New York High School Grad Rates 2014

8/10/2019 New York High School Grad Rates 2014

1/27

1

Graduation Rates:Students Who Started 9 th Grade

in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010


2/27

22

Even with more rigorous requirements, thestatewide graduation rate increased again for the

2010 cohort.

The graduation rates announced today reflect the achievementof the first group of students who entered grade 9 followingadoption of the Regents Reform Agenda in 2009-10 (includingadoption of the Common Core standards in July 2010).

At the end of the 2010-11 school year, the Department beganposting statewide and school/district graduation rate AspirationalPerformance Measures (APMs) of college/career readiness.

The majority of students who graduated in 2011-12 or later didnot have a local diploma option for graduation.

Even with these more rigorous requirements, the graduation ratefor the 2010 cohort (76.4%) is over ten percentage points greaterthan it was for the 2001 cohort (65.8%), which means that over20,000 more students graduated in June 2014 than in June2005.


3/27

Domains of College and CareerReadiness

3

Defines the academic knowledgeand skills students need to be

successful in college andcareers.

Specifies the non-cogni t ive , socio-emotional knowledge and skills thathelp students successfullytransition from high school tocollege or careers.

Describes the career-spec i f i c opportunities

for students to gain theknowledge, skills, and

competencies they needto pursue and succeed in theirchosen career.

3


4/27

44

Although requirements have become morerigorous and more students are completing highschool, too few students demonstrate academic

readiness for college or the workforce.This is true, regardless of the definition of AcademicReadiness*:

The percent of students who graduate in 4 yearswith aspirational scores on the English and a mathRegents Exam: 38% of the 2010 cohort, or

The percent of students who graduate andcomplete the more rigorous and comprehensivecoursework required for the Advanced Designationdiploma: 31% of the 2010 cohort.

*See Slide 23 for a description of the Aspirational Performance Measures (APMs).


5/27

55

Too few students complete the advancedcoursework necessary for college and the

workforce. To earn an Advanced Designation diploma, a student must

pass two additional Regents Exams in math and one additionalRegents Exam in science and

complete additional coursework in a language other than English(LOTE) or Career and Technical Education (CTE) or the Arts.

The percentage of students who complete the AdvancedDesignation diploma has remained relatively flat over the years.

Large achievement gaps remain, particularly on the Advanced

Designation diploma. In response to field requests, the Department has added the Algebra

2/Trigonometry and Chemistry Regents Exams to the August testadministration window. This change may help additional students

earn the Advanced Designation diploma.


6/27

66

Critical aspects of our work will help preparestudents for college and careers.

Implementing Common Core standards , curriculum andinstruction aligned to the standards, and statewideassessments that measure student progress on thestandards;

Supporting instructional data systems that displaystudent achievement and help teachers and principalsimprove their practice;

Recruiting, developing, retaining, and rewarding effectiveteachers and principals ;

Turning around the lowest-achieving schools.


7/27

777

6 0

. 9 %

5 4

. 0 %

4 5

. 5 %

4 8

. 4 %

6 6

. 2 %

5 2

. 8 %

7 4

. 0 %

6 0

. 4 %

4 6

. 8 %

4 8

. 0 %

6 6

. 0 % 7

4 . 0

%

6 1

. 3 %

5 3

. 4 %

4 3 . 0

% 4 8

. 8 %

6 6

. 4 %

5 2

. 4 %

7 4

. 9 %

6 4

. 2 %

5 2

. 8 %

4 3 . 4

% 5 1

. 1 %

6 8

. 8 %

5 3

. 7 %

7 6

. 4 %

6 1

. 0 %

4 7

. 4 %

4 6

. 1 %

4 5

. 9 %

6 3

. 2 %

4 9

. 0 %

7 3

. 4 %

4 3 . 4

% 5 0

. 0 %

New York City Buffalo CSD Rochester CSD Syracuse CSD Yonkers CSD Large City HighN/RC*

Total Public

2006 Cohort 2007 Cohort 2008 Cohort 2009 Cohort 2010 Cohort

Percentage of Students Graduating with a Local, Regents, or Regents withAdvanced Designation Diploma After 4 Years

Results Through June, All Students

Graduation rates reported statewide and for Big 5 Districts as of June2014 have generally increased over the last five years.

* Large City High N/RC = Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers combined.


8/27

888

6 5

. 5 %

5 5

. 3 %

4 9 . 0

% 5 3

. 0 %

7 2

. 1 %

5 6

. 3 %

7 6

. 8 %

6 4

. 7 %

4 7 . 8

%

5 1

. 1 %

7 2

. 1 %

7 6

. 7 %

6 6

. 0 %

5 6

. 0 %

4 8 . 1

%

5 1

. 9 %

7 2

. 3 %

5 6

. 6 %

7 7

. 8 %

6 8

. 4 %

5 5

. 5 %

5 1

. 0 %

5 5

. 7 %

7 5

. 8 %

5 9

. 0 %

7 9

. 1 %

6 5

. 1 %

4 9

. 6 %

5 0

. 5 %

5 0

. 7 %

6 8

. 3 %

5 2

. 7 %

7 6

. 1 %

4 8 . 6

% 5 3

. 5 %

New York City Buffalo CSD Rochester CSD Syracuse CSD Yonkers CSD Large City HighN/RC*

Total Public

2006 Cohort/August 2007 Cohort/August 2008 Cohort/August 2009 Cohort/August 2010 Cohort/August


Results Through August, All Students

Additional students graduate statewide and in the Big 5 Districts as ofAugust of the fourth year of high school.

* Large City High N/RC = Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers combined.


9/27

999

6 4

. 5 % 7

6 . 1

% 8 4

. 4 % 9

3 . 5

%

7 4 . 0

%

6 5

. 1 % 7

7 . 4

% 9 3

. 9 %

7 4 . 0

%

6 5

. 9 %

7 9

. 2 %

8 5

. 7 % 9

4 . 1

%

7 4 . 9

%

6 6

. 0 %

7 9

. 6 %

8 6

. 6 % 9

4 . 4

%

7 6

. 4 %

7 3 . 4 %

9 3

. 3 %

8 3

. 0 %

7 5 . 4

%

6 4

. 5 %

8 4

. 8 %

Urban-Suburban HighN/RC

Rural High N/RC Average N/RC Low N/RC Total Public

2006 Cohort 2007 Cohort 2008 Cohort 2009 Cohor t 2010 Cohor t


Results Through JuneAll Students

Graduation rates for high-need urban/suburban and rural districtshave increased over the past five years. Average- and low-need

districts have the highest graduation rates.

Note: This slide does not include the Big 5 Districts. See Slide 7 for Big 5 results through June.


10/27

101010

6 7 . 9

% 7 7 . 5

% 8 6 . 0

% 9 4 . 5

%

7 6 . 8 %

6 9 . 3 % 7

8 . 8 %

9 4 . 7

%

7 6 . 7 %

6 9 . 5 %

8 0 . 7

% 8 7

. 2 % 9 4

. 9 %

7 7 . 8

%

6 9 . 7 %

8 1 . 2

% 8 8 . 0 % 9 5

. 1 %

7 9 . 1 %

7 6 . 1 %

9 4 . 2

%

8 4 . 7

%

7 6 . 8 %

6 8 . 0

%

8 6 . 5

%

Urban-Suburban HighN/RC

Rural High N/RC Average N/RC Low N/RC Total Public



Results Through AugustAll Students

As with the Big 5 Districts, additional students graduate in high-needurban/suburban, high-need rural, average-need, and low-need districts

as of August of the fourth year of high school.

Note: This slide does not include the Big 5 Districts. See Slide 8 for Big 5 results through August.


11/27

111111

5 8

. 9 %

6 3

. 0 % 6 7 . 8

% 7 3

. 7 %

7 0

. 0 %

6 3

. 8 %

7 0

. 1 %

6 4 . 7 %

5 7

. 2 %

5 6

. 0 %


June August

Percentage of Students Graduating with a Local, Regents, orRegents with Advanced Designation Diploma After 4 Years

Results Through June and AugustAll Students

A small but increasing number of students are served by charter highschools. As with traditional schools, more charter school students

graduate as of August compared to June*.

Cohort Size

2006 1,011

2007 1,115

2008 1,628

2009 2,215

2010 2,648

* Year-to-year changes in percentages will be affected by very small cohort sizes. For example,although the percentage of charter school graduates for the 2010 cohort as of June decreased

compared to the 2009 cohort, the number of graduates increased.


12/27

1212

9% 7%4% 4% 4%

12% 10%5% 5%

13% 10%5%

33% 36% 41% 41% 41%

36% 39%45% 45%

37% 40%46%

31% 31% 30%31% 31%

31% 31% 30%31% 31% 31% 30%

Local Diploma Regents Diploma Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation

2006 2007 2008 2009

Four Years Five Years Six Years

74.0 %

80.0 % 80.9 %

73.4 %74.0 %

79.2 %74.9 %

79.9 % 81.4 %

Cohort Size

2006 224,744

2007 223,285

2008 221,366

2009 218,4692010 212,000

The cohortgraduation rate is

presented at the topof the columns. Theoverall rate may not

equal the sum ofeach diploma typedue to rounding.

Statewide, the Percentage of Cohort Members Earning a Local,Regents, or Regents with Advanced Designation Diploma

76.4 %81.1 % 81.5 %

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008

The statewide percentage of students earning Local Diplomas has decreased.The percentage of students earning Regents Diplomas with AdvancedDesignation, an indicator of career and college readiness, remains flat.


13/27

1313

12%8%

3% 3% 4%

16%12%

4% 4%

19%14%

5%

33%37%

41% 41%43%

36%42%

49% 50%

38%43%

51%

16% 16% 17% 17%

18%

17% 17% 17%17%

17% 17% 17%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008



60.4 %

70.2 % 73.2 %

61.0 % 60.9 %

69.4 %

Cohort Size

2006 78,346

2007 79,476

2008 79,719

2009 78,7212010 75,524

61.3 %

69.5 %73.0 %

The cohortgraduation rate is

presented at the top

of the columns. Theoverall rate may not

equal the sum ofeach diploma typedue to rounding.

64.2 %

71.4 % 72.7 %

The Percentage of Cohort Members Earning a Local,Regents, or Regents with Advanced Designation Diploma

The four-year graduation rate for New York City increased. The percentageof students earning each diploma type increased slightly.


14/27

14

The Achievement Gap Persists

The graduation rate achievement gap between cohortpercentages of Black or Hispanic and White studentsremains relatively stable (about 25 percentage pointsfor the 2010 cohort).

The achievement gap is widest for the AdvancedDesignation diploma (about 30 percentage points forthe 2010 cohort).

Achievement gaps exist between females and malesacross all racial/ethnic groups.


15/27

1515

4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 5% 4% 4%

45%42% 40%

46%43% 39%

46%44%

40%

9%12%

42%

9%12%

43%

10% 13%

44%

Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic White


2008 2009 2010

58.1% 59.7%

86.5%

57.8%

85.7%

59.2%

The Percentage of Cohort Members Earning a Local,

Regents, or Regents with Advanced Designation Diploma as of June of year 4.

The cohort graduation rate is presented at the top of each column. The overall rate may not equal the sum of each diploma type due to rounding.

61.6% 61.6%

87.3%

Statewide, the graduation rate achievement gap byracial/ethnic group persists, particularly for the

Advanced Designation Diploma


16/27

1616

Statewide, the achievement gap exists betweenfemales and males across all racial/ethnic groups.

6 8 . 9

%

8 6 . 0

%

6 6 . 5

%

6 5 . 6

%

9 0 . 0 %

7 9 . 8 %

7 8 . 8

%

5 6 . 7 %

5 7 . 8

%

8 4 . 8

%

7 3 . 2

%

5 5 . 0

% 6 1 . 6

%

6 1 . 6 %

8 7 . 3

%

7 6 . 4

% 8 2 . 3

%

6 1 . 4 %

American Indian / Alaska Native

Asian Black Hispanic White All Racial/EthnicGroups

Females Males Females and Males Combined

Percentage of S tudents in 2010 Tota l Cohor t Graduat ing w i th Regentsor Lo ca l Dip loma Af te r Four Years Through June 2014


17/27

1717

Race/ethnicity and gender achievement gapsexist across the Big 5 Districts.

6 4 %

6 1 %

8 3 %

5 2 %

4 7 %

7 3 %

4 8 %

3 9 %

5 5 %

5 2 %

5 0 %

6 1 % 6

5 %

7 1 %

8 4 %

5 3 %

5 2 %

7 3 %

4 8 %

4 0 %

6 8 %

3 9 %

3 6 %

6 0 %

4 7 %

2 9 %

5 7 %

4 8 %

6 5 %

7 1 %

B H W B H W B H W B H W B H W

Females Males


N Y C B u f f a l o R o c h e s t e r S y r a c u s e Y o n k e r s

B = Black Students, H = Hispanic Students, W = White Students


18/27

1818

Race/ethnicity and gender achievement gapsexist across remaining Need/Resource Groups.

5 2 % 5

7 %

6 9 %

6 6 %

6 5 %

7 8 %

7 7 %

6 8 %

8 4 %

8 1 %

8 0 %

9 1 % 9 3

%

8 9 %

9 7 %

4 5 % 5

0 %

6 5 %

5 6 % 5 9 %

7 0 %

6 3 %

6 7 %

7 8 %

7 3 %

7 3 %

8 6 %

8 5 %

8 3 %

9 4 %

B H W B H W B H W B H W B H W

FemalesMales


Urban/ SuburbanHigh N/RC

Rural High N/RC Average N/RC Low N/RC

B = Black Students, H = Hispanic Students, W = White Students

Large City HighN/RC


19/27

19

English Language Learners The graduation rates for English Language Learners have generally

decreased over the past five years. The percentage of ELLs earning the Regents Diploma after four years has

not increased sufficiently to offset the decrease in those earning the LocalDiploma.

However, the graduation rate for students who exited LEP status and nolonger receive ELL services is comparable to non-ELL students.

The Board of Regents has launched a number of initiatives to improvedistrict services for ELLs, including:

For the first time in 30 years, an update to the Part 154 regulations that govern services forELLs;

Release of the Blueprint for ELL Success; Release of Bilingual Common Core Progressions; Development of ELL scaffolds for optional curricular materials; Memorandum of Understanding with NYCDOE to strengthen services for NYC ELLs; State Aid proposals for targeted funding to support ELLs; and A new graduation safety net appeal process for certain ELL students who enter the U.S.

during ninth grade or above.


20/27

2020

4 0 . 3

%

3 3 . 3

%

3 4 . 4

%

3 1 . 2 %

4 0 . 3

%

3 6 . 9

%

2 4 . 3

% 3 4

. 4 %

5 5 . 8

%

4 1 . 5

%

3 9 . 4

%

2 6 . 2

% 3 0

. 4 %

3 4 . 5

% 3 8

. 6 %

3 8 . 2

%

5 3 . 5 %

3 5 . 4

%

2 0 . 7

% 2 8

. 9 %

2 6 . 8

% 3 5 . 0 %

4 7 . 7 %

3 4 . 3

%

3 2 . 3

%

2 1 . 6

% 2 3

. 9 %

3 8 . 8

%

3 5 . 2

% 4 5

. 2 %

3 1 . 4

%

1 8 . 5

%

3 2 . 5

%

2 3 . 5

%

4 7 . 0 %

New York City Large City HighN/RC

Urban-Suburban High

N/RC

Rural HighN/RC

Average N/RC Low N/RC Total Public


Overall, the graduation rate for English LanguageLearners decreased slightly for the 2010 cohort

compared to the 2009 cohort.Percentage of English Language Learner Students Graduating with Regents or Local

Diploma as of June of Year 4

The percentage of English Language Learners earning the Regents


21/27

2121

The percentage of English Language Learners earning the RegentsDiploma after four years has not increased sufficiently to offset the

decrease in those earning the Local Diploma.

14%10%

4% 3% 3%

21%

6% 5%

24%

6%5%

6%

6% 4%

7% 6%

6%6%

7% 6%

6%

17% 19%

6%

26%

31%

37%20%

23%

25%23%

24%

24%29%

34%34%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008



34.3 %

51.6 %

56.7 %

40.3 %38.2 %

51.7 %

The percentage of English Language Learner cohort members earning a Local, Regents or Regents withAdvanced Designation Diploma

Cohort Membership

2006 11,635

2007 12,236

2008 11,986

2009 12,277

2010 11,365

31.4 %

45.8 %

55.2 %

31.2 %

45.1 %

49.9%


22/27

222222

3 1 . 4 %

3 1 . 2 %

7 1 . 0

%

7 2 . 9

% 7 7 . 9 %

7 9 . 0

%

7 4 . 9 %

7 6 . 4 %

Results Through June After 4 Years

The graduation rate for students who no longer receiveEnglish Language Learner services is comparable to the

general population.

Current ELL One-Time ELL(Excluding Current

ELL)

Never ELL All Students

2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010

* Data are available for the 2005-06 to 2013-14 school years only. Therefore, students in the 2010 cohort who received ELL servicesprior to grade 4 (prior to 2005-06 for students in grade 12 in the 2013-14 school year) will not be identified as One-Time ELL;

similarly, students in the 2009 cohort who received ELL services prior to grade 5 (prior to 2005-06 for students in grade 12 in the2012-13 school year) will not be identified as One-Time ELL.

Current ELL includesstudents who wereidentified as ELL duringthe school year of theirlast enrollment .

One-Time ELL includesstudents identified as ELLin any school yearpreceding the school year

of their last enrollment(excludes students whoare Current ELLs).*

Never ELL includesstudents who were neverreported to receive ELLservices.*


23/27

2323

Cohort Outcomes on Two Aspirational PerformanceMeasures (APMs) are Reported for all Districts and

High Schools.

1. Advanced Regents Diploma Percentage APM

The percentage of cohort students who earned a Regents Diploma with AdvancedDesignation (22 units of credit, 7-9 Regents examinations at 65 or above, andadvanced course sequences in languages other than English, CTE, or the arts).

2. ELA/Math APM

The percentage of cohort students who graduated with a Local, Regents, or Regentswith Advanced Designation diploma and earned a 75 or greater on their EnglishRegents examination and earned a 80 or greater on a math Regents examination.

Outcomes on APMs are significantly lower than the overall graduation rates.

We will report APMs for schools and districts while college and career-ready graduationrequirements are phased in for students.

* NYSED will update these APMs as new research findings become available and as Regents Examsbegin to measure the Common Core Learning Standards. Although the ELA/Math APM remains auseful within-year comparison against performance benchmarks and across schools and districts, thismeasure is not directly comparable across cohorts.


24/27

242424

6 1

. 3 %

5 3

. 4 %

4 3 . 0 % 4

8 . 8

%

6 6

. 4 % 7

4 . 9 %

6 4

. 2 %

5 2

. 8 %

4 3 . 4

% 5 1

. 1 %

6 8

. 8 % 7

6 . 4

%

1 7

. 0 %

7 . 4 %

5 . 6 % 5

. 9 % 7 . 1 %

3 0

. 6 %

1 7

. 6 %

7 . 3 %

4 . 9

% 5

. 5 % 8 . 9 %

3 1

. 2 %

1 1

. 7 %

5 . 1

% 6

. 6 % 9 . 7 %

3 7

. 2 %

2 4

. 4 %

2 6

. 6 %

1 2

. 5 %

6 . 1 % 9 . 3

% 1 4

. 8 %

3 8

. 1 %

New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public2009 Graduation Rate 2010 Graduation Rate2009 Regents with Adv Designation 2010 Regents with Adv Designation2009 ELA/Math APM 2010 ELA/Math APM

All Students After 4 Years

Results Through June

Aspirational Performance Measures (APMs) as a Percentage of theCohort Compared to Graduation Rate in the Big 5 School Districts


25/27

252525

6 2

. 2 %

5 9

. 7 %

5 9

. 2 %

8 0

. 6 %

8 6

. 5 %

7 4

. 9 %

6 1

. 4 %

6 1

. 6 %

6 1

. 6 %

8 2

. 3 %

8 7

. 3 %

7 6

. 4 %

4 9

. 4 %

4 3 . 3 %

3 0

. 6 %

1 6

. 0 %

9 . 9

% 1 3

. 0 %

4 9

. 8 %

4 3 . 7 %

3 1

. 2 %

1 4

. 2 %

1 8

. 0 %

5 7

. 2 %

5 0

. 4 %

1 6

. 5 %

9 . 4

% 1 2

. 4 % 2

1 . 3

%

3 7

. 2 %

3 8

. 1 % 5 0

. 8 % 5

8 . 8

%

1 9

. 0 %

1 5

. 4 % 2

1 . 7

%

AmericanIndian/Alaska

Native

Black Hispanic Asian White All Students

2009 Graduation Rate 2010 Graduation Rate2009 Regents with Adv Designation 2010 Regents with Adv Designation2009 ELA/Math APM 2010 ELA/Math APM

All Students in Public Schools After 4 Years


Aspirational Performance Measures (APMs) as a Percentage ofthe Cohort Compared to Graduation Rate by Race/Ethnicity


26/27

262626

3 1

. 4 %

7 1

. 0 %

4 8 . 7 %

7 9

. 2 %

7 4

. 9 %

3 1

. 2 %

7 2

. 9 %

4 9 . 8 %

8 1

. 1 %

7 6

. 4 %

5 . 5 %

1 8

. 4 %

3 . 1

%

3 5

. 1 %

3 0

. 6 %

4 . 1 %

1 7

. 9 %

2 . 9

%

3 6

. 2 %

3 1

. 2 %

2 3

. 2 %

5 . 4 %

4 2

. 4 %

3 7

. 2 %

5 . 9

%

3 8

. 1 % 4

4 . 0

%

4 . 9 %

2 3

. 5 %

5 . 3 %

English LanguageLearners

One-Time ELL* Students withDisabilities

General EducationStudents

All Students

2009 Graduation Rate 2010 Graduation Rate2009 Regents with Adv Designation 2010 Regents with Adv Designation2009 ELA/Math APM 2010 ELA/Math APM

Students in Public Schools After 4 Years


Aspirational Performance Measures (APMs) as a Percentage of theCohort Compared to Graduation Rate

One-Time ELL includesstudents identified as ELLin any school yearpreceding the school yearof their last enrollment.(excludes students whoare Current ELLs).*

*One-Time ELL status is available for the 2009 and 2010 cohorts only. Data are sourced from 2005-06 to 2013-14 SIRS data. Therefore, students in the

2010 cohort who received ELL services prior to grade 4 (prior to 2005-06 for students in grade 12 in the 2013-14 school year) will not be identified asOne-Time ELL; similarly, students in the 2009 cohort who received ELL services prior to grade 5 (prior to 2005-06 for students in grade 12 in the 2012-13school year) will not be identified as One-Time ELL.


27/27

27

Graduation Rates:Students Who Started 9 th Grade

in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010

New York High School Grad Rates 2014

Documents

Transcript of New York High School Grad Rates 2014