$47,001

$25,863

$9,629

$35,492

$25,838

$9,233

$35,071

Tuition and Fees

Room and Board

New fi gure


Average Annual Percentage Increases in Infl ation-Adjusted Published Prices by Decade, 1981-82 to 2011-12Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011

Infl ation-Adjusted Published Tuition and Fees Relative to 1981-82, 1981-82 to 2011-12 (1981-82 = 100)Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011

8.2c

8.2d

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


(Tuition & Fees)

Public4-Year

(Tuition & Fees)

Public2-Year

(Tuition & Fees)


(Tuition & Fees &Room & Board)

Public4-Year

(Tuition & Fees &Room & Board)

4.8%

3.1%2.6%

4.5%

3.2%

5.6%6.1%

0.5%

3.8%4.2%

2.6%2.4% 2.5%2.4%

4.1%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2011-12

2009-10

1981-82

1983-84

1985-86

1987-88

1989-90

1991-92

1993-94

1995-96

1997-98

1999-00

2001-02

2003-04

2005-06

2007-08

In H

umdr

eds

276.8

367.7

280.9

100.0100.0100.0

184.3

190.9196.9

Private Not-for-Profi t 4-Year

Public 4-Year

Public 2-Year

New fi gure

New fi gure

1981-82 to 1991-92

1991-92 to 2001-02

2001-02 to 2011-12


In-State Tuition Prices at Public Two-Year Institutions by State Rank, 2011–2012Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011

8.2e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

California

New Mexico

Texas

North Carolina

Arizona

Mississippi

Wyoming

Kansas

Louisiana

Nevada

Nebraska

Arkansas

Idaho

West Virginia

Missouri

Michigan

Hawaii

Florida

Utah

Oklahoma

Georgia

Delaware

Montana

Illinois

Maine

UNITED STATES

Colorado

Connecticut

Indiana

Tennessee

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Maryland

South Carolina

Washington

Alaska

Wisconsin

North Dakota

Virginia

Oregon

Kentucky

New Jersey

Alabama

Iowa

New York

Massachusetts

South Dakota

Minnesota

Vermont

New Hampshire


$1,119

$1,498

$2,049

$2,075

$2,124

$2,208

$2,325

$2,426

$2,452

$2,513

$2,514

$2,661

$2,666

$2,700

$2,756

$2,863

$2,967

$3,006

$3,009

$3,043

$3,078

$3,086

$3,087

$3,150

$3,327

$3,387

$3,397

$3,490

$3,521

$3,551

$3,608

$3,663

$3,676

$3,700

$3,731

$3,805

$3,831

$3,840

$3,926

$3,968

$4,029

$4,051

$4,111

$4,124

$4,177

$4,253

$4,823

$4,945

$5,162

$6,520

$6,741

N/A

In Thousands

25

U.S. Average

26*

States

States

AVG

3,387$



In-State Tuition Prices at Public Four-Year Institutions by State Rank, 2011–2012Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011

8.2f

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Wyoming

Louisiana

Utah

Alaska

New Mexico

West Virginia

Florida

Mississippi

Idaho

North Carolina

Montana

Nevada

Oklahoma

New York

Arkansas

Georgia

North Dakota

South Dakota

Nebraska

Kansas


Tennessee

Iowa

Missouri

Colorado

Kentucky

Oregon

Maryland

Alabama

UNITED STATES

Texas

Wisconsin

Indiana

Hawaii

Ohio

California

Connecticut

Maine

Arizona

Washington

Virginia

Minnesota

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

South Carolina

Delaware

Michigan

Illinois

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

Vermont

New Hampshire

$4,125

$5,123

$5,292

$5,456

$5,457

$5,532

$5,626

$5,668

$5,681

$5,685

$5,874

$6,044

$6,059

$6,213

$6,646

$6,808

$6,847

$6,873

$6,934

$6,960

$7,000

$7,209

$7,562

$7,668

$7,849

$7,963

$7,988

$7,993

$7,993

$8,043

$8,078

$8,193

$8,334

$8,352

$8,904

$9,022

$9,197

$9,354

$9,428

$9,484

$9,618

$9,966

$10,007

$10,173

$10,300

$10,496

$10,837

$11,600

$12,041

$12,079

$13,078

$13,507

In Thousands

29

U.S. Average

22

States

States

AVG

8,043$


Tuition Prices at Private Four-Year Institutions by State Rank, 2011–2012Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011

8.2g

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Utah

Idaho

Hawaii

Delaware

Mississippi

North Dakota

Arkansas

West Virginia

Alabama

Michigan

Nebraska

Kansas

South Carolina

Kentucky

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Montana

Tennessee

Missouri

Virginia

Nevada

Alaska

UNITED STATES

Georgia

Florida

Iowa

Arizona

Texas

North Carolina

Wisconsin

Ohio

Illinois

Indiana

Louisiana

Maine

Minnesota

Washington

New Mexico

Oregon

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

Colorado

New York

Vermont

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Maryland


California

Connecticut

Massachusetts

Wyoming

$6,198

$6,614

$12,610

$13,888

$14,635

$14,700

$18,250

$18,606

$18,719

$19,414

$20,213

$21,042

$21,951

$22,171

$22,415

$22,926

$22,987

$23,485

$24,476

$24,683

$25,370

$25,406

$25,869

$26,029

$26,494

$26,551

$26,712

$26,828

$27,015

$27,239

$28,376

$28,903

$29,578

$30,024

$31,414

$31,462

$31,618

$31,656

$31,827

$32,447

$32,559

$33,129

$33,151

$33,643

$33,761

$33,943

$34,269

$35,581

$35,766

$35,991

$36,724

N/A

In Thousands

22

U.S. Average

29*

States

States

AVG

25,869$



Net Price Students Pay for CollegeWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator measures the net price students pay for college after subtracting

average fi nancial aid received from average cost of attendance. This measure

is important because increases in need-based grant aid frequently provide

better-targeted improvements in college affordability than across-the-board

tuition restraint.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Net prices are the

result of the interaction of tuition and fee levels, the other expenses students

face (e.g., room and board), and student aid availability. Policymakers must focus

on both published prices and fi nancial aid to monitor growth in net prices.

Where are we now? As of the 2011-12 academic year, the average net tuition

and fees for full-time students is -$810 at public two-year institutions, $2,490 at

public four-year institutions and $12,970 at private four-year institutions.

Between 2006-07 and 2011-12, average published tuition and fees at public

four-year colleges and universities increased by about $1,800 in 2011 dollars, an

annual rate of growth of 5.1 percent beyond infl ation. The average net tuition

and fees in-state students pay after taking grant aid from all sources and federal

education tax credits and deductions into consideration increased by about $170

in 2011 dollars, an annual rate of growth of 1.4 percent beyond infl ation.


Average net prices within sectors provide a clear view of the contrast between

published prices and the amount typical students actually pay. However, it is

the distribution of net prices across income levels that provide the most insight

into affordability.

Price increases have a much larger impact on low- and moderate-income

students than on those with greater resources. In recent years, net prices have

risen most rapidly at public four-year colleges for students from families in the

upper-half of the income distribution.

-$810 As of the 2011-12 academic year, at public two-year institutions, the average net price students pay for tuition and fees is -$810 (after subtracting grants and federal tax benefi ts).

$2,490 As of the 2011-12 academic year, at public four-year institutions, the average net price students pay for tuition and fees is $2,490 (after subtracting grants and federal tax benefi ts).

Updated data source


$12,970 As of the 2011-12 academic year, at private four-year institutions, the average net price students pay for tuition and fees is $12,970 (after subtracting grants and federal tax benefi ts).

Average Net Tuition and Fees, and Room and Board in Constant 2011 Dollars for Full-Time Undergraduate Students, 2011-12 (Estimated)Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011

8.3

TotalPublic 2-Year

NetPublic 2-Year

TotalPublic 4-Year

NetPublic 4-Year

TotalPrivate 4-Year

NetPrivate 4-Year

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

$2,9

60

$7,4

10

-$81

0

$7,4

10

$8,2

40

$8,8

90 $12,

970

$10,

090

$28,

500

$10,

090

$2,4

90

$8,8

90

Tuition and Fees

Room and Board


Changes in Family Income LevelsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

measures the percentage growth in mean family income by quintile in constant

infl ation-adjusted dollars. This measure is important because college affordability

depends on family fi nancial capacity and on the prices of other major goods and

services. Much of the current diffi culty families and students face in fi nancing

postsecondary education arises from widespread unemployment, increased

income inequality and general economic weakness.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Income levels are

not directly correlated to education policy, but changes in incomes must be kept

in mind in evaluating reasonable education fi nancing policies.

Where are we now? In the United States, average family income for low-

income families declined 16 percent from 2000 to 2010. Figure 8.4 shows that

the percentage growth in mean family income also declined for the second

lowest quintile by 9 percent, and the percentage growth in mean family income

for middle-income families declined by 6 percent. Income levels decreased by

3 percent for the second highest quintile, declined by 6 percent for the highest

quintile, and declined 11 percent for the top 5 percent (which is a subset of

the highest quintile). Over the entire income distribution in the United States,

average family incomes in 2010 were lower in infl ation-adjusted dollars than they

were a decade earlier. The largest declines were for the families in the lowest

20 percentage of the population and for those in the highest 5 percentage.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The distribution of income and changes in that distribution over time highlight

the extent to which college affordability problems are concentrated in certain

segments of the population.

-16.0% From 2000 to 2010, average family income has declined 16 percent (infl ation adjusted) for low-income families.

-6.0% From 2000 to 2010, average family income has declined 6 percent (infl ation adjusted) for moderate-income families.


-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

1980–1990

-2%

5%

8%

11%

23%

36%

12%

10% 12% 15

%

30%

47%

-16%

-9% -6

% -3%

-6%

-11%

1990–2000 2000–2010

60

Percentage Change in Infl ation-Adjusted Mean Family Income by Quintile, 1980–1990, 1990–2000 and 2000–2010Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011

8.4 Lowest 20%

Second 20%

Third 20%

Fourth 20%

Highest 20%

Top 5%

New fi gure


Earnings of College GraduatesWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

measures the average earnings of full-time workers ages 25 to 34 in the

United States. This measure is important because postsecondary education

is an investment in the future that pays off in a variety of ways, including

higher lifetime earnings. It is reasonable for students to borrow and repay their

debts out of future earnings, yet the earnings premium for college education

determines how feasible it is to repay these debts.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? The earnings

of recent college graduates determine the ease with which they can repay

their student debt. Slow growth and instability in these earnings levels make

the need for income-based repayment and other protections for borrowers in

repayment more urgent.

Where are we now? As of 2009, the infl ation adjusted average earnings

for full-time workers ages 25 to 34 in the United States is $34,594 for high

school graduates and GED recipients, compared with $53,483 for those with

a bachelor’s degree (Figure 8.5). The infl ation adjusted average earnings for

full-time workers ages 25 to 34 in the United States are $42,391 for those

with an associate degree.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Earnings for

25- to 34-year-olds have not grown measurably in recent years — even without

adjusting for infl ation — for workers at any level of educational attainment.

Those with no college education and those with associate degrees have seen

the largest declines. The gap in mean earnings between those who have earned

bachelor’s degrees and those with no college experience was $18,889 in 2009.

$34,594 As of 2009, the average earnings for full-time workers ages 25 to 34 whose highest degree is a high school diploma or a GED is $34,594.

$42,391 As of 2009, the average earnings for full-time workers ages 25 to 34 whose highest degree is an associate degree is $42,391.

$53,483 As of 2009, the average earnings for full-time workers ages 25 to 34 whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree is $53,483.


Average Earnings of Full-Time Workers Ages 25–34, 2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2010

8.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

High School Some CollegeNo Degree

AssociateDegree

Bachelor'sDegree

Bachelor'sDegreeor More

$34,594 $39,110

$42,391

$53,483 $59,690

In T

hous

ands


NineDramatically increase college completion rates

WE RECOMMEND that institutions of higher education set out to dramatically increase college completion rates by improving retention, easing transfer among institutions and implementing data-based strategies to identify retention and dropout challenges.

Increasing college graduation, or completion, rates is essential to reaching the

commission’s goal. The commission noted that it is imperative for institutions

to have the determination to understand why some students do not graduate,

with the hope of developing and implementing interventions that will enhance

graduation rates across all student groups.

Increasing college completion rates will be more challenging in light of projected

demographic changes that vary across states.67 The greatest growth in high

school graduates will be among groups who historically have not had as much

access to or success in higher education. The commission’s goal cannot be

met without a substantial commitment by states and institutions to eliminate

racial and ethnic gaps in degree completion. States will have to develop and

differentiate strategies geared toward the particular needs of their population.

Policymakers will need to consider the impact of both demographic changes

and the current economic crisis in order to implement effective approaches that

improve graduation rates.

It is important to understand the difference between educational attainment

rates and graduation rates in order to avoid confusing the two concepts. The

former is the focus of the commission’s overall goal, while the latter is the focus

of this recommendation. While graduation rates affect educational attainment

rates, the two are distinctly different measures.

Educational attainment is based on the highest level of education completed

by an individual, regardless of when or where a person started or fi nished their

education, how long he or she took to earn the degree or whether the individual

attended on a part- or full-time basis. These estimates are useful for making

judgments about how well educated the United States is in comparison to

other nations.

Graduation rates provide important insights into the success of institutions,

states and the country as a whole in moving students in a timely manner

from the point of entry to degree attainment. As mandated by Congress, they

are based on fi rst-time, full-time students entering a two- or four-year college

at a specifi c point in time and graduating from that same institution within a

particular amount of time. These estimates provide insights into postsecondary

outcomes, but they are not useful for comparing the United States to other

nations because of the differences in how graduation rates are defi ned and

calculated in various countries.

In understanding the degree to which the nation is increasing completion rates, three indicators may prove fruitful to policymakers and educators:

• Freshman-to-sophomore retention;

• Graduation rates of associate degree– and certifi cate-seeking students;

• Graduation rates of bachelor’s degree–seeking students; and

• Degrees Awarded at Colleges and Universities.

67. For more details, see Knocking at the College Door. (2008). (Boulder: Western Interstate Commission for

Higher Education).

completionagenda.collegeboard.org Recommendation Nine 220

General Findings for This Recommendation• As of 2008, 60.0 percent of full-time freshmen at public two-year colleges

return for the sophomore year.

• As of 2008, 69.0 percent of full-time freshmen at private, for-profi t, two-year

colleges return for the sophomore year.

• As of 2008, 78.2 percent of full-time freshmen at public four-year colleges

return for the sophomore year.

• As of 2008, 79.1 percent of full-time freshmen at private, not-for-profi t, four-

year colleges return for the sophomore year.

• As of 2008, 27.5 percent of full-time degree- or certifi cate-seeking students

at two-year colleges graduate in three years or less.

• As of 2008, 22.6 percent of full-time African American degree- or certifi cate-

seeking students at two-year colleges graduate in three years or less.

• As of 2008, 24.9 percent of full-time American Indian or Alaska Native

degree- or certifi cate-seeking students at two-year colleges graduate in

three years or less.

• As of 2008, 25.7 percent of full-time Hispanic degree- or certifi cate-seeking

students at two-year colleges graduate in three years or less.

• As of 2008, 34.1 percent of full-time degree- or certifi cate-seeking students

at two-year colleges graduate in four years or less.

• As of 2008, 57.7 percent of full-time bachelor’s degree–seeking students at

four-year colleges graduate in six years or less.

• As of 2008, 38.5 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native full-time

bachelor’s degree–seeking students at four-year colleges graduate in six

years or less.

• As of 2008, 40.5 percent of African American full-time bachelor’s degree–

seeking students at four-year colleges graduate in six years or less.

• As of 2008, 49.4 percent of Hispanic full-time bachelor’s degree–seeking

students at four-year colleges graduate in six years or less.

• As of 2008, 60.6 percent of full-time bachelor’s degree–seeking students at

four-year colleges graduate in eight years or less.

• As of 2009, the number of associate degrees has increased 36.0 percent

from 1,159,550 in 2001 to 1,577,136 in 2009.

• As of 2009, the number of bachelor’s degrees has increased 29.6 percent

from 2,597,018 in 2001 to 3,366,858 in 2009.

• As of 2009, 1.1 percent of all associate degrees are awarded to American

Indians or Alaska Natives.

• As of 2009, 5.3 percent of all associate degrees are awarded to Asian

Americans and Pacifi c Islanders.

• As of 2009, 13.1 percent of all associate degrees are awarded to African

Americans.

• As of 2009, 12.7 percent of all associate degrees are awarded to Hispanics.


• As of 2009, 67.8 percent of all associate degrees are awarded to whites.

• As of 2009, 0.8 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded to American

Indians or Alaska Natives.

• As of 2009, 7.3 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded to Asian

Americans and Pacifi c Islanders.

• As of 2009, 9.8 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded to African

Americans.

• As of 2009, 8.3 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded to Hispanics.

• As of 2009, 73.8 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded to whites.

• As of 2009, 62.1 percent of all associate degrees are awarded to females.

• As of 2009, 57.3 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded to females.

• As of 2009, 19.6 percent of all degrees are awarded in business,

management and marketing.

• As of 2009, 17.7 percent of all degrees are awarded in health professions

and clinical sciences.

• As of 2009, 9.8 percent of all degrees are awarded in education.

• As of 2009, 3.3 percent of all degrees are awarded engineering.


Freshman-to-Sophomore RetentionWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

represents the persistence of students from freshman to sophomore year and

provides insights into students’ progress through the postsecondary education

system. This measure is important in ensuring that students are on track to

complete an associate or bachelor’s degree in a timely manner.

Retention rates are calculated by aggregating, by sector and/or state, the

institution-level adjusted entering cohorts and the number of students from

these cohorts that enroll the following fall. Estimates therefore can be

interpreted as a percentage of students in the given sector and/or state.

Given that students enter college with a variety of objectives (e.g., work and

study versus solely study) and that institutions have varying missions, we have

presented a variety of sectors for both full- and part-time students. This provides

a more nuanced picture of retention across the nation’s institutions — one that

is sometimes lost in favor of presenting a single statistic.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Persistence indicators are one of the tools used to better understand the nature

of educational progress and the challenges faced by institutions or a state as

a whole for increasing educational attainment. In the words of Amy Guidera

from the Data Quality Campaign, “We need to use data as a fl ashlight, not

a hammer.”68 The appropriate context (e.g., institutional mission) should be

taken into account when considering whether persistence indicators such as

retention can or should be used as accountability measures. These data are

aggregated across institutions in order to provide a weighted average for states

and the nation. Larger institutions thus have more of an impact on state results.

Policymakers should consider the range of institutional outcomes that contribute

to overall state fi gures when developing strategies to improve retention.

Institutions should make every effort to learn from students who are not

retained (e.g., through exit surveys) in order to develop policies that result in

the best outcomes for the students and for the institutions. Administrators and

faculty should examine the ways in which they can improve the transition of

new students from the fi rst day of orientation to sophomore year.

68. Guidera, Amy. (2010, June). Speech presented in conjunction with Education Week’s “Diplomas Count” press

conference at the National Press Club, Washington, DC.

60.0% As of 2008, 60.0 percent of full-time freshmen at public two-year colleges return for the sophomore year.

1.0ppts 2007–2008

69.0% As of 2008, 69.0 percent of full-time freshmen at private for-profi t two-year colleges return for the sophomore year.

4.1ppts 2007–2008


Where are we now? As of 2008, 60.0 percent of full-time, fi rst-time degree-

or certifi cate-seeking freshmen at public two-year colleges are retained from

freshman to sophomore year (Figure 9.1a). Part-time students account for

approximately four of every 10 freshmen in this sector, and only 40.1 percent

of these part-time students return for sophomore year (Figure 9.1b). When

disaggregated by state, the full-time freshman-to-sophomore retention rate at

public two-year colleges ranges from 47.7 percent in Louisiana to 68.6 percent

in California (Figure 9.1c). When placed in rank order, the states with the highest

retention rates for this sector are California, North Dakota, South Dakota,

Florida and New York. The states with the lowest retention rates are Louisiana,

Montana, Alaska, West Virginia and Oklahoma.

As of 2008, 78.2 percent of full-time, fi rst-time degree-seeking freshmen at

public four-year colleges are retained from freshman to sophomore year (Figure

9.1a). Part-time students account for a small proportion (roughly 5 percent) of

the overall freshmen enrollment in this sector, and 47.7 percent of these part-

time students who enter in the fall return for sophomore year (Figure 9.1b).

When disaggregated by state, the full-time freshman-to-sophomore retention

rate at public four-year colleges ranges from 39.5 percent in the District

of Columbia to 86.1 percent in Virginia (Figure 9.1d). When placed in rank

order, the states with the highest retention rates for this sector are Virginia,

Delaware, New Jersey, California and New Hampshire. The states with the

lowest retention rates are District of Columbia, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arkansas

and Montana.

As of 2008, 79.1 percent of full-time, fi rst-time degree-seeking freshmen at

private not-for-profi t four-year colleges are retained from freshman to sophomore

year (Figure 9.1a). As in the public four-year sector, part-time students account

for only a few percentage points of the fi rst-year enrollment, and 43.6 percent

of these part-time students who enter in fall return for sophomore year (Figure

9.1b). When disaggregated by state, the full-time freshman-to-sophomore

retention rate at private not-for-profi t four-year colleges ranges from 57.2 percent

in Delaware to 87.3 percent in the District of Columbia (Figure 9.1e). When

placed in rank order, the states with the highest retention rates for this sector

are District of Columbia, California, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Connecticut.

The states with the lowest retention rates are Delaware, Nevada, Michigan,

Kansas and Hawaii.

Despite gains between 2007 and 2008, the full-time freshman-to-sophomore

retention rate is lowest among private for-profi t four-year colleges, where just

under half of freshmen return for sophomore year (Figure 9.1a). Part-time

students make up roughly one-quarter of fi rst-time, degree–seeking freshmen

in this sector, and 43.2 percent of these part-time students who enter in fall

return for sophomore year (Figure 9.1b).

78.2% As of 2008, 78.2 percent of full-time freshmen at public four-year colleges return for the sophomore year.

2007–2008

79.1% As of 2008, 79.1 percent of full-time freshmen at private not-for-profi t four-year colleges return for the sophomore year.

2007–2008


When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Retention is

based solely on continuing within the institution in which one originally enrolled.

Students who successfully transfer to other institutions count against the

original institution but do not impact the receiving institution.

Caution is warranted when interpreting the estimates related to for-profi t and

private not-for-profi t sectors in this indicator. The number of for-profi t institutions

grew signifi cantly between fall 2007 and fall 2008 and the underlying enrollment

changed as well. This results in less stable estimates for this sector. Also, there

are very few private not-for-profi t two-year institutions, which also leads to

unstable estimates.

Finally, as indicated above, the proportion of fi rst-time students who are

enrolled part-time versus full-time varied substantially by sector. For example,

part-time students account for a much larger portion of the student enrollment

at public two-year colleges compared to public four-year colleges. This should

be considered when examining the part- and full-time retention rates for

these sectors.

The estimates contained in this report should not be compared against

estimates based on the 2003–2006 surveys. Retention rates were collected

on the 2003–2006 IPEDS enrollment surveys, but institutions were calculating

and reporting retention rates based on different student groups (e.g., full-

time students versus all students; original versus adjusted cohort). This led to

changes in the 2007 survey, whereby institutions now report the raw numbers

for clearly defi ned cohorts. IPEDS then calculates the rates for institutions

based on these raw numbers.


National Full-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates, 2007–2008Source: NCES IPEDS Enrollment and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2007–2008

National Part-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates, 2007–2008Source: NCES IPEDS Enrollment and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2007–2008

9.1a

9.1b

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public 2-Year

Public 4-Year

Private 2-Year

(Not-for-Profit)

Private2-Year

(For-Profit)

Private4-Year

(Not-for-Profit)

Private4-Year

(For-Profit)

59.0

%

60.0

%

62.1

%

59.2

%

64.9

%

69.0

% 78.0

%

78.2

%

79.5

%

79.1

%

45.4

%

49.7

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public 2-Year

Public 4-Year

Private 2-Year

(Not-for-Profit)

Private2-Year

(For-Profit)

Private4-Year

(Not-for-Profit)

Private4-Year

(For-Profit)

40.0

%

40.1

%

55.4

%

59.5

%

50.1

%

47.3

%

48.9

%

47.7

%

47.1

%

43.6

%

40.5

%

43.2

%

2007

2008

2007

2008

Updated data source

Updated data source


Full-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Public Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Enrollment and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.1c


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

California

North Dakota

South Dakota

Florida

New York

New Jersey

Maryland

Hawaii

Nevada

Nebraska

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Michigan

Virginia

UNITED STATES

North Carolina

Utah

Kentucky

Illinois

Missouri

Wyoming

Washington

Wisconsin

Ohio

Arizona

Oregon

Massachusetts

Indiana

Kansas

Pennsylvania

Texas

Connecticut

Minnesota

Arkansas

Iowa

Idaho

Mississippi

New Mexico

Alabama

Georgia

Maine

Delaware

Colorado

Vermont

Tennessee

South Carolina

Oklahoma

West Virginia

Alaska

Montana

Louisiana


68.6%

68.2%

68.2%

67.0%

62.7%

62.6%

61.8%

61.3%

61.3%

61.0%

61.0%

60.9%

60.6%

60.2%

60.0%

59.3%

59.3%

58.7%

58.3%

57.9%

57.9%

57.8%

57.5%

57.3%

57.2%

57.2%

57.1%

57.0%

57.0%

56.9%

56.9%

56.7%

56.6%

56.5%

56.2%

56.1%

55.9%

55.2%

55.1%

55.0%

54.6%

54.4%

53.6%

53.6%

52.9%

52.1%

50.7%

48.7%

48.3%

47.8%

47.7%

NA

111

6

5

20

35

19

16

6

1

8

7

1

30

24

1,022

59

7

16

48

21

7

30

17

30

21

17

16

14

24

21

63

12

31

22

16

3

15

20

25

48

7

3

15

1

13

20

12

11

2

12

34

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

106,686

1,100

2,016

28,207

52,104

27,298

14,043

2,566

669

4,186

1,842

2,262

21,582

17,533

667,819

19,614

3,409

8,120

27,167

13,128

2,335

10,650

11,331

17,357

8,610

7,096

13,065

6,896

9,419

18,033

53,317

6,347

17,082

6,671

12,669

1,805

18,251

6,278

14,358

17,978

2,353

2,365

6,139

192

11,728

12,656

7,635

3,406

29

1,390

6,846

NA

14

U.S. Average

36*

States

States

AVG

60.0%

Updated data source


Full-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Public Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Enrollment and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.1d

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Virginia

Delaware

New Jersey

California

New Hampshire

Iowa

Connecticut

Maryland

New York

Washington

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Michigan

Illinois

Wisconsin

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Florida

Vermont

Minnesota

South Carolina

UNITED STATES

Arizona

Nebraska

Ohio

Indiana

Oregon

North Dakota

Alabama

Colorado

Georgia

Missouri

Mississippi

Nevada

Kansas

Texas

Hawaii

Wyoming

Maine

Kentucky

South Dakota

Tennessee

Louisiana

West Virginia

New Mexico

Alaska

Utah

Montana

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Idaho


86.1%

85.1%

84.7%

84.2%

83.9%

83.3%

83.0%

82.3%

82.3%

81.7%

81.2%

80.9%

80.3%

80.2%

79.3%

79.2%

79.2%

79.1%

78.7%

78.5%

78.4%

78.2%

77.7%

77.1%

77.1%

77.0%

76.7%

76.5%

76.4%

76.3%

76.1%

76.0%

75.2%

75.0%

74.3%

73.8%

73.6%

72.5%

72.4%

72.3%

72.3%

72.0%

71.3%

71.3%

71.1%

70.7%

70.1%

69.3%

68.2%

67.6%

63.5%

39.5%

15

2

13

33

5

3

9

13

41

13

16

41

15

11

14

13

2

19

5

11

12

610

3

6

29

15

7

8

13

13

24

13

8

6

8

35

4

1

8

8

7

9

14

11

8

3

7

6

10

15

4

1

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

29,715

4,709

17,300

85,916

4,831

10,501

9,042

15,907

39,218

16,033

31,311

43,611

39,878

25,755

25,997

14,826

4,102

51,685

3,776

17,473

15,958

936,000

17,692

7,994

42,799

30,316

10,111

5,016

19,793

21,056

33,812

18,404

8,663

5,174

11,941

64,297

2,501

1,627

4,008

16,168

4,351

19,020

20,417

10,424

6,488

1,524

7,379

4,690

11,651

15,404

5,227

509

21

U.S. Average

30

States

States

AVG

78.2%

Updated data source


Full-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Enrollment and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.1e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


California

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Connecticut

Washington

Pennsylvania

Colorado

Maryland

Rhode Island

New York

Maine

New Jersey

Indiana

Wisconsin

New Hampshire

Oregon

Vermont

UNITED STATES

Alaska

Ohio

Utah

Illinois

South Dakota

Louisiana

Arizona

Iowa

North Dakota

Tennessee

Missouri

New Mexico

North Carolina

Texas

Nebraska

Georgia

Montana

Florida

Virginia

Arkansas

Idaho

Oklahoma

Kentucky

South Carolina

Alabama

Mississippi

West Virginia

Hawaii

Kansas

Michigan

Nevada

Delaware

Wyoming

87.3%

85.8%

85.4%

84.7%

84.6%

84.2%

83.5%

83.2%

83.1%

82.8%

82.4%

81.3%

81.3%

81.0%

80.0%

79.8%

79.4%

79.2%

79.1%

78.6%

77.7%

77.6%

77.4%

77.2%

76.9%

76.3%

76.1%

76.1%

76.1%

75.4%

75.4%

75.3%

75.3%

74.9%

74.8%

73.8%

72.4%

72.0%

70.9%

70.9%

70.8%

70.1%

68.8%

68.5%

67.2%

66.8%

66.7%

66.7%

63.9%

63.4%

57.2%

NA

9

82

64

26

15

16

83

9

19

8

135

11

22

35

23

11

19

13

1,242

1

59

3

52

6

9

5

32

4

38

37

4

43

43

17

29

4

50

29

12

4

13

22

21

17

10

9

3

20

41

1

4

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

7,763

23,966

36,680

9,956

8,927

5,827

40,592

2,817

5,869

8,362

63,053

3,427

8,522

14,025

8,343

3,948

4,195

2,879

468,714

42

21,453

4,906

24,980

1,076

3,268

586

8,600

787

11,150

10,707

362

15,566

17,546

3,268

9,601

724

15,115

11,846

3,273

1,789

3,341

5,458

7,344

4,781

1,916

1,889

1,102

2,468

13,657

71

891

NA

18

U.S. Average

32*

States

States

AVG

79.1%


Updated data source


Graduation Rates of Associate Degree– and Certifi cate-Seeking StudentsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

builds upon the retention indicator to provide a more complete picture of the

educational progress of college students in the United States. The majority

of data in this indicator refl ect the proportion of fi rst-time, full-time associate

degree- or certifi cate-seeking students who graduate within 150 percent of

normal program length (i.e., three years). In addition, four-year graduation rates

(200 percent of normal program length) are available for the fi rst time and

are included in this indicator. Graduation rates are calculated by aggregating,

across institutions in a given state and/or sector, the institution-level adjusted

entering cohorts and the number of students from these cohorts who graduate

within the appropriate time frame. Estimates therefore can be interpreted as a

percentage of students in the given sector and/or state.

The measure is central to the commission’s goal because of the role that

two-year colleges play in the higher education system. This role may become

increasingly important because of the changing demographics described in the

introduction to this section and the economic challenges faced by a growing

number of Americans.

The data are disaggregated by state, race/ethnicity and institutional control

(i.e., public, private not-for-profi t, private for-profi t) to help states understand

the differential outcomes across groups and to illustrate the state’s overall

graduation rate as a function of the varying performance of students in

different types of institutions.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Addressing

socioeconomic, racial and ethnic inequalities in higher education requires

persistent and meaningful efforts by states to provide postsecondary access

and opportunity to the steadily growing numbers of undereducated and

underrepresented minorities. Beyond the moral imperative to achieve equity

among populations of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, there are

economic reasons for doing so.

Policymakers should consider both the challenges and opportunities facing

two-year colleges in light of current economic conditions. Many adults are

returning to the educational pipeline in order to build skills and increase future

job opportunities. At the same time, budget cuts threaten funding in this

vital sector.

27.5% As of 2008, 27.5 percent of full-time degree- or certifi cate-seeking students at two-year colleges graduate in three years or less.

2007–2008

22.6% As of 2008, 22.6 percent of full-time African American degree- or certifi cate-seeking students at two-year colleges graduate in three years or less.

3.8ppts 2007–2008


Graduation rates have been a part of the higher education landscape since

Congress passed the Student Right-to-Know Act in 1990. They are the primary

national, standardized measure of postsecondary outcomes. However,

policymakers should consider the signifi cance and meaning of high or low

graduation rates. The appropriate context should be taken into account when

considering whether persistence indicators such as graduation rates can or

should be used as accountability measures. Institutions vary in their missions,

as well as in the composition of entering students — factors that should be

recognized when interpreting estimates, particularly at the institutional level.

Institutions that aim to educate low-income, fi rst-generation, traditionally

underserved students will face substantially different enrollment, retention

and graduation challenges compared to institutions that attract most of

their students from the top of the nation’s high school graduating classes.

Policymakers should seek to understand the benefi ts and limitations of

graduation rates in order to better serve all constituents.

Where are we now? As of 2008, 27.5 percent of fi rst-time, full-time associate

degree- or certifi cate-seeking students in the nation’s two-year colleges

graduate within three years (Figure 9.2a). This estimate dropped slightly from

a high of 30.5 percent in 2003. Graduation rates vary by sector, such that 20.6

percent of these students in public two-year colleges graduate within three

years, compared to 48.3 percent and 57.7 percent at private not-for-profi t and

for-profi t two-year colleges, respectively. Public institutions account for nearly

four out of fi ve fi rst-time, full-time students at two-year colleges and thus shape

states’ overall estimates.

Three-year graduation rates of fi rst-time, full-time students at two-year colleges

vary by race/ethnicity and sector (Figures 9.2b, 9.2g–9.2k). Asian students have

the highest three-year graduation rate (31.5 percent), followed by white students

(28.5 percent), Hispanic students (25.7 percent), American Indian students (24.9

percent), and African American students (22.6 percent). When disaggregated

by state, the three-year graduation rate at two-year colleges ranges from 9.0

percent in Delaware to 60.0 percent in Wyoming (Figure 9.2c). Private for-profi t

institutions greatly infl uence overall three-year graduation rates in states such as

Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee

and Wyoming (Figure 9.2f).

When comparing three-year graduation rates against four-year graduation rates,

it is clear that the additional year affords a substantial number of students

the opportunity to complete their degrees. For example, while 27.8 percent

of fi rst-time, full-time associate degree- or certifi cate-seeking students who

entered in fall 2004 graduate within three years (Figure 9.2a), 34.1 percent of

these students graduate within four years (Figure 9.2l). When disaggregated

by state, the four-year graduation rate ranges from 18.0 percent in Delaware to

74.1 percent in South Dakota (Figure 9.2m).

24.9% As of 2008, 24.9 percent of full-time American Indian or Alaska Native degree- or certifi cate-seeking students at two-year colleges graduate in three years or less.

3.7ppts 2007–2008

25.7% As of 2008, 25.7 percent of full-time Hispanic degree- or certifi cate-seeking students at two-year colleges graduate in three years or less.

7.6ppts 2007–2008


When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Because of the manner in which data are collected in the IPEDS graduation

survey, researchers are unable to separate associate degree–seeking students

from certifi cate-seeking students. One concern is that the normal time to

completion varies across certifi cate programs, whereas it is more standardized

for associate programs. Given the emphasis of the commission goal on

obtaining an associate degree or higher, data would ideally be presented for

associate degree–seeking students only. This presents a challenge for using this

indicator to examine issues related to degree attainment among students at

two-year colleges.

The limitations of these graduation rates deserve consideration. For example,

as was the case with the previous indicator, graduation rates are based solely

on degree completion within the institution in which one enrolled as a full-time,

fi rst-time student. In addition, they do not refl ect part-time students, students

who begin college in terms other than fall, or incoming transfer students who

go on to successfully complete a degree. In fact, successful transfer students

count against the original institution’s graduation rate (which also infl uences

estimates at the state level) and do nothing to benefi t the receiving institution.

Many policymakers and researchers have called for reforms to standardize the

way that transfer rates are measured and reported by states and institutions.

Because of the lack of the standardization of transfer rates, this indicator

is not yet available to help contextualize the nation’s success in increasing

completion rates.

It is also important to consider that graduation rates are associated with many

other factors not directly addressed in these data (e.g., fi rst-generation status,

academic preparation, socioeconomic background, adjustment to college, etc.).

In addition, many students take longer than the traditional two-to-three year

window to graduate, including students who begin as full-time students but

spend most of their experience attending part time and students who must

work while attending college. The inclusion of four-year graduation rates in this

year’s report is meant to address some of these limitations and provide a more

complete picture of degree completion.

Recent changes in the rules regarding maintenance, collection, and reporting of

federal data on race and ethnicity should be considered when interpreting data

in this indicator. Institutions must now collect these data using a two-question

format, in which the fi rst assesses whether the individual is Hispanic/Latino

(ethnicity), and the second evaluates whether the respondent is one or more

of the following races: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, black or African

American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacifi c Islander, or white. In addition, Asian

and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacifi c Islander was separated into two categories

and a reporting category “two or more races” was introduced.

34.1% As of 2008, 34.1 percent of full-time, degree- or certifi cate-seeking students at two-year colleges graduate in four years or less.


In the most recent graduation survey, institutions had the option to report under

old or new race/ethnicity categories. IPEDS then derived a total, where the new

category overlapped with the old. The data contained in this indicator refl ect

these derived categories. It is possible that the addition of “two or more races”

in the new system changed how institutions reported students, which raises

questions about the ability to compare estimates from the 2008 survey to those

from previous or future years (when institutions will have fully transitioned to

the new system).

Finally, some estimates are based on a very small number of students,

particularly when disaggregated by state by sector by ethnicity. Readers are

advised to consider the number of institutions behind various estimates as

well as the number of students who underlie these estimates. In some cases,

institutional responses are altered by NCES to protect the privacy of students.

Thus, the publicly available survey data may not refl ect the exact value reported

by institutions. The impact of this likely varies across fi gures within this indicator.

For example, there is likely a greater impact on American Indian or Alaska

Native estimates than there is for white students, since a greater number of

institutional responses regarding American Indian or Alaska Natives may have

been altered by NCES. Similarly, estimates based on the cumulative responses

of many small colleges may be impacted more than those based on the

cumulative responses of larger colleges.


National Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges, 2002–2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2002–2008

9.2a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

23.6%

45.7%

22.9%

50.1%54.9%

49.3% 49.2%44.5%

48.3%

22.9% 21.9% 21.5% 20.3% 20.6%

29.4% 30.5% 30.0% 29.3% 29.1% 27.8% 27.5%

62.5%59.1% 58.7% 57.1% 57.3% 58.3% 57.7%

Total, 2-Year

Private, 2-Year (Not-for-Profi t)

Private, 2-Year (For-Profi t)

Public, 2-Year

National Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by Race/Ethnicity, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2b

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AmericanIndian


Hispanic White

15.1

%

18.3

%24.9

%

22.6

%

25.7

%

28.5

%

31.5

%

55.8

%

25.8

%

12.1

%

15.6

% 22.9

%

65.8

%

41.7

% 47.3

%

52.4

%

41.7

% 47.8

%

61.4

%

62.9

%

Total, 2-Year



Public, 2-Year

Updated data source

Updated data source


Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2c


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

60.0%

56.7%

40.7%

40.2%

39.9%

39.6%

39.3%

36.6%

35.1%

34.4%

34.0%

33.7%

33.6%

32.9%

32.3%

31.1%

30.9%

30.3%

29.7%

29.6%

29.0%

27.9%

27.5%

27.1%

27.0%

26.4%

26.4%

25.6%

25.5%

25.2%

25.1%

24.7%

24.5%

24.4%

22.2%

20.9%

20.9%

19.9%

19.2%

19.0%

18.6%

18.6%

18.4%

18.3%

18.2%

15.7%

14.9%

14.2%

14.1%

11.6%

9.0%

NA

Wyoming

South Dakota

Arizona

Colorado

Florida

Utah

Pennsylvania

Nevada

North Dakota

Idaho

Iowa

Missouri

Wisconsin

Nebraska

Kansas

California

Minnesota

Louisiana

Montana

Tennessee

Washington

Oklahoma

UNITED STATES

Indiana

New Hampshire

Georgia

Maine

Virginia

Kentucky

Ohio

Oregon

Mississippi

Illinois

Arkansas

New York

North Carolina

West Virginia

Alabama

Maryland

Hawaii

Alaska

Texas

Massachusetts

New Mexico

Vermont

New Jersey

Michigan

South Carolina

Rhode Island

Connecticut

Delaware


8

6

34

34

61

11

105

6

7

4

18

44

21

10

31

188

38

46

13

33

34

21

1,636

30

9

60

10

42

29

92

21

18

64

23

77

63

21

28

19

7

2

101

24

20

2

21

32

26

2

16

4

NA

22

U.S. Average

28*

States

States

4,408

2,042

18,085

11,640

31,746

5,743

34,556

2,899

1,314

2,554

11,492

17,484

11,211

4,854

10,172

157,264

18,216

8,234

1,497

19,503

11,828

11,104

798,381

8,513

2,505

18,570

2,612

15,227

8,699

25,017

9,086

18,316

30,143

6,835

53,065

19,525

3,348

14,469

14,715

2,741

59

62,897

13,485

6,226

296

24,252

18,288

12,410

1,905

5,604

1,727

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

AVG

27.5%

Updated data source


Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Public Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2d


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

57.2%

38.9%

37.5%

33.6%

33.0%

32.9%

32.1%

32.0%

30.5%

29.5%

28.6%

27.7%

26.5%

24.2%

24.2%

23.2%

22.9%

22.6%

22.5%

22.1%

21.8%

20.6%

20.6%

19.9%

19.9%

19.5%

18.9%

18.6%

18.2%

17.0%

16.2%

15.7%

15.4%

15.1%

14.7%

14.7%

14.6%

14.6%

14.6%

14.3%

14.2%

13.4%

12.8%

11.5%

11.1%

11.1%

11.1%

10.3%

10.3%

10.3%

7.4%

NA

South Dakota

Utah

North Dakota

Iowa

Wisconsin

Florida

Wyoming

Nebraska

Montana

Kansas

Minnesota

Washington

Maine

California

Mississippi

Colorado

Georgia

Arkansas

Missouri

New Hampshire

Kentucky

Illinois

UNITED STATES

New York

North Carolina

Idaho

Arizona

Alaska

Alabama

Oklahoma

West Virginia

Massachusetts

Oregon

Louisiana

Michigan

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Vermont

Virginia

Hawaii

New Mexico

Ohio

Maryland

South Carolina

Nevada

Tennessee

Texas

Connecticut

Indiana

Rhode Island

Delaware


5

7

6

16

17

20

7

7

12

24

31

30

7

110

15

15

48

22

20

7

16

48

1,011

35

59

3

21

2

25

12

11

16

17

28

30

20

19

1

24

6

19

30

16

20

1

13

63

12

14

1

3

NA

22

U.S. Average

28*

States

States

2,016

5,315

1,174

11,404

10,780

22,951

2,112

4,582

1,410

9,260

16,836

11,421

2,252

128,274

17,965

6,076

16,140

6,222

12,108

2,109

7,725

26,977

647,059

46,819

18,550

1,823

8,930

59

13,749

8,151

2,927

12,331

6,872

4,618

18,008

16,249

23,584

246

11,303

2,336

5,815

17,391

12,432

11,475

594

11,517

52,529

5,353

4,951

1,702

1,636

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

AVG

20.6%

Updated data source


Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2e


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

85.7%

85.0%

70.5%

69.6%

67.9%

64.8%

64.5%

54.7%

50.0%

50.0%

48.3%

46.7%

44.9%

43.9%

43.8%

43.6%

40.2%

39.7%

38.5%

36.0%

35.4%

34.8%

32.4%

25.0%

21.0%

17.2%

15.7%

15.0%

11.5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Colorado

Iowa

Missouri

New Hampshire

California

Kansas

Tennessee

Pennsylvania

Florida

Maine

UNITED STATES

Illinois

Ohio

Connecticut

Massachusetts

Wisconsin

Utah

South Carolina

Delaware

Vermont

New York

Texas

Georgia

Minnesota

Indiana

Montana

North Carolina

North Dakota

South Dakota

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas


Hawaii

Idaho

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Michigan

Mississippi

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming

1

1

4

1

8

2

2

13

1

1

86

4

6

2

3

2

1

2

1

1

17

4

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

10

U.S. Average

18*

States

States

49

20

397

23

1,405

511

62

2,180

32

4

9,243

398

336

57

73

101

264

461

91

50

944

428

564

8

119

87

413

140

26

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

AVG

48.3%

Updated data source


Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2f


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

92.6%

85.5%

77.1%

71.4%

63.9%

62.1%

62.1%

61.4%

59.6%

59.2%

59.1%

58.5%

58.1%

58.1%

57.9%

57.7%

57.7%

57.5%

57.3%

56.7%

56.2%

55.2%

54.8%

54.6%

54.4%

54.2%

54.2%

53.8%

53.7%

52.6%

52.0%

51.6%

49.7%

49.3%

48.5%

48.1%

47.7%

46.3%

46.2%

43.2%

42.6%

40.0%

38.7%

30.0%

25.6%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Iowa

Wyoming

New Mexico

Idaho

Washington

Arizona

Pennsylvania

California

Minnesota

Illinois

Utah

Colorado

Florida

Oklahoma

Missouri

North Carolina

UNITED STATES

Texas

Virginia

New Jersey

Tennessee

Oregon

Georgia

Kentucky

Kansas

Maryland

South Carolina

Alabama

West Virginia

Ohio

New Hampshire

Indiana

Louisiana

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Mississippi

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Hawaii

Nevada

Arkansas

New York

Connecticut

Michigan

Maine

Alaska

Delaware


Montana

North Dakota

South Dakota

Vermont

1

1

1

1

4

13

72

70

6

12

3

18

40

9

20

3

539

34

18

2

18

4

9

13

5

3

4

3

10

56

1

15

18

3

2

3

5

1

1

5

1

25

2

2

2

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

16

U.S. Average

28*

States

States

68

2,296

411

731

407

9,155

16,127

27,585

1,372

2,768

164

5,515

8,763

2,953

4,979

562

142,079

9,940

3,924

668

7,924

2,214

1,866

974

401

2,283

474

720

421

7,290

373

3,443

3,616

272

330

351

1,081

203

405

2,305

613

5,302

194

280

356

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

AVG

57.7%

Updated data source


Three-Year Graduation Rates of Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacifi c Islander Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2g


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

61.4%

46.9%

46.1%

43.0%

38.7%

36.3%

35.1%

35.1%

33.8%

33.3%

33.3%

33.3%

31.5%

31.3%

30.8%

30.3%

28.3%

28.2%

28.1%

27.4%

25.5%

25.3%

25.0%

25.0%

24.1%

23.5%

22.6%

22.6%

21.6%

21.1%

20.7%

20.6%

20.5%

20.0%

20.0%

20.0%

19.7%

19.7%

17.8%

16.7%

15.9%

14.9%

14.4%

14.3%

14.1%

12.9%

11.8%

7.8%

5.1%

0.0%

0.0%

NA

Wyoming

Arizona

Florida

Nevada

California

Colorado

Pennsylvania

Utah

Louisiana

Idaho

New Hampshire

Oklahoma

UNITED STATES

Missouri

Arkansas

Washington

Minnesota

Oregon

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Iowa

Mississippi

Alabama

Montana

Maine

Tennessee

Kentucky

Rhode Island

Ohio

West Virginia

New York

North Carolina

Georgia

Kansas

New Mexico

South Dakota

Hawaii

Virginia

Indiana

North Dakota

Massachusetts

Illinois

Texas

Michigan

Maryland

New Jersey

Connecticut

South Carolina

Delaware

Alaska

Vermont


8

34

61

6

188

34

105

11

46

4

9

21

1,636

44

23

34

38

21

10

21

18

18

28

13

10

33

29

2

92

21

77

63

60

31

20

6

7

42

30

7

24

64

101

32

19

21

16

26

4

2

2

NA

12

U.S. Average

38*

States

States

57

420

765

235

21,924

300

609

148

77

27

27

189

40,114

179

65

683

756

387

64

274

137

91

120

12

29

200

62

53

199

19

2,294

316

555

170

90

15

1,904

851

45

6

517

1,060

1,641

265

596

1,339

152

141

39

5

5

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

AVG

31.5%

Updated data source


Three-Year Graduation Rates of American Indian or Alaska Native Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2h


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

42.1%

39.2%

38.7%

37.4%

36.6%

33.6%

33.3%

29.6%

28.9%

27.3%

27.3%

26.9%

26.8%

26.0%

25.3%

25.2%

25.2%

24.9%

24.4%

23.4%

23.1%

22.9%

22.4%

21.7%

21.1%

18.9%

18.6%

18.6%

18.2%

17.8%

17.4%

17.2%

16.5%

16.1%

15.8%

15.4%

15.4%

14.8%

14.4%

14.3%

14.3%

13.0%

12.1%

11.4%

10.8%

7.2%

7.1%

6.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

NA

Nevada

Pennsylvania

Wyoming

Arizona

Mississippi

Colorado

Vermont

Florida

Idaho

Hawaii

Louisiana

California

New Mexico

Virginia

Utah

Kansas

Missouri

UNITED STATES

Oklahoma

Georgia

Massachusetts

Tennessee

Iowa

Alabama

Montana

North Dakota

Arkansas

Washington

Maine

Ohio

South Dakota

Illinois

North Carolina

Alaska

Oregon

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Texas

New York

Indiana

South Carolina

Kentucky

Nebraska

Michigan

New Jersey

Maryland

Rhode Island

Connecticut

Delaware

New Hampshire

West Virginia


6

105

8

34

18

34

2

61

4

7

46

188

20

42

11

31

44

1,636

21

60

24

33

18

28

13

7

23

34

10

92

6

64

63

2

21

38

21

101

77

30

26

29

10

32

21

19

2

16

4

9

21

NA

17

U.S. Average

33*

States

States

57

102

111

1,620

101

149

3

142

38

11

55

1,480

1,168

73

166

127

115

10,824

1,409

64

78

70

85

161

280

244

70

145

44

107

115

99

327

31

209

409

253

324

277

21

70

23

33

175

65

69

14

15

5

5

10

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

AVG

24.9%

Updated data source


Three-Year Graduation Rates of African American Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2i


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

40.5%

36.1%

36.0%

35.5%

34.5%

31.3%

30.6%

30.5%

30.4%

30.1%

29.0%

26.2%

25.6%

25.2%

24.7%

23.9%

23.3%

23.2%

23.1%

22.7%

22.6%

21.5%

21.4%

21.4%

21.0%

20.7%

20.0%

19.0%

18.1%

17.5%

17.0%

16.9%

16.3%

16.0%

15.8%

14.7%

14.1%

13.5%

13.2%

13.0%

10.9%

10.8%

10.5%

7.8%

7.8%

6.7%

5.1%

3.4%

0.0%

0.0%

NA

NA

Pennsylvania

Colorado

Missouri

Florida

Arizona

Wyoming

Virginia

Tennessee

Louisiana

Nevada

North Dakota

Utah

Oklahoma

Indiana

Georgia

Ohio

Idaho

Wisconsin

Mississippi

Nebraska

UNITED STATES

Oregon

California

New Hampshire

Alabama

Washington

South Dakota

Illinois

Texas

Kansas

North Carolina

Maryland

Kentucky

Arkansas

Hawaii

New York

South Carolina

West Virginia

Iowa

New Mexico

Minnesota

Massachusetts

Maine

Michigan

New Jersey

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Delaware

Montana

Vermont

Alaska


105

34

44

61

34

8

42

33

46

6

7

11

21

30

60

92

4

21

18

10

1,636

21

188

9

28

34

6

64

101

31

63

19

29

23

7

77

26

21

18

20

38

24

10

32

21

16

2

4

13

2

2

NA

20

U.S. Average

29*

States

States

6,491

822

2,786

6,985

1,041

48

4,363

5,710

3,931

432

31

65

1,474

1,366

7,074

5,010

30

487

7,485

198

125,407

293

14,064

28

4,355

498

5

5,372

9,450

1,051

4,842

3,621

674

1,527

38

8,547

4,085

304

585

192

1,350

1,226

57

2,284

3,864

806

118

328

10

4

0

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

AVG

22.6%

Updated data source


Three-Year Graduation Rates of Hispanic Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2j


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

57.1%

40.1%

39.6%

39.6%

38.1%

36.2%

35.3%

33.2%

32.6%

31.5%

31.4%

31.4%

30.0%

29.9%

29.7%

28.1%

27.3%

26.3%

25.7%

25.2%

25.0%

24.1%

23.4%

23.1%

23.0%

23.0%

22.7%

22.5%

22.2%

20.1%

19.6%

19.6%

19.5%

19.5%

18.3%

17.4%

15.9%

15.9%

15.7%

15.6%

15.2%

14.9%

14.8%

14.6%

14.1%

13.3%

10.6%

9.9%

9.1%

8.8%

0.0%

NA

Wyoming

Florida

Arizona

Colorado

Nevada

Pennsylvania

Missouri

Utah

Tennessee

Louisiana

Arkansas

New Hampshire

Maine

Kansas

Georgia

Idaho

California

Montana

UNITED STATES

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Virginia

Illinois

North Dakota

Iowa

Texas

North Carolina

Wisconsin

Vermont

Minnesota

Oregon

Washington

Nebraska

Ohio

Alabama

Indiana

New Mexico

New York

Maryland

Mississippi

Rhode Island

Kentucky

South Carolina

Hawaii

Massachusetts

West Virginia

Michigan

Delaware

Connecticut

New Jersey

Alaska


8

61

34

34

6

105

44

11

33

46

23

9

10

31

60

4

188

13

1,636

21

6

42

64

7

18

101

63

21

2

38

21

34

10

92

28

30

20

77

19

18

2

29

26

7

24

21

32

4

16

21

2

NA

18

U.S. Average

32*

States

States

310

5,287

5,340

2,032

543

1,589

416

349

340

108

159

51

30

629

572

185

45,622

19

110,080

484

16

870

3,297

13

335

19,673

599

280

9

363

561

817

231

657

169

207

2,468

7,562

574

128

198

101

203

48

1,450

30

517

81

839

3,717

2

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

AVG

25.7%

Updated data source


Three-Year Graduation Rates of White Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2k


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

61.5%

60.0%

41.1%

40.7%

40.6%

40.3%

39.5%

39.4%

38.8%

36.4%

35.4%

34.5%

34.5%

33.9%

33.8%

33.6%

32.5%

32.2%

31.6%

30.0%

29.5%

29.2%

29.1%

28.7%

28.5%

28.1%

27.8%

27.3%

27.0%

26.8%

26.5%

26.3%

26.2%

26.0%

25.8%

23.0%

23.0%

21.8%

20.2%

20.2%

19.6%

19.2%

18.1%

17.1%

16.9%

16.5%

15.7%

14.6%

14.5%

13.1%

10.4%

NA

Wyoming

South Dakota

Arizona

Colorado

Florida

Pennsylvania

North Dakota

Utah

Idaho

Iowa

Nevada

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Kansas

Missouri

Minnesota

Montana

California

Alaska

Louisiana

Washington

Oklahoma

New Hampshire

Tennessee

UNITED STATES

Indiana

Georgia

Maine

Kentucky

Arkansas

Illinois

Oregon

Ohio

New York

Mississippi

North Carolina

Virginia

West Virginia

Massachusetts

New Jersey

Alabama

Vermont

Hawaii

Maryland

New Mexico

Michigan

Texas

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Connecticut

Delaware


8

6

34

34

61

105

7

11

4

18

6

10

21

31

44

38

13

188

2

46

34

21

9

33

1,636

30

60

10

29

23

64

21

92

77

18

63

42

21

24

21

28

2

7

19

20

32

101

2

26

16

4

NA

24

U.S. Average

26*

States

States

3,826

1,851

7,780

7,147

16,215

23,504

999

4,168

1,827

9,570

1,398

4,218

9,650

7,360

13,197

14,478

1,097

54,162

19

3,991

8,083

7,377

1,933

12,409

454,591

6,527

9,902

2,229

6,995

4,958

19,761

6,857

18,308

30,179

9,944

12,838

8,764

2,947

9,186

12,680

9,432

229

282

7,594

1,959

13,647

29,653

1,377

7,536

3,418

1,130

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

AVG

28.5%

Updated data source


National Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation 200 and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

* Includes both for-profi t and not-for-profi t institutions.

9.2l

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total2-Year

Public2-Year

Private2-Year

(Not-for-Profit)

Private2-Year

(For-Profit)

54.9%

63.8%

26.7%

34.1%


New fi gure

Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation 200 and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2m


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

74.1%

64.0%

53.8%

51.0%

48.5%

48.5%

48.3%

44.8%

44.7%

43.8%

41.3%

41.2%

40.6%

39.9%

39.8%

39.4%

38.6%

38.5%

37.5%

37.2%

35.7%

35.1%

34.8%

34.6%

34.6%

34.1%

34.0%

33.6%

32.8%

32.4%

31.7%

31.6%

31.5%

30.6%

29.4%

29.3%

28.3%

28.1%

25.6%

25.5%

25.2%

25.2%

23.6%

22.3%

21.3%

20.3%

20.3%

20.1%

19.6%

18.1%

18.0%

NA

South Dakota

Wyoming

Nevada

Arizona

Iowa

Utah

Alaska

Pennsylvania

Florida

Idaho

Colorado

Kansas

North Dakota

Nebraska

California

New Hampshire

Wisconsin

Oregon

Washington

Missouri

Arkansas

Maine

West Virginia

Oklahoma

Tennessee

UNITED STATES

Georgia

Virginia

Minnesota

Indiana

Ohio

New York

Montana

North Carolina

Louisiana

Illinois

Alabama

Kentucky

Massachusetts

Mississippi

Maryland

Texas

New Mexico

Michigan

Connecticut

Hawaii

Vermont

South Carolina

New Jersey

Rhode Island

Delaware


6

8

6

34

18

8

2

105

53

4

34

31

7

12

181

9

20

21

34

43

23

10

19

19

31

1,614

60

41

37

28

89

78

13

63

51

64

29

28

25

19

19

101

21

32

16

7

2

26

21

2

4

NA

25

U.S. Average

25*

States

States

AVG

34.1%

1,853

4,989

2,264

21,162

11,721

4,278

29

34,254

30,480

3,092

12,958

10,674

1,250

5,250

114,423

2,516

10,758

9,607

11,555

16,762

6,748

2,415

3,409

10,515

17,892

768,298

19,116

17,226

21,361

7,863

26,374

54,408

1,472

19,321

11,297

31,224

14,446

8,114

12,980

17,726

14,482

66,806

6,243

18,089

5,753

2,631

231

12,481

24,182

1,969

1,649

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.


New fi gure

Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Public Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation 200 and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2n


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

75.5%

48.4%

48.4%

48.3%

41.3%

39.1%

38.9%

38.2%

37.8%

37.3%

36.3%

36.2%

34.9%

34.3%

33.1%

32.1%

31.3%

30.0%

29.9%

28.7%

27.2%

26.7%

26.4%

25.9%

25.5%

25.3%

25.0%

24.9%

24.7%

24.1%

23.9%

23.7%

21.4%

21.1%

20.9%

19.9%

19.1%

19.1%

19.0%

18.7%

18.7%

18.6%

17.8%

17.6%

17.4%

16.8%

16.2%

15.9%

15.8%

14.4%

13.4%

NA

South Dakota

Iowa

Utah

Alaska

North Dakota

Nebraska

Wyoming

Kansas

Wisconsin

Florida

New Hampshire

Washington

Maine

Arkansas

Montana

California

Minnesota

North Carolina

Georgia

New York

Missouri

UNITED STATES

Idaho

Alabama

Colorado

Arizona

Illinois

West Virginia

Kentucky

Massachusetts

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Michigan

Pennsylvania

Nevada

Oregon

Hawaii

Tennessee

Ohio

New Jersey

Virginia

Maryland

Vermont

Texas

New Mexico

Louisiana

Delaware

South Carolina

Connecticut

Indiana

Rhode Island


5

16

6

2

6

8

7

24

17

20

7

30

7

22

12

110

31

59

48

35

20

1,016

3

25

15

21

48

9

16

16

15

12

30

20

1

17

6

13

30

19

24

16

1

63

20

34

3

20

12

14

1

NA

21

U.S. Average

29*

States

States

AVG

26.7%

1,810

11,651

3,949

29

1,153

5,045

2,209

9,388

10,503

22,652

2,038

11,071

2,198

6,108

1,345

87,240

20,272

18,578

16,012

47,078

12,123

612,085

2,141

13,650

7,087

9,219

27,735

2,481

7,131

12,375

17,092

7,830

17,639

16,839

573

7,009

2,469

11,331

17,677

23,403

11,596

12,479

197

54,205

5,716

7,411

1,569

11,175

5,177

4,678

1,749

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.


New fi gure

Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation 200 and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2o


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

88.0%

72.2%

71.6%

71.4%

66.1%

64.1%

63.2%

60.8%

60.5%

59.0%

57.6%

54.9%

53.4%

52.5%

50.2%

43.7%

42.3%

40.6%

36.6%

35.3%

35.2%

32.0%

25.3%

18.8%

16.3%

15.0%

7.7%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Colorado

Maine

Minnesota

Missouri

Kansas

California

New Hampshire

Florida

Tennessee

Iowa

Pennsylvania

Connecticut

Wisconsin

Illinois

UNITED STATES

Massachusetts

Delaware

Utah

Texas

Georgia

New York

Ohio

Vermont

South Carolina

North Dakota

Indiana

North Carolina

South Dakota

Montana

Nebraska

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas


Hawaii

Idaho

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Michigan

Mississippi

Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming

1

1

1

4

2

8

1

1

2

1

13

2

2

4

89

4

1

1

4

3

18

6

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

14

U.S. Average

15*

States

States

AVG

54.9%

10

2

1

416

889

1,604

14

56

64

19

1,793

81

156

675

9,889

103

80

255

355

568

1,083

350

34

488

97

170

330

43

127

26

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.


New fi gure

Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation 200 and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.2p


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

99.0%

90.9%

88.6%

83.8%

83.0%

71.9%

70.9%

70.3%

69.2%

68.5%

68.0%

66.8%

66.7%

66.2%

66.1%

66.0%

65.9%

65.3%

65.2%

65.0%

64.2%

64.1%

63.8%

61.3%

61.3%

61.1%

60.8%

60.3%

59.7%

58.3%

58.2%

58.2%

58.0%

56.2%

55.9%

53.4%

52.1%

51.9%

51.8%

50.0%

48.8%

46.7%

45.1%

38.9%

36.3%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Wisconsin

New Mexico

Oregon

Wyoming

Idaho

Connecticut

Arizona

Mississippi

Alabama

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

North Carolina

Iowa

Oklahoma

Florida

Maryland

Nebraska

Washington

Illinois

Nevada

Virginia

California

UNITED STATES

Tennessee

West Virginia

Missouri

Indiana

Colorado

Minnesota

Ohio

Michigan

Texas

Georgia

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Louisiana

Kentucky

New Hampshire

New York

Utah

Arkansas

New Jersey

Kansas

Hawaii

Maine

Alaska

Delaware


Montana

North Dakota

South Dakota

Vermont

1

1

4

1

1

2

13

4

4

72

4

3

1

7

32

3

3

4

12

5

17

63

509

16

10

19

13

18

5

53

2

34

9

5

1

17

12

1

25

1

1

2

5

1

2

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

22

U.S. Average

22*

States

States

AVG

63.8%

99

527

2,598

2,780

951

495

11,943

634

796

15,622

818

413

51

2,685

7,772

2,003

179

484

2,814

1,691

5,630

25,579

146,324

6,497

928

4,223

3,015

5,861

1,088

8,347

450

12,246

2,536

502

220

3,886

983

464

6,247

74

640

779

397

162

215

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.


New fi gure

Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking StudentsWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

provides a more complete picture of the educational progress of American

college students. The majority of data in this indicator refl ect the proportion of

fi rst-time, full-time bachelor’s degree–seeking students who graduate within

150 percent of normal program length (i.e., six years). In addition, eight-year

graduation rates (200 percent of normal program length) are available for the

fi rst time and are included in this indicator. Graduation rates are calculated by

aggregating, across institutions in a given state and/or sector, the institution-

level adjusted entering cohorts and the number of students from these cohorts

who graduate within the appropriate time frame. Estimates therefore can be

interpreted as a percentage of students in the given sector and/or state.

Traditional graduation rates refl ect persistence and degree attainment within the

institution in which one originally enrolls. One criticism of this approach is that

this does not account for transfer students who go on to earn a degree from

an institution other than the one fi rst attended. Recent data from the Beginning

Postsecondary Student (BPS) longitudinal study are included in this indicator in

order to address this limitation.

The data are disaggregated by state, race/ethnicity and source of institutional

control (i.e., public, private not-for-profi t, private for-profi t) to help states

understand the differential outcomes across groups and to illustrate how the

state’s overall graduation rate is a function of the varying performance of these

students in different types of institutions.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? National and state

policymakers are highly attuned to the graduation rate discussion. Individuals, as

well as states, invest money in higher education with the expectation of degree

completion — a credential that can improve the economic well-being of both

the student and the state as a whole. The consequences of failing to complete

a degree are of great concern, especially when one considers the growth in

average student loan debt and student loan default rates in recent years (see

Recommendation Seven for more details).

Graduation rates have been a part of the higher education landscape since

Congress passed the Student Right-to-Know Act in 1990. They are the primary

national, standardized measure of postsecondary outcomes. However,

policymakers should consider the signifi cance and meaning of high or low

graduation rates. The appropriate context should be taken into account when

considering whether persistence indicators such as graduation rates can or

should be used as accountability measures. Institutions vary in their mission

as well as the composition of entering students, factors which should be

recognized when interpreting estimates, particularly at the institution level.

Institutions that aim to educate low-income, fi rst-generation, traditionally

57.7% As of 2008, 57.7 percent of full-time bachelor’s degree–seeking students at four-year colleges graduate in six years or less.

2007–2008

38.5% As of 2008, 38.5 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native full-time bachelor’s degree–seeking students at four-year colleges graduate in six years or less.

2007–2008


underserved students will face substantially different enrollment, retention

and graduation challenges compared to institutions that attract most of

their students from the top of the nation’s high school graduating classes.

Policymakers should seek to understand the benefi ts and limitations of

graduation rates in order to better serve all constituents.

As discussed in the previous indicator, substantial persistent gaps exist

between the graduation rates of Asian and white students and the graduation

rates of students in other racial/ethnic groups. There is a tremendous amount

of research being done to understand the factors that contribute to these

differential outcomes. A complete discussion of this research is beyond the

scope of this publication.

Where are we now? As of 2008, 57.7 percent of fi rst-time, full-time bachelor’s

degree–seeking students in the nation’s four-year colleges graduate within six

years (Figure 9.3a). This estimate increased slightly from a low of 55.5 percent

in 2002. Graduation rates vary by sector, such that 55.3 percent of bachelor’s

degree–seeking students in public four-year colleges graduate within six years,

compared to 65.1 percent and 23.5 percent at private not-for-profi t and for-

profi t four-year colleges, respectively. Public institutions account for just under

two-thirds of fi rst-time, full-time students at four-year colleges. Private not-

for-profi t institutions constitute approximately one-third of enrollment, while

private for-profi t institutions refl ect only 2 to 3 percent of four-year college

freshmen enrollment.

Six-year graduation rates of fi rst-time, full-time students at four-year colleges

vary by race/ethnicity and sector (Figure 9.3b). Asian students at four-year

colleges have the highest six-year graduation rate (67.5 percent), followed

by white students (60.7 percent), Hispanic students (49.4 percent), African

American students (40.5 percent) and American Indian students (38.5 percent).

Six-year graduation rates are highest in the private not-for-profi t sector, a fi nding

which is consistent across racial/ethnic groups.

Similar fi ndings emerge from the Beginning Postsecondary Student (BPS)

longitudinal survey data (Figure 9.3c), such that just over half (50.5 percent) of

students who enter a four-year college graduate within six years. Graduation

rates are substantially higher among public and private not-for-profi t institutions

compared to private for-profi t colleges. BPS data also provide insight into

the impact of transferring across institutions. Six-year graduation rates are

somewhat higher when taking into account whether the student graduates

from any institution (58.0 percent), as opposed to just looking at the original

institution (50.5 percent) in which the student is enrolled (Figure 9.3c).

When disaggregated by state, the six-year graduation rate at four-year colleges

ranges from 25.5 percent in Alaska to 73.2 percent in the District of Columbia

(Figure 9.3d). States such as Connecticut, District of Columbia, Indiana, Maine,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

Tennessee, Utah and Vermont are impacted largely, and positively, by the private

40.5% As of 2008, 40.5 percent of African American full-time bachelor’s degree–seeking students at four-year colleges graduate in six years or less.

2007–2008

49.4% As of 2008, 49.4 percent of Hispanic full-time bachelor’s degree–seeking students at four-year colleges graduate in six years or less.

2.6ppts 2007–2008


not-for-profi t sector (Figure 9.3f). Private for-profi t institutions account for over

four of every 10 fi rst-time, full-time students in Arizona, thus the overall six-year

graduation rate in this state is infl uenced greatly by this sector (Figure 9.3g).

Graduation rates also vary by race/ethnicity and sector (Figures 9.3h–9.3l).

When six-year graduation rates are compared against eight-year graduation

rates, it is clear that the additional time affords a number of students the

opportunity to complete their degrees. For example, while 57.7 percent of

fi rst-time, full-time degree–seeking students who entered in fall 2000 earn a

bachelor’s degree in six years (Figure 9.3a), 60.6 percent of this same cohort

graduate within eight years (Figure 9.3m). When disaggregated by state, the

eight-year graduation rate ranges from 30.6 percent in Alaska to 75.4 percent

in the District of Columbia (Figure 9.3n).

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The limitations of these graduation rates deserve consideration. For example, as

was the case with the previous indicator, graduation rates are based solely on

degree completion within the institution in which one enrolls as a full-time, fi rst-

time student. In addition, they do not refl ect part-time students, students who

begin college in terms other than the fall term, or incoming transfer students

who go on to successfully complete a degree. In fact, successful transfer

students count against the original institution’s graduation rate (which also

infl uences estimates at the state level) and do nothing to benefi t the receiving

institution. Many policymakers and researchers have called for reforms to

standardize the way that transfer rates are measured and reported by states and

institutions. Because of the lack of the standardization of transfer rates, these

data are not yet available to help contextualize the nation’s success in increasing

completion rates.

It is also important to consider that graduation rates are associated with many

other factors not directly addressed in these data (e.g., fi rst-generation status

academic preparation, socioeconomic background, adjustment to college,

etc.). In addition, many students take longer than the traditional four- to six-

year window to graduate, including students who begin as full-time students

but spend most of their undergraduate experience attending part time and

students who work while attending college. The inclusion of BPS estimates and

eight-year graduation rates in this report is meant to address some of these

limitations and provide a more complete picture of degree completion.

Recent changes in the rules regarding maintenance, collection, and reporting of

federal data on race and ethnicity should be considered when interpreting data

in this indicator. Institutions must now collect these data using a two-question

format in which the fi rst assesses whether the individual is Hispanic/Latino

(ethnicity) and the second evaluates whether the respondent is one or more of

the following races: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, black or African

American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacifi c Islander, or white. In addition,

Asian and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacifi c Islander were separated into two

categories and a reporting category “two or more races” was introduced.

60.6% As of 2008, 60.6 percent of full-time bachelor’s degree–seeking students at four-year colleges graduate in eight years or less.


In the most recent graduation survey, institutions had the option to report under

old or new race/ethnicity categories. IPEDS then derived a total, where the new

category overlapped with the old. The data contained in this indicator refl ect

these derived categories. It is possible that the addition of “two or more races”

in the new system changes how institutions report students, which raises

questions about the ability to compare estimates from the 2008 survey to those

from previous or future years (when institutions will have fully transitioned to

the new system).

Finally, some estimates are based on a very small number of students,

particularly when disaggregated by state by sector by ethnicity. Readers are

advised to consider the number of institutions behind various estimates as

well as the number of students that underlie these estimates. In some cases,

institutional responses are altered by NCES to protect the privacy of students.

Thus, the publicly available survey data may not refl ect the exact value reported

by institutions. The impact of this likely varies across fi gures within this indicator.

For example, there is likely a greater impact on American Indian or Alaska

Native estimates than there is for white students, since a greater number of

institutional responses regarding American Indian or Alaska Natives may have

been altered by NCES. Similarly, estimates based on the cumulative responses

of many small colleges may be impacted more than those based on the

cumulative responses of larger colleges.

National Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students, 2002–2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

52.8%

63.4%

51.7%

64.0% 63.9% 64.5% 64.7% 64.5% 65.1%

53.2% 54.1% 54.8% 55.1% 55.3%

29.4%25.1% 25.4%

29.5%34.9%

26.3%23.5%

55.5% 56.4% 56.4% 57.2% 57.7% 57.5% 57.7%

Total, 4-Year



Public, 4-Year


New fi gure

National Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students by Race/Ethnicity, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3b

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

American Indian


Hispanic White

50.0

%

35.8

%

75.8

%

45.5

%

59.7

% 67.7

%

64.9

%

39.6

% 46.9

%

57.9

%

17.6

%

38.0

%

17.2

%

28.5

%

26.4

%

38.5

%

67.5

%

40.5

% 49.4

%

60.7

%

Total, 4-Year



Public, 4-Year

Six-Year Bachelor’s Degree Attainment Rates of Students Beginning at Four-Year Colleges,2003–2004Source: NCES, Persistence and Attainment of 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students: After 6 Years, 2010

9.3c

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total4-Year

Public4-Year

Private4-Year

(Not-for-Profit)

Private4-Year

(For-Profit)

50.5%

58.0%51.5%

59.5%57.0%64.6%

13.3% 15.7%

First Institution

Any Institution

New fi gure

Updated data source


Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3d

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

73.2%

69.9%

68.0%

67.2%

66.4%

65.9%

65.5%

65.0%

65.0%

63.6%

63.6%

63.4%

63.0%

62.9%

62.3%

60.3%

59.8%

58.9%

58.6%

58.4%

58.4%

58.2%

58.2%

57.7%

57.3%

57.0%

57.0%

56.3%

55.9%

53.9%

52.7%

52.5%

52.2%

50.9%

50.8%

50.7%

50.6%

47.6%

47.1%

47.1%

46.4%

46.4%

45.5%

43.8%

42.8%

42.4%

41.9%

41.7%

40.1%

36.8%

36.0%

25.5%


Massachusetts

Washington

Delaware

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

New Hampshire

Connecticut

Maryland

California

Virginia

New York

New Jersey

Vermont

Iowa

Illinois

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Indiana

Maine

Michigan

North Carolina

South Carolina

UNITED STATES

Florida

Nebraska

Ohio

Oregon

Missouri

Colorado

Utah

Wyoming

Kansas

Georgia

Texas

Tennessee

Mississippi

South Dakota

Alabama

Oklahoma

North Dakota

West Virginia

Kentucky

Hawaii

Arkansas

Louisiana

Montana

Nevada

New Mexico

Idaho

Arizona

Alaska

11

73

28

6

126

9

16

25

30

131

49

169

31

19

37

69

40

42

48

19

51

58

33

1,903

77

19

84

27

56

33

13

1

26

53

73

49

18

16

33

29

10

21

30

6

21

23

10

7

14

10

20

4

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

23

U.S. Average

28

States

States

7,943

44,356

18,423

4,791

76,013

10,017

8,293

16,953

19,868

95,851

36,647

90,415

23,881

5,267

13,822

47,324

30,538

25,200

39,130

6,238

43,341

39,727

19,930

1,233,775

47,060

10,151

57,794

13,415

26,085

22,529

10,013

1,443

13,988

32,535

70,756

25,231

9,299

5,161

20,658

16,370

5,071

10,943

20,044

3,211

12,594

25,556

5,568

4,915

6,725

6,515

24,804

1,373

AVG

57.7%

Updated data source


Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Public Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

71.5%

67.7%

67.7%

66.0%

64.1%

63.9%

63.3%

62.6%

61.7%

60.6%

59.9%

59.7%

59.2%

59.1%

58.9%

58.8%

56.8%

56.5%

55.9%

55.6%

55.3%

54.7%

54.4%

54.4%

54.4%

54.0%

53.7%

53.5%

53.4%

52.9%

52.5%

50.3%

49.6%

49.4%

49.1%

47.2%

47.2%

47.1%

46.6%

46.0%

45.8%

45.5%

45.5%

44.0%

43.1%

40.7%

40.2%

39.5%

39.1%

32.9%

25.4%

7.9%

Delaware

Virginia

Washington

Iowa

New Jersey

New Hampshire

California

Maryland

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Florida

Michigan

Wisconsin

Illinois

Vermont

North Carolina

New York

Connecticut

Arizona

Nebraska

UNITED STATES

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Missouri

Rhode Island

Indiana

Oregon

Colorado

Ohio

Kansas

Wyoming

Maine

Mississippi

Georgia

Texas

Alabama

Hawaii

North Dakota

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Tennessee

Kentucky

West Virginia

Nevada

Utah

Montana

New Mexico

Louisiana

Arkansas

Idaho

Alaska


2

15

6

2

12

5

30

12

41

11

11

15

13

11

5

16

38

9

3

6

557

13

11

13

2

14

7

13

25

8

1

8

8

20

29

13

2

6

14

7

9

8

11

3

6

6

6

13

10

4

3

1

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

20

U.S. Average

31

States

States

4,163

26,675

12,842

5,988

15,773

4,684

69,621

14,278

39,192

13,703

32,603

34,925

22,924

24,750

2,751

26,320

32,886

8,524

13,860

7,417

795,902

11,916

15,984

16,409

3,196

27,286

9,564

19,185

38,502

11,727

1,443

3,625

7,789

22,776

53,720

16,397

2,130

4,134

13,318

4,107

15,767

15,012

9,076

4,497

6,115

5,037

6,032

20,848

9,852

5,041

1,349

189

AVG

55.3%

Updated data source


Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3f

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

77.3%

76.0%

75.8%

74.3%

73.9%

72.5%

72.4%

71.3%

71.1%

69.5%

69.3%

68.3%

67.7%

67.4%

67.3%

67.3%

65.5%

65.3%

65.1%

64.6%

62.6%

61.6%

60.6%

59.8%

59.8%

59.3%

58.1%

57.6%

57.1%

57.1%

56.3%

55.8%

55.6%

55.4%

54.4%

53.4%

53.1%

53.0%

52.2%

51.1%

51.1%

50.9%

49.5%

49.1%

47.7%

43.6%

43.5%

39.2%

38.4%

33.3%

21.4%

NA

Utah


Massachusetts

Connecticut

Maryland

Pennsylvania

California

Rhode Island

Washington

Maine

Indiana

Colorado

New York

New Hampshire

Minnesota

Vermont

Oregon

Ohio

UNITED STATES

Illinois

Wisconsin

New Jersey

Nebraska

Iowa

Missouri

Tennessee

Texas

Georgia

Louisiana

North Carolina

Arkansas

South Dakota

Mississippi

Michigan

Florida

Virginia

Montana

South Carolina

Idaho

Oklahoma

West Virginia

Arizona

Kentucky

Kansas

Alabama

New Mexico

North Dakota

Hawaii

Delaware

Alaska

Nevada

Wyoming

2

9

57

14

17

78

76

7

14

11

30

7

122

11

23

13

17

56

1,139

48

23

18

13

30

34

37

40

28

9

40

11

6

10

34

42

27

4

20

4

12

9

5

21

17

16

4

4

3

4

1

1

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

18

U.S. Average

32*

States

States

3,216

7,605

31,775

8,250

5,367

35,712

21,696

6,821

5,061

2,613

11,708

2,265

55,699

3,609

9,034

2,492

3,596

18,665

405,529

20,566

7,380

7,882

2,734

7,704

9,267

9,361

16,190

8,817

4,470

13,321

2,742

980

1,510

7,964

12,761

9,672

531

6,219

1,401

2,811

1,815

428

4,445

2,238

4,160

326

937

977

628

24

84

NA

AVG

65.1%



Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

75.0%

59.6%

59.5%

48.4%

45.4%

43.5%

40.1%

37.5%

37.2%

37.2%

36.5%

35.8%

35.7%

35.4%

31.3%

31.0%

30.2%

29.0%

28.3%

27.6%

27.0%

26.9%

26.6%

26.3%

25.7%

23.5%

22.6%

21.8%

20.4%

19.7%

19.4%

17.4%

16.8%

16.3%

15.8%

15.1%

14.7%

9.1%

8.4%

6.3%

4.3%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Vermont

Indiana

Massachusetts

New York

Iowa

Washington

Minnesota

South Carolina

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

Connecticut

New Mexico

New Jersey

Ohio

Illinois

Colorado

Florida

Virginia

Missouri

South Dakota

California

Oklahoma

Oregon

Georgia

UNITED STATES

Utah

Wisconsin

Tennessee

Louisiana

Texas


Nevada

Hawaii

Alabama

Idaho

Kentucky

Arizona

Michigan

Maryland

Kansas

Alaska

Arkansas

Delaware

Maine

Mississippi

Montana

Nebraska

New Hampshire

North Dakota

Rhode Island

Wyoming

1

4

3

9

5

8

8

2

2

7

1

2

4

1

3

10

13

24

7

9

3

25

3

3

5

207

5

4

3

1

4

1

3

1

4

2

1

12

2

1

1

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

25

U.S. Average

15*

States

States

24

136

665

1,830

130

520

182

8

86

1,109

52

179

367

226

627

2,008

1,079

1,696

300

409

74

4,534

241

255

942

32,344

682

234

103

238

846

149

334

104

101

73

587

10,516

452

223

23

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

AVG

23.5%


Updated data source


Six-Year Graduation Rates of Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacifi c Islander Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3h

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

79.0%

78.4%

78.0%

77.4%

76.2%

75.0%

74.3%

73.8%

73.8%

73.1%

72.8%

71.9%

71.2%

70.3%

69.7%

69.5%

69.2%

67.9%

67.9%

67.5%

67.3%

65.3%

65.2%

63.8%

62.8%

62.4%

62.0%

61.7%

59.9%

59.1%

58.9%

56.1%

56.0%

55.3%

53.9%

52.7%

51.5%

50.0%

49.6%

49.6%

49.2%

49.0%

48.0%

47.1%

47.0%

43.5%

43.4%

38.8%

38.5%

36.6%

35.6%

21.3%

Massachusetts

New Hampshire


Vermont

Connecticut

Maine

Rhode Island

Delaware

Pennsylvania

Maryland

Washington

North Carolina

California

Virginia

Michigan

New Jersey

Illinois

Indiana

Ohio

UNITED STATES

New York

Florida

South Carolina

Missouri

Nebraska

Georgia

Texas

Utah

Iowa

Minnesota

Oregon

Colorado

Tennessee

Oklahoma

Wisconsin

Mississippi

South Dakota

Alabama

Arizona

West Virginia

Hawaii

Arkansas

Kansas

Kentucky

Nevada

North Dakota

Louisiana

Montana

Wyoming

Idaho

New Mexico

Alaska

73

16

11

19

25

19

9

6

126

30

28

58

131

49

51

31

69

48

84

1,903

169

77

33

56

19

53

73

13

37

42

27

33

49

29

40

18

16

33

20

21

6

21

26

30

7

10

23

10

1

10

14

4

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

19

U.S. Average

32

States

States

AVG

67.5%

3,460

250

477

93

793

148

467

122

3,215

1,399

2,292

1,036

22,766

1,996

1,773

2,542

3,538

955

1,339

76,881

7,842

2,015

287

655

239

1,496

4,442

329

279

1,142

967

1,074

552

371

1,053

91

33

264

816

121

1,842

149

321

255

560

46

523

85

13

134

149

75

Updated data source


Six-Year Graduation Rates of American Indian or Alaska Native Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3i

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

66.7%

64.0%

63.8%

62.8%

57.7%

57.6%

56.3%

55.0%

53.9%

53.1%

52.9%

52.6%

51.2%

50.7%

48.3%

47.9%

47.7%

46.7%

45.2%

45.1%

44.0%

44.0%

42.4%

41.7%

41.7%

41.1%

40.5%

39.7%

39.5%

39.5%

38.5%

38.5%

37.5%

34.6%

34.5%

33.7%

33.5%

33.3%

31.8%

30.8%

27.0%

25.7%

25.0%

23.6%

22.2%

22.2%

21.9%

21.4%

21.2%

20.7%

12.7%

8.9%

Delaware

Vermont

New Hampshire

Maryland

Massachusetts

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Iowa

California

Washington

Connecticut

New York

Florida

Michigan

North Carolina

Maine

Virginia

Mississippi

Indiana

Arkansas

Rhode Island

Texas

Illinois

Oregon

West Virginia

Ohio

Wisconsin

Louisiana

Georgia

Nebraska

Alabama

UNITED STATES

Utah

Minnesota

South Carolina

Tennessee

Oklahoma

Missouri

Colorado


South Dakota

New Mexico

Wyoming

Kansas

Hawaii

Kentucky

Arizona

Nevada

Idaho

Montana

Alaska

North Dakota

6

19

16

30

73

126

31

37

131

28

25

169

77

51

58

19

49

18

48

21

9

73

69

27

21

84

40

23

53

19

33

1,903

13

42

33

49

29

56

33

11

16

14

1

26

6

30

20

7

10

10

4

10

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

31

U.S. Average

20

States

States

AVG

38.5%

9

25

58

86

175

151

48

40

681

260

70

268

162

296

333

48

151

30

135

113

25

343

132

163

36

192

158

146

76

43

117

9,167

72

185

58

95

1,667

156

384

13

126

280

12

318

18

45

452

56

85

179

205

191

Updated data source


Six-Year Graduation Rates of Black or African American Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3j

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

66.9%

60.2%

57.7%

56.8%

55.0%

54.0%

50.7%

50.1%

48.1%

46.5%

46.3%

46.2%

46.1%

45.8%

45.6%

44.2%

43.6%

43.0%

42.1%

42.1%

41.7%

41.3%

40.9%

40.5%

39.2%

39.2%

38.1%

36.5%

36.0%

34.8%

34.3%

34.3%

33.6%

33.4%

33.3%

33.2%

32.8%

32.4%

31.6%

31.0%

31.0%

30.6%

30.6%

30.1%

29.8%

29.3%

29.1%

25.7%

25.1%

23.9%

12.6%

6.3%

New Hampshire

Massachusetts


Maine

Rhode Island

Washington

Connecticut

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

California

Florida

New York

Virginia

Vermont

Georgia

North Carolina

Oregon

Maryland

Mississippi

Minnesota

Colorado

Delaware

UNITED STATES

Indiana

Tennessee

Missouri

Iowa

Illinois

Ohio

Oklahoma

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Michigan

Wyoming

Nevada

Hawaii

Utah

Texas

Alabama

North Dakota

Kentucky

Louisiana

Nebraska

New Mexico

South Dakota

Kansas

Alaska

Arkansas

Idaho

Arizona

Montana

16

73

11

19

9

28

25

31

126

33

131

77

169

49

19

53

58

27

30

18

42

33

6

1,903

48

49

56

37

69

84

29

40

21

51

1

7

6

13

73

33

10

30

23

19

14

16

26

4

21

10

20

10

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

23

U.S. Average

28

States

States

AVG

40.5%

157

2,255

1,914

95

547

489

1,183

2,651

5,485

4,352

4,929

7,896

8,140

6,911

90

7,864

9,741

235

4,676

3,482

604

644

908

130,420

1,977

4,420

1,950

523

5,338

4,932

1,056

1,073

538

4,140

15

298

58

68

8,385

6,318

42

1,735

6,942

289

208

41

519

35

2,407

46

1,787

32

Updated data source


Six-Year Graduation Rates of Hispanic or Latino Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3k

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

70.5%

70.5%

68.7%

67.0%

64.4%

62.5%

61.0%

60.4%

59.7%

59.7%

59.0%

57.0%

56.7%

56.2%

55.5%

55.1%

54.1%

53.6%

53.2%

52.4%

51.8%

51.4%

50.5%

50.0%

49.7%

49.4%

48.0%

47.8%

46.9%

45.8%

44.8%

44.4%

44.2%

43.7%

43.6%

43.5%

42.8%

42.4%

41.7%

40.3%

39.8%

38.7%

38.5%

38.2%

38.1%

36.7%

33.3%

30.5%

29.6%

29.0%

24.4%

17.9%

Maryland

New Hampshire


Maine

Massachusetts

Delaware

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Connecticut

Virginia

North Carolina

Washington

South Carolina

Florida

Minnesota

Missouri

Michigan

California

Indiana

Georgia

New Jersey

Wisconsin

Vermont

Ohio

New York

UNITED STATES

Nebraska

Oregon

Illinois

Louisiana

Tennessee

Wyoming

Colorado

Kansas

Iowa

Oklahoma

Utah

Mississippi

Alabama

West Virginia

Texas

Arizona

Kentucky

Arkansas

New Mexico

Nevada

Hawaii

Montana

North Dakota

Idaho

South Dakota

Alaska

30

16

11

19

73

6

126

9

25

49

58

28

33

77

42

56

51

131

48

53

31

40

19

84

169

1,903

19

27

69

23

49

1

33

26

37

29

13

18

33

21

73

20

30

21

14

7

6

10

10

10

16

4

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

25

U.S. Average

26

States

States

AVG

49.4%

650

166

300

88

2,038

136

1,994

465

867

1,004

771

758

238

6,534

355

457

1,175

16,615

1,126

605

2,701

706

91

1,022

7,974

79,663

252

441

3,758

533

433

45

1,868

451

298

499

402

59

206

129

15,124

2,418

169

173

2,531

444

78

82

54

300

41

39

Updated data source


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

79.9%

74.9%

73.6%

70.1%

68.9%

68.2%

68.0%

67.6%

67.5%

66.6%

65.9%

65.4%

65.3%

65.3%

64.6%

64.0%

63.3%

61.8%

61.4%

61.3%

61.1%

61.1%

60.7%

59.6%

59.6%

58.2%

57.8%

57.7%

57.7%

56.9%

56.1%

56.0%

55.4%

55.4%

53.5%

53.4%

53.3%

52.2%

49.9%

49.2%

48.5%

47.4%

47.4%

47.1%

47.0%

43.8%

43.6%

43.4%

42.7%

37.5%

35.3%

29.2%


Delaware

Maryland

Massachusetts

Washington

Virginia

Pennsylvania

California

New York

New Jersey

Rhode Island

Connecticut

Illinois

New Hampshire

Iowa

Vermont

North Carolina

South Carolina

Wisconsin

Michigan

Florida

Minnesota

UNITED STATES

Indiana

Ohio

Nebraska

Texas

Maine

Missouri

Oregon

Mississippi

Colorado

Alabama

Kansas

Tennessee

Utah

Wyoming

Georgia

Oklahoma

South Dakota

North Dakota

Louisiana

West Virginia

Arkansas

Kentucky

New Mexico

Nevada

Montana

Arizona

Idaho

Hawaii

Alaska

11

6

30

73

28

49

126

131

169

31

9

25

69

16

37

19

58

33

40

51

77

42

1,903

48

84

19

73

19

56

27

18

33

33

26

49

13

1

53

29

16

10

23

21

21

30

14

7

10

20

10

6

4

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

22

U.S. Average

29

States

States

AVG

60.7%

4,248

3,494

11,846

30,878

13,109

25,010

61,183

39,344

56,508

14,280

7,611

12,403

31,934

7,050

11,819

4,569

26,529

14,151

27,013

33,787

28,054

20,200

858,080

33,349

47,851

8,858

40,229

5,560

21,657

10,360

5,483

17,535

12,821

11,647

18,972

8,656

1,284

21,062

12,144

4,717

4,566

16,350

9,816

9,251

17,352

3,086

3,077

4,932

15,076

5,511

933

925

Six-Year Graduation Rates of White Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3l Updated data source


National Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation 200 and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3m

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Private4-Year

(Not-for-Profit)

Private4-Year

(For-Profit)

Total4-Year

Public4-Year

60.6% 58.3%

66.4%

37.8%

New fi gure


Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation 200 and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3n

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

75.4%

70.4%

69.5%

67.9%

67.7%

67.7%

67.4%

67.0%

66.9%

66.2%

65.6%

65.4%

65.1%

64.4%

64.4%

63.2%

62.5%

62.4%

61.6%

60.6%

60.3%

60.1%

60.0%

59.9%

59.8%

59.8%

59.5%

59.3%

58.9%

58.7%

58.1%

57.4%

56.7%

55.6%

54.9%

53.9%

53.2%

52.9%

52.8%

52.1%

51.3%

50.3%

49.3%

48.4%

48.1%

47.9%

47.7%

46.9%

46.4%

45.5%

43.1%

30.6%


Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Delaware

Washington

Maryland

Pennsylvania

California

Virginia

Utah

Iowa

New Jersey

Connecticut

New York

Vermont

Michigan

Illinois

Wisconsin

UNITED STATES

North Carolina

Maine

South Carolina

Minnesota

Florida

Indiana

Nebraska

Ohio

Wyoming

Oregon

Tennessee

Missouri

Colorado

Kansas

Texas

Georgia

Alabama

Oklahoma

Mississippi

Kentucky

North Dakota

South Dakota

Hawaii

West Virginia

Nevada

Montana

Arizona

Arkansas

New Mexico

Louisiana

Idaho

Alaska

10

76

15

9

6

22

31

125

127

45

12

39

30

25

171

18

52

67

37

1,877

58

19

31

42

76

46

22

86

1

29

47

54

33

25

75

52

32

28

18

30

10

16

7

21

6

10

19

19

13

24

7

4

19

U.S. Average

32

States

States

AVG

60.6%

7,307

43,077

7,685

9,302

4,309

17,206

18,683

73,560

88,320

34,255

10,371

17,596

22,707

16,468

86,186

5,012

43,268

44,328

29,950

1,178,593

37,406

6,098

17,490

25,193

44,346

38,864

10,606

56,440

1,325

12,488

24,773

26,018

21,102

13,558

67,451

30,205

19,887

15,548

9,194

18,830

4,876

4,909

2,981

10,420

4,244

5,319

18,614

12,276

6,462

26,291

4,642

1,147

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

New fi gure


Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Public Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation 200 and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3o

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

70.4%

68.9%

67.9%

67.4%

67.2%

66.6%

66.5%

65.5%

63.7%

62.7%

62.6%

62.0%

61.7%

61.0%

60.5%

59.1%

58.9%

58.3%

58.3%

57.3%

57.3%

57.2%

57.0%

56.5%

56.5%

56.4%

56.2%

56.2%

55.8%

55.5%

55.4%

54.3%

54.2%

53.7%

53.4%

53.3%

52.9%

52.9%

50.9%

50.6%

50.1%

49.7%

49.3%

49.2%

47.8%

46.7%

46.1%

43.3%

43.0%

41.5%

30.6%

28.8%

Delaware

Virginia

Iowa

Washington

California

New Jersey

New Hampshire

Maryland

Michigan

Florida

South Carolina

Pennsylvania

North Carolina

Illinois

Wisconsin

Vermont

Wyoming

Arizona

UNITED STATES

Nebraska

Tennessee

Kansas

New York

Missouri

Ohio

Massachusetts

Oregon

Rhode Island

Colorado

Connecticut

Indiana

Minnesota

Texas

Utah

Alabama

Mississippi

Georgia

Hawaii

Oklahoma

North Dakota

Maine

Nevada

South Dakota

Kentucky

West Virginia

New Mexico

Montana

Arkansas

Louisiana

Idaho

Alaska


2

15

3

6

30

12

4

12

15

10

11

40

16

10

13

4

1

3

549

6

9

8

36

13

24

13

7

2

13

9

14

11

31

6

13

8

20

2

13

6

8

2

7

8

11

6

6

9

13

4

3

1

18

U.S. Average

33

States

States

AVG

58.3%

3,812

25,375

10,142

12,185

62,772

15,092

4,268

13,420

34,885

29,418

12,409

37,863

24,734

23,221

22,612

2,557

1,325

13,470

757,410

7,361

15,194

11,236

30,490

16,189

37,060

11,482

8,523

3,091

18,079

8,070

27,195

15,957

49,701

5,765

15,517

7,674

20,627

1,861

12,093

4,133

3,652

4,049

3,783

13,004

8,676

5,902

4,784

9,692

21,541

4,210

1,103

156

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.

New fi gure


Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation 200 and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3p

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

83.6%

76.4%

75.6%

74.9%

74.2%

73.7%

73.3%

73.1%

72.9%

72.6%

72.6%

70.0%

69.9%

69.8%

69.1%

67.4%

66.7%

66.4%

66.0%

65.7%

64.8%

64.6%

63.9%

62.6%

62.1%

60.9%

60.3%

59.9%

59.5%

59.5%

59.1%

59.1%

58.7%

58.6%

58.1%

57.6%

56.5%

55.2%

54.6%

54.0%

53.7%

52.2%

51.0%

50.8%

50.3%

50.2%

47.8%

47.7%

45.0%

29.5%

18.9%

NA

Utah


Massachusetts

Maine

Connecticut

Rhode Island

New Hampshire

Maryland

Colorado

California

Pennsylvania

Washington

Indiana

Minnesota

New York

Vermont

Illinois

UNITED STATES

Ohio

Oregon

Wisconsin

Nebraska

Montana

Iowa

New Jersey

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Missouri

Tennessee

Texas

Georgia

Michigan

Virginia

Idaho

Louisiana

North Carolina

South Dakota

North Dakota

Florida

Arizona

South Carolina

Alabama

New Mexico

Mississippi

Kentucky

West Virginia

Kansas

Delaware

Hawaii

Alaska

Nevada

Wyoming

2

9

60

11

14

7

11

18

9

76

81

13

31

24

126

13

49

1,165

58

20

23

16

4

30

18

13

10

35

37

41

27

35

27

3

9

41

6

4

44

5

20

16

3

10

21

9

17

4

3

1

1

NA

17

U.S. Average

33*

States

States

AVG

66.4%

4,280

7,151

31,389

2,446

8,159

6,211

3,417

5,165

2,250

20,853

35,201

4,820

11,601

9,152

54,010

2,432

18,686

395,634

18,508

3,811

7,296

3,245

535

7,298

7,615

3,377

2,584

9,204

9,575

16,575

8,262

8,056

8,809

432

4,577

12,648

1,045

743

12,099

478

5,081

4,351

298

1,520

4,747

1,659

2,322

497

1,067

44

53

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.


New fi gure


Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008Source: NCES IPEDS Graduation 200 and Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008

9.3q

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

100.0%

96.0%

78.6%

75.3%

69.6%

68.4%

58.8%

58.7%

58.3%

52.1%

50.8%

50.4%

46.5%

43.4%

42.5%

41.4%

37.8%

37.1%

37.0%

36.5%

34.5%

34.4%

33.3%

31.8%

31.3%

29.5%

29.2%

23.1%

18.5%

17.9%

16.4%

15.4%

15.3%

14.1%

11.9%

7.5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Tennessee

Kentucky

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Vermont

Alabama

Indiana

Massachusetts

North Carolina

Florida

New York

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Missouri

Illinois

Utah

UNITED STATES

Georgia

California

Ohio

Minnesota

New Mexico

Washington

Connecticut

Colorado

Iowa

Oregon

Louisiana

South Dakota

Texas

Arizona

Oklahoma

Maryland

Nevada

Michigan

Hawaii

Alaska

Arkansas

Delaware


Idaho

Kansas

Maine

Mississippi

Montana

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Dakota

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Wyoming

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

3

1

22

9

4

3

6

8

4

163

5

21

4

7

4

3

2

11

6

2

2

3

3

11

2

1

3

2

2

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

16

U.S. Average

19*

States

States

AVG

37.8%

4

1,079

42

85

23

19

68

206

24

2,829

1,686

496

71

625

2,421

326

25,549

1,316

4,695

872

84

262

201

239

773

156

154

173

81

1,175

4,666

78

98

142

327

53

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

No. ofStudents

No. ofInsts.


New fi gure


Degrees Awarded at Colleges and UniversitiesWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This indicator

measures the number of degrees that are awarded in the United States each

year by degree type, sector, fi eld, race/ethnicity, gender and state. This measure

is important because it shows the actual production of degrees by colleges and

universities in the United States.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Unlike graduation

rates, this measure includes those who earn degrees who do not graduate

in a specifi ed amount of time (e.g., 150 percent of time) and those graduates

who attend school part time and those who transfer from another institution.

These students are not currently included in graduation rates, and national data

systems do not yet exist to adequately track students across all institutions in

the United States.

Where are we now? As of 2009, the number of associate degrees has

increased 36.0 percent from 1,159,550 in 2001 to 1,577,136 in 2009, and the

number of bachelor’s degrees has increased 29.6 percent from 2,597,018 in

2001 to 3,366,858 in 2009 (Figure 9.4a).

Figure 9.4b shows degrees by institutional type. While 72.8 percent of all

associate degrees are awarded at two-year institutions, four-year institutions

awarded 27.2 percent of associate degrees. Almost all bachelor’s degrees were

awarded at four-year institutions.

There is considerable variability by race/ethnicity. Figure 9.4c shows that 1.1

percent of associate degrees are awarded to American Indians or Alaska

Natives; 5.3 percent of associate degrees are awarded to Asian Americans and

Pacifi c Islanders; 13.1 percent of associate degrees are awarded to African

Americans, and 12.7 percent of associate degrees are awarded to Hispanics.

These numbers are compared to 67.8 percent of associate degrees awarded to

white students.

Figure 9.4c also shows that 0.8 percent of bachelor’s degrees are awarded

to American Indians or Alaska Natives; 7.3 percent of bachelor’s degrees are

awarded to Asian Americans and Pacifi c Islanders; 9.8 percent of bachelor’s

degrees are awarded to African Americans and 8.3 percent of bachelor’s

degrees are awarded to Hispanics. These numbers are compared to 73.8

percent of bachelor’s degrees awarded to white students.

36.0% As of 2009, the number of associate degrees has increased 36.0 percent from 1,159,550 in 2001 to 1,577,136 in 2009.

29.6% As of 2009, the number of bachelor’s degrees has increased 29.6 percent from 2,597,018 in 2001 to 3,366,858 in 2009.

1.1% As of 2009, 1.1 percent of all associate degrees are awarded to American Indians or Alaska Natives.


New indicator

The majority of degrees are awarded to females, including 62.1 percent of all

associate degrees and 57.3 percent of all bachelor’s degrees (Figure 9.4d). The

distribution of all degrees also varies by fi eld (Figure 9.4e). As of 2009, 19.6

percent of all degrees are awarded in business, management and marketing;

17.7 percent of all degrees are awarded in the health professions and clinical

sciences; 9.5 percent of all degrees are awarded in education and 3.3 percent of

all degrees are awarded in engineering.

The number of degrees awarded varies by degree type and by state (Figures

9.4e–j). The top states that produce associate degrees are California, Florida,

New York, Texas and Arizona. The top states that produce bachelor’s degrees are

California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania and Florida.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? While degrees awarded to students do include both transfer students and

part-time students, it is not a measure of time to degree or effi ciency of

money spent for the student to obtain the degree.

13.1% As of 2009, 13.1 percent of all associate degrees are awarded to African Americans.

12.7% As of 2009, 12.7 percent of all associate degrees are awarded to Hispanics.

0.8% As of 2009, 0.8 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded to American Indians or Alaska Natives.

Number of Degrees Awarded by Degree Type for the Nation From 2001–2009Source: NCES IPEDS Completion and Institution Characteristics Surveys, 2009Note: U.S. Schools, degree granting, Title 4 schools only.

9.4a

0

2

3

4

5

In M

illio

ns

1

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2,825,404

1,035,6481,270,740

1,126,5721,332,768

96,846166,082

1,157,6241,395,298

105,410174,578

1,215,1001,455,948

121,364179,748

1,216,5701,458,308

121,378180,128

1,260,0241,502,204

98,558137,374

1,326,2101,577,136

74,542100,002

92,170161,794

2,939,922 3,032,4583,206,320 3,207,814 3,287,208 3,366,858

Associate

Bachelor’s

Master’s

Doctoral

Professional


9.8% As of 2009, 9.8 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded to African Americans.

8.3% As of 2009, 8.3 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded to Hispanics.

Number of Degrees Granted in the Nation by Sector, 2009Source: NCES IPEDS Completion and Institution Characteristics Surveys, 2009Note: U.S. Schools, degree granting, Title 4 schools only. Values too small (VTS) to report bachelor’s degrees and master’s degrees at two-year institutions.

9.4b

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Private2-year

(Not-for-Profit)

Public2-year

All2-year

Private2-year

(For-Profit)

All4-year

12,766

0

0

0

0

1,019,212

0

0

0

0

116,686

VTS

VTS

0

0

428,472

3,366,856

1,326,210

74,542

100,002

Public4-year

174,970

2,121,796

617,504

46,488

47,542

Private4-year

(Not-for-Profit)

81,264

1,075,400

581,732

26,892

51,208

Private4-year

(For-Profit)

172,238

169,660

126,974

1,162

1,252

1,148,664

VTS

VTS

0

0

88.7

%

72.8

%

1.1%

10.2

%

27.2

%

40.8

%63

.0%

46.6

%62

.4%

47.5

%

19.0

%31

.9%

43.9

%36

.1%

51.2

%

40.2

%5.

0% 9.6%

1.6%

1.3%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

Associate

Bachelor’s

Master’s

Doctoral

Professional


Number of Degrees Granted in the Nation by Race/Ethnicity, 2009Source: NCES IPEDS Completion and Institution Characteristics Surveys, 2009Note: U.S. Schools, degree granting, Title 4 schools only.

9.4c

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Asian/Native Hawaiian/

Other PacificIslander

American Indian orAlaska Native

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic Whitenon-Hispanic

76,314

222,862

70,824

4,306

12,342

16,528

23,642

6,644

336

700

182,664

253,052

69,614

2,752

5,110

976,424

2,254,326

753,516

39,764

64,054

188,998

298,848

123,694

4,516

7,276

13.1

%

1.1%

0.8%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8% 5.

3% 7.3%

6.9% 8.3%

13.8

%

12.7

%

8.3%

6.8%

5.3%

5.7%

67.8

% 73.8

%

73.6

%

77.0

%

71.6

%

9.8% 12

.1%

8.7%

8.1%

Associate

Bachelor’s

Master’s

Doctoral

Professional


Number of Degrees Granted by Gender, 2009Source: NCES IPEDS Completion and Institution Characteristics Surveys, 2009Note: U.S. Schools, degree granting, Title 4 schools only.

9.4d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

MaleFemale

979,790

1,928,460

798,274

38,688

49,550

597,346

1,438,398

527,936

35,854

50,452

37.9%42.7%

39.8%

48.1%50.5%

62.1%57.3%

60.2%

51.9%49.5%

Associate

Bachelor’s

Master’s

Doctoral

Professional


Total Degrees Awarded by Major CIP Code, 2009Source: NCES IPEDS Completion and Institution Characteristics Surveys, 2009Note: U.S. Schools, degree granting, Title 4 schools only.

9.4e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

19.6%

17.7%

9.5%

9.2%

4.9%

3.9%

3.7%

3.3%

3.0%

3.0%

2.9%

2.6%

2.0%

1.9%

1.8%

1.8%

1.4%

1.2%

1.1%

1.0%

1.0%

0.8%

0.7%

0.5%

0.5%

0.4%

0.4%

0.2%

Business,Management, Marketing

Health Professions andClinical Sciences

Education

Liberal Arts and Sciences,General Studies and Humanities

Social Sciences

Visual and Performing Arts

Psychology

Engineering

Security and Protective Services

Computer and Information Sciences

Biological and Biomedical Sciences

Communication, Journalism,Related Programs

English Language andLiterature/Letters

Legal Professions and Studies

Public Administration andSocial Service Professions

Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies

Family and Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences

History

Parks, recreation, Leisure, andFitness Studies

Physical Sciences

Foreign Languages, Literature,and Linguistics

Agriculture and Related Sciences

Mathematics and Statistics

Philosophy and Religious Studies

Architecture and Related Services

Natural Resources and Conservation

Area, Ethnic, Cultural, andGender Studies

Library Science

701,077

630,915

338,862

327,433

176,766

138,248

133,813

116,309

106,490

105,453

102,832

92,193

72,751

67,467

65,516

64,345

48,780

43,384

39,577

36,770

36,764

27,406

25,488

18,013

17,991

15,548

14,180

7,756

No. ofStudents


Number of Associate Degrees Awarded by State Rank, 2009Source: NCES IPEDS Completion and Institution Characteristics Surveys, 2009Note: U.S. Schools, degree granting, Title 4 schools only.

9.4f

197,660

141,834

118,154

95,924

83,940

72,332

56,242

54,296

54,122

43,716

41,412

37,538

35,026

34,494

30,114

29,426

29,096

28,830

27,278

24,442

22,736

22,614

21,682

20,470

19,556

19,024

18,628

18,094

16,862

16,394

15,694

12,974

11,076

10,838

10,120

9,536

8,058

7,698

7,340

6,718

6,442

5,876

5,570

5,272

4,832

3,930

3,290

3,270

2,398

2,270

1,998

California

Florida

New York

Texas

Arizona

Illinois

Ohio

Michigan

Pennsylvania

Washington

North Carolina

Virginia

New Jersey

Minnesota

Indiana

Missouri

Colorado

Georgia

Iowa

Wisconsin

Massachusetts

Maryland

Kentucky

Utah

Tennessee

Oklahoma

Alabama

Mississippi

South Carolina

Oregon

Kansas

Arkansas

Connecticut

Louisiana

New Mexico

Nebraska

Rhode Island

West Virginia

Nevada

Idaho

Hawaii

New Hampshire

Wyoming

Maine

North Dakota

South Dakota

Delaware

Montana

Vermont


Alaska

In Thousands

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400


Number of Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by State Rank, 2009Source: NCES IPEDS Completion and Institution Characteristics Surveys, 2009Note: U.S. Schools, degree granting, Title 4 schools only.

9.4g

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

336,594

255,690

210,128

180,334

167,778

146,142

127,974

115,912

109,372

96,748

90,414

83,722

82,600

81,230

81,182

76,514

70,600

68,858

63,120

61,138

60,260

57,160

56,764

50,966

44,522

44,120

44,064

42,034

40,872

39,464

38,092

37,106

27,250

24,936

24,524

23,924

22,920

22,054

18,970

18,572

16,032

14,612

14,494

12,502

12,086

11,776

11,706

11,118

10,858

3,798

3,252

California

New York

Texas

Pennsylvania

Florida

Illinois

Ohio

Michigan

Massachusetts

North Carolina

Virginia

Indiana

Georgia

Missouri

Arizona

Wisconsin

New Jersey

Minnesota

Washington

Tennessee

Colorado

Iowa

Maryland

Alabama

South Carolina

Louisiana

Utah

Kentucky

Connecticut

Oklahoma

Oregon

Kansas

Nebraska

Mississippi

Arkansas


West Virginia

Rhode Island

New Hampshire

Idaho

New Mexico

Maine

Nevada

Vermont

North Dakota

Delaware

Hawaii

South Dakota

Montana

Wyoming

Alaska

In Thousands


Number of Master’s Degrees Awarded by State Rank, 2009Source: NCES IPEDS Completion and Institution Characteristics Surveys, 2009Note: U.S. Schools, degree granting, Title 4 schools only.

9.4h

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

134,468

125,124

83,734

72,944

64,482

61,186

60,794

56,896

43,462

43,124

39,196

38,392

33,388

30,380

30,026

28,784

26,968

25,850

25,718

21,754

21,448

20,526

18,468

18,186

18,024

15,136

12,760

12,620

12,524

12,328

11,826

10,094

10,030

8,948

8,440

8,320

7,548

6,662

6,406

5,010

4,804

4,750

4,356

3,986

3,504

3,190

2,706

2,484

2,354

1,208

894

New York

California

Illinois

Texas

Pennsylvania

Arizona

Massachusetts

Florida

Michigan

Ohio

Missouri

Minnesota

Virginia

Maryland

Georgia

North Carolina

New Jersey

Indiana

Colorado


Alabama

Tennessee

Connecticut

Washington

Wisconsin

Kentucky

Oregon

Kansas

Louisiana

Iowa

Oklahoma

Utah

South Carolina

Nebraska

West Virginia

Mississippi

Arkansas

New Hampshire

New Mexico

Nevada

Delaware

Rhode Island

Vermont

Hawaii

Maine

Idaho

North Dakota

South Dakota

Montana

Alaska

Wyoming

In Thousands


Number of Doctoral Degrees Awarded by State Rank, 2009Source: NCES IPEDS Completion and Institution Characteristics Surveys, 2009Note: U.S. Schools, degree granting, Title 4 schools only.

9.4i

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

13,514

7,628

6,166

3,980

3,310

3,170

2,874

2,476

2,208

2,140

2,078

1,818

1,810

1,782

1,704

1,620

1,350

1,300

1,244

1,186

1,140

1,128

1,034

864

836

628

576

566

530

412

402

350

322

318

282

278

252

204

198

192

176

160

116

110

98

67

8

4

0

0

0

California

New York

Florida

Texas

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Ohio

Georgia

Colorado

Virginia

Washington

Iowa

Indiana

Michigan

Missouri

Alabama

Massachusetts

Louisiana

South Carolina

Arizona

Kentucky


Oklahoma

Illinois

Mississippi

Arkansas

Tennessee

Delaware

Hawaii

West Virginia

North Dakota

New Hampshire

Idaho

Montana

Rhode Island

Nevada

Nebraska

South Dakota

Oregon

Utah

New Mexico

Maine

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Kansas

Vermont

Maryland

Alaska

Connecticut

Wyoming

In Thousands


Number of Professional Degrees Awarded by State Rank, 2009Source: NCES IPEDS Completion and Institution Characteristics Surveys, 2009Note: U.S. Schools, degree granting, Title 4 schools only.

9.4j

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

11,512

9,994

7,804

7,036

5,612

4,046

4,010

4,000

3,590

3,466

3,060

2,972

2,940

2,784

2,698

2,530

2,268

2,122

1,942

1,772

1,752

1,728

1,524

1,414

1,012

834

722

710

554

446

446

418

382

360

350

326

296

280

134

102

54

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

New York

California

Florida

Texas

Pennsylvania

Ohio

Virginia

North Carolina

Massachusetts

New Jersey

Illinois


Louisiana

Georgia

Indiana

Michigan

Iowa

Colorado

Oklahoma

Missouri

Kentucky

South Carolina

Washington

Alabama

Arkansas

West Virginia

Minnesota

Tennessee

Rhode Island

Nebraska

North Dakota

New Hampshire

Vermont

South Dakota

Oregon

Idaho

Hawaii

Montana

Mississippi

Nevada

Wisconsin

Alaska

Arizona

Connecticut

Delaware

Kansas

Maine

Maryland

New Mexico

Utah

Wyoming

In Thousands


TenProvide postsecondary opportunities as an essential element of adult education programs

WE RECOMMEND a renewed commitment to adult education opportunities, one that supplements existing basic skills training and General Educational Development opportunities with a new “honors GED,” and better coordination of federal and state efforts to provide adult education, veterans benefi ts, outreach programs and student aid.

Adult education generally refers to any form of continuing education beyond the

traditional school years. Thus, whether an individual is returning to college to

complete a degree, enrolling in college for the fi rst time, taking an occasional

postsecondary class or pursuing a GED certifi cate, he or she is participating in

adult education.

In accordance with the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of the Workforce

Investment Act passed in 1998, states must report on participation and

outcomes of federally funded adult education programs through the Offi ce

of Vocational and Adult Education’s National Reporting System (NRS). NRS

tracks four core follow-up outcome measures to determine the number of

participants who enter employment, retain employment, receive a secondary

school diploma or GED, or are placed in postsecondary education or training.

The system is suffi ciently fl exible to accommodate the varying goals, objectives,

data collection and reporting constraints of the states. Because of these

inconsistencies, researchers are somewhat limited in their ability to compare

state outcomes through NRS.

Two primary limitations emerge for using NRS as a source for this recommendation.

First, the data of interest are not disaggregated by age range. While adult

education encompasses a broader age range (e.g., 25 to 64 when looking at the

workforce as a whole), the indicators in this chapter are limited to young adults,

ages 25 to 34, in order to understand the role of adult education programs

in achieving the overall commission goal. States appear to have differential

participation in adult education from various age groups. Thus, while outcomes

may be largely driven by younger adults in some states, they are a function

of older adults in other states. Second, the collection and reporting of data

make it impossible to separate postsecondary education from postsecondary

training, which is also critical to the nature of this recommendation and the

overall goal. Postsecondary training is defi ned as an occupational skills program

building on previously received services or training.

Despite these limitations for using NRS data in the current publication,

policymakers should familiarize themselves with this source, as several general

fi ndings raise concerns about the potential for increasing degree attainment

among adult learners. For example, NRS classifi es a learner’s adult education

goal into the following categories: obtain a job, retain current job, improve

current job, earn a secondary school diploma or GED, enter postsecondary

education or training, improve basic literacy skills, improve English language

skills, citizenship, work-based project learner goal, or other personal goals. The

data suggest that only a small portion of participants come into adult education

programs with the goal of entering postsecondary education or training. For

most states, the vast majority of participants aim to earn a GED or secondary

school diploma. The remaining participants indicate, in descending order, a goal

of entering employment, retaining employment, and entering postsecondary

education or training.

completionagenda.collegeboard.org Recommendation Ten 280

In addition, only a portion of those with the initial objective of entering

postsecondary education or training appear to achieve this goal. States track

core outcome achievement through follow-up surveys or through matching data

with other sources (e.g., workforce data systems). Therefore, differences in

their outcomes may stem from differential success in obtaining follow-up data

for participants in adult education programs.

The American Council on Education (ACE), which owns and administers the

GED, is in the midst of several changes that aim to improve GED attainment

and further connect adult learners with postsecondary education and career

opportunities. For example, the test will transition to a computer-based platform

by 2013. ACE also recently announced the development of a new GED test to

be introduced in 2014 that will align with the Common Core State Standards.

Three indicators are presented for this recommendation:

• Educational attainment for adults ages 25 to 34;

• Adults ages 25 to 34 with no high school diploma who attain a GED; and

• Enrollment of nontraditional students in postsecondary education.

General Findings for This Recommendation• As of 2009, 61.4 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 do not have a college

degree.

• As of 2009, 2.7 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 with no high school diploma

are GED candidates.

• As of 2009, 1.6 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 with no high school diploma

attain a GED.

• As of 2007, 6.9 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 are enrolled in

undergraduate study at postsecondary institutions in the United States.


Educational Attainment for Adults Ages 25 to 34What is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

provides insight into the challenges and opportunities for increasing educational

attainment among adults ages 25 to 34 in states and across the nation as a

whole. The population without a college degree is composed of several groups

— individuals without a high school diploma (or its equivalent), individuals with

a high school diploma (or its equivalent) who have not attended college and

individuals with some college but who have not earned a degree. This measure

illustrates why states need to differentiate their strategies for increasing

educational attainment, as the needs of the fi rst group are substantially different

from those of the last group.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? The composition

of young adults who have yet to earn a college degree differs across states

based on race/ethnicity, educational progress, socioeconomic status and a

variety of other factors. In order to raise educational attainment, states need

to implement different policies and approaches, depending on which specifi c

populations they need to target. For example, as refl ected in the eight-year

graduation rates in Recommendation Nine and enrollment in undergraduate

education in the fi nal indicator of this chapter, a portion of young adults with

some college are on the verge of earning a degree. However, others have exited

postsecondary education altogether.

States should consider the fi nancial challenges that young adults face when

pursuing educational opportunities in order to better understand how this age

group pays for college and what incentives might be provided to institutions,

individuals or employers to help support state and national educational

attainment goals.

Where are we now? As of 2009, 61.3 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 in the

United States do not have a college degree. Specifi cally, 13.4 percent do not

have a high school diploma (or its equivalent), 26.0 percent have a high school

diploma (or its equivalent) but have not attended college, 21.9 percent have

some college but no degree, and 38.6 percent have an associate degree or

higher (Figure 10.1a). About 69.1 percent of Asian and 48.7 percent of white

young adults have earned an associate degree or higher, compared to only 29.4

percent of African American and 19.2 percent of Hispanic young adults (Figure

10.1b). In addition, young Hispanic adults have the highest percentage without a

high school diploma (or its equivalent).

61.3% As of 2009, 61.3 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 do not have a college degree.

1.0ppts 2008–2009


National Educational Attainment of Adults Ages 25–34, 2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates

National Educational Attainment of Adults Ages 25–34 by Race/Ethnicity, 2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009

10.1a

10.1b

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Less Than aHigh School

Diploma

Only aHigh SchoolDiploma butNo College

Some Collegebut NoDegree

AssociateDegree

or Higher

13.4%

26.0%21.9%

38.6%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

AsianAfrican American Hispanic White

4.8%

14.2

%

11.9

%

69.1

%

11.0

%

35.6

%

24.0

%29.4

%

33.7

%

32.3

%

14.8

%

19.2

%

5.2%

26.2

%

20.0

%

48.7

%

Associate Degree or Higher

Some College but No Degree

Only a High School Diploma but No College

Less Than a High School Diploma


New fi gure

When disaggregated by state, the percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 with less

than a high school diploma (or its equivalent) ranges from 4.0 percent in North

Dakota to 19.5 percent in Texas (Figure 10.1c). When placed in rank order, the

states with the lowest percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 without a high school

diploma (or its equivalent) are North Dakota, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont and New

Hampshire. The states with the highest percentage of adults ages 25 to 34

without a high school diploma (or its equivalent) are Texas, California, Nevada,

Arizona and New Mexico.

When disaggregated by state, the percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 with a

high school diploma (or its equivalent) but no college ranges from 15.6 in the

District of Columbia to 37.9 percent in West Virginia (Figure 10.1d). When placed

in rank order, the states with the lowest percentage of adults ages 25 to 34

with a high school diploma (or its equivalent) but no college are the District of

Columbia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Massachusetts and Colorado. The states with

the highest percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 with a high school diploma (or

its equivalent) but no college are West Virginia, Arkansas, Maine, Tennessee

and Louisiana.

When disaggregated by state, the percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 with

some college but no degree ranges from 12.1 percent in the District of

Columbia to 31.5 in Alaska (Figure 10.1e). When placed in rank order, the states

with the lowest percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 with some college but

no degree are the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont

and Pennsylvania. The states with the highest percentage of adults ages 25

to 34 with some college but no degree are Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah

and New Mexico.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Methodological differences between the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current

Population Survey (CPS) and the American Community Survey (ACS) result in

slightly different estimates of college degree attainment between this indicator

and that presented in Figure D of the overview. Both surveys are subject to

sampling errors, which should be considered when interpreting estimates.

Compared to the one- and three-year ACS estimates, the fi ve-year ACS estimates

show the lowest margin of error. Estimates by race/ethnicity in Figure 10.1b are

from CPS data, as they are not available by race/ethnicity in the ACS. Finally,

“high school diploma” includes high school graduates as well as those who

earned a GED or alternative high school equivalency certifi cate.


Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Less Than a High School Diploma by State Rank, 2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates

10.1c

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

4.0%

5.1%

6.1%

6.7%

6.9%

7.2%

7.5%

7.7%

7.7%

7.8%

8.2%

8.3%

8.4%

8.8%

8.9%

9.2%

9.7%

9.9%

10.3%

10.4%

10.4%

10.5%

10.7%

10.9%

11.2%

11.3%

11.3%

11.3%

11.8%

11.8%

11.9%

11.9%

12.6%

12.8%

12.8%

12.9%

13.1%

13.4%

13.6%

13.9%

14.2%

14.4%

14.9%

15.2%

15.2%

16.1%

16.9%

17.2%

17.6%

18.1%

18.4%

19.5%

North Dakota

Hawaii

Maine

Vermont

New Hampshire

Minnesota

South Dakota

Alaska

Montana

Massachusetts

Iowa


Wyoming

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Connecticut

Utah

Nebraska

New Jersey

Virginia

Ohio

Maryland

Michigan

Kansas

West Virginia

Missouri

Delaware

Washington

Idaho

Illinois

Rhode Island

New York

Indiana

Oregon

Kentucky

Tennessee

Colorado

UNITED STATES

Florida

Oklahoma

Arkansas

South Carolina

North Carolina

Georgia

Louisiana

Alabama

Mississippi

New Mexico

Arizona

Nevada

California

Texas

37

U.S. Average

14

States

States

AVG

13.4%


Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Only a High School Diploma but No College by State Rank, 2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates

10.1d

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

15.6%

20.8%

21.1%

21.9%

22.5%

22.5%

22.6%

22.6%

23.0%

23.1%

23.5%

24.1%

24.2%

24.3%

24.4%

24.6%

24.9%

24.9%

25.1%

25.9%

25.9%

26.0%

26.0%

27.1%

27.2%

27.3%

27.3%

27.5%

27.7%

27.8%

27.9%

28.0%

28.0%

28.4%

28.7%

28.8%

29.0%

29.2%

29.3%

29.4%

29.5%

29.7%

29.9%

30.1%

30.2%

30.6%

31.7%

32.0%

32.2%

32.4%

33.3%

37.9%


Minnesota

Nebraska

Massachusetts

Colorado

North Dakota

California

New York

Washington

Maryland

Illinois

Oregon

Iowa

Kansas

Virginia

North Carolina

Utah

Rhode Island

New Jersey

Arizona

Connecticut

UNITED STATES

Texas

Michigan

Georgia

Wisconsin

South Dakota

New Hampshire

Missouri

Montana

New Mexico

Delaware

Idaho

Alabama

Florida

Mississippi

Indiana

South Carolina

Hawaii

Wyoming

Nevada

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Oklahoma

Alaska

Vermont

Kentucky

Louisiana

Tennessee

Maine

Arkansas

West Virginia

21

U.S. Average

30

States

States

AVG

26.0%


Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Some College but No Degree by State Rank, 2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates

10.1e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12.1%

16.4%

16.6%

18.0%

18.0%

18.2%

19.2%

19.4%

19.9%

20.9%

21.1%

21.1%

21.3%

21.3%

21.6%

21.7%

21.8%

21.9%

21.9%

22.1%

22.4%

22.6%

22.7%

23.0%

23.0%

23.0%

23.1%

23.1%

23.4%

23.5%

23.6%

23.6%

23.8%

23.9%

24.0%

24.2%

24.3%

24.3%

24.5%

24.6%

24.6%

24.9%

25.0%

25.0%

26.0%

26.0%

26.2%

26.3%

27.2%

28.0%

28.4%

31.5%


Massachusetts

New York

Vermont

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Connecticut

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Illinois

Maryland

Virginia

Florida

Delaware

California

Georgia

South Carolina

West Virginia

UNITED STATES

Colorado

Minnesota

Tennessee

North Carolina

South Dakota

Ohio

Iowa

Wisconsin

Texas

Missouri

Indiana

Kentucky

Mississippi

Maine

Louisiana

Washington

Arizona

Nevada

Alabama

Kansas

Arkansas

Hawaii

Oklahoma

North Dakota

Nebraska

Montana

Oregon

Michigan

New Mexico

Utah

Idaho

Wyoming

Alaska

18

U.S. Average

33

States

States

AVG

21.9%


Adults Ages 25 to 34 with No High School Diploma Who Attain a GEDWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? One of the

primary focuses of most adult basic education programs is helping individuals

earn a high school equivalency certifi cate or GED. The GED provides a path

to certify high-school-level academic knowledge and skills attainment, which

can open the door to better job opportunities and/or postsecondary education.

Adults ages 25 to 34 may choose to pursue a GED for a variety of reasons,

including but not limited to having dropped out of high school or failed to

pass required state assessments that lead to a standard high school diploma,

immigration, home schooling, the desire to improve job prospects and so forth.

As shown in the previous indicator, on the path to college degree attainment,

earning a high school equivalency certifi cate represents the fi rst hurdle that

must be overcome for roughly one in eight adults ages 25 to 34. This measure

is important because it helps states understand the degree to which this group

of young adults is taking steps to improve their educational attainment. It

shows the proportion of the target population who are attempting a GED and

earning a GED.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? A high school

diploma or its equivalent provides a foundation for basic job skills, but in order

to create a highly qualifi ed workforce, states should strive to help young adults

use a high school diploma or GED attainment as a launching point for further

education and training as opposed to an endpoint of an educational journey.

States should develop or enhance outreach programs to target segments of

the population who have not yet earned a high school credential and examine

existing policies and programs to identify potential barriers to participation in

adult basic education programs. Although there is a need to increase access

across states, it is also clear that many states need to develop strategies to

improve pass rates for young adults who are already accessing basic adult

education services.

Where are we now? As of 2009, 2.7 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 with no

high school diploma are GED candidates (Figure 10.2a). When disaggregated by

state, the percentage of young adults with no high school diploma who are GED

candidates ranges from 1.4 percent in California to 8.8 percent in Maine (Figure

10.2b). When placed in rank order, the states with the highest percentage of

adults ages 25 to 34 with no high school diploma who are GED candidates are

Maine, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Montana. The states with the

lowest percentage are California, Kansas, Texas, Delaware and Nevada.

2.7% As of 2009, 2.7 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 with no high school diploma are GED candidates.

2008–2009

1.6% As of 2009, 1.6 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 with no high school diploma attain a GED.

2008–2009


As of 2009, 1.6 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 with no high school diploma

attained a GED (Figure 10.2c). When disaggregated by state, the percentage

of young adults with no high school diploma who attain a GED ranges from

0.8 percent in California to 4.7 percent in North Dakota (Figure 10.2d). When

placed in rank order, the states with the highest percentage of adults ages 25

to 34 with no high school diploma who attain a GED are North Dakota, Maine,

Wyoming, Montana and West Virginia. The states with the lowest percentage

are California, Texas, the District of Columbia, Maryland and Rhode Island.

When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? The GED

test battery is composed of fi ve separate assessments in reading, writing,

mathematics, science and the social sciences. To earn a GED, a test-taker

must earn a minimum passing score within each content area and surpass a

minimum total score across the fi ve areas. Passing scores are set by individual

states. ACE defi nes a “candidate” as any individual who attempts at least

one of the fi ve tests. The test-taker must neither fi nish a test nor achieve the

minimum score in order to be included as a candidate. “Completers” are

defi ned as those who test in all fi ve content areas, and “passers” have met the

requirements set forth by their state and are awarded a GED. Completion and

pass rates vary by state. Figure 10.2a focuses on candidates in order to show

the proportion of state’s target population who are taking the fi rst step toward

a GED. Figure 10.2b focuses on passers in order to show the proportion of the

target population that achieves the goal of a GED. Comparable information for

completers is not presented in the ACE annual statistical reports.

Estimates of the number of adults ages 25 to 34 with no high school diploma

are from the fi ve-year American Community Survey data, as it contains the

lowest margin of error of the three options available from the U.S. Census

Bureau. Thus, the same denominator is used for all years included in this

indicator. Although it is unlikely that the actual number of adults without a

high school diploma in this age range remained exactly stable, the size of the

margin of error in the one-year estimates relative to the size of the population

of adults in the same age range attempting or earning a GED is of concern.

State-level ranked data in particular should be interpreted with caution, as the

margin of error in estimating the size of the target population of interest is, for

some states, nearly as large as the estimate of the number of adults ages 25

to 34 attempting or earning a GED. However, both the raw numbers and the

calculated estimates suggest that for the vast majority of states, only a small

portion of adults without a high school diploma are taking the fi rst step toward

becoming eligible for entry into postsecondary education.


National Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School Diploma Who Were GED Candidates, 2005–2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates; American Council on Education 2005–2009 Annual Statistical Reports

10.2a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2.5% 2.5% 2.7% 2.7%2.4%

Updated data source


Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School Diploma Who Were GED Candidates by State Rank, 2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates; American Council on Education 2009 Annual Statistical Report

10.2b

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

8.8%

8.7%

7.7%

6.9%

6.8%

6.4%

5.7%

5.6%

5.1%

5.1%

5.0%

4.9%

4.9%

4.8%

4.7%

4.6%

4.6%

4.2%

4.2%

3.9%

3.9%

3.8%

3.8%

3.8%

3.7%

3.7%

3.7%

3.7%

3.6%

3.6%

3.3%

3.2%

3.2%

3.2%

3.2%

3.1%

3.0%

3.0%

2.9%

2.8%

2.7%

2.7%

2.7%

2.3%

2.3%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

1.9%

1.9%

1.8%

1.4%

Maine

North Dakota

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Montana

Alaska

Minnesota

South Dakota

New Hampshire

Washington

Iowa

Mississippi

Idaho

Oregon

Nebraska

West Virginia

Virginia

Pennsylvania

Colorado

New Mexico

North Carolina

Ohio

Connecticut

New York

Tennessee

Massachusetts

Michigan

Georgia

Kentucky

Vermont

Utah

Missouri

Oklahoma

Illinois

Rhode Island

Alabama

Arkansas

Indiana

Hawaii

New Jersey

Arizona

Florida

UNITED STATES

South Carolina

Louisiana

Maryland


Nevada

Delaware

Texas

Kansas

California

AVG

2.7%

42

U.S. Average

9

States

States

Updated data source


National Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School Diploma Who Attained a GED, 2005–2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates; American Council on Education 2005–2009 Annual Statistical Reports

10.2c

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1.3% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6%1.4%

Updated data source


Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School Diploma Who Attained a GED by State Rank, 2009Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates; American Council on Education 2009 Annual Statistical Report

10.2d

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

4.7%

4.7%

4.4%

3.5%

3.3%

3.3%

3.2%

3.0%

3.0%

3.0%

2.9%

2.8%

2.8%

2.7%

2.7%

2.6%

2.6%

2.4%

2.4%

2.4%

2.3%

2.3%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

2.1%

1.9%

1.9%

1.9%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.7%

1.7%

1.7%

1.6%

1.6%

1.6%

1.6%

1.6%

1.6%

1.6%

1.5%

1.2%

1.2%

1.2%

1.1%

0.8%

North Dakota

Maine

Wyoming

Montana

West Virginia

Alaska

Wisconsin

Minnesota

New Hampshire

Iowa

South Dakota

Ohio

Kentucky

Oregon

Idaho

Virginia

Tennessee

Missouri

Washington

Mississippi

Utah

Arkansas

Pennsylvania

Colorado

Oklahoma

Indiana

Nebraska

New Mexico

Georgia

North Carolina

Massachusetts

Hawaii

Alabama

Michigan

New York

Connecticut

Delaware

New Jersey

Illinois

UNITED STATES

Florida

Arizona

Kansas

Vermont

South Carolina

Louisiana

Nevada

Rhode Island

Maryland


Texas

California

AVG

1.6%

39

U.S. Average

12

States

States

Updated data source


Enrollment of Nontraditional Students in Postsecondary EducationWhat is this measure, and why is this measure important? This measure

examines the percentage of nontraditional students ages 25 to 34 seeking

undergraduate postsecondary education. It provides insight into the immediate

potential for increasing the college-degree attainment outcomes discussed

earlier in this chapter and in the overall goal. Young adults enrolled in

undergraduate postsecondary education may fall into one of several categories:

students who enroll immediately after high school and have not yet completed

their degrees; students who entered higher education at a later, nontraditional

time; or students who are returning to school for additional study after earning a

prior associate or bachelor’s degree.

Alternatively, one could examine the ratio of the number of young adults

enrolled in undergraduate postsecondary education to the number of young

adults without a high school diploma, to the number of young adults with some

college but no degree, or to some combination thereof. These alternatives

cannot be interpreted directly as percentages, since we have no knowledge

of the educational background of the young adults enrolled in undergraduate

studies. The results of the current indicator can be interpreted in a more

straightforward manner.

What are the policy issues associated with this measure? Young adults

ages 25 to 34 are a crucial part of the adult education community. Pursuing

further education in early adulthood affords the learner decades of economic

stability and opportunity. Chances for nontraditional students to train and

retrain are imperative for upward mobility and for meeting the needs of a

changing economy.

Where are we now? As of 2007, 6.9 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 are

enrolled in undergraduate study at postsecondary institutions in the United

States (Figure 10.3a). When disaggregated by state, the percentage of young

adults enrolling in undergraduate study ranges from 4.2 percent in New

Hampshire to 15.7 percent in Arizona (Figure 10.3b). When placed in rank

order, the states with the highest percentage of young adults ages 25 to 34

enrolling in undergraduate study are Arizona, District of Columbia, Iowa, Utah

and New Mexico. The states with the lowest percentage are New Hampshire,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

6.9% As of 2007, 6.9 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 are enrolled in undergraduate study at postsecondary institutions in the United States.

Updated data source


When interpreting this measure, what should be kept in mind? Many students attend college in a state other than their home state. Thus,

the numerator in this indicator may be composed of both in-state and out-

of-state students, while the denominator may refl ect mostly state residents.

It is possible that adult undergraduate students are more likely to be state

residents, but this should be considered when interpreting state-level

outcomes of this measure. In addition, the growth of online educational

programs, which tend to attract nontraditional aged students, may skew the

results for certain states. For example, several large online institutions are

based in Arizona. The proportion of young adults in Arizona’s undergraduate

enrollment who are state residents is unknown.

Some caution is warranted in interpreting trends associated with this measure,

given the margin of error in calculating the 25- to 34-year-old population with the

American Community Survey’s one-year estimates. Figure 10.3a is based on the

one-year ACS population estimates. Figure 10.3b is based on the fi ve-year ACS

estimates in order to reduce the margin of error in the population estimates,

which is of concern in some states. Lastly, institutions are required to report

enrollment by age to IPEDS every other survey year.

National Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 Enrolled in Postsecondary Education, 2003–2007Source: NCES IPEDS Enrollment Survey, 2003–2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2003–2007 American Community Survey One-Year-Estimates

10.3a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2003 2005 2007

6.9% 6.9%6.7%

Updated data source


Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 Enrolled in Postsecondary Education, 2007Source: NCES IPEDS Enrollment Survey, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates

10.3b

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

15.7%

13.5%

11.2%

10.1%

9.9%

8.4%

8.3%

8.1%

7.9%

7.7%

7.7%

7.6%

7.4%

7.4%

7.2%

7.2%

7.2%

7.2%

7.1%

7.0%

6.9%

6.9%

6.7%

6.7%

6.7%

6.7%

6.6%

6.6%

6.6%

6.4%

6.4%

6.3%

6.2%

6.2%

6.2%

6.1%

6.0%

6.0%

6.0%

5.8%

5.7%

5.6%

5.5%

5.5%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

5.1%

4.9%

4.8%

4.8%

4.2%

Arizona


Iowa

Utah

New Mexico

West Virginia

North Dakota

California

Colorado

Oklahoma

Wyoming

Michigan

Nebraska

South Dakota

Florida

Kansas

Illinois

Kentucky

Oregon

Missouri

Minnesota

UNITED STATES

Wisconsin

Indiana

Idaho

Alabama

Alaska

Ohio

Washington

Arkansas

Nevada

Hawaii

Mississippi

Maryland

Montana

Texas

Virginia

Rhode Island

Maine

Louisiana

North Carolina

Tennessee

Delaware

New York

New Jersey

Georgia

Vermont

Connecticut

Massachusetts

South Carolina

Pennsylvania

New Hampshire

AVG

6.9%

21

U.S. Average

30

States

States

Updated data source


Overall Goal of the CommissionINDICATORS: 25- to 64-Year-Olds, 25- to 34-Year-Olds or 55- to 64-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree or Higher

CalculationAs reported in Table A1.3a.

Sources/LinksOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,

Education at a Glance, 2010.

www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/30/45931991.pdf

Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually by the OECD, a membership

organization dedicated to global development. Based on the 2010 publication,

OECD’s 31 member countries and fi ve partners, including Brazil, Estonia, Israel,

Russian Federation and Slovenia, are included in the rankings. Since this time,

Estonia, Israel and Slovenia have become OECD members. In addition, OECD

has begun working with China, India, Indonesia and South Africa, which may

lead to membership in future years. Russian Federation data are from 2002,

thus some caution is warranted in interpreting these data.

The International Standard Classifi cation of Education (ISCED-97) is used

to defi ne the levels of education. OECD does not count two-year academic

associate degree programs in the United States’ calculation, as these degrees

are considered intermediate degrees. Data for the United States came from

the March 2009 Current Population Survey.

Data Sources/Related LinksU.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/index.html

AppendixData Book


INDICATOR: Percentage of 25- to 34-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree or Higher in the United States, 2000–2009; Projections Through 2025

CalculationNumerator: Number of adults in age range with an associate, bachelor’s,

master’s, doctoral or professional degree, in the nation.

Denominator: Number of adults in age range, in the nation.

2000–2009 values are real values; 2010–2025 Current Path projections

were calculated using linear path projections; (y=0.331x+37.7) with R2=0.796;

2010–2025 are the average gains required to reach 55 percent. The nation would

need to increase 13.9 percent between 2009 and 2025 to hit the goal of 55

percent. This would require an average increase of 0.86875 percent each year.

Sources/LinksU.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2000–2009.


Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. These calculations include academic

and vocational/occupational associate degrees.

Data Sources/Related LinksN/A

INDICATOR: Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher in the United States

CalculationNumerator: Number of adults in age range with an associate, bachelor’s,

master’s, doctoral or professional degree, in the nation and by race/ethnicity.

Denominator: Number of adults in the age range, in the nation and by race/

ethnicity.

Sources/LinksU.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2000–2009.





Appendix 298


INDICATOR: Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher by State Rank

CalculationNational data: As reported in Overall Goal (Figure D).

State numerator: Number of male and female adults ages 25 to 34 with an

associate, bachelor’s, graduate or professional degree.

State denominator: Number of male and female adults ages 25 to 34.

Sources/LinksNational data: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2009/tables.html

State data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey,

Table B15001

http://factfi nder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_

submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=

Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. State-level data are available only

through the American Community Survey (ACS). National data are from the

Current Population Survey (CPS) and thus refl ect what is presented in previous

indicators. The fact sheet linked below outlines differences between the two

survey estimates.

Data Sources/Related Linkshttp://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/factsheet.html

Recommendation One: Provide a program of voluntary preschool education, universally available to children from low-income families

INDICATOR: 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool orKindergarten Programs

CalculationAs reported in the United States Education Dashboard table.

Sources/LinksU.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey (ACS) Three-Year

Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) Data.

http://dashboard.ed.gov/statecomparison.aspx?i=a&id=0&wt=44

299


Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. ACS three-year estimates are

based on larger sample sizes, which reduce sampling error. The smaller margin

of error results in more stable estimates. Race categories exclude persons of

Hispanic ethnicity.

Data Sources/Related LinksU.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey Three-Year

Estimates.



INDICATOR: 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K Programs

CalculationAs reported in Table 2.

Sources/LinksNational Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers Graduate School of

Education, The State of Preschool, 2009.

http://nieer.org/yearbook2009/

Data Availability/DiscussionAnnual state preschool yearbooks are available from 2003 to the present.

The number enrolled in preschool came from surveys of state preschool

administrators. The number of 3- and 4-year-olds in each state was obtained

from the U.S. Census Bureau’s July Population Estimates.

Data Sources/Related LinksU.S. Census Bureau July Population Estimates, State Population Datasets.

http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html

INDICATOR: 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs

CalculationNumerator: Number of 3- and/or 4-year-olds enrolled in state-funded federal

Head Start (program year 2008–2009) reported in Appendix B.

Denominator: Number of 3- and/or 4-year-olds reported in Appendix D.

Sources/LinksNational Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers Graduate School of

Education, The State of Preschool (Appendix B and D), 2009.

http://nieer.org/yearbook2009/

Data Availability/DiscussionState preschool yearbooks are available from 2003 to the present. The number

enrolled in Head Start came from the Administration for Children and Families

(ACF), the Head Start Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Head Start State Collaboration Offi ces, and Head Start Program

Information Reports (PIR). The number of 3- and 4-year-olds in each state

was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s July Population Estimates.

Appendix 300


Data Sources/Related LinksU.S. Census Bureau July Population Estimates, State Population Datasets.

http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html

Recommendation Two: Improve middle and high school counseling

INDICATOR: Student-to-Counselor Ratio

CalculationNumerator: Number of students aggregated by state.

Denominator: Number of school counselors aggregated by state.

Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, State Nonfi scal

Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education, 1998–2009.

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ccddata.asp

Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually and are available from 1987

to the present.

Data Sources/Related LinksAmerican Counseling Association

http://www.counseling.org/publicpolicy/

INDICATOR: Student-to-College Counselor Ratio by School Type

CalculationMean number of students per college counselor, as reported in “School

Counselors and College Counseling” chapter (e.g., Table 23 in 2010).

Sources/LinksNational Association for College Admission Counseling, State of College

Admission, 2006–2010.

http://www.nacacnet.org/PublicationsResources/Marketplace/research/Pages/

StateofCollegeAdmission.aspx

Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. The data came from the 2005–2009

Counseling Trends Surveys, NACAC’s Annual Survey of Secondary School

Counselors and counseling departments.


301


INDICATOR: States with Comprehensive School Counseling Programs

CalculationNumerator: Number of states listed on Web page, including the District of

Columbia.

Denominator: Count of 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

Sources/LinksAmerican School Counselor Association, 2011.

http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?pl=325&sl=133&contentid=280

Data Availability/DiscussionThe defi nition of “State Comprehensive School Counseling Program” can

vary from state to state. It generally means that a state has a pre-K–12 plan

or framework in place that provides a structured program and guidelines

for school counselors so they can work with all students on career, academic

and personal/social development.


INDICATOR: Secondary Schools That Require Professional Development or Cover All Professional Development Costs by School Type

CalculationAs reported in “School Counselors and College Counseling” chapter

(e.g., Table 27 in 2010).









Appendix 302


INDICATOR: Counselors’ Time Spent on Postsecondary Admission Counseling or Other Tasks by School Type

CalculationAs reported in “School Counselors and College Counseling” chapter (e.g., Table

26 in 2010).






Counseling Trends Survey, NACAC’s Annual Survey of Secondary School



Recommendation Three: Implement the best research-based dropout prevention programs

INDICATOR: Average Graduation Rates for Public High School Students

CalculationNational average: As reported in Table 3.

By race/ethnicity: As reported in Table 2.

By state rank: As reported in Table 1.

Sources/LinksStillwell, R. (2010). Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common

Core of Data: School Year 2007–08 (NCES 2010-341). National Center for

Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.


Race/ethnicity data for prior years:

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/2010313_02.asp (2006–07)


303


Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. The Common Core of Data is the

primary national statistical database of public elementary and secondary

schools in the United States.

The Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate is the number of regular diploma

recipients in a given year divided by the average of the membership in grades

eight, nine and 10, reported fi ve, four and three years earlier, respectively.

Data Sources/Related LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data.

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/index.asp

INDICATOR: States with Exit Examinations

CalculationStates with exit examinations: Compiled by the College Board.

States where end-of-course exams are used as the exit exam: Compiled

by the College Board.

States with reciprocity with other states’ exit exams: Compiled by the

College Board.

States with substitute assessments: Compiled by the College Board.

States with alternative diploma or certifi cate: Compiled by the College Board.

Sources/LinksEducation Commission of the States, 2010.

http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=1357

Data Availability/DiscussionData are reported annually.

Data Sources/Related LinksEducation Commission of the States, 2010.

http://www.ecs.org

INDICATOR: Status Dropout Rates for the Nation and by Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Age — Excluding Institutional Populations

CalculationNational: As reported in Table A-19-1 in The Condition of Education.

By race/ethnicity, gender and age: As reported in Table 6 (Chapman, Laird, and

KewalRamani, 2010).

Appendix 304


Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2010.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028_7.pdf

Chapman, C., Laird, J., and KewalRamani, A. (2010). Trends in High School

Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2008 (NCES 2011–

2012). National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.


Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. Status dropout rates refl ect the

percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in high school and who

have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma or GED) at the time

of the survey.

Data Sources/Related LinksU.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 1999–2008.


INDICATOR: Status Dropout Rates for the Nation and by Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Age — Including Institutional Populations

CalculationAs cited in Table A-19-2.



Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. Status dropout rates refl ect the

percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in high school and

who have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma or GED).

Institutional populations include incarcerated persons, active duty military

personnel living in barracks and those living in health facilities.

Data Sources/Related LinksU.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008.


INDICATOR: Event Dropout Rates of Public High School Students in Grades 9–12

CalculationNational: As reported in Table 4 (for 2008) and Table 7 (for 2003–2007).

By race/ethnicity: As reported in Table 6.

By gender: As reported in Table 8.

By state rank: As reported in Table 4.

By grade level: As reported in Table 5.

305


Sources/LinksStillwell, R. (2010). Public School Graduates and Dropouts From the Common

Core of Data: School Year 2007–08 (NCES 2010-341). National Center for

Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010341.pdf (2008)


Race/ethnicity data for prior years:

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/2010313_06.asp (2007)

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/2008353_06.asp (2006)

Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. The Common Core of Data is the

primary national statistical database of public elementary and secondary

schools in the United States.

Dropouts are defi ned as individuals who were enrolled in school at some time

during the previous school year, were not enrolled at the beginning of the

following school year, had not graduated from high school or completed an

equivalency program, and did not meet certain exclusionary conditions (e.g.,

transfer, temporary absence due to suspension or death).



INDICATOR: State Statutory Age When Students Can Legally Drop Out

CalculationState Statutory Age when Students Can Legally Drop Out: As Cited in Table 1.

Sources/LinksEducation Commission of the States, 2010.

http://www.ecs.org/html/educationIssues/StateNotes/2010-StateNotes.pdf


Data Sources/Related LinksEducation Commission of the States, 2010.

http://www.ecs.org

Appendix 306


Recommendation Four: Align the K–12 education system with international standards and college admission expectations

INDICATOR: Public High Schools Offering AP® and/or IB Courses in the Four Core Subject Areas

CalculationNumerator: Number of public high schools in the United States that offer

Advanced Placement Program® courses and/or IB courses in the four core

subject areas: English, mathematics, science and social studies.

Denominator: Number of public high schools in the United States, as

maintained by the College Board.

Sources/LinksThe College Board, 2010.

http://www.collegeboard.com/ap

International Baccalaureate, 2010.

http://www.ibo.org

Data Availability/DiscussionAdvanced Placement data were gathered through the AP course audit and thus

represent the number of schools with approved AP courses in the four subject

areas. The list of IB schools is publicly available on the IBO website, and all

schools that offer the diploma program offer courses in the four subject areas.

Data Sources/Related LinksAP Report to the Nation

CalculationAP Growth: As cited in Figure 1.

Public High School and AP Examinees Student Populations by Race/Ethnicity for

the Class of 2010: As cited in Figure 6.

Public High School AP 3 or Higher Examinee Student Success Rates by Race/

Ethnicity for the Class of 2010: As cited in Figure 9.

Trend AP Participation and Success in STEM by High School Class, 2010: As

cited in Figure 11.

Percentage of Public High School Students Taking an AP Exam, Class of 2010:

As cited in Appendix A.

Percentage of Public High School Students Scoring 3 or Higher on an AP Exam,

Class of 2010: As cited in Appendix A.

AP Equity and Excellence Achieved by African American Students in the Class of

2010: As cited in Figure 10.

307


AP Equity and Excellence Achieved by Hispanic Students in the Class of 2010:

As cited in Figure 10.

AP Equity and Excellence Achieved by American Indian or Alaska Native

Students in the Class of 2010: As cited in Figure 10.

Sources/LinksCollege Board, AP Report to the Nation, 2011.

http://apreport.collegeboard.org/


Data Sources/Related LinksThe College Board

INDICATOR: Schools That Offer and Mean Percentage of Students in Dual Enrollment



Admission, 2010.



Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. The data came from the 2009




Appendix 308


INDICATOR: States with Alignment Between High School Standards or Graduation Requirements and College and Workplace Expectations

CalculationNumerator: Number of states, including the District of Columbia, with alignment

between high school standards or graduation requirements and college and

workplace expectations.


Sources/LinksAchieve, Inc., Closing the Expectations Gap — An Annual 50-State Progress

Report on the Alignment of High School Policies with the Demands of College

and Careers, 2010.

http://www.achieve.org/ClosingtheExpectationsGap2010

Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually through Achieve’s Annual Survey of

Policies. The year 2010 marks the fi fth annual Closing the Expectations Gap

report that came out of the American Diploma Project and the 2005 National

Education Summit on High Schools.


INDICATOR: States with College- and Career-Ready Assessment Systems or P–20 Longitudinal Data Systems

CalculationNumerator: Number of states, including the District of Columbia, with college-

and career-ready assessment systems or P–20 longitudinal data systems.


Sources/LinksAchieve, Inc., Closing the Expectations Gap — An Annual 50-State Progress

Report on the Alignment of High School Policies with the Demands of College

and Careers, 2010.

http://www.achieve.org/ClosingtheExpectationsGap2010

Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually through Achieve’s Annual Survey of

Policies. The year 2010 marks the fi fth annual Closing the Expectations Gap

report that came out of the American Diploma Project and the 2005 National

Education Summit on High Schools.


309


INDICATOR: States That Have Adopted the National Common Core Standards

CalculationNumerator: Number of states that have adopted the National Common

Core Standards.


Sources/LinksNational Governors Assocation and Council of Chief State School Offi cers.

http://www.corestandards.org

Data Availability/DiscussionThe National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and

the Council of Chief State School Offi cers (CCSSO) coordinate the Common

Core State Standards Initiative. The standards are meant to provide a framework

that will prepare children for college and the workforce, and were developed in

collaboration with teachers, school administrators and experts.


INDICATOR: First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in Remedial Courses after High School Graduation by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Age, Income, Institution Type, Attendance Intensity and Class Level

CalculationAs reported in Table 6.2.

Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, Profi le of Undergraduate Students:

2007–08, 2010.


http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/tables_listings/2010205.asp

Data Availability/DiscussionData have been gathered every three to four years since 1986–1987. In

the NPSAS survey, students respond to the question: “Since you completed

high school, have you taken remedial or developmental courses to improve

your basic skills, such as in mathematics, reading, writing or studying?”

This includes courses taken at a current or prior postsecondary institution.

Data Sources/Related LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08).

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/

Appendix 310


Recommendation Five: Improve teacher quality and focus on recruitment and retention

INDICATORS: States with Professional Development Standards; Finance Professional Development for All Districts; Require Districts and/or Schools to Set Aside Time for Professional Development; Require Districts to Align Professional Development with Local Priorities and Goals; Provide Incentives for Teachers to Earn National Board Certifi cation; Require Parental Notifi cation of Out-of-Field Teachers; Have a Ban or Cap on the Number of Out-of-Field Teachers; States in Which Teacher Evaluation Is Tied to Student Achievement; States in Which Teacher and Student Records Can Be Matched by Course/Subject and State Assessment Results; and States in Which Teachers Are Assigned a Unique Identifi cation Number

CalculationNumerator: Number of states listed on Web page, including the District

of Columbia.


Sources/LinksEducation Week, Quality Counts: The Teaching Profession, 2010.

http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2010/17sos.h29.teaching.pdf

Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered through an annual state survey and reported annually by the

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. The 2010 report marks the 14th

annual Quality Counts edition of this publication. The teaching profession was

one of several topics focused on in relation to the report’s special theme — the

debate over common academic standards.


INDICATOR: Public School Teachers of Grades Nine Through 12 by Field, Race/Ethnicity and Gender


Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2009.

http://nces.ed.gov/Programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_070.asp

Data Availability/DiscussionData have been gathered semi-regularly since 1987–1988 (generally every three

to four years). The School and Staffi ng Survey collects data from public, private,

and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. A sample of public charter schools was

311


included in the 2003–04 and 2007–08 surveys. It is the largest, most extensive

survey of K–12 school districts, schools, teachers and administrators in the

United States today.

Data Sources/Related LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School and Staffi ng Survey.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/

INDICATOR: Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctoral Degrees Earned in Education

CalculationNumerator: Number of degrees awarded in education.

Denominator: Total number of degrees awarded.

By education level: As reported in Tables 271 (Bachelor’s), 272 (Master’s) and

273 (Doctoral).

By race/ethnicity: As reported in Tables 286 (Bachelor’s), 289 (Master’s) and

292 (Doctoral).

By gender: As reported in Table 304.

By state: As reported in Tables 322 (Bachelor’s) and 323 (Master’s).


http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_271.asp?referrer=list









Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. Postsecondary institutions are required

to report degree completions by award level based on the Classifi cation of

Instructional Programs (CIP). Completion of IPEDS surveys is mandated for

institutions that participate in any federal fi nancial assistance program authorized

by Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965.

Data Sources/Related LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Completion Survey, 2000–2008.

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/DataFiles.aspx

National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information

(HEGIS) Degrees and Other Formal Awards Conferred Survey, 1997–1999.

Appendix 312


INDICATOR: Teachers Leaving the Profession by School Type, Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Age

CalculationBy school type: As reported in Table 1.

By race/ethnicity, gender and age: As reported in Table 2.

Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results

from the 2008-09 Teacher Follow-up Survey, 2010.


Data Availability/DiscussionData have been gathered semi-regularly since 1987–1988 (generally every three

to four years). The Teacher Follow-Up Survey is part of the School and Staffi ng

Survey (SASS), which collects data from public, private and Bureau of Indian

Affairs schools. A sample of public charter schools were included in the 2003-

04 and 2007-08 surveys. It is the largest, most extensive survey of K–12 school

districts, schools, teachers and administrators in the United States today.



INDICATOR: Public K–12 Teachers by Years of Teaching Experience by State Rank



http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_067.asp

Data Availability/DiscussionData have been gathered semi-regularly since 1987–1988 (generally every three to

four years). The School and Staffi ng Survey collects data from public, private and

Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. A sample of public charter schools were included in

the 2003–04 and 2007–08 surveys. It is the largest, most extensive survey of K–12

school districts, schools, teachers and administrators in the United States today.



313


Recommendation Six: Clarify and simplify the admission process

INDICATOR: Four-Year Colleges with Admission ApplicationsAvailable Online

CalculationNumerator: Number of four-year colleges, in the nation and by state, with

applications available online.

Denominator: Number of four-year colleges in the nation and by state.

Universe: Four-year degree-granting, not-for-profi t, Title IV–participating

institutions located in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Sources/LinksThe College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges, 2000–2008.

http://professionals.collegeboard.com/higher-ed/recruitment/annual-survey

National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics

Survey, 2001–2009.


Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. Public and private institutions

are included.


INDICATOR: Four-Year Colleges to Which Students Can Submit Admission Applications Online

CalculationNumerator: Number of four-year colleges, in the nation and by state, to which

students can submit applications online.




Sources/LinksThe College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges, 2000–2008.



Survey, 2001–2009.


Appendix 314


Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. Public and private institutions

are included.


INDICATOR: Four-Year Colleges That Use the Common Application, Universal College Application or Common Black College Application

CalculationNumerator: Number of four-year colleges, in the nation and by state, that accept

either the Common Application, Universal College Application or Common Black

College Application.




Sources/LinksList of institutions retrieved from Common Application, Universal College

Application and Common Black College Application websites in January 2010.

https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/Members.aspx

https://www.universalcollegeapp.com/index.cfm?ACT=Display&APP=APPONLI

NE&DSP=StudentCOLLEGEINFO

https://counselorlogin.com/application.asp


Survey, 2009.


Data Availability/DiscussionCommon Application data are available from 1975 to the present. Universal

College Application data are available from 2007 to the present. Common

Black College Application membership history was available only for 2009 to

the present. Member institutions are updated annually and include schools

from both the public and private sectors.


INDICATOR: States that have Statewide Common Application Systems for Public Four-Year Colleges and Universities

CalculationStates that have Statewide Common Application Systems for Public Four-Year

Colleges and Universities: Compiled by the College Board

Sources/LinksThe College Board, Advocacy & Policy Center

http://advocacy.collegeboard.org

315


Data Availability/DiscussionData was gathered by surveying each individual state higher education agency.

Data gathered by the College Board Advocacy & Policy Center.

Data Sources/Related LinksThe College Board

http://wwwcollegeboard.org

INDICATOR: High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-Year College Immediately Following High School Completion

CalculationOverall: As reported in Table A-20-1.

By race/ethnicity: As reported in Table A-20-3.

By gender: As reported in Table A-20-4.

By family income: As reported in Table A-20-1.

By parental education: As reported in Table A-20-2.



Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. High school completers include

individuals who earned a high school diploma or equivalency certifi cate

(e.g., GED).

Data Sources/Related LinksU.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 1998–2008.


INDICATOR: Rate of High School Graduates Going to College by State Rank



http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_211.asp

Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually.



Appendix 316


Recommendation Seven: Provide more need-based grant aid while simplifying the fi nancial aid process and making it more transparent

INDICATOR: Average Total Grant Aid per Low-Income Dependent Student

CalculationData have been converted into 2008 Constant Dollars using the Consumer Price

Index (CPI), which can be found at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/tables.asp

Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported every three years. NPSAS data come from

multiple sources, including institutional records, government databases

and student interviews.

Data Sources/Related LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study.


INDICATOR: National Average Annual Percentage Increase in Total Grant Aid per Dependent Student by Income




Aid Study.






Aid Study.


317


INDICATOR: National Average Annual Dollar Increase in Total Grant Aid per Dependent Student by Income




Aid Study.






Aid Study.


INDICATOR: Average Aid per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)


Sources/LinksThe College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011.

http://trends.collegeboard.org/


Data Sources/Related LinksThe College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011.

The College Board, Trends in Student Aid, 2011.

The College Board, Education Pays, 2010.


INDICATOR: Average Aid per Undergraduate FTE





Appendix 318






INDICATOR: Average Aid per Graduate FTE









INDICATOR: Total Undergraduate Student Aid by Source (in Billions)

CalculationAs reported in Figure 2a.



Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. Components may not sum to 100

percent because of rounding. See Notes and Sources for a list of programs

included in other federal grants. Nonfederal loans are not included here since

they involve no subsidy of any kind and are not actually a form of fi nancial aid.





319


INDICATOR: Number of Recipients of Federal Aid by Program (with Average Aid Received)

CalculationAs reported in Figure 2b.



Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. Both undergraduate and graduate

students are eligible for tax benefi ts, Perkins Loans, and Federal Work-Study

(FWS). Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity

Grants (FSEOG), Academic Competitiveness Grants (ACG), and SMART Grants

go to undergraduates only. Estimates for 2009 tax benefi ts are based on data

from 2008 and earlier years.





INDICATOR: Proportion of Undergraduate Students Borrowing Federal Stafford Loans

CalculationAs reported in Figure 6.



Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. Based on 12-month unduplicated

head count. Total enrollment for 2009-10 is estimated. Percentages may not

sum to 100 because of rounding. National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)

calculations by the authors.





NCES, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions and Financial Statistics and

Postsecondary Institutions and Price of Attendance in the United States, 2011,

U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Postsecondary Education;


Appendix 320


INDICATOR: Average Total Debt Levels of Bachelor’s Degree Recipients

CalculationAs Reported in Figures 10a and 10b.



Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. Both undergraduate and graduate

students are eligible for tax benefi ts, Perkins Loans and Federal Work-Study

(FWS). Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity

Grants (FSEOG), Academic Competitiveness Grants (ACG) and SMART Grants

go to undergraduates only. Estimates for 2009 tax benefi ts are based on data

from 2008 and earlier years.





INDICATOR: Distribution of Total Undergraduate Debt by Sector andType of Degree

CalculationAs reported in Figures 9a and 9b.



Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. Data include federal loans, nonfederal

loans, and loans from states and institutions. Parent PLUS Loans, credit card

debt, and loans from friends and family are not included. Percentages may not

sum to 100 because of rounding. Data include students who attended less than

half time (13 percent of students), and who do not qualify for Stafford loans but

do qualify for some nonfederal loans.





National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study, 2008.


321


INDICATOR: Simplifying the Federal Student Aid System and the Application Process

CalculationN/A

Sources/LinksN/A

Data Availability/DiscussionN/A


INDICATOR: Implementation of Policies Designed to Provide Incentives for Institutions to Promote Enrollment and Success of Low-Income and First-Generation Students

CalculationN/A

Sources/LinksN/A

Data Availability/DiscussionN/A


Recommendation Eight: Keep college affordable

INDICATOR: Educational Fiscal Support

CalculationAs reported in Figure 10b.

Sources/LinksThe College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2011.







Appendix 322


The College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges.


INDICATOR: Educational Fiscal Support per FTE











INDICATOR: Educational Fiscal Support by State Rank

CalculationAs reported in the Public Postsecondary Enrollment, Net Tuition Revenue and

Educational Appropriations per FTE, 1984–2010 data table.

Sources/LinksState Higher Education Finance, State Higher Education Executive Offi cers

(SHEEO).

http://www.sheeo.org/fi nance/shef/shef_data10.htm


Data Sources/Related LinksState Higher Education Finance, State Higher Education Executive Offi cers

(SHEEO).

http://www.sheeo.org

INDICATOR: Educational Fiscal Support per FTE by State Rank

CalculationAs reported in the Public Postsecondary Enrollment, Net Tuition Revenue and

Educational Appropriations per FTE, 1984–2010 data table.

Sources/LinksState Higher Education Finance, State Higher Education Executive Offi cers

(SHEEO).

http://www.sheeo.org/fi nance/shef/shef_data10.htm

323



Data Sources/Related LinksState Higher Education Finance, State Higher Education Executive Offi cers

(SHEEO).

http://www.sheeo.org

INDICATOR: Average Estimated Undergraduate Budgets by Type and Control of Institution (Enrollment Weighted)











INDICATOR: Average Published Charges for Undergraduates by Carnegie Classifi cation

CalculationAs reported in Table 1b.










Appendix 324


INDICATOR: Average Annual Percentage Increases in Infl ation-Adjusted Published Prices by Decade

CalculationAs reported in Figure 4.










NCES, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

INDICATOR: National Average Published Tuition and Fees Charges

CalculationAs reported in Tables 1a and 1b.



Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. For 1987–1988 and after: Annual

Survey of Colleges (The College Board), weighted by full-time undergraduate

enrollment; 1986–87 and prior: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data

System (IPEDS), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics, weighted by full-time equivalent enrollment.






NCES, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/


325


INDICATOR: In-State Published Tuition Prices at Public Two-Year Institutions by State Rank

CalculationAs reported in Table 1a.










INDICATOR: In-State Published Tuition Prices at Public Four-Year Institutions by State Rank











INDICATOR: In-State Published Tuition Prices at Private Four-Year Institutions by State Rank




Appendix 326









INDICATOR: Published Net Tuition and Fees for Full-Time Undergraduate Students




Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. Numbers are rounded to the nearest

10s. Net tuition and fees are calculated by subtracting estimated average grant

aid plus tax benefi ts per full-time student in the sector from the published price.

Aggregate aid amounts are from Trends in Student Aid, 2010. Division of total

aid across sectors and between full-time and part-time students is based on the

NPSAS, 1993 through 2008.





INDICATOR: Growth in Mean Family Income by Quintile







327




U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Table F-1 and Table F-3.

INDICATOR: Average Earnings of Full-Time Workers Ages 25 to 34

CalculationN/A

Sources/LinksU.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009



Recommendation Nine: Dramatically increase college completion rates

INDICATOR: Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates

CalculationNumerator: Number of students from the fi rst-time adjusted cohort enrolled in

given fall, aggregated by sector, state and/or attendance status.

Denominator: Number of students from the fi rst-time adjusted cohort enrolled

in previous fall, aggregated by sector, state and/or attendance status.

Universe: Degree-granting, Title IV–participating institutions.

Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Enrollment and Institutional

Characteristics Surveys, 2007–2008.



to report cohort enrollment numbers through which IPEDS computes retention

rates. Completion of IPEDS surveys is mandated for institutions that participate

in any federal fi nancial assistance program authorized by Title IV of the Higher

Education Act (HEA) of 1965.

Although retention data were collected on the 2003–2006 surveys, there were

problems with the data such that institutions were confused about which students

to report on (e.g., full-time versus all, original versus adjusted cohort). This led to

changes in the 2007 survey, where institutions now report the raw numbers as

opposed to a percentage based on a formula outlined in the directions.

Appendix 328



INDICATOR: Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges

CalculationNumerator: Number of students who completed a degree or certifi cate program

within 150 percent of normal time, aggregated by sector, race/ethnicity and/

or state.

Denominator: Number of degree- and certifi cate-seeking students in the

adjusted cohort (revised fi rst-time, full-time cohort minus exclusions),

aggregated by sector, race/ethnicity and/or state.

Universe: Two-year, degree-granting, Title IV–participating institutions

Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Graduation Rate and Institutional




to report completion data by race/ethnicity and gender but do not separate

certifi cate-seeking from degree-seeking students. Completion of IPEDS surveys

is mandated for institutions that participate in any federal fi nancial assistance

program authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965.

The graduation rate survey was developed to help institutions comply with

requirements of the Student Right-to-Know Act of 1990.

The 2008 survey contained signifi cant changes in the reporting of data on race

and ethnicity, and institutions had the option to report under old or new race/

ethnicity categories. This may present challenges in comparing graduation rates

by race/ethnicity from 2008 to prior or subsequent years or rates from prior to

2008 to those from after 2008.


INDICATOR: Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges

CalculationNumerator: Number of students who completed a degree or certifi cate program

within 200 percent of normal time, aggregated by sector and/or state.

Denominator: Number of degree- and certifi cate-seeking students in the

adjusted cohort (revised cohort minus exclusions), aggregated by sector and/

or state.

Universe: Two-year, degree-granting, Title IV–participating institutions.

329


Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Graduation Rates 200% and

Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008.


Data Availability/DiscussionData will be gathered and reported annually. Completion of IPEDS surveys



This survey was developed to fulfi ll requirements in the Higher Education

Opportunity Act of 2008.


INDICATOR: Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students

CalculationNumerator: Number of students who completed a bachelor’s degree or

equivalent program within 150 percent of normal time, aggregated by sector,

race/ethnicity and/or state.

Denominator: Number of bachelor’s degree–seeking students in the adjusted

cohort (revised fi rst-time, full-time cohort minus exclusions), aggregated by

sector, race/ethnicity and/or state.

Universe: Four-year, degree-granting, Title IV–participating institutions

Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Graduation Rate and Institutional




to report completion data by race/ethnicity and gender. Completion of IPEDS

surveys is mandated for institutions that participate in any federal fi nancial

assistance program authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of

1965. The graduation rate survey was developed to help institutions comply with







Appendix 330



INDICATOR: Six-Year Bachelor’s Degree Attainment Rates of Students

CalculationAs reported in Tables 3 and 6.

Sources/LinksRadford, A.W., Berkner, L., Wheeless, S. C., and Shepherd, B. (2010).

Persistence and Attainment of 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students:

After 6 Years (NCES 2011-151). National Center for Education Statistics:

Washington, D.C.


Data Availability/DiscussionThe Beginning Postsecondary Student (BPS) surveys fi rst-time beginning

students at three points in time: at the end of their fi rst year (2003–2004),

and then three (2005–2006) and six years (2008–2009) after fi rst starting in

postsecondary education. Roughly 16,700 students were in the fi nal sample.

This is the third cohort of fi rst-time beginners tracked by the National Center

for Education Statistics since 1990.

Data Sources/Related LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, Beginning Postsecondary Student

Survey, BPS:04/09.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/bps/

INDICATOR: Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students

CalculationNumerator: Number of students who completed a bachelor’s degree or

equivalent program within 200 percent of normal time, aggregated by sector

and/or state.

Denominator: Number of bachelor’s degree–seeking students in the adjusted

cohort (revised cohort minus exclusions), aggregated by sector and or state.

Universe: Four-year, degree-granting, Title IV–participating institutions

Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Graduation Rates 200% and

Institutional Characteristics Surveys, 2008.


Data Availability/DiscussionData will be gathered and reported annually. Completion of IPEDS surveys



This survey was developed to fulfi ll requirements in the Higher Education

Opportunity Act of 2008.

331



INDICATOR: Degrees Awarded By Colleges and Universities

CalculationNumber of degrees awarded, aggregated by degree-type, sector, race/ethnicity

and/or state.

Universe: degree-granting, Title IV–participating institutions

Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Completion and Institutional




to report completion data by race/ethnicity and gender. Completion of IPEDS

surveys is mandated for institutions that participate in any federal fi nancial

assistance program authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of

1965. The graduation rate survey was developed to help institutions comply with








Recommendation Ten: Provide postsecondary opportunities as an essential element of adult education programs

INDICATOR: Educational Attainment of Adults Ages 25 to 34

CalculationNumerator: Number of males and females, ages 25 to 34, in the nation and

aggregated by state in each of the following categories: less than a high school

diploma; high school diploma; some college; associate degree or higher.

Denominator: Number of males and females ages 25 to 34 in the nation and

by state.

Appendix 332


Sources/LinksU.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year

Estimates, Table B15001.



Data Availability/DiscussionData are gathered and reported annually. The fi ve-year ACS estimates were

selected in order to reduce the margin of error in the population estimates.

Data Sources/Related Linkshttp://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/factsheet.html

INDICATOR: Educational Attainment of Adults Ages 25 to 34 by Race/Ethnicity

CalculationNumerator: Number of adults ages 25 to 34 by race/ethnicity in each of the

following categories: less than a high school diploma; high school diploma;

some college; associate degree or higher.

Denominator: Number of adults ages 25 to 34 by race/ethnicity.

Sources/LinksU.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2009/tables.html




INDICATOR: Adults Ages 25 to 34 with No High School Diploma Who Are GED Candidates

CalculationNumerator: Number of 25- to 34-year-olds who completed at least one GED test

in the nation and by state, derived from “Percentage of GED Candidates, by Age

Group” table (e.g., Table 2 in 2005, Appendix B in 2009).

Denominator: Number of males and females ages 25 to 34, in the nation and by

state, with less than a ninth-grade education or a ninth- to 12th-grade education

with no diploma, reported in Table B15001.

Sources/LinksAmerican Council on Education 2005–2009 Annual Statistical Reports (Table 2 or

Appendix B).

http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ged/pubs/2009ASR.pdf

http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ged/pubs/GED_Archived_

Annual_.htm

333


U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year




Data Availability/DiscussionGED data are gathered and reported annually. Annual reports are available from

1958 to the present. One-, three- and fi ve-year ACS population estimates are

available. The denominator in this indicator stemmed from the fi ve-year ACS

estimates, as they contain the smallest margin of error.


INDICATOR: Adults Ages 25 to 34 with No High School Diploma Who Attain a GED

CalculationNumerator: Number of 25- to 34-year-olds who earned a GED in the nation

and by state, derived from the “Percentage of GED Passers, by Age Group”

table (e.g., Table 9 in 2005, Appendix L in 2009).

Denominator: Number of males and females ages 25 to 34, in the nation and by

state, with less than a ninth-grade education or a ninth- to 12th-grade education

with no diploma, reported in Table B15001.

Sources/LinksAmerican Council on Education 2005–2009 Annual Statistical Reports (Table 9 or

Appendix L).

http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ged/pubs/2009ASR.pdf

http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ged/pubs/GED_Archived_

Annual_.htm

U.S. Census Bureau, 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year




Data Availability/Discussion GED data are gathered and reported annually. Annual reports are available from

1958 to the present. One-, three- and fi ve-year ACS population estimates are

available. The denominator in this indicator stemmed from the fi ve-year ACS

estimates, as they contain the smallest margin of error.


Appendix 334


INDICATOR: Adults Ages 25 to 34 Enrolled in Postsecondary Education

CalculationNumerator: Number of 25- to 34-year-olds enrolled in undergraduate study at

postsecondary institutions in the nation and by state.

Denominator: Number of 25- to 34-year-olds in the nation and by state, reported

in Table B15001.

Sources/LinksNational Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS Enrollment Survey, 2003–2007.


U.S. Census Bureau, 2003, 2005 and 2007 American Community Survey

One-Year Estimates; 2005–2009 American Community Survey Five-Year





to report enrollment data annually but only report enrollment by age range

every other year. Completion of IPEDS surveys is mandated for institutions that

participate in any federal fi nancial assistance program authorized by Title IV of

the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965.

One-, three- and fi ve-year ACS population estimates are available. The denominators

in Figure 10.3a are from the one-year estimates. The denominators for Figure 10.3b

are from the fi ve-year estimates, as they contain the smallest margin of error.


335


A Percentage of 25- to 34-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree

or Higher, 2008

B Percentage of 25- to 64-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree

or Higher, 2008

C Percentage of 55- to 64-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree

or Higher, 2008

D Percentage of 25- to 34-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree

or Higher in the United States, 2000–2009

E Percentage of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher in the

United States by Race/Ethnicity and Age, 2009

F Percentage of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher in the

United States by Age, 2009

G Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with an Associate Degree

or Higher in the United States by State Rank, 2009

Figure 1.1a National Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool

or Kindergarten Programs by Age, 2006–2008

Figure 1.1b Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or

Kindergarten Programs by Race/Ethnicity, 2006–2008

Figure 1.1c Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or

Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

Figure 1.1d Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten

Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

Figure 1.1e Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten

Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

Figure 1.1f Percentage of Asian 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool

or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

List of Figures

Appendix 336


Figure 1.1g Percentage of American Indian or Alaska Native 3- and 4-Year-

Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State

Rank, 2006–2008

Figure 1.1h Percentage of Black 3- and 4-Year Olds Enrolled in Preschool or


Figure 1.1i Percentage of Hispanic 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool

or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

Figure 1.1j Percentage of White 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or


Figure 1.1k Percentage of Two or More Races 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in

Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

Figure 1.2a Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K

Programs by State Rank, 2009

Figure 1.2b Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K


Figure 1.2c Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K


Figure 1.3a Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start


Figure 1.3b Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs

by State Rank, 2009

Figure 1.3c Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs

by State Rank, 2009

Figure 2.1a National Student-to-Counselor Ratio, 1998–2009

Figure 2.1b Student-to-Counselor Ratio by State Rank, 2009

Figure 2.1c National Student-to-College-Counselor Ratio by School Type,

2005–2009

Figure 2.2 States with Comprehensive School Counseling Programs

Figure 2.3a Percentage of Secondary Schools That Require Professional

Development by School Type, 2006–2009

337


Figure 2.3b Percentage of Secondary Schools That Cover All Professional

Development Costs by School Type, 2006–2009

Figure 2.4a Percentage of Counselors’ Time Spent on Postsecondary

Admission Counseling by School Type, 2004–2009

Figure 2.4b Percentage of Counselors’ Time Spent on Tasks by School

Type, 2009

Figure 3.1a National Average Graduation Rates for Public High School

Students, 2003–2008

Figure 3.1b National Average Graduation Rates for Public High School

Students by Race/Ethnicity, 2006–2008

Figure 3.1c Average Graduation Rates for Public High School Students

by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.1d Average Graduation Rates for Asian American or Pacifi c Islander

Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.1e Average Graduation Rates for American Indian or Alaska Native

Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.1f Average Graduation Rates for African American Public High

School Students by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.1g Average Graduation Rates for Hispanic Public High School

Students by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.1h Average Graduation Rates for White Public High School

Students by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.1i States with Exit Examinations, 2010

Figure 3.1j States Where End-of-Course Exams Are Used as the Exit

Exam, 2010

Figure 3.1k States That Have Reciprocity with Other States’ Exit

Exams, 2010

Figure 3.1l States with Substitute Assessments, 2010

Figure 3.1m States with Alternative Diploma or Certifi cate, 2010

Figure 3.2a National Status Dropout Rates — Excluding Institutional

Populations, 1999–2008

Appendix 338


Figure 3.2b National Status Dropout Rates by Race/Ethnicity — Excluding

Institutional Populations, 2008

Figure 3.2c National Status Dropout Rates by Gender — Excluding


Figure 3.2d National Status Dropout Rates by Age — Excluding Institutional

Populations, 2008

Figure 3.3a National Status Dropout Rates — Including Institutional

Populations, 1999–2008

Figure 3.3b National Status Dropout Rates by Race/Ethnicity — Including


Figure 3.3c National Status Dropout Rates by Gender — Including


Figure 3.3d National Status Dropout Rates by Age — Including Institutional

Populations, 2008

Figure 3.4a National Event Dropout Rates of Public High School Students

in Grades 9–12, 2003–2008

Figure 3.4b National Event Dropout Rates of Public High School Students

in Grades 9–12 by Race/Ethnicity, 2006–2008

Figure 3.4c National Event Dropout Rates of Public High School Students

in Grades 9–12 by Gender, 2008

Figure 3.4d State Statutory Age When Students Can Legally Drop Out, 2010

Figure 3.4e Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in Grades 9–12

by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.4f Event Dropout Rates for Asian American or Pacifi c Islander

Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.4g Event Dropout Rates for American Indian or Alaska Native

Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.4h Event Dropout Rates for African American Public School

Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008

339


Figure 3.4i Event Dropout Rates for White Public School Students

in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.4j Event Dropout Rates for Hispanic Public School Students

in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.4k Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in Ninth Grade

by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.4l Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in 10th Grade

by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.4m Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in 11th Grade

by State Rank, 2008

Figure 3.4n Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in 12th Grade

by State Rank, 2008

Figure 4.1a Percentage of Public High Schools Offering AP or IB Courses

in the Four Core Subject Areas, 2010

Figure 4.1b Percentage of Public High Schools Offering Advanced

Placement (AP) in the Four Core Subject Areas, 2010

Figure 4.1c Student Population of Public High School and AP Examinees

by Race/Ethnicity for the Class of 2010

Figure 4.1d Percentage of Public High School Students Taking an AP Exam,

Class of 2010

Figure 4.1e Percentage of Public High School Students Scoring 3 or Higher

on an AP Exam, Class of 2010

Figure 4.1f Percentage of Public High Schools Offering IB Courses in the

Four Core Subject Areas, 2010

Figure 4.2a National Percentage of Schools That Offer Dual Enrollment and

Mean Percentage of Students Enrolled in Dual Enrollment, 2009

Figure 4.2b National Percentage of Schools That Offer Dual Enrollment

and Mean Percentage of Students Enrolled in Dual Enrollment,

by Control of Institution, 2009

Figure 4.2c National Percentage of Schools That Offer Dual Enrollment

and Mean Percentage of Students Enrolled in Dual Enrollment,

by School Enrollment, 2009

Appendix 340


Figure 4.2d National Percentage of Schools That Offer Dual Enrollment and

Mean Percentage of Students Enrolled in Dual Enrollment Who

Receive Free or Reduced-Price Lunches, 2009

Figure 4.3a Percentage of States with Alignment Between High School

Standards and College and Workplace Expectations, 2010

Figure 4.3b Percentage of States with Alignment Between High School

Graduation Requirements and College and Workplace

Expectations, 2010

Figure 4.3c Percentage of States with College- and Career-Ready

Assessment Systems, 2010

Figure 4.3d Percentage of States with P–20 Longitudinal Data Systems,

2010

Figure 4.3e Percentage of States That Have Adopted the National Common

Core Standards, 2010

Figure 4.4a Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in

Remedial Courses After High School Graduation, 2008

Figure 4.4b Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in

Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Race/

Ethnicity, 2008

Figure 4.4c Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in

Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Gender,

2008

Figure 4.4d Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in

Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Age, 2008

Figure 4.4e Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in

Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Income,

2008

Figure 4.4f Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in

Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Institutional

Type, 2008

Figure 4.4g Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in

Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Attendance

Intensity, 2008

341


Figure 4.4h Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in

Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Attendance

Intensity, 2008

Figure 4.4i Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in

Remedial Courses After High School Graduation by Class

Level, 2008

Figure 5.1a States with Professional Development Standards, 2010

Figure 5.1b States That Finance Professional Development for All Districts,

2010

Figure 5.1c States That Require Districts/Schools to Set Aside Time for

Professional Development, 2010

Figure 5.1d States That Require Districts to Align Professional Development

with Local Priorities and Goals, 2010

Figure 5.1e States That Provide Incentives for Teachers to Earn National

Board Certifi cation, 2010

Figure 5.2a Percentage of Public School Teachers of Grades 9 Through 12

by Field, 2008

Figure 5.2b Percentage of Public School Teachers of Grades 9 Through 12

in Mathematics and Science Fields by Race/Ethnicity, 2008

Figure 5.2c Percentage of Public School Teachers of Grades 9 Through 12

in Mathematics and Science Fields by Gender, 2008

Figure 5.3a States That Require Parental Notifi cation of Out-of-Field

Teachers, 2010

Figure 5.3b States That Have a Ban or Cap on the Number of Out-of-Field

Teachers, 2010

Figure 5.4a Percentage of Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctoral Degrees Earned

in Education, 1997–2008

Figure 5.4b Percentage of Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctoral Degrees Earned

in Education by Race/Ethnicity, 2008

Figure 5.4c Percentage of Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctoral Degrees Earned

in Education by Gender, 2008

Appendix 342


Figure 5.4d Percentage of Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees Earned in

Education by State Rank, 2008

Figure 5.4e Percentage of Bachelor’s Degrees Earned in Education by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 5.4f Percentage of Master’s Degrees Earned in Education by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 5.5a National Percentage of Teachers Leaving the Profession by

School Type, 1989–2009

Figure 5.5b National Percentage of Teachers Leaving the Profession by

Race/Ethnicity, 2009

Figure 5.5c National Percentage of Teachers Leaving the Profession by

Gender, 2009

Figure 5.5d National Percentage of Teachers Leaving the Profession by

Age, 2009

Figure 5.6a Percentage of States in Which Teacher Evaluation Is Tied to

Student Achievement, 2010

Figure 5.6b Percentage of States in Which Teacher and Student Records

Can Be Matched by Course/Subject and State Assessment

Results, 2010

Figure 5.6c Percentage of States in Which Teachers Are Assigned a Unique

Identifi cation Number, 2010

Figure 5.7 Percentage of Public K–12 Teachers by Years of Teaching

Experience by State, 2008

Figure 6.1a National Percentage of Four-Year Colleges with Admission

Applications Available Online, 2001–2009

Figure 6.1b Percentage of Four-Year Colleges with Admission Applications

Available Online by State Rank, 2009

Figure 6.2a National Percentage of Four-Year Colleges to Which Students

Can Submit Admission Applications Online, 2001–2009

Figure 6.2b Percentage of Four-Year Colleges to Which Students Can

Submit Admission Applications Online by State Rank, 2009

343


Figure 6.3a National Percentage of Four-Year Colleges That Use the

Common Application, Universal College Application or Common

Black College Application, 2000–2009

Figure 6.3b Percentage of Four-Year Colleges That Use the Common

Application, Universal College Application or Common Black

College Application by State Rank, 2009

Figure 6.3c States with Statewide Common Applications for Public Four-

Year College and Universities, 2011

Figure 6.4a Percentage of High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-

Year Colleges Immediately Following High School Completion,

1998–2008

Figure 6.4b Percentage of High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-

Year Colleges Immediately Following High School Completion

by Race/Ethnicity, 1998–2008

Figure 6.4c Percentage of High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-


by Gender, 1998–2008

Figure 6.4d Percentage of High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-


by Family Income, 1998–2008

Figure 6.4e Percentage of High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-


by Parental Education, 1998–2008

Figure 6.4f Rate of High School Graduates Going to College by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 6.4g Rate of High School Graduates Going to College In State by

State Rank, 2008

Figure 6.4h Rate of High School Graduates Going to College Out of State

by State Rank, 2008

Figure 7.1a National Total Grant Aid per Low-Income Dependent Student,

1996–2008 (in Constant 2008 Dollars)

Figure 7.1b Average Percentage Change in Total Grant Aid per Dependent

Student by Income, 2004–2008 (in Constant 2008 Dollars)

Appendix 344


Figure 7.1c National Average Dollar Increase in Total Grant Aid per

Dependent Student by Income, 2004–2008 (in Constant

2008 Dollars)

Figure 7.1d Average Aid per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Student in Constant

2010 Dollars, 1973-74 to 2010-11

Figure 7.1e Average Aid per Undergraduate FTE in Constant 2010 Dollars,

1995-96 to 2010-11

Figure 7.1f Average Aid per Graduate FTE in Constant 2010 Dollars,

1995-96 to 2010-11

Figure 7.1g Total Undergraduate Student Aid by Source (in Billions), 2010-11

Figure 7.1h Number of Recipients of Federal Aid by Program (with Average

Aid Received), 2009-10

Figure 7.1i Proportion of Undergraduate Students Borrowing Federal

Stafford Loans, 2000-01, 2005-06 and 2010-11

Figure 7.2a Public Four Year: Average Total Debt Levels of Bachelor’s Degree

Recipients in Constant 2010 Dollars, 1999–2000 to 2009-10

Figure 7.2b Private Nonprofi t Four Year: Average Total Debt Levels of

Bachelor’s Degree Recipients in Constant 2010 Dollars,

1999–2000 to 2009-10

Figure 7.2c Distribution of Total Undergraduate Debt by Sector and Type of

Degree or Certifi cate, 2007-08

Figure 7.2d Median Debt Levels of 2007-08 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients

at Public Four-Year Institutions Who Borrowed and Percentage

with Debt, by Dependency Status and Family Income

Figure 7.2e Median Debt Levels of 2007-08 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients

at Private Nonprofi t Four-Year Institutions Who Borrowed and

Percentage with Debt, by Dependency Status and Family

Income

Figure 7.2f Median Debt Levels of 2007-08 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients at

For-Profi t Four-Year Institutions Who Borrowed and Percentage

with Debt, by Dependency Status and Family Income

Figure 8.1a Total Appropriations in Constant 2010 Dollars (in Billions),

1980-81 to 2010-11

345


Figure 8.1b Appropriations per Public FTE Student in Constant 2010 Dollars

(in Thousands), 1980-81 to 2010-11

Figure 8.1c Educational Fiscal Support by State Rank, FY 2010–2011

Figure 8.1d Educational Fiscal Support per FTE by State Rank,

FY 2010–2011

Figure 8.2a Average Estimated Undergraduate Budgets by Type and Control

of Institution, 2011–12 (Enrollment Weighted)

Figure 8.2b Average Published Charges for Undergraduates by Carnegie

Classifi cation, 2011-12 (Enrollment Weighted)

Figure 8.2c Average Annual Percentage Increases in Infl ation-Adjusted

Published Prices by Decade, 1981-82 to 2011-12

Figure 8.2d Infl ation-Adjusted Published Tuition and Fees Relative to

1981-82, 1981-82 to 2011-12 (1981-82 = 100)

Figure 8.2e In-State Tuition Prices at Public Two-Year Institutions by State

Rank, 2011–2012

Figure 8.2f In-State Tuition Prices at Public Four-Year Institutions by State

Rank, 2011–2012

Figure 8.2g Tuition Prices at Private Four-Year Institutions by State Rank,

2011–2012

Figure 8.3 Average Net Tuition and Fees, and Room and Board in Constant

2011 Dollars for Full-Time Undergraduate Students, 2011-12

(Estimated)

Figure 8.4 Percentage Change in Infl ation-Adjusted Mean Family Income

by Quintile, 1980–1990, 1990–2000 and 2000–2010

Figure 8.5 Average Earnings of Full-Time Workers Ages 25–34, 2009

Figure 9.1a National Full-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates,

2007–2008

Figure 9.1b National Part-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates,

2007–2008

Figure 9.1c Full-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Public

Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Appendix 346


Figure 9.1d Full-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Public

Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.1e Full-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Private

Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2a National Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-

Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges, 2002–2008

Figure 9.2b National Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-

Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by Race/Ethnicity, 2008

Figure 9.2c Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking

Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2d Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking

Students at Public Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2e Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking

Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2f Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-

Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by

State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2g Three-Year Graduation Rates of Asian, Native Hawaiian and

Other Pacifi c Islander Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students

at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2h Three-Year Graduation Rates of American Indian or Alaska

Native Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year

Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2i Three-Year Graduation Rates of African American Degree-

and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2j Three-Year Graduation Rates of Hispanic Degree- and

Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2k Three-Year Graduation Rates of White Degree- and Certifi cate-

Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

347


Figure 9.2l National Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-

Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges, 2008

Figure 9.2m Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking

Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2n Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking

Students at Public Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2o Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking

Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 9.2p Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking

Students at Private For-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 9.3a National Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–

Seeking Students, 2002–2008

Figure 9.3b National Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–

Seeking Students by Race/Ethnicity, 2008

Figure 9.3c Six-Year Bachelor’s Degree Attainment Rates of Students

Beginning at Four-Year Colleges, 2003–2004

Figure 9.3d Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking

Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.3e Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking

Students at Public Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.3f Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking

Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 9.3g Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking

Students at Private For-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 9.3h Six-Year Graduation Rates of Asian, Native Hawaiian and

Other Pacifi c Islander Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students

at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.3i Six-Year Graduation Rates of American Indian or Alaska Native

Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by

State Rank, 2008

Appendix 348


Figure 9.3j Six-Year Graduation Rates of Black or African American

Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges

by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.3k Six-Year Graduation Rates of Hispanic or Latino Bachelor’s

Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 9.3l Six-Year Graduation Rates of White Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking


Figure 9.3m National Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–

Seeking Students, 2008

Figure 9.3n Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking


Figure 9.3o Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking

Students at Public Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

Figure 9.3p Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking

Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 9.3q Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Degree–Seeking

Students at Private For-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State

Rank, 2008

Figure 9.4a Number of Degrees Awarded by Degree Type for the Nation

from 2001–2009

Figure 9.4b Number of Degrees Granted in the Nation by Sector, 2009

Figure 9.4c Number of Degrees Granted in the Nation by Race/Ethnicity,

2009

Figure 9.4d Number of Degrees Granted by Gender, 2009

Figure 9.4e Total Degrees Awarded by Major CIP Code, 2009

Figure 9.4f Number of Associate Degrees Awarded by State Rank, 2009

Figure 9.4g Number of Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by State Rank, 2009

Figure 9.4h Number of Master’s Degrees Awarded by State Rank, 2009

Figure 9.4i Number of Doctoral Degrees Awarded by State Rank, 2009

349


Figure 9.4j Number of Professional Degrees Awarded by State Rank, 2009

Figure 10.1a National Educational Attainment of Adults Ages 25–34, 2009

Figure 10.1b National Educational Attainment of Adults Ages 25–34 by Race/

Ethnicity, 2009

Figure 10.1c Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Less Than a High School

Diploma by State Rank, 2009

Figure 10.1d Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Only a High School

Diploma but No College by State Rank, 2009

Figure 10.1e Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Some College but No

Degree by State Rank, 2009

Figure 10.2a National Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School

Diploma Who Were GED Candidates, 2005–2009

Figure 10.2b Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School Diploma

Who Were GED Candidates by State Rank, 2009

Figure 10.2c National Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School

Diploma Who Attained a GED, 2005–2009

Figure 10.2d Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School Diploma

Who Attained a GED by State Rank, 2009

Figure 10.3a National Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 Enrolled in

Postsecondary Education, 2003–2007

Figure 10.3b Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 Enrolled in Postsecondary

Education, 2007

Appendix 350


Overview

Fig. Description US Average

A Percentage of 25- to 34-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree or Higher, 2008 41.6%

B Percentage of 25- to 64-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree or Higher, 2008 41.1%

C Percentage of 55- to 64-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree or Higher, 2008 40.0%

D Percentage of 25- to 34-Year-Olds with an Associate Degree or Higher in the United States, 2000–2009 41.1%

Recommendation OneProvide a program of voluntary preschool education, universally available to children from low-income families


1.1c Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008 47.5%

1.1d Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008 34.4%

1.1e Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008 60.7%

1.1f Percentage of Asian 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008 53.3%

1.1g Percentage of American Indian and/or Alaska Native 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008 45.0%

1.1h Percentage of Black 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008 52.5%

1.1i Percentage of Hispanic 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008 38.5%

1.1j Percentage of White 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008 49.8%

1.1k Percentage of Two or More Races 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008 49.9%

1.2a Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K Programs by State Rank, 2009 14.6%

1.2b Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K Programs by State Rank, 2009 3.7%

1.2c Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State Funded Pre-K Programs by State Rank, 2009 25.4%

1.3a Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs by State Rank, 2009 8.6%

1.3b Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs by State Rank, 2009 7.1%

1.3c Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs by State Rank, 2009 10.0%

Recommendation TwoImprove middle school and high school college counseling


2.1b Student-to-Counselor Ratio by State Rank, 2009 457

2.1c National Student-to-College Counselor Ratio by School Type, 2005–2009 320

2.2 States with Comprehensive School Counseling Programs, 2008 62.7%

2.3a Percentage of Secondary Schools That Require Professional Development by School Type, 2006–2009 31.3%

2.3b Percentage of Secondary Schools That Cover All Professional Development Costs by School Type, 2006-2009 32.2%

2.4a Percentage of Counselors' Time Spent on Postsecondary Admission Counseling by School Type, 2004–2009 26.0%

National Summary

351


Recommendation ThreeImplement the best research-based dropout prevention programs


3.1c Average Graduation Rates for Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008 74.9%

3.1d Average Graduation Rates for Asian American/Pacifi c Islander Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008 91.4%

3.1e Average Graduation Rates for American Indian/Alaska Native Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008 64.2%

3.1f Average Graduation Rates for African American Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008 61.5%

3.1g Average Graduation Rates for Hispanic Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008 63.5%

3.1h Average Graduation Rates for White Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008 81.0%

3.1i States with Exit Examinations, 2010 49.0%

3.1j States Where End-of-Course Exams Are Used as the Exit Exam, 2010 19.6%

3.1k States That Have Reciprocity with Other States' Exit Exams, 2010 13.7%

3.1l States with Substitute Assessments, 2010 23.5%

3.1m States with Alternative Diploma or Certifi cate, 2010 17.7%

3.2a National Status Dropout Rates — Excluding Institutional Populations, 1999-2008 8.0%

3.3a National Status Dropout Rates — Including Institutional Populations, 1999-2008 9.1%

3.4d State Statutory Age when Students Can Legally Drop Out, 2010 17

3.4e Event Dropout Rates forPublic High School Students in Grades 9-12 by State Rank, 2008 4

3.4f Event Dropout Rates for Asian American or Pacifi c Islander Public High School Students in Grades 9-12 by State Rank, 2008 2.4%

3.4g Event Dropout Rates for American Indian or Alaska Native Public High School Students in Grades 9-12 by State Rank, 2008 7.3%

3.4h Event Dropout Rates for African American Public High School Students in Grades 9-12 by State Rank, 2008 6.7%

3.4i Event Dropout Rates for White Public School Students in Grades 9-12 by State Rank, 2008 2.8%

3.4j Event Dropout Rates for Hispanic Public School Students in Grades 9-12 by State Rank, 2008 6.0%

3.4k Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in Ninth Grade by State Rank, 2008 3.0%

3.4l Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in 10th Grade by State Rank, 2008 3.6%

3.4m Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in 11th Grade by State Rank, 2008 4.0%

3.4n Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in 12th Grade by State Rank, 2008 6.1%

Recommendation FourAlign the K–12 education system with international standards and college admission expectations


4.1a Percentage of Public High Schools Offering AP or IB Courses in the Four Core Subject Areas, 2010 33.7%

4.1b Percentage of Public High Schools Offering Advanced Placement (AP) in the Four Core Subject Areas, 2010 32.6%

4.1g Percentage of Public High School Students Taking an AP Exam, Class of 2010 28.3%

4.1h Percentage of Public High School Students Scoring 3 or Higher on an AP Exam, Class of 2010 16.9%

4.1i AP Equity and excellence achieved by African American students in the Class of 2010 26.7%

4.1j AP Equity and excellence achieved by Hispanic Students in the Class of 2010 86.9%

4.1k AP Equity and excellence achieved by American Indian or Alaska Native students in the Class of 2010 36.4%

4.1l Percentage of Public High Schools Offering International Baccalaureate (IB) Courses in the Four Core Subject Areas, 2010 2.9%

4.2a National Percentage of Schools That Offer Dual Enrollment and Mean Percentage of Students enrolled in Dual Enrollment, 2009 83.6%

4.3a Percentage of States with Alignment Between High School Standards and College and Workplace Expectations, 2010 60.8%

4.3b Percentage of States with Alignment Between High School Graduation Requirements and College and Workplace Expectations, 2010 41.2%

4.3c Percentage of States with College- and Career-Ready Assessment Systems, 2010 27.5%

4.3d Percentage of States with P-20 Longitudinal Data Systems, 2010 31.4%

4.3e Percentage of States That Have Adopted the National Common Core Standards, 2010 82.4%

4.4a Percentage of First- and Second-Year Undergraduates in Remedial Courses After High School Graduation, 2008 37.6%

Appendix 352


National Summary

Recommendation FiveImprove teacher quality and focus on recruitment and retention


5.1a States with Professional Development Standards, 2010 78.4%

5.1b States That Finance Professional Development for All Districts, 2010 47.1%

5.1c States That Require Districts/Schools to Set Aside Time for Professional Development, 2010 31.4%

5.1d States That Require Districts to Align Professional Development with Local Priorities and Goals, 2010 60.8%

5.1e States That Provide Incentives for Teachers to Earn National Board Certifi cation, 2010 60.8%

5.3a States That Require Parental Notifi cation of Out-of-Field Teachers, 2010 11.8%

5.3b States That Have a Ban or Cap on the Number of Out-of-Field Teachers, 2010 7.8%

5.4d Percentage of Bachelor's and Master's Degrees Earned in Education by State Rank, 2008 12.7%

5.4e Percentage of Bachelor's Degrees Earned in Education by State Rank, 2008 6.6%

5.4f Percentage of Master's Degrees Earned in Education by State Rank, 2008 28.1%

5.5a National Percentage of Public School Teachers Leaving the Profession by School Type, 2009 8.0%

5.5a National Percentage of Private School Teachers Leaving the Profession by School Type, 2009 15.9%

5.6a Percentage of States in Which Teacher Evaluation Is Tied to Student Achievement, 2010 25.5%

5.6b Percentage of States in Which Teacher and Student Records Can Be Matched by Course/Subject and State Assessment Results, 2010 39.2%

5.6c Percentage of States in Which Teachers Are Assigned a Unique Identifi cation Number, 2010 100.0%

5.7 Percentage of Public K–12 Teachers with Less than three years of Experience 13.4%

5.7 Percentage of Public K–12 Teachers with Three to Nine Years of Experience 33.6%

5.7 Percentage of Public K–12 Teachers with 10 to 20 years of Experience 29.3%

5.7 Percentage of Public K–12 Teachers with Over 20 years of Experience 23.7%

Recommendation SixClarify and simplify the admission process


6.1b Percentage of Four-Year Colleges with Admission Applications Available Online by State Rank, 2009 82.0%

6.2b Percentage of Four-Year Colleges to Which Students Can Submit Admission Applications Online by State Rank, 2009 75.2%

6.3b Percentage of Four-Year Colleges That Use the Common Application, Universal College Application or Common Black College Application by State Rank, 2009 22.8%

6.3c States with Statewide Common Applications for Public 4-Year College and Universities, 2011 33.3%

6.4a Percentage of High School Completers Enrolled in Two- or Four-Year Colleges Immediately Following High School Completion, 2008 68.6%

6.4f Rate of High School Graduates Going to College by State Rank, 2008 63.8%

6.4g Rate of High School Graduates Going to College In State by State Rank, 2008 51.8%

6.4h Rate of High School Graduates Going to College Out of State by State Rank, 2008 12.0%

353


Recommendation SevenProvide more need-based grant aid while simplifying the fi nancial aid system and making it more transparent


7.1a Average Total Grant Aid per Low-Income Dependent Student at Public Two-Year Institutions, 2011 $3,252

7.1a Average Total Grant Aid per Low-Income Dependent Student at Public Four-Year Institutions, 2011 $7,364

7.1a Average Total Grant Aid per Low-Income Dependent Student at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Institutions, 2011 $14,215

7.1a Average Total Grant Aid per Low-Income Dependent Student at Private For-Profi t Four-Year Institutions, 2011 $3,745

7.1g Total Undergraduate Student Aid by Source (in Billions), 2010-11 $178

7.2a Public Four Year: Average Total Debt Levels of Bachelor’s Degree Recipients in Constant 2010 Dollars, 1999–2000 to 2009-10 $22,000

7.2b Private Nonprofi t Four Year: Average Total Debt Levels of Bachelor’s Degree Recipients in Constant 2010 Dollars, 1999–2000 to 2009-10 $18,300

Recommendation EightKeep college affordable


8.1a Total Appropriations (in Billions), 1980-81 to 2010-11 $79

8.1b Appropriations per Public FTE Student in Constant 2010 Dollars (in Thousands), 1980-81 to 2010-11 $7,171

8.2e In-State Tuition Prices at Public Two-Year Institutions by State Rank, 2011–2012 $3,387

8.2f In-State Tuition Prices at Public Four-Year Institutions by State Rank, 2011–2012 $8,043

8.2g Tuition Prices at Private Four-Year Institutions by State Rank, 2011–2012 $25,869

8.3 Public Two-Year Net Tuition and Fees for Full-Time Undergraduate Students, 2011-12 -$810

8.3 Public Four-Year Net Tuition and Fees for Full-Time Undergraduate Students, 2011-12 $2,490

8.3 Public Nonprofi t-Year Net Tuition and Fees for Full-Time Undergraduate Students, 2011-12 $12,970

8.4 Percentage Change in Infl ation-Adjusted Mean Family Income by Quintile, 1980–1990, 1990–2000 and 2000–2010 -16.0%

8.5 Average Earnings of Full-Time Workers Ages 25–34 with a High School Diploma $34,594

8.5 Average Earnings of Full-Time Workers Ages 25–34 with an Associate Degree $42,391

8.5 Average Earnings of Full-Time Workers Ages 25–34 with a Bachelor’s Degree $53,483

8.5 Average Earnings of Full-Time Workers Ages 25–34 with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher $59,690

Appendix 354


National Summary

Recommendation NineDramatically increase college completion rates


9.1c Full-time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Public Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 60.0%

9.1d Full-time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Public Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 78.2%

9.1e Full-time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 79.1%

9.2d Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Public Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 20.6%

9.2e Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 48.3%

9.2f Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 57.7%

9.2g Three-Year Graduation Rates of Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacifi c Islander Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 31.5%

9.2h Three-Year Graduation Rates of American Indian or Alaska Native Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 24.9%

9.2i Three-Year Graduation Rates of African American Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 22.6%

9.2j Three-Year Graduation Rates of Hispanic Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 25.7%

9.2k Three-Year Graduation Rates of White Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 28.5%

9.2m Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 34.1%

9.2n Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Public Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 26.7%

9.2o Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 54.9%

9.2p Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 63.8%

9.3d Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 57.7%

9.3e Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Public Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 55.3%

9.3f Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 65.1%

9.3g Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 23.5%

9.3h Six-Year Graduation Rates of Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacifi c Islander Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 67.5%

9.3i Six-Year Graduation Rates of American Indian or Alaska Native Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 38.5%

9.3j Six-Year Graduation Rates of African American Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 40.5%

9.3k Six-Year Graduation Rates of Hispanic Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 49.4%

9.3l Six-Year Graduation Rates of White Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 60.7%

9.3n Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 60.6%

9.3o Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Public Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 58.3%

9.3p Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 66.4%

9.3q Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008 37.8%

9.4a Number of Associate Degrees Awarded by Degree Type for the Nation, 2009 1,577,136

9.4a Number of Bachelor's Degrees Awarded by Degree Type for the Nation, 2009 3,366,858

9.4a Number of Master's Degrees Awarded by Degree Type for the Nation, 2009 1,326,210

9.4a Number of Doctoral Degrees Awarded by Degree Type for the Nation, 2009 100,002

9.4a Number of Professional Degrees Awarded by Degree Type for the Nation, 2009 74,542

355


Recommendation TenProvide postsecondary opportunities as an essential element of adult education programs


10.1c Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Less Than a High School Diploma by State Rank, 2009 13.4%

10.1d Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Only a High School Diploma but No College by State Rank, 2009 26.0%

10.1e Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Some College but No Degree by State Rank, 2009 21.9%

10.2b Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School Diploma Who Were GED Candidates by State Rank, 2009 2.7%

10.2d Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School Diploma Who Attained a GED by State Rank, 2009 1.6%

10.3b Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 Enrolled in Postsecondary Education by State Rank, 2007 6.9%

Appendix 356


INDICATORS

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL GA

HI

ID IL IN IA KS

KY

LA ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

OverviewG Percentage of Adults Ages 25 to 34 with an Associate Degree or Higher in the United States, 2009

31.2

%

30.6

%

32.3

%

27.9

%

37.5

%

42.3

%

45.7

%

39.4

%

64.0

%

36.4

%

35.9

%

41.0

%

32.2

%

43.8

%

34.8

%

44.5

%

40.3

%

31.9

%

28.8

%

37.7

%

45.3

%

53.9

%

36.1

%

49.6

%


1.1c Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

44.5

40.5

33.3

49.8

49.7

45.6

61.8

47.6

68.5

50.9

50.4

52.8

33.6

53.6

40.1

44.3

45.0

44.7

52.2

37.4

50.1

60.4

47.8

44.4

1.1d Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

33.4

30.1

23.4

38.5

35.9

33.2

49.2

35.8

51.5

39.5

36.0

40.7

24.1

39.1

26.1

28.2

31.1

30.1

35.9

27.1

37.0

48.1

31.6

30.7

1.1e Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

54.9

51.4

43.2

60.8

63.4

58.2

73.8

60.9

84.7

62.0

65.2

65.5

44.4

67.8

53.8

59.6

58.8

58.0

68.6

48.1

63.2

72.8

63.7

58.5

1.1f Percentage of Asian 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

29.7

44.4

56.6

41.7

55.6

50.0

50.1

56.5

64.8

51.7

47.2

55.7

42.1

49.0

41.2

57.5

66.5

44.8

1.1g Percentage of American Indian or Alaska Native 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

55.9

33.7

48.4

57.3

37.6

1.1h Percentage of Black 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

49.2

31.7

63.0

52.7

40.7

58.5

50.7

62.0

56.7

53.3

57.0

44.5

51.7

43.7

53.8

56.1

48.6

66.1

48.8

41.7

1.1i Percentage of Hispanic 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

21.8

23.3

37.3

42.0

33.0

50.7

44.6

76.5

42.9

29.9

49.2

21.6

39.7

33.2

36.6

32.2

42.5

44.2

35.3

46.1

44.5

34.5

1.1j Percentage of White 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

44.6

37.4

43.4

48.4

59.5

53.2

66.7

46.8

79.8

53.2

54.3

46.2

35.0

57.8

40.1

44.8

47.6

44.4

49.9

38.3

55.2

63.2

47.4

45.9

1.1k Percentage of Two or More Races 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Preschool or Kindergarten Programs by State Rank, 2006–2008

48.2

34.2

46.7

40.0

59.5

46.1

54.9

52.4

55.6

57.8

53.4

60.4

42.7

42.2

46.5

35.2

54.3

54.0

64.7

47.1

43.9

1.2a Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K Programs by State Rank, 2009

2.8

2.7

24.6 9.0

13.0 9.6

3.6

33.1

26.7

25.0

14.9

10.6

19.1

15.9 9.6

18.2 7.1

9.6

1.4

1.2b Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K Programs by State Rank, 2009

0.0

0.0

5.9

5.4

6.0

8.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

21.2 1.3

0.0

10.0 0.0

0.0

1.2

2.9

0.0

1.1

1.2c Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in State-Funded Pre-K Programs by State Rank, 2009

5.5

5.4

43.7

12.6

20.2

10.9 7.3

66.7

53.4

28.7

28.7

21.2

28.3

31.7

19.0

35.1

11.3

19.1 1.6

1.3a Percentage of 3- and 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs by State Rank, 2009

12.5 5.9

5.4

12.2 8.4

6.0

6.8

5.3

17.7 7.1

7.4

8.0

5.1

9.5

7.1

8.3

8.0

13.1

15.9 8.9

6.4

7.1

12.4 6.2

1.3b Percentage of 3-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs by State Rank, 2009

9.3

4.9

3.4

11.5 5.8

4.8

5.7

3.5

12.9 5.5

8.2

5.7

2.3

8.3

5.3

7.1

7.6

9.9

16.8 7.4

6.6

6.2

10.1 5.0

1.3c Percentage of 4-Year-Olds Enrolled in Head Start Programs by State Rank, 2009

15.7 6.9

7.5

13.0

11.0 7.2

7.8

7.1

22.5 8.8

6.7

10.1 7.8

10.6 8.9

9.5

8.3

16.2

15.0

10.5 6.1

8.0

14.8 7.4

State Summaries

357


MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN TX UT

VT

VA WA

WV

WI

WY

US

OverviewG

30.7

%

37.6

%

38.5

%

44.0

%

28.1

%

46.2

%

46.4

%

28.7

%

48.9

%

37.8

%

48.5

%

36.8

%

31.1

%

37.1

%

43.3

%

43.3

%

34.6

%

42.2

%

32.3

%

31.4

%

38.2

%

44.7

%

44.1

%

41.7

%

28.9

%

40.7

%

33.7

%

41.1

%


1.1c

51.5

42.7

38.7

39.9

27.6

49.6

65.2

38.5

57.7

47.6

35.8

44.3

43.0

41.0

48.4

47.6

48.6

39.7

39.3

42.0

39.2

53.4

48.8

41.0

37.1

43.0

42.5

47.5

1.1d

39.0

31.2

28.3

25.1

19.7

36.6

53.5

26.7

43.5

36.4

27.2

30.9

26.0

32.3

35.6

34.7

35.1

27.5

28.2

27.7

26.0

43.1

37.1

30.9

21.2

29.3

31.4

34.4

1.1e

64.4

54.3

47.9

54.5

35.6

61.6

77.1

50.2

72.4

58.8

44.6

57.8

59.8

50.0

61.6

61.4

62.1

53.1

50.2

56.5

53.2

62.8

60.3

51.7

51.5

57.0

53.1

60.7

1.1f

62.6

31.7

60.2

49.1

50.0

53.4

59.6

50.9

53.4

40.3

48.7

49.5

33.2

55.8

49.5

40.9

53.3

1.1g

52.8

42.9

48.3

40.7

28.8

47.1

31.3

60.4

51.1

47.7

65.1

45.0

1.1h

65.5

46.5

22.7

30.9

69.4

64.6

50.0

44.8

38.0

43.3

53.8

48.5

51.6

44.9

46.1

44.9

34.1

56.8

49.9

52.5

1.1i

20.8

37.0

32.2

39.7

19.2

36.8

59.6

35.5

48.9

30.4

42.9

32.3

30.9

38.4

27.2

31.0

24.0

36.1

27.6

35.7

26.5

42.4

37.1

38.5

1.1j

42.0

41.9

36.3

40.9

35.7

49.9

67.5

44.4

60.9

51.3

34.5

44.1

45.3

44.4

48.6

55.3

50.0

37.3

39.3

48.3

41.9

49.6

52.4

43.8

35.3

42.2

43.4

49.8

1.1k

50.1

43.2

41.6

23.3

66.8

38.7

62.6

43.8

44.4

42.8

33.9

46.7

40.5

43.7

42.6

45.9

35.6

47.1

50.0

47.7

40.4

49.9

1.2a 2.9

5.1

1.4

22.0 8.1

21.5

12.4 6.7

35.1 6.5

10.6

21.1

11.2

25.0

35.4 7.1

4.8

29.9

24.8

14.6

1.2b 1.9

2.9

0.6

17.3 0.0

0.1

0.0

5.3

0.0

4.8

4.8

4.1

0.8

4.7

17.3 0.0

2.4

8.5

1.0

3.7

1.2c 3.9

7.3

2.3

26.5

16.5

42.6

25.0 8.1

71.0 8.3

16.4

38.1

21.6

45.4

53.0

14.1 7.2

50.1

48.4

25.4

1.3a

29.4 9.6

10.8 8.0

2.4

4.5

6.1

9.8

9.0

6.7

12.8

10.6

12.0 5.8

9.3

7.4

9.8

9.8

9.1

7.7

4.8

8.5

5.8

5.4

16.8 8.2

9.9

8.6

1.3b

23.9 8.5

8.9

6.2

1.4

3.6

5.7

7.7

7.9

5.2

9.7

9.0

11.0 4.4

7.8

5.4

9.8

7.1

6.3

6.9

2.9

7.9

4.9

3.9

10.8 8.2

7.5

7.1

1.3c 8.5

10.8

12.7 9.7

3.3

5.5

6.4

12.0

10.2 8.3

15.9

12.3

13.0 7.3

10.7 9.2

9.8

12.6

11.8 8.6

6.7

9.1

6.8

6.8

22.7 8.1

12.4

10.0

Appendix 358


INDICATORS

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL GA

HI

ID IL IN IA KS

KY

LA ME

MD

MA

MI

MN


2.1c Student-to-Counselor Ratio by State Rank, 2008

7.5

467

743

333

814

387

507

440

275

434

449

272

434

672

540

354

419

459

238

318

348

432

638

759

2.2 States with Comprehensive School Counseling Programs 13

.0

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No


3.1c Average Graduation Rates for Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008

7.2

69.1

70.7

76.4

71.2

75.4

82.2

72.1

56.0

66.9

65.4

76.0

80.1

80.4

74.1

86.4

79.1

74.4

63.5

79.1

80.4

81.5

76.3

86.4

3.1d Average Graduation Rates for Asian American or Pacifi c Islander Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008

7.8

76.6

98.5

100.

0

91.1

92.1

99.0 NA

74.4

91.4

92.9

77.3

91.5

100.

0

100.

0

93.2

93.4

100.

0

86.1

RSN

M

100.

0

89.1

94.8

87.9

3.1e Average Graduation Rates for American Indian or Alaska Native Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008

7.1

51.9

56.3

86.9

65.3

62.0

65.8 NA

100.

0

70.3

72.1

80.3

65.8

95.8

69.8

63.6

63.9

51.0

65.2

RSN

M

73.4

66.8

66.6

55.6

3.1f Average Graduation Rates for African American Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008

22.5

51.8

76.9

70.2

57.4

65.1

71.1 NA

58.8

55.7

57.4

69.6

78.2

61.5

52.6

71.9

64.7

67.8

53.3

RSN

M

73.0

69.6

59.2

66.6

3.1g Average Graduation Rates for Hispanic Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008

8.8

90.7

66.7

77.9

61.2

56.7

65.8 NA

54.2

63.9

55.4

71.3

68.7

69.6

66.6

70.2

62.2

75.6

72.3

RSN

M

75.9

64.7

63.8

62.3

3.1h Average Graduation Rates for White Public High School Students by State Rank, 2008

6.7

70.3

73.6

77.7

80.1

82.9

87.5 NA

88.9

70.1

70.7

72.7

81.7

87.7

75.9

88.0

82.4

74.2

71.9

RSN

M

84.9

84.4

81.6

90.3

3.4d Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008

10.1 7.3

6.7

4.7

5.0

6.4

2.8

6.0

5.5

3.3

4.3

5.4

2.0

5.2

1.7

2.9

2.5

2.8

7.5

4.4

3.6

3.4

6.2

2.8

3.4e Event Dropout Rates for Asian American or Pacifi c Islander Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008

7.8

6.9

3.8

2.8

2.3

3.8

1.5

NA

NA

1.1

1.3

5.1

1.2

1.7

0.7

2.6

1.5

1.6

3.4

3.7

NA

2.1

3.6

3.1

3.4f Event Dropout Rates for American Indian or Alaska Native Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008

10.6

12.2

11.4 4.9

6.6

11.3 2.5

9.4

NA

2.5

3.6

7.2

2.3

3.8

3.6

9.1

3.9

2.5

7.2

5.8

NA

7.5

8.3

11.6

3.4g Event Dropout Rates for African American Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008

8.9

9.6

7.1

6.7

9.0

10.6 5.6

7.7

NA

4.7

4.6

7.3

1.9

9.1

2.8

6.2

3.6

4.8

10.9 5.4

NA

5.9

12.6 7.1

3.4h Event Dropout Rates for White Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008

9.5

5.1

5.6

4.0

3.1

3.9

1.6

4.9

NA

2.1

3.6

5.9

1.8

2.2

1.6

2.5

2.1

2.4

4.8

4.3

NA

2.3

4.3

1.8

3.4i Event Dropout Rates for Hispanic Public School Students in Grades 9–12 by State Rank, 2008

8.3

7.5

7.3

5.1

6.0

12.1 6.1

8.2

NA

3.7

4.8

6.7

3.5

7.3

2.4

6.1

3.9

4.6

7.8

7.0

NA

8.3

10.3 7.5

3.4j Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in Ninth Grade by State Rank, 2008

16.2 4.3

4.2

2.8

2.5

3.9

2.6

6.3

5.7

2.8

4.2

3.7

1.1

3.6

0.2

0.8

1.2

2.2

8.9

1.4

4.0

3.1

4.7

0.9

3.4k Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in 10th Grade by State Rank, 2008

15.0 5.8

5.1

4.2

3.0

4.8

2.9

6.4

5.9

3.0

4.4

6.2

1.8

4.3

0.8

1.6

2.2

3.3

6.6

2.6

3.7

3.6

6.5

1.6

3.4l Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in 11th Grade by State Rank, 2008

10.5 9.0

6.8

5.7

4.1

7.2

3.1

5.2

5.2

3.1

4.2

5.8

2.3

4.2

1.9

3.2

3.0

3.2

6.5

4.7

3.3

3.4

6.1

2.7

3.4m Event Dropout Rates for Public School Students in 12th Grade by State Rank, 2008

6.1

10.4

10.8 6.3

11.0

10.2 2.7

6.2

4.7

3.6

3.1

6.4

2.9

5.7

4.4

6.0

3.7

2.5

7.6

8.8

3.4

3.7

7.9

5.9

State Summaries

359


MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN TX UT

VT

VA WA

WV

WI

WY

US


2.1c 6.2

372

309

366

511

233

613

391

411

374

335

499

381

522

386

356

383

399

353

435

6.8

209

308

491

387

464

197

457

2.2 1.4

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6.8

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

63%


3.1c 5.7

82.4

82.0

83.8

51.3

83.4

84.6

66.8

70.8

72.8

83.8

79.0

78.0

76.7

82.7

76.4 NA

84.4

74.9

73.1 8.1

89.3

77.0

71.9

77.3

89.6

76.0

74.9

3.1d 7.7

100.

0

100.

0

97.8 NA

99.2

100.

0

100.

0

84.2

86.9

85.9

95.3

100.

0

91.2

100.

0

74.4 NA

97.4

94.3

98.6

12.4

81.8

99.1

84.4

100.

0

97.5

98.5

91.4

3.1e 7.9

93.2

63.3

55.1 NA

60.0

100.

0

61.0

55.5

60.7

47.0

74.1

76.4

62.8

63.8

78.0 NA

51.3

71.9

80.1

57.6

83.9

55.2

50.6

70.0

73.9

38.5

64.2

3.1f 5.2

68.0

64.6

57.0 NA

100.

0

72.9

71.4

54.7

61.9

95.1

55.5

72.4

65.8

64.5

74.7 NA

88.4

67.4

65.7

54.4

91.2

65.3

58.2

72.3

63.1

61.8

61.5

3.1g 9.7

83.6

69.5

67.2 NA

48.1

76.4

62.3

53.1

63.7

63.7

65.6

73.0

71.0

67.8

70.1 NA

71.0

72.3

65.9

50.6

100.

0

70.5

60.3

87.8

75.0

65.5

63.5

3.1h 9.0

85.2

84.7

88.6 NA

83.3

88.3

74.7

82.7

77.3

87.8

84.4

79.0

77.1

86.9

79.0 NA

88.3

77.3

81.6

77.9

81.1

80.8

73.6

77.3

94.0

78.5

81.0

3.4d

11.0 4.9

5.2

2.5

5.1

3.0

1.7

5.2

3.9

5.2

2.4

4.3

3.1

3.8

2.6

5.3

3.9

2.3

3.9

4.0

4.2

NA

2.7

5.7

4.4

2.3

5.0

4.1

3.4e 4.4

2.7

4.1

1.4

3.4

1.4

0.5

3.2

2.4

2.0

4.5

1.8

2.3

2.7

1.6

4.8

1.8

2.0

2.1

1.3

3.9

NA

1.3

4.0

1.3

2.0

2.0

2.4

3.4f 7.8

3.7

11.7 7.6

4.9

8.3

2.7

9.2

5.7

7.7

7.3

8.2

3.3

6.1

4.1

10.3 0.0

9.9

4.7

3.2

7.5

NA

3.8

11.3 6.5

5.8

11.0 7.3

3.4g 5.4

12.9 6.3

6.0

6.3

9.6

2.8

5.9

6.2

6.2

3.9

10.1 3.5

7.9

5.7

7.8

4.3

2.4

7.7

6.3

6.6

NA

4.0

8.9

5.0

7.8

8.1

6.7

3.4h 9.8

3.2

4.4

1.8

3.9

2.9

1.0

3.5

2.4

4.4

1.8

2.9

2.8

3.1

1.7

4.3

3.5

1.4

2.5

1.8

3.4

NA

1.9

5.0

4.4

1.4

4.5

2.8

3.4i 7.1

7.2

6.5

4.8

6.7

3.1

3.1

5.3

6.1

7.6

4.4

8.5

5.2

6.7

6.9

8.2

5.3

4.0

5.3

5.3

8.0

NA

5.4

8.0

3.8

5.4

8.0

6.0

3.4j 6.3

5.3

3.1

1.3

4.6

0.2

1.3

4.9

3.1

5.4

1.0

4.6

2.7

1.4

1.9

5.0

3.5

1.5

2.8

2.4

1.4

NA

2.1

3.8

3.9

1.4

1.8

3.0

3.4k

11.8 4.6

5.1

2.2

4.7

1.4

1.6

5.6

4.2

5.5

2.3

3.1

3.1

2.4

2.6

5.7

4.2

2.4

3.2

3.6

2.4

NA

2.3

4.6

4.4

1.0

6.0

3.6

3.4l 8.6

5.0

6.2

2.8

4.2

3.7

1.8

5.3

3.9

5.5

3.3

3.6

3.7

4.0

2.7

5.7

4.1

2.4

4.2

3.3

4.6

NA

2.7

6.5

4.8

2.0

5.9

4.0

3.4m 4.0

4.8

6.6

3.6

7.5

7.1

1.9

5.1

4.4

4.3

2.9

5.9

3.2

7.6

3.4

5.0

3.7

2.9

5.8

7.5

8.4

NA

3.7

8.2

4.7

5.0

6.8

6.1

Appendix 360


INDICATORS

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL GA

HI

ID IL IN IA KS

KY

LA ME

MD

MA

MI

MN


4.1a Percentage of Public High Schools Offering AP or IB Courses in the Four Core Subject Areas, 2010

14.8 7.9

26.8

84.2

39.3

34.3

59.9

55.8

30.8

46.1

55.1

41.3

16.4

31.3

41.8

12.3 14

53.1

11.6 42

64.2 58

25.2

19.7

4.1b Percentage of Public High Schools Offering Advanced Placement (AP) in the Four Core Subject Areas, 2010

7.4

7.5

25.1

84.2

38.1

32.8

58.9

55.8

30.8

45.4

53.6

41.3

14.8

30.6

40.6

12.3

13.4 52

11.1

41.3

63.5

56.4

23.9

17.3

4.1c Percentage of Public High Schools Offering IB Courses in the Four Core Subject Areas, 2010

2.9

0.8

3.4

1.9

3.6

7.2

1.4

2.3

3.8

7.5

4.9

3.2

1.6 2

4.2

0.3

1.5

1.5

0.8

1.4 8

1.8

2.2

3.7

4.3c Percentage of States with College- and Career-Ready Assessment Systems, 2010

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

4.3d Percentage of States with P–20 Longitudinal Data Systems, 2010

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

4.3e Percentage of States with Alignment Between High School Standards and College and Workplace Expectations, 2010

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No


5.1a States with Professional Development Standards, 2010

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

5.1b States That Finance Professional Development for All Districts, 2010

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

5.1c States That Require Districts/Schools to Set Aside Time for Professional Development, 2010

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

5.1d States That Require Districts to Align Professional Development with Local Priorities and Goals, 2010

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

5.1e States That Provide Incentives for Teachers to Earn National Board Certifi cation, 2010

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

5.3a States That Require Parental Notifi cation of Out-of-Field Teachers, 2010

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

5.3b States That Have a Ban or Cap on the Number of Out-of-Field Teachers, 2010

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

5.4d Percentage of Bachelor's and Master's Degrees Earned in Education by State Rank, 2008

16.6

14.5

18.3

17.4 8.1

6.3

11.3

18.1 5.5 11

14.3

11.9

16.1

16.3

13.6

11.6

15.8 19

10.8

16.1

10.7

11.7

13.8

22.4

5.4e Percentage of Bachelor's Degrees Earned in Education by State Rank, 2008

9.6

4.5

6.2

12.4 1.8

0.7

3.8

9.3

0.9

7.3

10.1 6.8

12.5 9.2

10.5 7.9

9.6

11.2 7.6

10.8 4.6

2.7

8.8

8.4

5.4f Percentage of Master's Degrees Earned in Education by State Rank, 2008

32.1

36.1

35.0

34.1

24.9

20.2

27.7

38.5

10.3

21.6

26.9

27.2

34.3

28.9

23.5

28.9

32.7

40.8

22.2

38.9

21.7

26.9

26.9

46.0

5.6a Percentage of States in Which Teacher Evaluation Is Tied to Student Achievement, 2010

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

State Summaries

361


MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN TX UT

VT

VA WA

WV

WI

WY

US


4.1a

20.3 14 9.4

9.6

37.4

55.2

59.2 17

31.9

49.5 5.5

27.5

14.4 22

43.4

40.7

40.3 8.8

29.1

29.5

38.8

53.1

57.2

36.9

32.1

31.8

13.8

33.7

4.1b

19.2

13.1 8.8

9.3

37.4 54 58

16.5

30.5

48.1 5.5

27.2

14.4

17.3 43

40.7

36.6 8.8

29.1 29

38.8

53.1

52.5

33.6

31.4

30.4

12.5

32.6

4.1c 1.4

1.8

0.6

0.7

2.3

1.1

2.1

0.5

2.9

4.5 0 2

0.4 6

1.4 0

10.3 0

2.4

2.1

4.2 0

8.9

3.5

0.7

1.8

2.5

2.9

4.3c No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

27.5

%

4.3d No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

31.4

%

4.3e

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

82.4

%


5.1a

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

78%

5.1b No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

47%

5.1c No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

31%

5.1d No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

61%

5.1e

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

61%

5.3a No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

12%

5.3b No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

8%

5.4d

19.9

13.1

13.4

16.6

17.8 11

11.4 18

15.7

11.7

12.8

15.4

12.4

13.1

12.9 9.2 15

14.1

12.8 6.8

13.1 10 9.3

9.8

13.6 14

16.4

12.7

5.4e

13.5 8.2

10.3

10.8 7.3

5.6

5.6

12.3 6.2

8.5

11.1 10 9.9 4

7.5

6.7

9.5

9.7

5.4

2.2

10.9 5.1 2

4.9

9.2 9

13.9 6.6

5.4f

39.2

23.1

27.9

34.1

45.7

25.1

26.2

31.2

33.1

21.7

19.8

30.8

21.5

40.6

27.7

20.5

36.3

32.0

35.1

20.4

22.2

21.5

29.4

26.4

26.5

33.1

27.2

28.1

5.6a No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

25%

Appendix 362


INDICATORS

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL GA

HI

ID IL IN IA KS

KY

LA ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

5.6b Percentage of States in Which Teacher and Student Records Can Be Matched by Course/Subject and State Assessment Results, 2010

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

5.6c Percentage of States in Which Teachers Are Assigned a Unique Identifi cation Number, 2010

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

5.7 Percentage of Public K–12 Teachers by Years of Teaching Experience by State, 2008

Less Than Three Years

14.4

12.0

21.0

10.7

13.5

17.2

12.2

10.6

20.0

14.8

10.3

18.6

12.5

13.4 9.2

11.4

13.0

10.2

12.7

12.3

12.0

11.1 9.4

12.7

Three to Nine Years

31.3

27.5

34.6

25.7

35.9

37.9

29.7

43.3

29.9

35.0

32.4

34.3

31.0

35.6

32.3

30.5

30.2

35.5

33.3

27.0

37.1

39.9

32.5

28.5

10 to 20 Years

36.1

39.7

26.1

32.1

30.3

28.1

31.1

27.9

24.6

27.4

35.9

28.6

33.6

29.3

29.1

29.9

27.2

30.1

27.6

31.5

26.2

27.2

36.3

35.3

Over 20 Years

18.2

20.7

18.4

31.6

20.3

16.8

27.1

18.2

25.5

22.8

21.4

18.6

22.8

21.6

29.4

28.2

29.6

24.2

26.3

29.1

24.8

21.8

21.8

23.6


6.1b Percentage of Four-Year Colleges with Admission Applications Available Online by State Rank, 2009

Number of Four-Year Colleges 33 4 13 23 126 21 25 6 9 81 57 7 8 72 50 35 29 30 26 20 35 81 59 40

Number with Applications Available Online

26 3 5 18 96 21 22 4 7 57 46 7 7 61 43 33 25 28 21 18 28 68 49 33

Percentage of Four-Year Colleges with Online Applications

78.8 75

38.5

78.3

76.2

100 88

66.7

77.8

70.4

80.7

100

87.5

84.7 86

94.3

86.2

93.3

80.8 90 80 84

83.1

82.5

6.2b Percentage of Four-Year Colleges to Which Students Can Submit Admission Applications Online by State Rank, 2009


Number That Accept Applications Online

23 4 6 16 79 20 20 4 5 48 42 6 7 54 41 29 21 27 18 17 25 67 46 34

Percentage of Four-Year Colleges to Which Students Can Submit Applications Online

69.7

100

46.2

69.6

62.7

95.2 80

66.7

55.6

59.3

73.7

85.7

87.5 75 82

82.9

72.4 90

69.2 85

71.4

82.7 78 85

6.3b Percentage of Four-Year Colleges That Use the Common Application, Universal College Application or Common Black College Application by State Rank, 2009


Number of Unique Colleges Participating

5 0 1 2 25 5 8 2 3 14 11 1 1 10 8 5 0 3 4 11 9 40 5 9

Percentage of Four-Year Colleges Participating 15

.2 0

7.7

8.7

19.8

23.8 32

33.3

33.3

17.3

19.3

14.3

12.5

13.9 16

14.3 0 10

15.4 55

25.7

49.4 8.5

22.5

6.4f Rate of High School Graduates Going to College by State Rank, 2008

66.7

45.7

51.4

62.5

65.4

62.6 68

66.1

53.5

58.8

69.6

62.3

49.1

57.4

65.7

64.3

65.4

60.9

65.3

57.1

62.9

74.7

59.9

69.2

6.4g Rate of High School Graduates Going to College In State by State Rank, 2008

60.4

26.4

45.9

55.6

59.9

47.7

37.4

44.7

11.2 52 58

41.8

34.4

40.9

57.7 55

55.7 54 59

38.7

39.2

50.6

53.3 50

6.4h Rate of High School Graduates Going to College Out of State by State Rank, 2008

6.3

19.3 5.5

6.9

5.6

14.9

30.6

21.5

42.3 6.8

11.6

20.5

14.6

16.5 7.9

9.3

9.7 7

6.3

18.4

23.7 24 6.7

19.2

State Summaries

363


MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN TX UT

VT

VA WA

WV

WI

WY

US

5.6b

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

39%

5.6c

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

100%

5.7

17.1

13.3

11.0

11.4

15.6

13.3

12.3

13.3

12.8

15.6

12.0

12.1

10.9

18.0

12.5 7.7

12.8

11.4

13.6

17.1

19.9

11.7

14.1

14.1

13.1 9.8

10.3

13.4

31.8

34.2

26.9

24.2

37.3

31.7

40.8

35.6

38.0

37.3

23.3

29.9

31.4

31.5

33.6

37.0

31.5

23.7

28.8

31.2

32.9

30.5

32.8

27.8

26.4

32.4

27.3

33.6

26.1

31.6

28.8

30.2

27.8

29.1

22.8

29.6

28.5

25.0

30.0

31.6

30.7

29.5

26.7

32.2

27.3

32.5

30.8

27.7

26.0

30.5

26.6

32.6

23.1

31.4

32.5

29.3

25.1

20.8

33.3

34.2

19.4

26.0

24.1

21.5

20.6

22.0

34.7

26.3

27.0

21.0

27.2

23.1

28.5

32.4

26.8

24.0

21.2

27.3

26.5

25.5

37.4

26.4

29.9

23.7


6.1b

19 55 10 24 8 16 37 10 183 60 13 95 29 30 126 11 34 13 47 89 10 18 45 33 21 39 1

1966

13 42 9 21 7 15 30 9

125 52 11 83 24 23 117 9 30 10 43 68 7 17 41 25 19 35 1

1612

68.4

76.4 90

87.5

87.5

93.8

81.1 90

68.3

86.7

84.6

87.4

82.8

76.7

92.9

81.8

88.2

76.9

91.5

76.4 70

94.4

91.1

75.8

90.5

89.7

100 82

6.2b

19 55 10 24 8 16 37 10 183 60 13 95 29 30 126 11 34 13 47 89 10 18 45 33 21 39 1

1966

12 38 7 20 6 13 24 9

114 51 9 79 23 19 113 9 23 9 39 63 7 16 40 24 18 34 1

1479

63.2

69.1 70

83.3 75

81.3

64.9 90

62.3 85

69.2

83.2

79.3

63.3

89.7

81.8

67.6

69.2 83

70.8 70

88.9

88.9

72.7

85.7

87.2

100

75.2

6.3b

19 55 10 24 8 16 37 10 183 60 13 95 29 30 126 11 34 13 47 89 10 18 45 33 21 39 1

1966

3 6 3 1 0 9 10 0 73 10 0 19 2 7 45 7 10 1 7 11 1 10 14 7 1 8 1

448

15.8

10.9 30 4.2 0

56.3 27 0

39.9

16.7 0 20 6.9

23.3

35.7

63.6

29.4 7.7

14.9

12.4 10

55.6

31.1

21.2 4.8

20.5

100

22.8

6.4f

77.4 60

51.9

65.5

55.6

63.9

71.1

67.7

74.2 66

67.6

62.7 56

46.5

63.9

67.4

70.4

72.1

61.6

56.9

58.5

48.3

68.7

50.7

59.1

59.1

59.4

63.8

6.4g

71.7

49.9

39.6

53.5

41.8

33.2

41.4

57.9

59.8

59.1

48.5

52.6

49.5

35.3

52.5

44.3

63.5

54.9

52.3

49.8

53.6

21.4

56.2

39.9

52.4

47.7

45.1

51.8

6.4h 5.7 10

12.3

11.9

13.8

30.7

29.7 9.8

14.4 6.9

19.1

10.1 6.5

11.3

11.4

23.1 6.9

17.1 9.3

7.1

4.9

26.9

12.5

10.8 6.7

11.4

14.3 12

Appendix 364


INDICATORS

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL GA

HI

ID IL IN IA KS

KY

LA ME

MD

MA

MI

MN


8.1c Educational Fiscal Support by State Rank, FY 2010–2011

$1,1

37,0

10,5

62

$302

,853

,868

$1,6

73,8

04,8

00

$705

,599

,663

$11,

683,

824,

350

$825

,096

,369

$889

,346

,452

$228

,167

,650

$3,4

08,5

49,0

94

$2,5

58,4

04,1

98

$461

,116

,903

$354

,996

,631

$3,3

25,8

37,5

82

$1,3

13,2

70,7

56

$741

,743

,209

$785

,116

,448

$1,0

40,0

87,1

84

$1,1

74,9

64,9

09

$237

,532

,814

$1,6

58,2

53,1

34

$1,1

96,4

03,2

46

$2,2

91,9

48,3

91

$1,2

80,8

57,0

00

8.1d Educational Fiscal Support per FTE by State Rank, FY 2010–2011

$6,3

61

$12,

606

$6,3

22

$7,1

44

$5,9

41

$3,7

81

$8,4

50

$5,6

43

$5,9

22

$7,3

19

$7,4

51

$7,7

46

$8,1

20

$4,3

25

$5,2

76

$5,1

91

$7,5

32

$6,9

95

$6,2

15

$7,1

63

$6,0

06

$4,8

22

$5,6

45

8.2e In-State Tuition Prices at Public Two-Year Institutions by State Rank, 2011–2012

$4,1

24

$3,8

31

$2,1

24

$2,6

61

$1,1

19

$3,3

97

$3,4

90

$3,0

86

$3,0

06

$3,0

78

$2,9

67

$2,6

66

$3,1

50

$3,5

21

$4,1

77

$2,4

26

$4,0

51

$2,4

52

$3,3

27

$3,7

00

$4,8

23

$2,8

63

$5,1

62

8.2f In-State Tuition Prices at Public Four-Year Institutions by State Rank, 2011–2012

$7,9

93

$5,4

56

$9,4

28

$6,6

46

$9,0

22

$7,8

49

$9,1

97

$10,

496

$7,0

00

$5,6

26

$6,8

08

$8,3

52

$5,6

81

$11,

600

$8,3

34

$7,5

62

$6,9

60

$7,9

63

$5,1

23

$9,3

54

$7,9

93

$10,

173

$10,

837

$9,9

66

8.2g Tuition Prices at Private Four-Year Institutions by State Rank, 2011–2012 $1

8,71

9

$25,

406

$26,

712

$18,

250

$35,

766

$33,

129

$35,

991

$13,

888

$35,

581

$26,

494

$26,

029

$12,

610

$6,6

14

$28,

903

$29,

578

$26,

551

$21,

042

$22,

171

$30,

024

$31,

414

$34,

269

$36,

724

$19,

414

$31,

462


9.1c Full-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Public Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

55.1

48.3

57.2

56.5

68.6

53.6

56.7

54.4 NA

67.0

55.0

61.3

56.1

58.3

57.0

56.2

57.0

58.7

47.7

54.6

61.8

57.1

60.6

56.6

9.1d Full-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Public Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

76.4

70.7

77.7

68.2

84.2

76.3

83.0

85.1

39.5

79.1

76.1

73.6

63.5

80.2

77.0

83.3

74.3

72.3

71.3

72.4

82.3

79.2

80.3

78.5

9.1e Full-Time Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

68.5

78.6

76.3

70.9

85.8

83.2

84.6

57.2

87.3

72.4

74.8

66.7

70.9

77.4

81.0

76.1

66.7

70.1

76.9

81.3

83.1

85.4

63.9

84.7

9.2c Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

19.9

18.6

40.7

24.4

31.1

40.2

11.6 9.0

NA

39.9

26.4

19.0

34.4

24.5

27.1

34.0

32.3

25.5

30.3

26.4

19.2

18.4

14.9

30.9

9.2d Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Public Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

18.2

18.6

18.9

22.6

24.2

23.2

10.3 7.4

NA

32.9

22.9

14.3

19.5

20.6

10.3

33.6

29.5

21.8

15.1

26.5

12.8

15.7

14.7

28.6

9.2e Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

NA

NA

NA

NA

67.9

85.7

43.9

38.5 NA

50.0

32.4 NA

NA

46.7

21.0

85.0

64.8 NA

NA

50.0 NA

43.8 NA

25.0

9.2f Three-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

53.8 NA

62.1

42.6

61.4

58.5

38.7 NA

NA

58.1

54.8

46.2

71.4

59.2

51.6

92.6

54.4

54.6

49.7

25.6

54.2

47.7

30.0

59.6

9.2g Three-Year Graduation Rates of Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacifi c Islander Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

25.0 0.0

46.9

30.8

38.7

36.3

11.8 5.1

NA

46.1

20.5

19.7

33.3

14.9

17.8

25.5

20.0

22.6

33.8

24.1

14.1

15.9

14.3

28.3

9.2h Three-Year Graduation Rates of American Indian or Alaska Native Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

21.7

16.1

37.4

18.6

26.9

33.6 6.7

0.0

NA

29.6

23.4

27.3

28.9

17.2

14.3

22.4

25.2

13.0

27.3

18.2 7.2

23.1

11.4

15.4

State Summaries

365


MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN TX UT

VT

VA WA

WV

WI

WY

US


8.1c

$796

,728

,225

$1,1

74,9

59,2

06

$190

,346

,889

$607

,145

,616

$516

,471

,637

$127

,897

,496

$1,9

29,7

69,0

00

$747

,161

,865

$4,8

17,4

73,3

65

$3,5

41,4

51,1

14

$246

,221

,389

$2,0

41,1

42,0

65

$981

,978

,880

$750

,948

,945

$1,9

77,6

41,2

15

$168

,351

,962

$834

,817

,353

$155

,341

,395

$1,3

17,5

99,3

57

$6,5

81,7

85,7

58

$672

,510

,100

$66,

931,

354

$1,5

83,1

89,7

11

$1,5

55,8

46,7

01

$386

,020

,036

$1,6

07,9

66,1

88

$298

,261

,301

$1,4

99,0

14,8

67

8.1d

$7,9

42

$6,0

74

$4,2

93

$6,7

31

$7,8

00

$2,8

84

$7,1

36

$7,5

89

$7,7

83

$9,0

07

$6,5

20

$4,2

93

$8,4

00

$4,5

38

$5,1

59

$4,8

17

$5,4

77

$4,8

09

$7,4

77

$8,8

97

$5,3

28

$2,7

54

$5,0

96

$5,8

31

$6,1

55

$6,4

99

$13,

090

$6,

451

8.2e

$2,2

08

$2,7

56

$3,0

87

$2,5

14

$2,5

13

$6,7

41

$4,1

11

$1,4

98

$4,2

53

$2,0

75

$3,9

26

$3,6

08

$3,0

43

$4,0

29

$3,6

63

$3,6

76

$3,7

31

$4,9

45

$3,5

51

$2,0

49

$3,0

09

$6,5

20

$3,9

68

$3,8

05

$2,7

00

$3,8

40

$2,3

25

$3,3

87

8.2f

$5,6

68

$7,6

68

$5,8

74

$6,9

34

$6,0

44

$13,

507

$12,

041

$5,4

57

$6,2

13

$5,6

85

$6,8

47

$8,9

04

$6,0

59

$7,9

88

$12,

079

$10,

007

$10,

300

$6,8

73

$7,2

09

$8,0

78

$5,2

92

$13,

078

$9,6

18

$9,4

84

$5,5

32

$8,1

93

$4,1

25

$8,0

43

8.2g

$14,

635

$24,

476

$22,

987

$20,

213

$25,

370

$33,

761

$32,

447

$31,

656

$33,

151

$27,

015

$14,

700

$28,

376

$22,

415

$31,

827

$32,

559

$33,

943

$21,

951

$22,

926

$23,

485

$26,

828

$6,1

98

$33,

643

$24,

683

$31,

618

$18,

606

$27,

239

$25,

869


9.1c

55.9

57.9

47.8

61.0

61.3

61.0

62.6

55.2

62.7

59.3

68.2

57.3

50.7

57.2

56.9

60.9

52.1

68.2

52.9

56.9

59.3

53.6

60.2

57.8

48.7

57.5

57.9

60.0

9.1d

75.2

76.0

69.3

77.1

75.0

83.9

84.7

71.1

82.3

81.2

76.5

77.1

67.6

76.7

80.9

79.2

78.4

72.3

72.0

73.8

70.1

78.7

86.1

81.7

71.3

79.3

72.5

78.2

9.1e

67.2

75.4

73.8

74.9

63.4

79.8

81.3

75.4

82.4

75.3

76.1

77.7

70.8

79.4

83.5

82.8

68.8

77.2

76.1

75.3

77.6

79.2

72.0

84.2

66.8

80.0 NA

79.1

9.2c

24.7

33.7

29.7

32.9

36.6

27.0

15.7

18.3

22.2

20.9

35.1

25.2

27.9

25.1

39.3

14.1

14.2

56.7

29.6

18.6

39.6

18.2

25.6

29.0

20.9

33.6

60.0

27.5

9.2d

24.2

22.5

30.5

32.0

11.1

22.1

14.6

14.2

19.9

19.9

37.5

13.4

17.0

15.4

14.7

10.3

11.5

57.2

11.1

11.1

38.9

14.6

14.6

27.7

16.2

33.0

32.1

20.6

9.2e NA

70.5

17.2 NA

NA

69.6 NA

NA

35.4

15.7

15.0

44.9 NA

NA

54.7 NA

39.7

11.5

64.5

34.8

40.2

36.0 NA

NA

NA

43.6 NA

48.3

9.2f

48.1

57.9 NA

49.3

43.2

52.0

56.7

77.1

40.0

57.7 NA

52.6

58.1

55.2

62.1

46.3

54.2 NA

56.2

57.5

59.1 NA

57.3

63.9

53.7

48.5

85.5

57.7

9.2g

25.3

31.3

25.0

28.1

43.0

33.3

12.9

20.0

20.7

20.6

16.7

21.6

33.3

28.2

35.1

22.6 7.8

20.0

23.5

14.4

35.1 0.0

19.7

30.3

21.1

27.4

61.4

31.5

9.2h

36.6

25.2

21.1

12.1

42.1 0.0

10.8

26.8

14.4

16.5

18.9

17.8

24.4

15.8

39.2 7.1

14.3

17.4

22.9

14.8

25.3

33.3

26.0

18.6 0.0

15.4

38.7

24.9

Appendix 366


INDICATORS

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL GA

HI

ID IL IN IA KS

KY

LA ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

9.2i Three-Year Graduation Rates of Black or African American Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

21.0 NA

34.5

16.0

21.4

36.1 6.7

3.4

NA

35.5

24.7

15.8

23.3

19.0

25.2

13.2

17.5

16.3

30.4

10.5

16.9

10.8 7.8

10.9

9.2j Three-Year Graduation Rates of Hispanic Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

18.3 0.0

39.6

31.4

27.3

39.6 9.1

9.9

NA

40.1

29.7

14.6

28.1

23.4

17.4

23.0

29.9

14.9

31.5

30.0

15.7

14.1

10.6

20.1

9.2k Three-Year Graduation Rates of White Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

19.6

31.6

41.1

26.8

32.2

40.7

13.1

10.4

40.6

27.8

18.1

38.8

26.5

28.1

36.4

33.9

27.0

30.0

27.3

17.1

20.2

16.5

33.6

9.2m Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

28.3

48.3

51.0

35.7

39.8

41.3

21.3

18.0 NA

44.7

34.0

20.3

43.8

29.3

32.4

48.5

41.2

28.1

29.4

35.1

25.2

25.6

22.3

32.8

9.2n Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Public Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

25.9

48.3

25.3

34.3

32.1

25.5

15.8

16.2 NA

37.3

29.9

19.1

26.4

25.0

14.4

48.4

38.2

24.7

16.8

34.9

18.6

24.1

21.4

31.3

9.2o Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

NA

NA

NA

NA

71.6

100.

0

60.5

52.5 NA

66.1

42.3 NA

NA

57.6

25.3

63.2

72.2 NA

NA

100.

0

NA

53.4 NA

100.

0

9.2p Four-Year Graduation Rates of Degree- and Certifi cate-Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Two-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

69.2

70.9

48.8

64.1

60.3

71.9

66.1

58.0

38.9

83.0

65.2

60.8

66.7

45.1

52.1

53.4

36.3

66.0

56.2

58.2

59.7

9.3d Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

47.1

25.5

36.0

42.8

63.6

53.9

65.0

67.2

73.2

57.3

50.9

43.8

36.8

60.3

58.6

62.3

52.2

45.5

42.4

58.4

65.0

69.9

58.4

58.9

9.3e Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Public Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

47.2

25.4

55.9

39.1

63.3

53.5

56.5

71.5 7.9

59.9

49.4

47.2

32.9

59.1

54.0

66.0

52.9

45.5

39.5

50.3

62.6

54.7

59.7

54.4

9.3f Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

47.7

33.3

50.9

56.3

72.4

68.3

74.3

38.4

76.0

54.4

57.6

39.2

52.2

64.6

69.3

59.8

49.1

49.5

57.1

69.5

73.9

75.8

55.4

67.3

9.3g Six-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

15.8 NA

9.1

NA

26.9

30.2

35.8 NA

17.4

29.0

25.7

16.3

15.1

31.0

59.6

45.4 4.3

14.7

19.7 NA

6.3

59.5 8.4

40.1

9.3h Six-Year Graduation Rates of Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacifi c Islander Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

50.0

21.3

49.6

49.0

71.2

56.1

76.2

73.8

78.0

65.3

62.4

49.2

36.6

69.2

67.9

59.9

48.0

47.1

43.4

75.0

73.1

79.0

69.7

59.1

9.3i Six-Year Graduation Rates of American Indian or Alaska Native Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

38.5

12.7

21.9

45.1

53.9

31.8

52.9

66.7

30.8

51.2

39.5

22.2

21.2

42.4

45.2

55.0

23.6

22.2

39.7

47.9

62.8

57.7

50.7

34.6

9.3j Six-Year Graduation Rates of Black or African American Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

31.0

25.7

12.6

25.1

46.3

41.3

50.7

40.9

57.7

46.2

44.2

32.8

23.9

36.0

39.2

36.5

29.1

30.6

30.6

56.8

42.1

60.2

33.4

41.7

State Summaries

367


MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN TX UT

VT

VA WA

WV

WI

WY

US

9.2i

23.1

36.0 0.0

22.7

30.1

21.4 7.8

13.0

14.7

17.0

29.0

23.9

25.6

21.5

40.5 5.1

14.1

20.0

30.5

18.1

26.2 0.0

30.6

20.7

13.5

23.2

31.3

22.6

9.2j

15.6

35.3

26.3

19.5

38.1

31.4 8.8

15.9

15.9

22.7

23.1

19.5

25.2

19.6

36.2

15.2

14.8

25.0

32.6

23.0

33.2

22.2

24.1

19.6

13.3

22.5

57.1

25.7

9.2k

25.8

33.8

32.5

34.5

35.4

29.1

20.2

16.9

26.0

23.0

39.5

26.2

29.2

26.3

40.3

14.6

14.5

60.0

28.7

15.7

39.4

19.2

23.0

29.5

21.8

34.5

61.5

28.5

9.2m

25.5

37.2

31.5

39.9

53.8

39.4

19.6

23.6

31.6

30.6

40.6

31.7

34.6

38.5

44.8

18.1

20.1

74.1

34.6

25.2

48.5

20.3

33.6

37.5

34.8

38.6

64.0

34.1

9.2n

23.9

27.2

33.1

39.1

20.9

36.3

18.7

17.4

28.7

30.0

41.3

19.0

23.7

19.9

21.1

13.4

15.9

75.5

19.1

17.6

48.4

17.8

18.7

36.2

24.9

37.8

38.9

26.7

9.2o NA

88.0

15.0 7.7

NA

71.4 NA

NA

40.6

18.8

32.0

36.6 NA

NA

60.8 NA

35.2

16.3

64.1

43.7

50.2

35.3 NA

NA

NA

59.0 NA

54.9

9.2p

70.3

61.1

65.9

65.0

51.9

46.7

90.9

51.8

66.8

58.3

66.2

88.6

68.5

55.9

68.0

61.3

58.2

50.0

64.2

65.3

61.3

99.0

83.8

63.8

9.3d

50.6

55.9

41.9

57.0

41.7

65.5

63.0

40.1

63.4

58.2

46.4

57.0

47.1

56.3

66.4

65.9

58.2

47.6

50.7

50.8

52.7

62.9

63.6

68.0

46.4

59.8

52.5

57.7

9.3e

49.6

54.4

40.7

55.6

44.0

63.9

64.1

40.2

56.8

58.8

47.1

53.4

46.6

53.7

61.7

54.4

60.6

46.0

45.8

49.1

43.1

58.9

67.7

67.7

45.5

59.2

52.5

55.3

9.3f

55.6

59.8

53.1

60.6

21.4

67.4

61.6

43.6

67.7

57.1

43.5

65.3

51.1

65.5

72.5

71.3

53.0

55.8

59.3

58.1

77.3

67.3

53.4

71.1

51.1

62.6 NA

65.1

9.3g NA

27.6 NA

NA

16.8 NA

35.4

35.7

48.4

37.2 NA

31.3

26.6

26.3

37.2 NA

37.5

27.0

20.4

19.4

22.6

75.0

28.3

43.5

36.5

21.8 NA

23.5

9.3h

52.7

63.8

38.8

62.8

47.0

78.4

69.5

35.6

67.3

71.9

43.5

67.9

55.3

58.9

73.8

74.3

65.2

51.5

56.0

62.0

61.7

77.4

70.3

72.8

49.6

53.9

38.5

67.5

9.3i

46.7

33.3

20.7

39.5

21.4

63.8

56.3

25.7

52.6

48.3 8.9

41.1

33.5

41.7

57.6

44.0

34.5

27.0

33.7

44.0

37.5

64.0

47.7

53.1

41.7

40.5

25.0

38.5

9.3j

42.1

38.1 6.3

30.1

33.2

66.9

50.1

29.8

46.1

43.6

31.0

34.8

34.3

43.0

48.1

55.0

46.5

29.3

39.2

31.6

32.4

45.6

45.8

54.0

33.6

34.3

33.3

40.5

Appendix 368


INDICATORS

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL GA

HI

ID IL IN IA KS

KY

LA ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

9.3k Six-Year Graduation Rates of Hispanic or Latino Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

41.7

17.9

38.7

38.2

53.6

44.2

59.7

62.5

68.7

56.2

52.4

33.3

29.0

46.9

53.2

43.6

43.7

38.5

45.8

67.0

70.5

64.4

54.1

55.5

9.3l Six-Year Graduation Rates of White Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

55.4

29.2

42.7

47.1

67.6

56.0

65.4

74.9

79.9

61.1

52.2

35.3

37.5

65.3

59.6

64.6

55.4

47.0

47.4

57.7

73.6

70.1

61.3

61.1

9.3n Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

53.2

30.6

47.7

46.9

66.9

56.7

64.4

67.7

75.4

59.8

53.9

49.3

43.1

62.4

59.8

65.4

55.6

52.1

45.5

60.1

67.4

70.4

62.5

59.9

9.3o Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Public Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

53.4

30.6

58.3

43.3

67.2

55.8

55.5

70.4

28.8

62.7

52.9

52.9

41.5

61.0

55.4

67.9

57.2

49.2

43.0

50.1

65.5

56.4

63.7

54.3

9.3p Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Private Not-for-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

52.2

29.5

54.0

60.3

72.6

72.9

74.2

47.7

76.4

54.6

59.1

45.0

58.6

66.7

69.9

62.6

47.8

50.3

58.1

74.9

73.1

75.6

59.1

69.8

9.3q Eight-Year Graduation Rates of Bachelor's Degree–Seeking Students at Private For-Profi t Four-Year Colleges by State Rank, 2008

68.4 NA

16.4 NA

37.0

31.3

31.8 NA

NA

52.1

37.1 7.5

NA

42.5

58.8

29.5 NA

96.0

23.1 NA

15.3

58.7

11.9

34.5


10.1c Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Less Than a High School Diploma by State Rank, 2009

16.1 7.7

17.6

14.2

18.4

13.1 9.2

11.3 8.3

13.6

15.2 5.1

11.8

11.8

12.6 8.2

10.9

12.8

15.2 6.1

10.5 7.8

10.7 7.2

10.1d Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Only a High School Diploma but No College by State Rank, 2009

28.4

30.2

25.9

33.3

22.6

22.5

25.9

28.0

15.6

28.7

27.2

29.3

28.0

23.5

29.0

24.2

24.3

31.7

32.0

32.4

23.1

21.9

27.1

20.8

10.1e Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with Some College but No Degree by State Rank, 2009

24.3

31.5

24.2

24.6

21.6

22.1

19.2

21.3

12.1

21.3

21.7

24.6

28.0

20.9

23.5

23.0

24.5

23.6

23.9

23.8

21.1

16.4

26.2

22.4

10.2b Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School Diploma Who Were GED Candidates by State Rank, 2009

3.1

6.4

2.7

3.0

1.4

4.2

3.8

1.9

2.2

2.7

3.7

2.9

4.9

3.2

3.0

5.0

1.8

3.6

2.3

8.8

2.2

3.7

3.7

5.7

10.2d Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 with No High School Diploma Who Attained a GED by State Rank, 2009

1.8

3.3

1.6

2.3

0.8

2.2

1.8

1.7

1.2

1.6

1.9

1.8

2.7

1.7

2.2

3.0

1.6

2.8

1.6

4.7

1.2

1.9

1.8

3.0

10.3b Percentage of Adults Ages 25–34 Enrolled in Postsecondary Education by State Rank, 2007

6.7%

6.6%

15.7

%

6.4%

8.1%

7.9%

5.0%

5.5%

13.5

%

7.2%

5.3%

6.3%

6.7%

7.2%

6.7%

11.2

%

7.2%

7.2%

5.8%

6.0%

6.2%

4.9%

7.6%

6.9%

State Summaries

369


MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA RI

SC

SD

TN TX UT

VT

VA WA

WV

WI

WY

US

9.3k

42.4

55.1

30.5

48.0

36.7

70.5

51.8

38.1

49.7

59.0

29.6

50.0

43.5

47.8

61.0

60.4

56.7

24.4

44.8

39.8

42.8

50.5

59.7

57.0

40.3

51.4

44.4

49.4

9.3l

56.1

57.7

43.4

58.2

43.6

65.3

66.6

43.8

67.5

63.3

48.5

59.6

49.9

56.9

68.0

65.9

61.8

49.2

53.5

57.8

53.4

64.0

68.2

68.9

47.4

61.4

53.3

60.7

9.3n

52.8

57.4

47.9

59.5

48.1

69.5

65.1

46.4

64.4

60.3

51.3

59.3

52.9

58.7

67.0

67.9

60.0

50.3

58.1

54.9

65.6

63.2

66.2

67.7

48.4

61.6

58.9

60.6

9.3o

53.3

56.5

46.1

57.3

49.7

66.5

66.6

46.7

57.0

61.7

50.6

56.5

50.9

56.2

62.0

56.2

62.6

49.3

57.3

54.2

53.7

59.1

68.9

67.4

47.8

60.5

58.9

58.3

9.3p

50.8

59.9

63.9

64.6

18.9

73.3

62.1

51.0

69.1

57.6

55.2

66.0

60.9

65.7

72.6

73.7

53.7

56.5

59.5

59.5

83.6

67.4

58.7

70.0

50.2

64.8 NA

66.4

9.3q NA

43.4 NA

NA

14.1 NA

NA

34.4

50.8

58.3 NA

36.5

15.4

29.2

50.4 NA

NA

18.5

100.

0

17.9

41.4

69.6

46.5

33.3

75.3

78.6 NA

37.8


10.1c

16.9

11.3 7.7

9.9

18.1 6.9

10.3

17.2

11.9

14.9 4.0

10.4

13.9

12.8 8.8

11.9

14.4 7.5

12.9

19.5 9.7

6.7

10.4

11.3

11.2 8.9

8.4

13.4

10.1d

28.8

27.7

27.8

21.1

29.5

27.5

25.1

27.9

22.6

24.6

22.5

29.7

30.1

24.1

29.9

24.9

29.2

27.3

32.2

26.0

24.9

30.6

24.4

23.0

37.9

27.3

29.4

26.0

10.1e

23.6

23.4

26.0

25.0

24.3

19.4

18.2

26.3

16.6

22.7

25.0

23.0

24.9

26.0

18.0

19.9

21.8

23.0

22.6

23.1

27.2

18.0

21.1

24.0

21.9

23.1

28.4

21.9

10.2b 4.9

3.2

6.8

4.7

2.2

5.1

2.8

3.9

3.8

3.9

8.7

3.8

3.2

4.8

4.2

3.2

2.3

5.6

3.7

1.9

3.3

3.6

4.6

5.1

4.6

7.7

6.9

2.7

10.2d 2.4

2.4

3.5

2.2

1.5

3.0

1.7

2.1

1.8

1.9

4.7

2.8

2.2

2.7

2.2

1.2

1.6

2.9

2.6

1.1

2.3

1.6

2.6

2.4

3.3

3.2

4.4

1.6

10.3b

6.2%

7.0%

6.2%

7.4%

6.4%

4.2%

5.3%

9.9%

5.4%

5.7%

8.3%

6.6%

7.7%

7.1%

4.7%

6.0%

4.8%

7.4%

5.6%

6.1%

10.1

%

5.3%

6.0%

6.6%

8.4%

6.7%

7.7%

6.9%

Appendix 370


The College Board is a mission-driven not-for-profit organization that connects students to college success and opportunity. Founded in 1900, the College Board was created to expand access to higher education. Today, the membership association is made up of more than 5,900 of the world’s leading educational institutions and is dedicated to promoting excellence and equity in education. Each year, the College Board helps more than seven million students prepare for a successful transition to college through programs and services in college readiness and college success — including the SAT® and the Advanced Placement Program®. The organization also serves the education community through research and advocacy on behalf of students, educators and schools.

For further information, visit www.collegeboard.org.

The College Board Advocacy & Policy Center was established to help transform education in America. Guided by the College Board’s principles of excellence and equity in education, we work to ensure that students from all backgrounds have the opportunity to succeed in college and beyond. We make critical connections between policy, research and real-world practice to develop innovative solutions to the most pressing challenges in education today. This report can be downloaded at completionagenda.collegeboard.org. Hard copies may be ordered by contacting [email protected].

advocacy.collegeboard.org

© 2011 The College Board. College Board, Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement Program, AP, SAT and the acorn logo are registered trademarks of the College Board. PSAT/NMSQT is a registered trademark of the College Board and National Merit Scholarship Corporation. All other products and services may be trademarks of their respective owners. Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.org.

110854705 11b-3269

Th

e College

Co

mp

letion A

gend

a2011 Prog

ress Rep

ort

The College Completion - ERICThe College Completion Agenda 2011 Progress Report The College Board is...

Documents

Transcript of The College Completion - ERICThe College Completion Agenda 2011 Progress Report The College Board is...