DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 416 383 CE 075 853

AUTHOR Boesel, David; Alsalam, Nabeel; Smith, Thomas M.

TITLE Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients.

Research Synthesis.

INSTITUTION National Library of Education (ED/OERI), Washington, DC.

REPORT NO NLE-98-2023

PUB DATE 1998-02-00

NOTE 161p.

PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Adult Basic Education; *Educational Attainment; *Employment

Patterns; *Equivalency Tests; Followup Studies; *High School

Equivalency Programs; Literature Reviews; National Surveys;

*Outcomes of Education; State Surveys; Synthesis; Tables

(Data); Test Norms; Test Reliability; *Test Use; Test

Validity; Trend Analysis

IDENTIFIERS *General Educational Development Tests

ABSTRACT

In 1995, nearly three-quarters of a million high school

dropouts, age 16 and above, took the General Educational Development (GED)

tests in pursuit of alternative secondary certification. The GED performs the

following functions: stimulate human capital investment; measure and assess

cognitive skills; certify dropouts with specified skill and knowledge levels;

and build dropouts' confidence. Accordingly, GED recipients are much more

likely to participate in postsecondary education and vocational training than

are other dropouts. Although the grade-point averages of GED recipients and

high school graduates enrolled in postsecondary education tend to converge

over time, high school graduates are much more likely to complete their

postsecondary education than GED recipients are. In controlled comparisons, a

GED had little effect on labor force participation or unemployment but was

positively associated with gains in full-time employment. Studies have shown

that GED recipients earn more than other dropouts but less than high school

graduates. Although GED recipients had no earnings advantage over dropouts in

the short term, their relative earnings increased over time. (The

bibliography contains 215 references. Appended are the following: evidence

from Wisconsin regarding GED norming; seven tables; discussion of technical

issues; and summary of GED follow-up surveys.) (MN) ********************************************************************************

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. * ********************************************************************************
cr

'Tr

Educational and

Labor Market Performance of

GED Recipients

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Mace of Educational Research end Improvement E CICATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organization

originating it.

El Minor changes have been made to

improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this

document do not necessarily represent

official OERI position or policy.

of U

National Library of Education

Office of Educational Researc;k4ivithuptitNe

U. Department of Education
Research Synthesis

Educational and

Labor Market Performance of

GED Recipients

David Boesel, National Library of Education

Nabeel Alsalam, National Center for Education Statistics

Thomas M. Smith, National Center for Education Statistics

National Library of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

3
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Ricky T. Takai

Acting Assistant Secretary

National Library of Education

Blane K. Dessy

Director

Media and Information Services

Cynthia Hearn Dorfman

Director

February 1998

This study is intended to promote the exchange of ideas among researchers

and policy makers. The views expressed in it are part of ongoing research and

analysis and do not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Education.
PREFACE

Often it is hard to tell what conclusions can be drawn from education research

studies, because the studies on a given subject have not been examined systematically as a body of research. Analyses conducted at different times with

different populations and different research methods often yield apparently

inconsistent conclusions about the same subject. Given ambiguous research

findings, advocates of one position or another may promote those that support

their views, while ignoring or minimizing contrary findings. In such circumstances, researchers, policy makers, and practitioners, such as teachers and

administrators, may lack the comprehensive, balanced, objective information

they need. While many good syntheses of education research have been produced over the years, many topics have not yet been covered.

In response to this need, the National Library of Education (NLE) has undertaken a series of research syntheses on issues of public concern in education.

Based on published literature identified through traditional bibliographic

searches, ERIC, and other Internet sources, and on unpublished Ph.D. dissertations and research reports available to NLE, the syntheses are designed to be

empirical, even-handed, and as comprehensive as possible.

This study of the performance of General Educational Development (GED)

recipients is the first synthesis in the series. The result of a great deal of careful

research, it should be especially useful to those concerned with the education of

adults and out-of-school youth.

We look forward to the new research syntheses to be provided in the future.

Blane Dessy

Executive Director

National Library of Education

5

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Joan Auchter, Janet Baldwin, David Bergeron,

Michael Garet, David Goodwin, Janice Laurence, Drew Malizio, Tim Maloney,

Richard Murnane, Lois Quinn, Ron Pugs ley, and Stephen Reder for their

thoughtful review of and comments on the study. Janet Baldwin also generously

made available research materials in GED Testing Service files.

Ray Cortines, Joe Conaty, and Marty Orland for valuable policy perspectives on

issues in the synthesis.

Steve Cooper of the National Library of Education for finding fugitive research

materials, and Aurora D'Amico for providing valuable information on NCES

publications.

Diane Magarity and Gerry Devlin for coordinating the editorial process of the

manuscript. Judy Craig for the cover design and review procedures. Rebecca

Pratt, Carol Rohr, and Allison Pinckney at Pinkerton ComputerConsultants,

Inc. for editing the tables and typesetting.

6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

In 1995 almost three-quarters of a million high school dropouts, age 16 and

above, took the General Educational Development (GED) Tests, seeking the

most widely recognized form of alternative secondary certification in the United

States. The half million who passed it were awarded high school equivalency

diplomas, about one-sixth of all the high school diplomas issued in that year.

GED examinees say that they take the tests primarily to get access to more

education and to improve their job prospects. How successful are those who

attain the GED credential? How does their performance in postsecondary

education and the job market compare with that of regular high school graduates? With that of other high school dropouts? And what relation, if any, does

GED certification have to the outcomes in these arenas? This study examines

50 years of research that addresses these and related questions.

The GED Tests were developed for the U.S. Army during World War II. At that

time, the Roosevelt administration favored federal support for the college

education of returning veterans, but many service members lacked the high

school diplomas necessary to enter college. The granting of diplomas for wartime service had been tried after World War I, but colleges and universities came

to oppose this practice. As an alternative, the American Council for Education

(ACE) proposed testing veterans to determine competence for college. In 1942,

test experts working for the Army selected five tests from the Iowa Test of

Educational Development to form the first General Educational Development

Tests. The tests reflected the emphasis of progressive educators on learning

related to everyday life rather than on formal academics.

In the 1940s, GED test takers were mainly veterans and service members, and

the test results were used mainly for college admissions. After the War, however,

the tests were also administered to civilians, and states began to award high

school credentials for passing the tests. By 1959, civilian test takers outnumbered veterans and service members.

From the beginning, the GED test battery has contained five different exams

writing, interpretation of literature, math, social studies, and sciencethough

the content of the tests has changed. As a rule, the tests presentwritten passages and multiple choice questions about the passages. They also provide

additional information needed to answer the questions, such as mathematical

formulas.

The American Council for Education's GED Testing Service produces and

administers the tests, and its Commission on Educational Credit and Credentials sets the minimum passing standards. Above the minimums, states are free

7

vii
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

to set their own conditions for passing the GED and awarding credentials. The

original wartime passing standards were in place until 1982, when the ACE

commission raised them. The commission raised the standards again in 1997.

In the years during and immediately after the war, the overwhelming majority of

veterans who took the GED passed it. For the mostly civilian examinees who

took the test between 1974 and 1995, the median yearly pass rate was 71.5

percent. However, the eventual pass rate for a cohort of initial test takers is

probably somewhat higher, because candidates can usually retake tests that they

fail or do not complete.

On average, GED recipients perform about as well as graduating high school

seniors on each of the five tests. Their scores are a little higher on the social

studies, science, and literature tests and a little lower on the writing skills and

math tests. However, the relation between the performance of GED recipients and that of high school seniors on the entire five-test battery has been a

subject of debate.

From the early years of the GED, critics charged that passing the tests was too

easy and did not reflect the skills of high school graduates. Beginning in the

1980s, new challenges to the test arose in several areas. First, a series of studies

by military manpower researchers showed that enlistees with GEDs tended to

have high attrition rates. Second, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction found that GED recipients enrolled in Wisconsin colleges were much more

likely than high school graduates to leave and that their grades and other measures of performance were lower than those of high school graduates. Third, a 1993 study by economists Stephen Cameron and James Heckman concluded

that GED certificate holders are less likely to be employed, earn less, and

experience more job turnover than high school graduates, once other factors are

controlled. Against this background, the current synthesis will examine research

on the performance of GED recipients in postsecondary education, the labor

market, and the armed services.

Functions of the GED

Before assessing the performance of GED recipients, however, the synthesis

examines the social functions that the GED process performs or is said to

perform.

The GED as a Stimulus to Human Capital Investment

Human capital investment is the time, money, and other resources expended in

acquiring work-relevant skills. Time spent in formal education and/or training is

a widely used measure of human capital investment. Based on this measure, to

what extent does the GED stimulate human capital investment among non-high

school graduates?

8

viii
Executive Summary

The GED as an Incentive to Invest

In 1980, GED examinees spent a median of 20 hours (and $10) preparing for

the tests. By 1989, they were spending a median of 30 hours in preparation.

This change was driven by a doubling in the proportion of candidates who spent

over 100 hours preparing for the testsfrom 11.8 percent to 24.2 percent.

Reasons for this increase are unclear.

Although 30 hours of test preparation is a very limited investment in human

capital, the proportion of examinees who spent more than 100 hours preparing

for the GED deserves attention. Research suggests that an adult learner needs

approximately 100 hours of instruction to achieve a 1-year gain in reading ability.

Still, such investments are much smaller than the approximately 410 hours spent

in core curriculum classes in a typical school year. In 1995, GED test takers had

completed a mean 9.9 years of school. With 2.1 years of additional schooling,

high school graduates typically had 861 more hours of core curriculum classes.

The GED as a Disincentive to Invest?

Because passing the GED takes less time and effort than a high school diploma

and may appear to have the same status, some researchers believe that it encourages marginal students to drop out of school or facilitates their departure.

Almost half of the states (24) allow young people to take the test before the age

at which they would ordinarily graduate from high school, and several have

allowed school systems to start alternative in-school programs leading to a GED.

(The ACE commission waived a prohibition against administering the GED to

students in high school on a trial basis and subject to conditions.)

No systematic research directly addresses the question of whether the GED

encourages dropping out, and an examination of related literature found no

substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that it does.

Measuring and Assessing Cognitive Skills

The GED was designed to measure the ability to understand, evaluate, and

manipulate concepts and information and to use knowledge and reason to reach

general conclusions in five subject areas. Underlying performance in each of

these areas is a set of basic cognitive skills that is the primary determinant of the

scores on all five. The underlying cognitive skills are reflected in intercorrelations among the tests ranging from .64 to .82 and in strong correlations

between total GED Test scores and total scores on other tests, such as the

American College Test (.80), the National Adult Literacy Survey (.78), and the

military entrance examination (.75 and .79 in two analyses).

Analyses of data from the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) and the

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) show that GED certification designates non-high school graduates whose cognitive skills exceed those of

other dropouts. On average, GED recipients have adult literacy skills equal to

9

ix
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

those of high school graduates. In terms of ASVAB scores, GEDs are not equal

to graduates, but they are closer to graduates than to dropouts.

The GED as a Sorting Procedure

The GED process, beginning with the decision to take the test and ending with

the certification of successful examinees, provides an opportunity for high school

dropouts to demonstrate their cognitive skills and related knowledge. GED

examinees tend to have more of these skills than other dropouts, and simply by

taking the test, they set themselves apart. Self-selection is the major part of the

sorting process that the GED performs. Although many of today's new dropouts take the test, only 1.5 percent of 44 million adults without high school

diplomas have done so. Once an individual takes the test, the probabilities of

passing are fairly high.

The GED process tends to select dropouts who have more schooling and higher

socioeconomic status than other dropouts, as well as stronger cognitive skills.

They have fewer of these assets than high school graduates, however.

The GED as Certification

The GED process certifies dropouts with relatively good cognitive skills as

having passed the tests, providing a high school equivalency award. This certification can serve to signal educational institutions, employers, and others that the

GED recipient has demonstrated the ability to read, write, think, and compute

at the high school level, according to state standards for passing the test.

Postsecondary institutions usually accept the GED, but many require additional

evidence of ability to perform in college, such as SAT or ACT scores. In this

respect, the admission requirements for GEDs are similar to those for high

school graduates. In addition to opening doors to postsecondary education,

GED certification can also help GED enrollees obtain federal financial aid, such

as Pell Grants and Guaranteed Student Loans.

Most employers surveyed in the studies reviewed accepted the GED credential

and regarded it as equivalent to a high school diploma. Further, a majority of

those responding to two surveys thought that GED recipients performed their

work as well as high school graduates. However, many of the employer studies

raise questions about the relevance of all secondary education credentials to

hiring decisions. If the saliency of secondary education credentials for employer

decisions is low, then the distinction between those with credentials and those

without may not matter much, and the signal that an employer receives from

either kind of credential may be weak.

10 x
Executive Summary

The GED as a Self-Confidence Builder

Low self-esteem is associated with an array of negative outcomes. Breaking out

of the cycle of low self-esteem and poor performance can be extremely difficult.

Survey research indicates that most high school dropouts who pass the GED feel

better about themselves, and their increased self-esteem may help them acquire

more education, get better jobs, and generally improve their life circumstances.

The durability of this new self-confidence is an important question, but one for

which there is no answer at present.

Postsecondary Outcomes

What proportion of GED recipients enroll in postsecondary education and

training programs, and how well do they do in them?

Postsecondary Enrollments

GEDs are much more likely to participate in postsecondary education and

vocational training than are other dropouts. In the survey studies reviewed, over

half of the GED recipientsbetween 50 and 63 percentgot some additional

civilian education and training in degree-granting colleges, vocational schools,

apprenticeship programs, or on-the-job training. GEDs are most likely to enroll

in community colleges and vocational/technical schools and to concentrate on

acquiring occupational skills. This focus is understandable: most are adults and

many have family responsibilities.

The GED share of postsecondary enrollments declined from 7 percent in 1986

to 4 percent in 1992. Reasons for the decline are unclear, but it occurred in lessthan-2-year, 2-year, and 4-year institutions.

Postsecondary Grade Point Averages

The grades of GED students in the institutions examined were close to those of

high school graduates. For example, among beginners in 4-year colleges, the

difference was roughly that between a C and a low C+. The grades of GEDs

and high school graduates enrolled in postsecondary education programs tended

to converge over time, as selective attrition of the less able students equalized

the groups. In vocational programs, which often last 1 year, this convergence

effect was slight; the grade-point averages of GEDs were approximately equal to

those of high school graduates. In 2-year colleges, the ratio of GED to high

school diploma grade point averages increased from .82 in the first year to 1.06

upon completion, and in 4-year colleges, it increased from .86 to 1.00. In all

three types of schools, GEDs who graduated earned approximately the same

grade point averages as those with regular high school credentials.

11

xi
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Postsecondary Persistence and Completion Rates

In general, GED recipients are less likely than high school diploma holders to

complete their postsecondary education. While GEDs graduate from vocational

programs at about the same rate as their counterparts, they are only half as likely

to earn associate's degrees and much less likely to earn bachelor's degrees.

These attrition rates are probably not a "result" of GED certification, but of

other predisposing factors associated with possession of the credential, such as

single-parent status and delayed enrollment.

Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Over the last two decades, the real annual earnings of young adults have declined at rates related to educational attainment. College graduates lost ground

in the early 1970s, but their earnings have leveled off since then. The earnings

of workers with less education have continued to decline. Those with the least

education and the lowest earnings, the high school dropouts, are losing ground

most quickly. Dropouts would gain substantially if they had the earnings of high

school graduates, but assuming the continuation of present conditions, they

would still be experiencing a long-run decline in earnings.

To assess the labor-market performance of GED recipients, we reviewed crosssectional studies, which compared GED recipients and others at the same time,

and longitudinal studies, which compared the performance of GEDs and others

before and after completion of the test battery.

Cross-sectional Studies

The analyses of cross-sectional studies examine the labor-market performance of

GED recipients; highlight three key explanatory variables; and assess the indirect effects of GED attainment.

xii

Labor Force Participation and Employment Status

In controlled comparisons, the GED credential had little effect on labor force

participation or unemployment but was positively associated with gains in fulltime employment.

Wages

In controlled analyses, the wages of male GEDs were 6 to 12 percent higher

than those of dropouts; female wages were up to 13 percent higher; and the

wages of GED adults (both sexes) were 5 to 11 percent higher. In all studies but

one, however, GEDs earned less than high school graduates. Much of the

apparent wage effect of GED status may actually be an effect of other key

characteristics of GED recipients, which are examined below.

12
Executive Summary

Time Spent Working

In controlled comparisons, GED males spent less mean time working than

dropouts, while females spent more time working. On average, GEDs of both

sexes worked less than high school graduates. In simple comparisons, GED

males experienced more job turnover than dropouts, while females experienced

less. Both male and female GEDs had more job turnover than high school

graduates.

Annual Earnings

In simple and controlled analyses, GEDs earned more than other dropouts but

less than high school graduates. In the short term, GED recipients had no

earnings advantage over dropouts, but their relative earnings grew over time.

The low returns to the GED shortly after certification may reflect opportunity

costs of acquiring more education and training.

Key Control Variables and GED Outcomes

Several variables associated with GED status may explain much of the apparent

GED effect on wages.

Years of Schooling

On average, GED recipients have more years of elementary and secondary

schooling than other dropouts and (of course) less than high school graduates.

These differences may affect wages. In the research reviewed, among males of

similar race, ethnicity, and maternal education, all differences in hourly earnings

between the three groups could be explained by differences in years of secondary schooling completed. Neither the high school diploma nor the GED had any

additional "sheepskin" effect. Among females, a substantial part of the wage

differences could be explained by years of secondary schooling, but the there

remained a possibility of credential effects.

Postsecondary Attainment

High school graduates have more postsecondary education than GED recipients, who in turn have more than other dropouts. Controlled studies showed

that variation in postsecondary attainment helps explain the wage difference

between GED recipients and diploma graduates and, to a much lesser extent,

the difference between GED recipients and other dropouts. Nevertheless,

GEDs still had higher wages than other dropouts after the effect of

postsecondary education was taken into account.

Cognitive Ability

On average, the basic cognitive ability of GED recipients is close to that of high

school graduates and considerably above that of dropouts. Controlling on

cognitive ability greatly reduced or eliminated any wage differences between

GEDs and dropouts but had a smaller effect on differences between GEDs and

high school graduates. Controlling on ability statistically removed the GEDs'

13
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

primary advantage over other dropoutstheir greater cognitive skills. Since the

basic cognitive skills of GEDs are close to those of high school graduates, the

difference in their wages was less affected by the introduction of this variable as

a control.

Educational attainment and cognitive ability are strongly related. Taken together, analyses of the effects of secondary schooling, higher education, and

cognitive ability suggest that accumulated human capital, reflected in level of

education and ability scores, accounts for most of the wage differences among

high school graduates, GEDs, and dropouts of similar backgrounds.

Indirect Effects of GED Attainment

Although direct effects of GED certification on wages are limited, once education level or ability are controlled, the credential does have substantial indirect

effects. It increases access to postsecondary education and training, and if GED

recipients take advantage of that access, their wages tend to improve. Female

GEDs also receive indirect wage benefits through the additional job tenure and

work experience that the GED enables them to obtain. Male GED recipients,

however, do not increase their wages through tenure and experience, because

they have less than dropouts.

Longitudinal Analyses

An analysis of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY)

found no initial GED effect on wages for males, but over time, wages grew more

rapidly than they would have had GED certification not been attained. The

authors think the data reflect an indirect GED effect on wages through further

training and job search. In another study based on the NLSY, wage effects for

females were positive but not statistically significant.

An analysis from an evaluation of a federal JOBS program found that having a

GED was associated with $47.37 per month higher earnings for males and

females combined. An analysis of women in a job training program for welfare

mothers found a GED effect of $22.60 monthly, an 8-10 percent increase in

earnings.

xiv

In the JOBS study, time spent in basic education to prepare for the GED was

negatively associated with earnings, possibly because participating in basic

education resulted in less time working. On the other hand, basic education, a

GED, and time spent in job training or college had substantial positive effects.

The combination of a GED with vocational training and attainment of an

occupational license produced especially large effects.

Based on the evidence, high school dropouts can improve their economic

condition by obtaining the basic or remedial education needed to pass the GED

and through the GED, obtaining further job-related education and training. If

such a strategy is followed, the opportunity costs of acquiring additional educa14
Executive Summary

tion and training may limit early returns to the credential, but the returns will

increase over time.

The GED and the U.S. Armed Forces

Until the 1980s, the armed services made no practical distinction between high

school graduates and GED recipients in enlistment policy. Then military manpower studies showed that GED attrition rates were double those of high school

graduates and about the same as those of dropouts. For example, between 1977

and 1983, the 36-month attrition rates were 22 percent for high school graduates, 45 percent for GEDs, and 52 percent for dropouts. The services invest

heavily in training and providing for new recruits, and high attrition rates are

unacceptable. Consequently, the military developed a three-tier system for

assessing the educational qualifications of applicants. High school graduates are

placed in the first tier and are regarded as the best prospective recruits. GEDs

are placed in the second tier, and dropouts in the third. Nevertheless, some

35,000-40,000 GED recipients do enlist in the military each year.

Conclusion

The GED process identifies and certifies high school dropouts whose ability to

read, write, think, and do math is better than that of other dropouts and about

equal to that of high school graduates, on average.

The tests do not measure other characteristics related to performance in

postsecondary education, the civilian labor market, and the military. GED

recipients typically have more schooling and come from families with higher

socioeconomic status than do other dropouts. High school graduates, in turn,

have more of these assets than GEDs. Characteristics such as these explain a

substantial part of the differences in the performance of GEDs, dropouts, and

high school graduates.

GED certification provides reliable information about an individual's basic

cognitive skills to postsecondary institutions, employers, the military, the federal

government, and others who might be asked to make a selection decision about

that person.

By signalling cognitive competencies to decision makers who usually know little

about an individual, the GED can help open the door to opportunity. Once

through the door, however, the individual has to use the cognitive skills and

whatever other knowledge, skills, and abilities he or she may have in order to

succeed.

GED certification can help in gaining access to postsecondary education and can

help recipients get financial assistance. Once enrolled in college, GEDs earn

grade point averages similar to those of high school diploma holders, but they

are less likely to graduate.

15 XV
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

In postsecondary vocational programs, GED recipients seem to be average

students. The short-term, job-related nature of these programs and the handson learning they entail probably have an appeal for students who left high school

early, are struggling to fulfill adult responsibilities, and want to improve their job

prospects.

GED certification can also increase job opportunities somewhat. Once on the

job, GED recipients have to use both their cognitive and noncognitive skillsin

order to succeed, as do other workers.

Male GEDs tend to earn higher wages than other dropouts, but because of their

greater schooling, they might have earned as much without the credential. They

spend about the same amount of time working as other dropouts, and they have

more job turnover. Female GEDs get at least the same relative wage advantage

as malesan advantage not entirely explained by prior schoolingand, unlike

males, they spend more time working and have less turnover than dropouts do.

Most of the GED's effect on wages comes not from the credential, but from the

human capital that it reflects or makes accessible.

It is worthwhile for a high school dropout to get a GED. Its biggest advantage is

that it increases access to postsecondary education and training, which tend to

improve economic outcomes.

On the other hand, GED rates of persistence in the structured activities examined in this study seem problematic, especially for males. First evident in high

school, the problem appears to recur in other contexts. GED attrition rates in

the military were close to those of dropouts. In postsecondary education, other

than vocational programs, GED graduation rates were much lower than those of

high school diploma holders. In the labor market, male GEDs spent less time

working than dropouts, or the same amount, and had more job turnover. (The

labor market outcomes are suggestive but difficult to interpret. To some extent,

they may reflect the opportunity costs of acquiring more education and a tendency to leave old jobs for new ones with better pay.)

The GED process certifies one form of human capitalcognitive skillsbut,

unlike a high school education, does not generate it. Nor does the GED process

generate or certify noncognitive human capital, such as work habits and the

ability to function well in organizationsattributes positively related to persistence. Based on military studies, researchers have concluded that completion of

high school demonstrates the presence of such attributes and that a high school

diploma reflects them.

Noncognitive skills, abilities, and attitudes come from many sources, especially

the family and the school. The role of the school in developing them is widely

recognized but not well enough understood. Involvement in the process of

schooling (e.g., regular attendance, meeting deadlines, complying with authority,

and cooperating with others) may affect later outcomes as much as learning the

content of schooling.

xvi 1
Executive Summary

Years of education and training, either preceding or following GED attainment,

have much more impact on labor market outcomes than the credential itself.

Hence, marginal students should be (and usually are) encouraged to finish high

school wherever possible. For those who do drop out, participation in alternative programs that have structure, rigor, and longevity may recoup some of the

advantages lost by not finishing high school. Education policy makers should

consider developing high school completion programs leading to a regular or

adult diploma. Along other lines, awarding higher levels of GED certification

for higher test scores, which educators in South Dakota are considering, may

provide an incentive for dropouts to invest more time and energy in studying for

the test. Those who pass the test should understand that GED certification is

primarily a stepping stone and that additional progress in the labor market can

best be made by completing postsecondary education and training programs.

Counseling to help GED recipients navigate in college could also be a useful

measure.

In some respects, GED recipients resemble high school graduates; in others,

they resemble dropouts; in still other ways, they fall between the two. Given

these mixed findings, the common practice of counting GEDs as high school

graduates in educational statistics should be reconsidered.

Further, we should keep in mind that neither the high school diploma nor "some

college" have been sufficient to enable young adults to maintain earnings over

the years since the 1970s. It seems unlikely that, in the absence of other

macroecononmic changes, education policy alone can reverse this trend.

17

xvii
CONTENTS

Preface iii

Acknowledgments v

Executive Summary vii

Background vii

Functions of the GED viii

Postsecondary Outcomes xi

Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients xii

The GED and the U.S. Armed Forces xv

Conclusion xv

Background 3

Introduction 3

Brief History 3

GED Content 7

GED Standards 7

Norming and Scoring the GED 9

Challenges to the GED 12

Functions of the GED 17

The GED as a Stimulus to Human Capital Investment 17

Measuring and Assessing Cognitive Skills 21

The GED as a Sorting Procedure 26

The GED as Certification 27

The GED as a Self-Confidence Builder 30

Postsecondary Outcomes 35

Postsecondary Enrollments 35

Postsecondary Grade-Point Averages 38

GPA Performance in Different Eras 39

Postsecondary Persistence and Completion Rates 40

Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients 49

Cross-sectional Studies 49

Longitudinal Analyses 59

The GED and the U.S. Armed Forces 65

Conclusion 73

xix 18
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Notes 79

Bibliography 89

Appendix A. The GED Norming: Evidence From Wisconsin 109

Appendix B. Tables 113

Appendix C. Technical Issues 139

1. Follow-up Surveys of GED Test-takers or Passers 139

2. Panel Surveys 139

3. Cross-Sectional Surveys 140

4. Experiments 140

Appendix D. GED Follow-up Surveys 145

19

xx
BACKGROUND

20
BACKGROUND

Introduction

The General Educational Development Tests are the most widely recognized

form of alternative secondary certification in the United States. Currently,

almost three quarters of a million high school dropouts, aged 16 and older, take

the seven and one- half hour test battery each year. They do so, according to

surveys, mainly to get more education and better jobs.

The purpose of the GED Tests, as currently formulated, is "to provide an

opportunity for adults who have not graduated from high school to earn a highschool level educational diploma" by demonstrating "the attainment of developed abilities normally acquired through completion of a high school program of

study....The credential provided by passing the GED may be used in a manner

identical to a high school diploma" (GED Testing Service 1993a),

The GED Testing Service ordinarily refers to those who pass the exam as

"graduates," and the credential they earn is called a "diploma" or sometimes,

more explicitly, a "high school diploma."' Through much of its history, the GED

has been described as a high school equivalency credential,2 and it is formally

regarded as such by most states and many federal programs. GED recipients are

typically counted as high school graduates in statistics of state and local educational systems and in those of federal agencies such as the Bureau of the Census.

It is reasonable, then, to ask how well GED recipients perform, compared to

high school graduates, in arenas such as postsecondary education, the labor

market, and the military; and many researchers have done so. Further, because

the GED Tests are intended to increase opportunity for those who have not

completed high school, it is also important to ask how well GED recipients

perform, compared to other dropouts. 'Where there aredifferences in either

comparison, it will be useful to determine, where possible, how much of a given

difference is due to the GED and how much to other factors, such as socioeconomic background and individual characteristics not measured by the tests.

This study synthesizes a half century of research that addresses these and related

questions. It describes the development and characteristics of the tests and the

challenges that have been raised to them; discusses the functions of the GED

process; and examines the performance of GED recipients in postsecondary

education, the civilian labor market, and the military.

Brief History

The GED Tests were developed in the early 1940s, when the United States was

entering World War II. At the time, many service members did not have high

school diplomas, either because they had left school to join the armed forces or

3

21
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

4

because they had left for other reasons and later joined the military. The

Roosevelt administration favored federal support for the college education of

returning veterans (Quinn 1997a). However, lacking high school diplomas,

these service members would not have been able to enter college without some

special arrangements. After World War I, high school diplomas had often been

granted for wartime service. Postsecondary institutions also had granted college

credit for service in the military. Over time, though, colleges and universities

came to oppose this practice, and, as an alternative, the American Council on

Education (ACE) proposed testing veterans to determine competence for

college.

In 1942, members of an Advisory Committee to the Army Institute, including

Ralph Tyler and Everett Lindquist, selected five tests from the Iowa Test of

Educational Development to form the first General Educational Development

Tests. Tyler and Lindquist were proponents of progressive education, which

emphasized the integration of learning with everyday life and de-emphasized

formal academic learning that apparently had little practical application (Quinn

1997a). The Iowa Test, and the new GED Tests, reflected this orientation. In

part, the exams emphasized reading and interpreting passages in the social sciences, natural sciences, and literature. Lindquist explained that

there are many different kinds of situations in which a person has occasion

to use his education, but that which lends itself most readily to testing is the

reading situationthat in which he interprets, evaluates critically, and

employs in his own thinking, ideas and information which are presented to

him in print (quoted in Quinn 1997a, p. 31).

The emphasis on using learning in everyday life was also evident in the math test,

which, according to Lindquist, measured

the ability to deal with numbers, [including]... such things as estimating

expenses on home repairs, handling simple business transactions, figuring

out costs on your own insurance, taxes, investments, installment purchases,

and so on (quoted in Quinn 1997a, p. 31).

The GED Tests were first administered to veterans and service members in

1943.3 Initially, colleges and universities were the primary users of the test

results, employing them in the admissions process. After thewar, the GED

battery was also administered to civilians, and states began to grant high school

credentials to those who passed. By 1959, civilian test takers outnumbered

veterans and service members.'

Use of the GED has expanded tremendously since the tests were first introduced. In 1995, 503,813 GED credentials were issued in the United States, as

were 2,553,000 regular high school diplomas. GEDs accounted for one-sixth of

the combined total in that year. Not only has the number of GED credentials

increased, the GED share of secondary credentials has grown as well. In 1968, 5

percent of high school credentials were equivalency certificatesmostly GEDs.

By 1987, the proportion had risen to more than 14 percent (Cameron and

22
Background

Heckman 1993), and in 1995 it had reached 16 percent. Among younger

people, in 1989 GEDs made up 4.2 percent of secondary credentials held by

those in the 18-24 age range; by 1995, the proportion had increased to 7.7

percent.'

Table 1 shows the number of test batteries administered in the U.S., its territories, and Canada from 1954 to 1973, and the number of people completing the

tests from 1974 through 1995, together with the percentage who passed.6

The number of GED Tests administered rose from a few thousand in the early

years to more than 100,000 in 1964 and to 440,000 in 1973. Marked increases

in test administration beginning in the mid-1960s paralleled the expansion of

federal education initiatives. Adult literacy programs, such as those established

by the Adult Basic Education Act of 1966, encouraged and prepared participants

to take the GED. Pell Grants and Supplementary Educational Opportunity

Grants required recipients to be students at approved postsecondary education

or training institutions and to demonstrate a need for financial aid and an ability

to benefit from it. The U.S. Department of Education uses GED certification

as one way to demonstrate ability to benefit. While a causal link between the

expansion in federal education programs and accelerated growth in GED

completions has not been established, such a link is plausible (Cameron and

Heckman 1993). By 1980, almost three quarters of a million individuals were

completing the tests. GED test taking slackened after that, but a recent rise

brought the number completing the tests to 724,000 in 1995.

During and after World War II, the GED pass rates were very high. According to

the Veterans Testing Service, for example, in the first years of the program, some

92 percent of veterans who took the GED passed it, and local data in 1945 and

1946 showed pass rates around 86 percent (Quinn 1997a). By the 1950s the

rates were somewhat lower, but substantial majorities of examinees still passed

the tests. Between 1974 and 1995 the median yearly pass rate was 71.5 percent.

The eventual pass rates for first-time test takers are not necessarily evident from

table 1, because individuals may take the GED exam more than once. Though

practices vary by state, examinees who fail to complete one or more of the five

tests the first time usually need only retake those tests, not the entire battery.

The rate of test retaking has increased. About 7 percent of tests administered in

1958 were retaken, as compared to about 13 percent of tests completed in 1995

(Veteran's Testing Service n.d., GED Testing Service 1996a).7

Two studies have examined the longer-term pass rates for cohorts of examinees.

Cervero (1983) reported that 71 percent of examinees surveyed in spring 1980

passed the tests at the time they took it. Responses to his fall 1981 follow-up

survey indicated that an additional 15 percent had passed the tests in the 18

months since the first survey. In all, 86 percent of the 1980 test takers in the

sample had passed by 1982. Kroll and Qi (1995) noted that 66 percent of those

who completed the tests in the United States and its territories in 1989 were

awarded credentials.8 In their 1992 follow-up survey, an additional 9 percent75 percent in allreported receiving credentials. While the eventual pass rate of

23 5
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Table 1.Number of GED Tests administered, number of people completing test,

and percent passed by year

Number of

Batteries Percent

Year Administered Passed Year

People

Completing

Battery

Percent

Passed

1974 430,253 68.9

1954 [42,141] [80.0] 1975 541,914 70.2

1955 [44,840] [79.0] 1976 539,729 67.8

1956 [52,552] [77.0] 1977 517,847 69.7

1957 [52,874] [76.0] 1978 495,728 N/A

1958 [58,723] [78.0] 1979 608,229 68.4

1959 [56,496] [76.0] 1980 741,601 70.8

1960 [61,093] [77.0] 1981 732,229 72.1

1961 [68,080] [74.0] 1982 724,971 73.9

1962 [75,428] [75.0] 1983 711,946 73.1

1963 [88,242] [71.0] 1984 641,697 73.0

1964 [116,875] [73.0] 1985 647,496 72.4

1965 [143,974] [72.0] 1986 674,430 72.6

1966 [185,778] [71.7] 1987 690,509 74.1

1967 [218,386] [70.0] 1988 651,247 72.3

1968 [265,499] [69.4] 1989 589,002 68.4

1969 [293,451] [71.7] 1990 662,789 69.9

1970 [331,534] [70.8] 1991 706,182 71.5

1971 [387,733] [68.7] 1992 688,582 71.4

1972 [430,346] [67.4] 1993 685,304 71.4

1973 [440,216] [68.2] 1994 712,421 73.0

1995 723,899 72.0

NOTE: Bracketed numbers and percentages through 1973 are for test batteries administered. Beginning

in 1974, the numbers and percentages are for individuals completing the battery. Not all individuals who

take the test battery complete it. Aggregate records of test completers were not kept before 1974.

SOURCE: GED Testing Service, 1980, p. 16, 1996a, p. 30.

24

6
Background

GED examinees is unknown, these studies suggest that it is higher than the rates

reflected in the annual statistics.

GED Content

Since 1943, there have been three versions of the GED, each with tests in five

subject areas. Though the subject areas have remained fairly constant, the

content of the tests has changed from one version to the next and from year to

year, reflecting changes in high school curricular requirements. Figure 1 shows

the three versions and the subject tests in each.

As a rule, the tests present written passages and multiple choice questions (five

choices per question). Sometimes they also provide additional information

needed to answer the questions, such as mathematical formulas. The writing

skills test focuses on such things as the mechanics of writing (grammar, punctuation, spelling), sentence structure, and logic of presentation. Since 1988, the test

has also required examinees to write a short essay.9 The social studies, science,

and literature exams emphasize ability to read and understand materials in these

fields, including text, tables, and graphics. The math test originally focused on

arithmetic, but by 1988, its composition was 50 percent arithmetic, 30 percent

algebra, and 20 percent geometry (GED Testing Service 1993a). Currently, a

new battery of tests, called GED 2000, is being developed by the GED Testing

Service.

In general, the tests emphasize the ability to read, write, think, and do math,

though some subject matter knowledge is needed. For example, the 1993

practice test on social studies required basic knowledge of the functions of the

federal legislative, executive, and judicial branches to answer some questions. In

the science test, correctly answering one question required knowing that cold

temperature precipitates water from moist air. In the math test, examinees had

to know how to use the formulas that were provided.

GED Standards

Minimum scores for passing the GED were first constructed in 1942, based on

advice from a group of testing experts and educators. The consensus of the

group was that the "cut score" for passing should be the point at which about 20

percent of high school seniors could not pass.") This corresponded to a minimum standard score of 35 (out of 80) on each test or an average of 45 across the

battery (a total of 225 out of 400). The 35 or 45 minimum score prevailed from

1943 until May, 1982, when ACE's Commission on Educational Credit and

Credentials raised it to 40 or 45. In 1997, the Commission established a new

minimum of 40 and 45.

Above the minimums, states have been free to set their own conditions for

passing the GED and awarding credentials (GED Testing Service 1993a, Patience and Whitney 1982). Table 2 shows the numbers of states with different

minimum score requirements in 1995 and the proportion of graduating high

school seniors who meta given standard in a 1987 administration of the tests.

25 7
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

8

Figure 1.Three versions of the GED test battery

1942-1978

(10 hours)

1979-1987

(6 hours, revised

to 6 3/4 hours)

1988present

(7 1/2 hours)

1. Correctness and

Effectiveness of Expression

2. Interpretation of Reading

Materials in the Social

Studies

3. Interpretation of Reading

Materials in the Natural

Sciences

4. Interpretation of Literary

Materials

5. General Mathematical

The Writing Skills Test

The Social Studies Test

The Science Test

The Reading Skills Test

The Mathematics Test

Writing Skills

Social Studies

Science

Interpreting

Literature and

the Arts

Mathematics Ability

SOURCE: GED Testing Service 1993a, pp. 2-4.

The current minimum of 40 on each test and an average of 45 on all five, established in January 1997, is more selective than the previous 40 or 45. Some 75

percent of the 1987 seniors met the previous standard, but only 66 percent

scored 40 and 45.

There has long been debate over the appropriate level at which to set standards

for passing the test. Some educators and researchers believe that the cut scores

are too low and that the credential does not reflect the level of skills needed for

postsecondary education and the workplace (see Quinn 1997a). Others favor

the current standards or less rigorous ones, regarding more difficult standards as

barriers that block opportunity and discourage an already discouraged population of high school dropouts. Some of the issues in this debate parallel those in

the debate over standards in the broader education community.

The GED tests have become harder to pass over the years. It is noteworthy that

by 1995, 46 states had adopted standards that were more selective than the

minimum of 40 or 45 required at the time. This represented a major, long-term

change in the cut scores set by states. As of 1949, only 22 of the then 48 states

had adopted scores above the ACE minimums of 35 or 45 (Dressl and Schmid

1951). Thus, over time, ACE raised the required minimum scores, and the

states increasingly adopted passing scores above the ACE minimums. Whether

this pattern will be repeated with the 1997 GED minimums has yet to be seen.

Currently only two states have passing standards higher than the new minimum.

26
Background

Table 2.Number of states in 1995 with various GED minimum

requirements and proportion of 1987 seniors meeting

those requirements

Number

GED Score Standard of States

Percentage of 1987

High School Seniors

Meeting Requirement

Minimum 40 or mean 45 4

Minimum 40 or mean 50 1 Minimum 35 and mean 45 26

Minimum 40 and mean 45 18

Minimum 40 and mean 46 1

75

71

70

66

64

SOURCE: GED Testing Service 1996a, p. 31.

One measure of the ease or difficulty of passing a multiple choice test is the

number of correct answers above chance guessing that is needed to meet the

minimum passing requirement. Table 3 presents this information for 1995 and

for 1944, one of the first years of the GED." The first column shows the

number of questions on a given test; the second shows the number that would

be correctly answered by chance (usually one out of five choices); the third

shows the minimum number of correct answers required to pass the test; and

the fourth shows the difference between the number of correct answers expected by chance and the number required to pass.

In 1944, the required passing score on each test was just slightly above chance,

except in writing. In 1995, the required passing score was about twice the

number expected by chance. By this measure, as well as others, the GED has

become harder to pass over time.'2

Norming and Scoring the GED

Because the GED is used to certify skills comparable to those of high school

graduates, the scale for scoring test results is referenced to the performance of

national samples of graduating high school seniors in norming studies." These

studies have been conducted in 1943, 1955, 1967, 1977, 1980, 1987, and most

recently, 1996. The next full-scale norming will take place before the introduction of the new version of the GED scheduled for the year 2000.

In the norming process, national samples of seniors are administered one or

more of the five GED tests. Statistics such as the mean, standard deviation, and

range are computed from the raw scores (e.g., number of correct items) for a

given test. These statistics are then used to develop standard scores for the test.

The standard scores of seniors are scaled to have a mean of 50, a standard

deviation of 10, and a range from 20 to 80 on each test.

27 9
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

10

Table 3.Correct answers expected by chance and relation to

required minimum scores on five GED Tests

1995 1944

Chance Req'd # > Chance Req'd It>

Test #Qx #Correct Min# Chance #Qx #Correct* Min#* Chance

Writing* 55 11 100 15

Soc. Std. 64 12.8 23 10.2 73 1.4

Science 66 13.2 24 10.8 65 2

Liter. 45 9 16 7 85 3

Math 56 11.2 22 10.8 50 1

' Numbers are not available or cannot be calculated.

SOURCE: Quinn 1997a (for 1944 data), and GED Testing Service 1993a (for 1995 data).

To understand the scoring of the GED, it is useful to examine the distribution of

scores from one of the tests in the 1987 norming. Table 4 shows how a sample

of high school seniors performed on the GED Science Test. (Four other samples

of seniors performed similarly on the four other tests.)

There were 60 items on the test; the "Raw Score" column shows the number

correct out of 60. About half of the sample (48-51 percent) answered 40 or 41

questions correctly. The corresponding mean standard score is 50. From one

standard deviation below the mean (40) to one standard deviation above (60)

encompasses a little more than two thirds of the cases. The remaining cases are

in the tails of the distributionthe 14 percent with standardized scores below

40 and the 16 percent with scores above 60.

The seniors did not have trouble answering many of the questions in 1987, but

scaling compensates for the apparent ease of the test. A GED examinee would

have to answer two-thirds of the questions correctly to get a standard score of

50, equal to the mean for high school seniors. By answering 58 of the 60, he or

she would score 73 and outperform all but one percent of the seniors.

At the lower end of the distribution, a GED examinee scoring 40, the passing

minimum since 1982, would outperform only 14 percent of the seniors who took

the test. Of course, it is more difficult to get the minimum score on all five tests

than on just one. The probabilities cannot be estimated from the scores on each

test. However, a sample of seniors took all five tests in 1987, and that part of

the norming process is discussed below.

The GED tests are designed to give examinees "the opportunity to demonstrate

achievement comparable to that of high school graduates" (GED Testing Service

1993a). On average, GED recipients do perform as well as graduating high

school seniors on each test. For example, Enger and Howerton (1988) found

28
Background

Table 4.Scores and percentiles of 1987 high school seniors on the GED

science test

Raw

Score

Standard

Score Rank Percentile

Raw

Score

Standard

Score Rank Percentile

60 80 99 33 45 31

59 77 99 32 45 29

58 73 99 31 44 27

57 69 97 30 43 26

56 67 95 29 43 24

55 65 93 28 42 22

54 63 91 27 42 20

53 62 88 26 41 19

52 60 84 25 40 17

51 59 81 24 40 15

50 58 78 23 39 14

49 57 75 22 39 13

48 56 72 21 38 12

47 55 68 20 37 11

46 54 65 19 37 9

45 53 62 18 36 8

44 52 60 17 36 7

43 52 57 16 35 6

42 51 54 15 34 5

41 50 51 14 33 4

40 50 48 13 32 3

39 49 46 12 30 2

38 48 43 11 29 2

37 48 41 10 28 1 36 47 38 9 26 1 35 46 35 8 24 1 34 46 33 7 21 1 1-6 20 1 SOURCE: GED Testing Service 1993a, p. 116.

29 11
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

that 1985-86 GED recipients who had been administered tryout forms for the

1987 norming (in addition to the regular GED test battery) answered approximately the same number and percent of questions correctly on each of the five

tests as did the 1987 samples of seniors.'4 (The authors also reported that the

samples of seniors were fairly representative, though private school students

were over-represented.) Similarly, ACE found that 1989 GED recipients had

approximately, but not exactly, the same mean scores and the same percent

correct on each test as did the 1987 seniors (GED Testing Service 1993a;

Baldwin 1992). GED recipients did slightly better than high school seniors on

the tests that emphasize readingsocial studies, science, and literatureand

not quite as well on the math and writing skills tests.°

While the performance of GED recipients on each test is comparable to that of

high school seniors, interpreting their performance on the full five-test battery is

more complicated. The performance of GED examinees is referenced to that of

a sample of high school seniors who took all five tests in 1987. Based on observations in Wisconsin, Quinn believes that the sample of seniors who took the

seven and one-half hour test battery tended to lack motivation to do well on it

(Quinn 1997a, 1997b). Low rates of participation in taking the battery also

suggested to her that the national sample of senior test takers may not have been

representative (see appendix A).

In general, one can have reasonable confidence in the 1987 senior score distributions on the individual tests. However, statistics from the administration of the

five-test battery bear closer examination.

Challenges to the GED

Since the early years of the GED, questions have been raised about the ways in

which and the extent to which the tests reflected skills equivalent to those

necessary to attain a high school diploma. In general, its critics maintained that

the GED was a low-level test battery measuring a narrow range of basic literacy

skills, that its relation to high school education was tenuous at best, that the

passing scores on each test were not much above chance guessing, and that

based on the early 35 or 45 criterion, most 9th-grade students could pass the

test. Quinn's (1997a) institutional history of the GED describes these and other

criticisms of the exam.'6

12

Beginning in the 1980s, new challenges to the GED arose in several areas. First,

a series of studies by the U.S. military services showed that attrition rates of

enlistees with GED certificates were similar to those of high school dropouts

and about twice those of high school graduates. Consequently, the military

stopped regarding GED certification as equivalent to a high school diploma for

purposes of selection among applicants.

Second, starting in 1984, the Department of Public Instruction in Wisconsin

conducted a thorough study of GED programs in the state. It found that GED

recipients who enrolled in Wisconsin colleges and universities were much more

likely than high school graduates to leave them, and that their grades and other

30
Background

measures of performance were lower than those of high school graduates. As a

result of this research, the state raised its minimum standard for passing to 40

and 50, raised the minimum age for taking the tests to 18 1/2, and required

coursework (in addition to passing the tests) for a GED diploma, as distinct

from a GED certificate. The minimum scores for passing the tests were subsequently lowered after a 1993 statewide norming study found that half the state's

high school seniors could not pass the tests. Wisconsin's new standard is still the

highest in the nation: its 40 and 46 requirement (see table 2) is one point higher

than the new minimum set by ACE.

Third, a study of GED labor market outcomes by economists Stephen Cameron

and James Heckman (1993) concluded that GED certificate holders are less

likely to be employed, earn less, and experience more job turnover than high

school graduates. The authors argued that GED graduates more closely resemble high school dropouts than high school graduates by these measures.

These research efforts have stimulated new debate over the value ofthe GED as

a means of promoting opportunity for non-high school graduates in

postsecondary education, the civilian labor market, and the military. We will

examine the performance of GED recipients in these arenas, but before doing

so, we must understand how the GED process works in a social context. The

GED is said to perform a number of important functions. The next section

describes these functions and assesses the evidence on the extent to which the

process actually performs them.

31 13
FUNCTIONS OF THE GED

32
FUNCTIONS OF THE GED

The GED process begins with an individual's decision to take the test battery

and ends with the award of high school equivalency credentials to those who

pass it. The process performs, or may perform, five functions that will be

examined here: stimulating investment in human capital, measuring and assessing the cognitive skills of non-high school graduates, sorting out the more

skillful, certifying those selected, and improving the self-confidence of GED

recipients.

The GED as a Stimulus to Human Capital Investment

The value of additional education to labor market outcomes such as employment and earnings has been well documented." Human capital investments

the time, energy, money, and other resources expended in acquiringworkrelevant skillspay off in the labor market. Hence it is useful to assess the

extent to which the GED stimulates investments in human capital among nonhigh school graduates.

The GED as an Incentive to Invest

The GED certifies accumulated human capital in the form of basic cognitive

skills and knowledge, whether acquired from school, work experience, or other

sources. The GED process also stimulates investment in human capital by

prompting prospective examinees to study for the tests. The amount of investment required will depend in part on one's accumulated skills and knowledge

relative to those needed to pass the tests. If a person has 11 years of education

and received average grades in school, a short brush-up on skills will probably

suffice. On the other hand, if one has large deficits resultingfrom such things as

disabilities, low levels of education, or language barriers, greater investments of

time and effort to will be needed to pass the tests.

Time spent in formal education and training is perhaps the most widely used

measure of human capital investment. Based on this measure, to what extent

does the GED stimulate human capital investment among non-high school

graduates? Surveys conducted by the GED Testing Service in 1980 and 1989

asked examinees to estimate how much time they spent preparing for the test.

Their responses are shown in table 5.

In 1980, GED examinees spent a median 20 hours (and $10) preparing for the

test. By 1989, they were spending a median 30 hours in preparation. This

change was driven by a large increase in the proportion of candidates who spent

over 100 hours preparing for the testfrom 11.8 percent to 24.2 percent.

We do not know what accounts for the increase at the top of the range. We

considered the possibility that immigrants, who tend to persist in adult educa33 17
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

18

Table 5.Hours spent studying for the GED Tests: 1980, 1989

(percent in each category)

Hours 1980 1989

None 16.5 6.5

1-10 21.4 21.0

11-20 12.9 13.5

21-30 8.6 8.6

31-40 7.5 7.0

41-60 10.5 9.2

61-80 5.3 5.4

81-100 5.5 4.6

101+ 11.8 24.2

Total 100.0 100.0

SOURCE: Tabulations provided by GED Testing Service. Also see Malizio and Whitney

(1981).

tion programs,' comprise an increasing share of test takers. However, in 1993,

immigrants made up only 7 percent of GED examinees. So small a proportion

could not account for much of the observed increase in preparation time.

Another possibility is that in 1989 the GED was perceived by prospective

examinees as more difficult than in the past. The writing sample had been

introduced as part of the battery in 1988, and the number of examinees dropped

in 1988 and especially in 1989, perhaps out of hesitation at taking the revised

GED. This hypothesis gains some support from a Wisconsin study (Martin

1992) which found that after the state increased its GED cut score to 40 and 50,

reported preparation time for the tests increased and performance in

postsecondary institutions improved.

Although a median 30 hours is a very modest amount of preparation time, the

increase in the proportion of examinees who spent more than 100 hours preparing for the exam is noteworthy. According to some researchers, an adult learner

needs approximately 100 hours of instruction to achieve a one-year gain in

reading ability (Mickulecky and Lloyd 1993).

Nevertheless, these investments of time are still much smaller than the estimated 410 hours spent on a high school's core curriculum in a typical school

year.° In 1995, GED test takers had completed a mean 9.9 years of school

(GED Testing Service 1996a). With 2.1 additional years of schooling, high

school graduates had 861 more hours of core curriculum than GED examinees,

on average."'

34
Functions of the GED

In assessing the GED as a stimulus to human capital investment, note that the

skill deficit that helps drive test preparation is the difference between one's

existing skills and the skills needed to pass the test battery, not to excel on it. It

seems plausible that if the links between GED scores and rewards were

strengthened, prospective examinees would be motivated to work harder for

higher scores.2' At least one state, South Dakota, is considering designating

several levels of GED attainment, based on the scores.

The GED as a Disincentive to Invest?

Because the GED takes so much less time and effort than a high school diploma

and may appear to have the same status, some researchers believe that it serves

as a disincentive to human capital investment, encouraging marginal students to

drop out of school or facilitating their departure through a process of negotiation

(Quinn 1997a, Fine 1991). Minimum GED Test taking ages in some states are

consistent with this possibility. As of 1985, 5 states had set the minimum age at

16 and another 10 had a minimum age of 17. A decade later, 12 states permitted test taking at age 16, and another 12 percent permitted it at age 17 (GED

Testing Service 1996a). Currently almost half of the states allow young people to

take the test before the age at which they would ordinarily graduate from high

school.

Further, ACE's Commission on Educational Credit and Credentials has permitted school systems in seven states to set up in-school dropout prevention programs leading to GED certification. The commission waived its policy of

prohibiting the administration of GED tests to youth currently enrolled in high

school. The waiver was granted on a trial basis and subject to conditions. The

number of participating states has changed over time (at least one has withdrawn), but some programs are still active.

Critics believe that such arrangements appeal both to frustrated youngsters who

dislike school and to frustrated teachers and administrators, who would rather

focus their energies on more receptive students. In this view, alternative GEDoriented programs may help the educational system function more efficiently,

but they work to the long-run detriment of the students who are channeled out

of the regular high school curriculum.

We do not know whether the GED encourages high school students to drop out;

there are no controlled studies on the subject. We examined the research on

reasons for leaving school and found that alienation from school (expressed in

different ways) was the reason most commonly given, both by dropouts in

general and by GED examinees (Rumberger 1987, Ladner 1987, Baldwin 1991).

Desire to work was also an important factor in males' decisions to leave and

pregnancy and marriage were important in females' decisions. However, there

was no information on whether the prospect of attaining an alternative credential was among the reasons for dropping out.

35 19
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

20

Table 6.Credential status of 1992 noncompleters as of 1994

Status In alternative

attained Diploma GED program Dropout Other

By 1992 14.3

In next 2 years 16.1 12.8

Total 16.1 27.1

23.0 31.1

23.0 31.1

0.4

2.1

2.5

Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education (1996d). Recalculated from table 17.

We also examined data on the probabilities of attaining a GED within a year or

two of leaving school. If the chances were relatively highsay greater than

50/50the prospects of getting a GED in the near future might encourage

marginal students to leave. Data from the National Educational Longitudinal

Survey (NELS) indicate that 18.7 percent of 8th-graders in 1988 had not

graduated with their class by August, 1992 (U.S. Department of Education

1996d). Table 6 shows the credential status of these noncompleters almost two

years later, in the spring of 1994.

An estimated 14.3 percent of those who did not graduate with their class had

earned a GED by graduation time in 1992, and 12.8 percent earned the credential over the next two years. By this estimate, a student who dropped out of high

school had more than one chance in four (.271) of getting a GED within several

years. The prospects of earning a GED in the near term are not great, but they

are not trivial, either. These data, while interesting, do not provide much help in

answering the question.

We also examined the age distribution of GED test takers over time. If there

were a marked increase in the proportion of young examinees during the period

when states were reducing the minimum test-taking ages, it might indicate that

marginal students were responding to increased opportunities to take the test.

Between 1985 and 1996 there was an irregular increase in the proportion of

dropouts aged 19 and younger who took the GED, from 33 percent to 39.5

percent (U.S. Department of Education 1996c, GED Testing Service 1997).

However, the increase is part of a pattern of fluctuations over a longer period.

Since 1974 the proportion of examinees age 19 and younger has risen and fallen

within a range of 31 percent to 40 percent. Once again the data provide no clear

answers. In sum, the research literature does not tell us whether the GED

encourages dropping out of school.

36
Functions of the GED

Measuring and Assessing Cognitive Skills

The GED was designed to measure the ability to understand, evaluate, and

manipulate concepts and information and to use knowledge and reason to reach

conclusions in five subject areas. Underlying performance in each of these areas

is a set of basic cognitive skills that is the primary determinant of the scores on

all five. The underlying cognitive skills are reflected in intercorrelations among

the tests ranging from .64 to .82 (GED Testing Service 1993a).

A traditional measure of cognitive skills is the common variance among aptitude

test scores, reflecting the thinking ability that allows individuals who score well

on one test also to score well on others. This ability is the result of both nature

and nurture and is positively related to schooling. Baldwin et al. (1995) found a

correlation of .78 between a general GED factor and a general National Adult

Literacy Survey (NALS) factor. In two analyses, Means and Laurence (1984)

found correlations of .75 and .79 between mean GED subtest scores and the

military's Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores." Correlations

between total GED scores and totals on other tests are also strong, as illustrated

in appendix tables B-1 and B-2. In local administrations, the GED has shown

correlations of .88 with its progenitor, the Iowa Test of Educational Development; .80 with the American College Test (ACT); .81 with the Adult Performance Level (APL) Survey; .77 with New York's Degrees of Reading Power

(DRP) Test; .66.68 with the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE); and .61

.67 on the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Correlations such as these

provide evidence that the GED and the other tests are measuring a common

core of cognitive skills.

Another way of determining the GED tests' ability to measure and assess

cognitive skills is to compare the performance of GED recipients with that of

high school graduates and dropouts on other tests. Several studies have made it

possible to do so, relying on the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) and the

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB).

National Adult Literacy Survey

The National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), sponsored by the National Center

for Education Statistics (NCES) and conducted by the Educational Testing

Service, was administered in 1992 to a representative sample of approximately

13,600 individuals aged 16 and older. The survey was designed to measure three

types of literacyprose, document, and quantitativebased on understanding

of such everyday materials as news stories, maps, bus schedules, checkbooks,

menus, and the like. Identification of GED recipients among the NALS test

takers in the survey made it possible to compare their performance with that of

high school graduates and dropouts (Kirsch et al. 1993). In a second study

conducted jointly by the GED Testing Service and the Educational Testing

Service, a national sample of GED examinees was administered the NALS, once

again permitting comparison of GED recipients and high school graduates

(Baldwin et al. 1995).

37 21
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

22

Table 7.Average literacy proficiencies of GED recipients, high

school graduates, dropouts, and adults age 16 and older23

Prose Document Quantitative

No Further Education

GED Recipients 268 264 268

High School Graduates 270 264 270

Dropouts 208 203 202

All

GED Recipients 290 289 284

High School Graduates 294 288 294

Adults 272 267 271

SOURCE: Baldwin et al. (1995), pp. 8, 20. Kirsch et al. (1993), pp. 17, 119-121.

Table 7 shows the mean NALS test scores of GED recipients and high school

graduates, both without further education, and of dropouts. It also shows the

scores of all GEDs and all high school graduates, including those with further

education, and the scores of the adult population in general.

Kirsch et al. (1993) demonstrated that GED recipients without further education scored as well on the NALS as high school graduates without further

education. Our own calculations based on Kirsch's data show that dropouts

have much lower NALS scores than either GEDs or high school graduates with

no additional education. Passing the GED sharply distinguishes these recipients

from other dropouts in terms of literacy.

Larin (1994) observed that this comparison between high school graduates and

GEDs without further education does not show that GEDs have literacy

proficiencies similar to those of high school graduates in general. Because most

graduates have at least some college, while most GEDs do not, the comparison

shows that most GED recipients score as well as the minority of less skilled high

school graduates who do not go on to college.

However, table 7 shows that if we remove the restrictions on level of education,

the scores of GED recipients are still similar to those of high school graduates,

except in quantitative proficiency, and well above those of adults in the general

population.

NALS scores, ranging from 0 to 500 on each test, are classified in five proficiency levels: Level 1 (0-225); Level 2 (226-275); Level 3 (276-325); Level 4

(326-375); and Level 5 (376-500). On average, all GED recipients and all high

school graduates score a little below the mid-point of NALS' Level 3 proficiency

(300). Adults in general score at the high end of Level 2. Typical NALS tasks

38
Functions of the GED

Table 8.Percent of GEDs and adults scoring at NALS level 3 and

above, by highest level of education

NALS Test GED HSG

Some

college AA BA BA+

Prose

Document

Quantitative

67

65

57

48

43

50

70

64

69

77

71

77

85

81

85

91

87

89

SOURCE: Baldwin et at 1995, figure 1.3, p. 19.

that the average GED and high school graduate could perform include writing a

brief letter explaining an error made on a credit card bill and using a calculator

to figure the difference between the regular and sale price in an advertisement

(Kirsch et al. 1993).

According to the National Education Goals Panel (1993), scores at Level 3 and

above represent "the range of complex literacy tasks that the ... panel considers

important for competing successfully in a global economy and exercising fully

the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. " Table 8 shows the percentage of

GED recipients in the 1993 GED/NALS administration and the percentages of

other adults at various education levels who scored at Level 3 or above on the

NALS.

Two thirds of the GEDs in Baldwin's 1993 administration of the NALS (including those who would later go on to college) scored at Level 3 or above on the

prose and document tests, about the same proportion as other NALS test takers

with some college, and more than those with high school diplomas only." On

the quantitative test, 57 percent of GEDs scored at Level 3 or above, still more

than high school graduates, but less than the proportion of those with some

college.25 Most GEDs, then, met the goals panel's standard for the skills essential to economic competitiveness and the exercise of civic responsibilities.

In a multiple regression analysis of state-level NALS data (Reder 1994) found

that GED recipients had higher literacy scores than other dropouts on the

Oregon Literacy Survey, but lower scores than high school graduates. Reder's

high school graduates included those who had some postsecondary education

but no degree. The reasons for the difference between Reder's findings and

those above are not clear, but the difference may be due to the fact that his was

a state, rather than a national, survey or to the multivariate nature of his analysis.

In any case, the national NALS data indicate that the GED clearly discriminates

between the literacy abilities of recipients and those of other dropouts, that

GED recipients perform as well as high school graduates. and that they perform

better than adults in general.

39 23
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Table 9.Mean AFQT test scores of GEDs, high school graduates, and high school dropouts in the National Longitudinal

Study of Youth (NLSY)

Cameron &

Heckman (1993) Cameron (1994)

Males Females

High school graduates

GEDs

Dropouts

75.8

64.7

45.5

66.5

56.3

38.6

SOURCE: Studies in this table.

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is used by the military

to screen applicants for entry to the armed services and to assign new recruits to

occupational training. It consists of 10 subtests, 4 of which measure verbal and

quantitative skills, and 6 of which measure aptitude for various occupational

fields. The four math and verbal subtests (arithmetic reasoning, mathematics

knowledge, word knowledge, and paragraph comprehension) comprise the

Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), which is used in selecting enlistees.

The other six tests, designed to measure such things as electronic and mechanical comprehension, help military personnel specialists place new recruits in

appropriate occupational training.

Participants in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) were administered the three-hour ASVAB in 1980. Earlier they had provided detailed survey

information about themselves, including their level of educational attainment.

Thus it is possible to compare the ASVAB scores of GED recipients with those

of high school graduates and dropouts. First interviewed in 1979 at ages 14-21,

the survey participants were reinterviewed in subsequent years through the time

of this writing.

24

Four research studiesCameron and Heckman (1993), Cameron (1994), Garet,

Jing, and Kutner (1996), and Maloney (1993)have compared the ASVAB

scores of GED recipients, high school graduates, and high school dropouts,

using data from the NLSY. Cameron and Heckman studied samples of male

participants using 1979-87 NLSY data, and Cameron focused on females using

1979-89 data. Garet, Jing, and Kutner analyzed data for both males and females for the period 1979-92. Maloney's study focused on women ages 23-31.

Although these follow-up periods differ, the studies all examined survey participants who were aged 15-22 when they took the ASVAB in 1980.

40
Functions of the GED

Among males, Cameron and Heckman found that high school graduates with no

further education performed better on the AFQT than did GED holders, who in

turn had higher scores than high school dropouts (table 9). The scores of GED

recipients were closer to those of high school graduates than to those of dropouts. Cameron's findings for females were similar, although their mean scores

were lower than those of males.

Garet, Jing, and Kutner created four factors from ASVAB test scoresmath

reasoning, verbal ability, processing speed, and mechanical knowledge. Their

analyses showed that both male and female high school graduates scored better

on all four factors than did GED graduates (see appendix table B-3). The GED

recipients, in turn, scored better than high school dropouts on all the factors.

Once again, the scores of GED recipients were closer to those of high school

graduates than to those of dropouts. The authors also found that high school

graduates who entered college directly had the highest scores, followed by those

who delayed entry to postsecondary education, followed by GED graduates.

The differences between GED recipients and high school graduates were

greatest in the area of mathematical reasoning (Garet et al. 1996).

Maloney combined ASVAB subtests that tapped reading, math, and science

aptitudes into a single measure of ability and then compared the composite

scores of female GEDs, high school graduates, and dropouts. His results were

similar to those in the other studies. GED women were just .03 standard

deviation units above the mean for the entire sample. Female high school

graduates were .27 SDUs above the mean, and dropouts were .69 SDUs below

it.26

In comparing the scores of GED recipients and high school graduates without

further education, it is not clear why GEDs had better relative performance on

the NALS than on the ASVAB. Garet et al. speculated that the difference

occurred because the ASVAB contains more items that tap knowledge of traditional high school curricula, such as algebra, geometry, and trigonometry. A

related possibility is that the ASVAB includes more questions that tap higherorder thinking skills. Further research would be necessary to test these

hypotheses.

Judging from performance on these two tests, it is evident that the GED process

sorts out non-high school graduates whose cognitive skills exceed those of

dropouts in general. GEDs are at least equal to high school graduates in terms

of literacy, as measured on the NALS. As measured on the ASVAB, their

cognitive skills are not equal to those of graduates, but they are closer to the

skills of graduates than to those of dropouts. On the AFQT and ASVAB, the

performance of GED recipients in math is not as strong as their performance in

other areas. It may be that it is difficult to learn specific math skills outside a

formal educational program.

41 25
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

The GED as a Sorting Procedure

The GED process provides an opportunity for high school dropouts to demonstrate their cognitive skills and related functional knowledge. Those who take

the test tend to have stronger cognitive skills than dropouts in general. For

example, in the GED-NALS study (Balwin et al. 1995), GED examinees scored

269-278 on the three NALS tests, while table 7 in the current study shows that

dropouts scored 202-208 on the three tests. Simply by taking the test, GED

examinees set themselves apart from other dropouts. Using data from table 1

and from Kolstad and Kaufman (1989), we estimate that between 1980 and

1986, 42.1 percent of young high school dropouts took the test battery, a substantial proportion.27 Using a larger population base, Baldwin estimates that

only 1.5 percent of 44 million adults without high school diplomas have taken

the GED.28 In either case, self-selection through deciding to take the test is the

major part of the sorting process. Once an individual takes the GED, the

probabilities of passing are fairly high, usually in excess of .7.

Interpreting Selection Outcomes

Data from several studies help to characterize those who prepare for the GED

and those who pass it. One way of preparing for the test battery is to enroll in

an adult literacy program. According to a review of the literature by Moore and

Stavrianos (1995), those who participate and persist in adult literacy programs

have more education, are more likely to be employed, and are younger than their

nonparticipating counterparts. Rolfe and Wilson (1979) found that among

participants in a GED preparation program, those who completed it described

themselves in more positive terms than those who did not.

What do we know about the characteristics of those who pass the GED? Typically, the GED recipients in the national longitudinal studies earned their

credentials at around age 19-20 (Murnane et al. 1995, 1997; Cameron 1994).

They had left school in the tenth or eleventh grade, having acquired more

schooling than other dropouts (Murnane et al. 1995, 1997; Maloney, 1991).

Their parents had more education than the parents of dropouts but less than

those of high school graduates (Murnane et al. 1995, 1997; Cameron 1994;

Cameron and Heckman 1993; Garet et al. 1996). Their families' income

followed the same pattern (Cameron 1994; Cameron and Heckman 1993; Garet

et al. 1996; Kolstad and Kaufman 1989). The GEDs came from smaller families

than did dropouts, but larger families than high school graduates (Cameron

1994, Garet et al. 1996). Female GEDs were less likely than graduates to come

from two-parent families and equally likely or more likely than dropouts to come

from such families (Cameron 1994, Maloney 1991). GEDs were more heavily

minority (black or Hispanic) than graduates, but less so than other dropouts

(Kolstad and Kaufman 1989; Cameron and Heckman 1993; Cameron 1994;

Garet et al. 1996). However, two studies found that blacks were not disproportionately represented among GEDs (Maloney 1991, Murnane et al. 1997).

26 42
Functions of the GED

Evidently the process of preparing for and passing the GED tends to select high

school dropouts who have more personal and social resources than other dropouts as well as stronger cognitive skills. They have fewer of these assets than high

school graduates, however.

The GED as Certification

Having functioned to select dropouts with relatively good cognitive skills, the

GED process certifies these individuals as having passed the tests and typically

provides a high school equivalency award. This certification can serve to signal

educational institutions, employers, and others that the GED recipient has

demonstrated thinking skills and skills in reading, writing, and math at the high

school level, according to state standards.

The educational and employment outcomes of the GED depend substantially on

the extent to which educational institutions and employers accept GED certification as meeting a criterion for admission or hiring and on how they regard the

credential.

Postsecondary Acceptance of the GED

Postsecondary institutions usually accept the GED, but many require additional

evidence of ability to perform in college. In this respect, admission requirements

for GEDs are similar to those for high school graduates, who often have to

provide evidence, beyond a diploma, of their ability to perform well at the

postsecondary level. ACE's Commission on Educational Credit and Credentials

recommends that if a college or university has additional requirements beyond a

high school diploma, they should apply to GED recipients as well as to high

school graduates."

In 1979, ACE surveyed 3,300 2-year and 4-year institutions, receiving responses

from 2,236 (Spil le memorandum 1982, reported in Quinn 1986). Almost all the

responding institutions (95 percent) admitted non-high school graduates,

including GEDs and those with other alternative forms of certification. Some

90 percent admitted GED recipients." Of those accepting GEDs, 51 percent

required additional information, such as scores from the Scholastic Aptitude

Test (SAT), the American College Testing Program (ACT), or the College-Level

Examination Program (CLEP), demonstrating competency to undertake college

coursework, and 15 percent required GED scores above the state minimum. We

surmise that the 4-year colleges in the sample were more likely to require additional information, and the 2-year colleges were less likely to do so.

ACE surveyed postsecondary institutions again in 1986, receiving 391 responses

from its sample of 487 institutions (Hexter and Anderson 1986). The findings

were similar to those of the earlier survey. The great majority of institutions (92

percent) had policies permitting students to matriculate without a traditional

high school diploma but requiring alternative certification. Of those, 91 percent

(84 percent of the total) accepted the GED credential. In addition, many

43

27
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

colleges and universities required scores from other tests, such as the SAT, the

ACT, and the CLEP. The proportion of institutions requiring GED scores, as

well as passing status, was higher than in the previous survey. Just under half of

those accepting the GED credential also had minimum GED score requirements. There may also have been other requirements not covered by the

survey.3'

A survey of postsecondary institutions in Wisconsin found that all 4-year colleges

in the state, except one, accepted GED certification (Pawasarat and Quinn

1986). Consistent with the national pattern, some colleges required GED scores

above the minimum 225, and some also required minimum SAT or ACT scores.

Two public colleges required GED holders to enter on probationary status.

Admissions officers in 20 private colleges were usually satisfied with the performance of GED holders who met the other requirements for admission (e.g.,

minimum ACT or SAT scores and an acceptable individual scholastic record).

The state's 2-year colleges accepted GEDs but required them to follow the same

procedures as high school graduates in the lowest quartile of their classesfor

example, restricting their first semester courseload to 12 credit hours. Vocational programs accepted GEDs, but many also required specific high school

courses.32

In addition to opening doors to postsecondary education, GED certification can

also help GED enrollees obtain financial aid such as Pell Grants and Guaranteed Student Loans. To receive aid, students must demonstrate financial need

and an ability to benefit from aid. As noted earlier, U.S. Department of Education policy provides that possession of a GED credential is one way to demonstrate ability to benefit. Other ways include having a high school diploma or

passing another government-approved test.

Large numbers of students, including many GEDs, receive federal grants and

loans to help pay for postsecondary education, especially in community colleges,

proprietary schools, and public technical colleges. One study (Dynarski 1994)

found that 44.2 percent of GED recipients defaulted on Guaranteed Student

Loans, as compared to 14.4 percent of high school graduates and 56.2 percent of

dropouts. However, students represented in this data set left postsecondary

institutions between one and two decades ago, and there have been important

changes in the student loan program since then. We have been unable to find

more recent data.

Employer Acceptance of the GED

In local survey data from 1977 through 1995, the great majority of employers

accepted the GED as a substitute for a high school diploma, and most of them

explicitly regarded it as equivalent to a diploma (table 10).

Further, a majority of those responding to two surveys thought that GED

recipients performed their work as well as high school graduates. Thiele and

Sloan (1984) found that 59 percent of his survey respondents in Illinois consid28

4 4
Functions of the GED

Table 10.Employer views of the GED

Study

Percent of employers who:

Accept

the GED

Consider GED

equivalent to diploma

Mally and Charuhas 1977 (Illinois) 85 61

El Paso School District 1979 (Texas, 1979)33 81

Manitoba Govt. 1981 (Manitoba) 65

King 1984 (Illinois) 87 72

Carson 1986 (Colorado) 83

Pawasarat and Quinn 1986 (Wisconsin) 78 52

Jantzen and Quigley 1982 (Saskatchewan) 100

Whitaker 1995 (North Carolina) 92

Mean 85 70

Not available.

SOURCE: Studies in this table.

ered their GED employees generally successful or very successful in their work,

and only 0.8 percent considered GEDs less successful than high school graduates." Some 53.9 percent of these employers were equally satisfied with the

performance of GEDs and high school graduates; 3.7 percent were more satisfied with the performance of GEDs; and only 0.8 percent were less satisfied with

GEDs than with high school graduates. Similarly, 56 percent of the Florida

employers responding to Grise and Klein's (1987) survey thought GED recipients performed as well as high school graduates; 4 percent said the GEDs

performed better; and 12 percent said they did not perform as well. Their data

also indicated that employers thought GED recipients did reasonably well in

promotions, retention, and dismissals, though not always as well as high school

graduates.

However, many of the employer studies reviewed raise questions about the

relevance of all secondary education credentials to many hiring decisions. For

example, the El Paso study reported that large numbers of employers did not

require high school-level credentials for production jobs. In Illinois, only 15

percent of the employers in Ma lly and Charuhas's survey said they usually

required a high school diploma for employment (i.e., more than 75 percentof

the time). In another Illinois study, King observed that "the pattern of responses

... quite clearly suggests that educational credentials ... simply are not very

important elements in the hiring decision." Credentials ranked second least

important in a list of factors in hiring decisions. Carson noted that in the

Denver area "many jobs are available to applicants whether or not they have an

educational credential." After surveying employers in North Carolina, Whitaker

45 29
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

observed that "respondents in this study indicated that educational credentials

were important but at the same time placed a higher priority on job performance. This researcher wonders if the emphasis placed on high school educational credentials [is] relevant in today's workplace" (p. 104). On the other

hand, McClurg reported that while most employers in his study didnot require a

high school diploma or an equivalency degree, nearly all preferred some kind of

secondary credential.

A national survey of employers reported by Malizio and Whitney (1985) did find

that educational credentials were important in employment practices, but the

study covered credentials at both the secondary and postsecondary levels. The

value of a college degree in employment decisions is not at issue here. At least

two other studies based on national survey data (Stull n.d., EQW n.d.) have

concluded that employers pay little attention to secondary school records.

If the saliency of secondary education credentials for employer decisions is low,

then the distinction between those with credentials and those without may not

be very important, and the signal that an employer receives from either kind of

certification may be a weak one.

Further, the fact that employers generally accept the GED as equivalent to a

high school diploma does not necessarily mean that their impressions are accurate. The military accepted the GED as an equivalency certificate until research

showed that GED recipients had much higher attrition rates than high school

graduates. In the civilian labor market, the results of systematic research on

outcomes of the GED must be reviewed to see whether certification is systematically related to such things as hiring and wages, after other factors are controlled.

The GED as a Self-Confidence Builder

Research has demonstrated that low self-esteem is associated with an array of

negative outcomes (for example, see St. Pierre et al. 1994). People with low selfesteem, especially when linked with low socioeconomic status, are more likely

than others to do poorly in school and the labor market and to run afoul of the

law. Breaking out of the cycle of low self-esteem and poor performance can be

extremely difficult.

Many adult educators believe that passing the GED can help break this cycle by

building self-confidence. In so doing, the tests may provide a first step toward

improving one's condition. Additional steps may include enrolling in higher

education and seeking a better job. What does the research evidence tell us

about the GED's effect on self-esteem?

30

Anecdotal accounts from test administrators and adult educators are replete

with references to the enhanced self-esteem of GED recipients, and survey

evidence largely confirms these impressions. For example, Mally and Charuhas

(1977) found that 88 percent of the GED recipients they surveyed in Illinois

said they felt better about themselves as a result of passing the tests. (Only 1

46
percent said they did not, while 11 percent did not answer the question.) Similarly, Darkenwald and Valentine (1985) reported that 94 percent of the respondents to a followup survey in New Jersey said that feeling better about

themselves was one benefit of the tests. In a survey of GED graduates conducted by the Iowa Department of Education (1992), 77 percent said that

passing the GED increased their self-esteem "very much," and an additional 18

percent said it increased their self-esteem to some extent. In her survey of GED

recipients in Maryland, Reed (1985) found that 73 percent of respondents

reported increased self-confidence in their abilities, and 93 percent felt that the

program had given them a second chance. Almost 90 percent said that their

families were pleased, half felt that their lives had gained more direction, and 43

percent said that they had assumed more responsibility as a result of passing the

tests.

Most high school dropouts who pass the GED, then, feel better about themselves, and their increased self-esteem may help them acquire more education,

get better jobs, and generally improve their life circumstances. To what extent

this new self-confidence endures over the long term is an important question,

but one for which there is no answer at present.

47 31
POSTSECONDARY OUTCOMES

48
POSTSECONDARY OUTCOMES

Having examined the functions of the GED, we turn to the postsecondary

outcomes of GED certification, beginning with participation. Does acquiring

the GED help dropouts get into postsecondary institutions? Compared to high

school graduates, what proportion of GED recipients enroll in postsecondary

education and training programs, and how well do they do in them? The first

section addresses the first question, the following sections, the second.

Postsecondary Enrollments

There is no question that GEDs are more likely to participate in postsecondary

education and vocational training than are other dropouts. The number and

proportion of dropouts enrolled in degree-granting college programs is minusculeoften reported as zero in the studies reviewed. Some dropouts do participate in vocational-technical and other training programs, but the rates of

participation are very low. For example, NCES estimated that 0.5 percent of

dropouts among the NELS 1988 eighth-graders had enrolled in postsecondary

degree programs by 1994, 3.8 percent had enrolled in or completed certificate

programs, and 2.2 percent had enrolled in other postsecondary programs (U.S.

Department of Education 1996d).

Moreover, multivariate studies have shown that GED certification predicts

participation in college and in training programs, controlling for other factors.

Murnane et al. (1997) found that attaining a GED within 4 years of leaving high

school was associated with an initial 2 percent increase in the probability of

attending college for both males and female dropouts. The magnitude of the

increases grew over the next several years, at a greater rate for women than for

men." The authors controlled for race/ethnicity, mother's education, age and

grade at which the student dropped out, and age at GED attainment.

Garet, Jing, and Kutner (1996) found that receipt of a GED was a strong

predictor of years of vocational training acquired, especially for women. This

analysis controlled for race/ethnicity, family status, work experience, and local

unemployment. Further, Kroll and Qi (1995) showed that GED recipients were

three to four times as likely as those who failed the tests to enroll in 2-year or 4-

year colleges or vocational schools.

Given that attainment of a GED increases a dropout's chances of getting

additional education and training, what proportion of GEDs and high school

graduates actually attend college? Several studies based on the NLSY have

estimated the enrollment of GED recipients and high school graduates in

college, whether in 2-year or 4-year institutions (see table 11). Somewhat over

60 percent of high school graduates, both male and female, had attended college

by their late twenties or age 30. NCES estimates of college attendance by 1980

high school seniors are similar (U.S. Department of Education 1997). GED

35

49
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

36

Table 11.Percentage of GEDs and high school graduates who

attended 2-year or 4-year colleges

Study Age

Males Females

GED HSG GED HSG

Cameron and Heckman (1993)

Cameron (1994)

Garet et al. (1996)

25, 28

30

28

42

28.0

62.6

61.2

33

30.3

63

62.1

Not available.

SOURCE: Studies in this table.

females in table 11 were about half as likely as high school graduates to attend

college: 30-33 percent did so. GED males were also less likely than their high

school graduate counterparts to attend, though there is less consistency in the

estimates-28 percent and 42 percent. The data in table 11 all come from the

NLSY. However, newer estimates based on the 1994 follow-up to the 1988

National Education Longitudinal Study36 are roughly similar-32.8 percent of

GEDs and 73.3 percent of high school graduates in the sample were enrolled in

postsecondary institutions at some time during this period.

Greater detail on postsecondary education and on occupational training outcomes of the GED is provided by five national-level studies. Cameron and

Heckman (1993) and Cameron (1994) provided detailed breakdowns of

postsecondary participation by type of institution. Cervero and Peterson (1982),

Kroll and Qi (1995), and Behal (1984) also analyzed postsecondary participation

by type of institution. Their work was based on follow-up surveys of GED

examinees conducted one and one-half to two years after GED attainment. The

response rates were typically low (24 percent, 22 percent, and 35 percent,

respectively). The Cervero and Kroll studies had significant nonresponse biases.

For example, Cervero and Peterson found that respondents were older, more

likely to be female, and more likely to have passed the tests than the population

which they represented. The Cervero study and the Kroll study both urged

caution in generalizing from their survey results.

Table 12 shows the GED enrollments in 2- and 4-year colleges, vocational/

technical institutes, and on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs reported in these studies."

Several observations are in order before we try to interpret these results. First,

the college and training estimates in Cameron's study are not mutually exclusive,

as they are in the other studies. If a woman attended a community college and a

vocational/technical institute, her attendance at both types of institution was

counted. Cameron's estimates of education and training experiences are higher

than they would have been had he used mutually exclusive categories." Second,

50
Postsecondary Outcomes

Table 12.Percentage of GED survey respondents reporting

various educational outcomes

Cameron and Cameron Cervero and Kroll

Heckman (1993) (1994) Peterson and Qi Behal

Education (males) (females) (1982) (1995) (1984)

4-year college 15 10 4 6 3

Community/junior 23 23 19 27 16

Vocational/technical 10 30 18 17 17

OJT/Apprentice 3 9 6 9

Other education/training 9 4 7 11

Other outcomes 50 49 46 37 44

Not available.

SOURCE: Studies in this table.

Behal's relatively low enrollment rates in 2-year and 4-year colleges are partly

explained by the fact that she reported enrollments for GED test takers, while

other authors examined enrollments for GED recipients. Those who passed the

tests and received GED certification would be more likely to attend college than

would all test takers. Third, the Cameron/Heckman and Cameron studies had

much longer follow-up periods (8 and 10 years respectively) than the GED

studies (one and one-half to two years), a fact that probably helps account for

their higher rates of participation in postsecondary education, especially in 4-year

colleges.39

Despite differences in survey methods, response rates, analyses, and estimates,

the broad picture emerging from these data is fairly clear. First, over half of the

GED recipientsbetween 50 and 63 percentgot some additional civilian

education or training after they passed the tests, whether in degree-granting

colleges, vocational schools, apprenticeship programs, or on-the-job training. In

addition, according to Cameron and Heckman, about 10 percent of GEDs

entered the military during the period they studied, and enlistees receive occupational training as a matter of course. (Military enlistment is classified as one of

the "other outcomes" in table 12. Only Cameron and Heckman broke it out

separately.)

Second, most of the education and training that the GEDs received after

passing the tests was acquired at the subbaccalaureate level in community

colleges and vocational/technical schools. This finding is consistent with our

estimate, based on NCES data, that 55 percent of GEDs in postsecondary

institutions in 1992-93 were enrolled in 2-year schools and 23 percent were

enrolled in less-than-2-year schools.°

51

37
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Third, in choosing among postsecondary education and training options, GED

graduates are strongly oriented toward acquiring occupational skills. The

majority of community college students are enrolled in occupational programs

(Boesel and McFarland 1994), and GED enrollments in vocational/technical

schools (including trade schools) and participation in on-the-job training and

apprenticeship programs are substantial. GED participation in the military, with

its well developed occupational training programs, further strengthens this

emphasis. The focus of GED recipients on acquiring occupational skills is

understandable, given that most are adults, that many have family responsibilities, and that labor market returns to high school dropouts are declining rapidly

(see figure 2, p. 50).

Did GED attainment help these students get additional formal education? It

almost certainly did. As we have seen, most postsecondary institutions require

some kind of secondary certification for admission, and both bivariate and

multivariate studies show that GEDs are much more likely than dropouts

without the credential to participate in college or vocational education.

Although the GED clearly increases opportunities for postsecondary education,

the share of postsecondary enrollments accounted for by GED recipients

declined from 7 percent in 1986 to 4 percent in 1992 (U.S. Department of

Education 1996a). The reasons for the decline are not clear, but it was evident

in less-than-2-year, 2-year, and 4-year institutions.

Postsecondary Grade-Point Averages

How well do GED recipients perform in postsecondary institutions? One good

measure of performance is grade-point average (GPA). Many studies, including

a large number of doctoral dissertations, have compared the grade-point averages of GED graduates and high school graduates at specific institutions. The

studies have been conducted at different times and locations for a variety of

reasons.'" Thus, it is not advisable to treat them as samples of a larger population. In examining the results of these studies, it is important to consider the

ability and motivational mixes of students at different points in the

postsecondary educational process. In general, we expect incoming cohorts,

such as freshmen, to include a smaller proportion of able and motivated individuals than would be true of graduating seniors, because the less able and

motivated students would tend to discontinue their education over time.

38

To take the effects of this selective attrition into account, we sort studies that

compare the grade-point averages of students into three groups: (1) those that

examine the performance of beginnersstudents in the first year of enrollment

only, whether the period covered is a quarter, semester, or year; (2) those that

examine the performance of postsecondary graduates; and (3) those that examine student performance in any year of college. The third group includes studies

of all enrollees (e.g., freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors) in a given time

period as well as studies of incoming student cohorts over time. Some studies in

the third group include beginners, but this overlap with the first category is

unavoidable, because the beginners cannot be sorted out.

52
Postsecondary Outcomes

Table 13 presents the mean grade-point averages of GED completers and high

school graduates, and the ratios of the means, derived from 7 studies of GED

performance in postsecondary vocational programs, 15 studies of their performance in community and junior colleges, and 19 studies of performance in 4-

year colleges and universities. The data in table 13 are summary statistics for the

results of these studies.42 The full tables containing the relevant data are found

in appendix B-4.

As expected, the mean grade-point averages of both GEDs and high school

graduates increased with student longevity in these institutions, except between

the first year and "all years" in the 4-year colleges. It may be that more rigorous

selection procedures in the 4-year colleges identified and excluded weak candidates before admission rather than afterward, in contrast to procedures in 2-year

colleges and vocational schools.

The grades of GED students in these institutions were close to those of high

school graduates even in the first year. For example, among beginners in 4-year

institutions, the difference was roughly that between a C and a low C+. The

grades of GEDs and high school graduates (HSG) tended to converge over

time, as selective attrition equalized the groups. In vocational programs, which

often last only 1 year, this convergence effect was slight; the grade-point averages

of GEDs were approximately equal to those of high school graduates both

during and at completion of the program. In community colleges, the GED/

HSG ratio of grade-point averages increased from .82 to 1.06 upon completion,

and in 4-year colleges, it increased from .85 to 1.00. In all three types of schools,

GEDs who graduated earned about the same grades as those with regular high

school credentials.43

GPA Performance in Different Eras

Early studies of the postsecondary performance of GED recipients focused on

World War II veterans in 4-year colleges. The GED had been designed for

veterans, and they were the primary users of the tests for more than a decade

after the war. Over time, however, the number of veterans who were test takers

declined, and the number of other test takers increased. By 1959, nonveterans

outnumbered veterans as GED examinees.

Veteran and nonveteran GED examinees constituted substantially different

populations. The veterans were mostly male and white, and by definition, all

had military experience. The nonveteran examinees were second-chance civilians, who were more likely to be female and members of minority groups. The

differences in these populations led to speculation that the earlier veteran GEDs

performed better in college than the later civilian GED recipients. Our data on

the grade-point averages of early and later examinees shed some light on this

issue. Table 14 shows the mean GPAs of GED recipients and high school

graduates in studies of performance in 4-year colleges before and after 1959,

along with the ratios of the GED and HSG means. (There were few community

colleges before 1959.)

53 39
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Table 13.Grade-point averages of GED recipients and high school

graduates (HSG)

Institution type/

student year

Mean GPA Ratio of means Number of

GED HSG GED/HSG colleges

Postsecondary vocational

Enrollees 2.58 2.71 0.95 17

Graduates 3.09 3.05 1.01 20

Community/junior colleges

First year 1.85 2.26 0.82 14

All years 2.52 2.57 0.98 19

Graduates 3.21 3.03 1.06 1 4-year colleges

First year 1.97 2.31 0.85 11

All years 1.90 2.23 0.85 6

Graduates 2.75 2.76 1.00 2

SOURCE: Studies listed in appendix table B-4.

These data do not support the hypothesis that early test takers, mostly veterans,

earned higher grade point averages than the later, mostly civilian, examinees. In

fact, the data suggest the opposite: the mean GPAs in studies done after 1959

were uniformly higher than those in studies before 1959 for both GED students

and high school graduates. The GED/HSG grade ratios are similar over time:

the performance of GED students relative to high school graduates in each

category (first year, all years, graduates) remained fairly constant in these two

periods. The higher GPAs after 1959 may reflect grade inflation at these institutions, rather than better performance, but there is no evidence here that the

change in test-taking populations affected the performance of GED students in

4-year colleges.

Postsecondary Persistence and Completion Rates

Typically, GEDs enrolled in postsecondary institutions differ from high school

graduates in ways that are related to persistence. One NCES study found that

GEDs had an average of 4.1 "nontraditional" characteristics that predicted

postsecondary attrition, as compared to 1.2 for high school graduates (U.S.

Department of Education 1996a). The characteristics were delayed enrollment,

part-time enrollment, full-time employment, financial independence (e.g.,

lacking parental support), single parent status, having dependent children, and

lacking a regular high school diploma. Larger proportions of GED recipients

than of high school graduates had all of these characteristics except one (fulltime employment).

40

54
Postsecondary Outcomes

Table 14.Grade-point averages of GED recipients and high school

graduates (HSG) before and after 1959

Students

Mean G PA Ratio of means Number of

GED HSG GED/HSG schools

First year

Pre-1959 1.80 2.10 0.86 6

Post-1959 2.01 2.33 0.86 5

All years

Pre-1959 1.81 2.07 0.87 3

Post-1959 1.98 2.40 0.83 3

Graduates

Pre-1959 2.37 2.48 0.96 1 Post-1959 3.13 3.04 1.03 1 SOURCE: Studies listed in appendix table B-4.

Because the GED selects primarily on cognitive skills, it is not surprising that

postsecondary students with GED certification earn about the same grade-point

averages as high school graduates. However, because the test battery does not

select on "non-traditional" characteristics or on other characteristics related to

persistence, we would expect to see more postsecondary attrition among GED

recipients than among high school graduates. The fact that GEDs initially

dropped out of high school reinforces this expectation. What does the research

tell us about the postsecondary persistence patterns of GED students and high

school diploma holders?

Persistence in postsecondary education can be seen as reflecting the extent to

which individuals achieve educational goals they set for themselves, such as the

attainment of a degree or certificate. It can also be seen as reflecting patterns of

continuation within institutions, consonant with institutional goals and regardless of individual goals."

Table 15 shows the individual and institutional degree attainment of GED

recipients and high school graduates. The lines in bold print represent individual attainmentstudents in surveys and studies who met the goals they set

for themselves. The lines with astericks represent individuals who exceeded

their goals.

The NCES (1996) data show the institutional attainment of respondents in the

Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Survey (BPS) from 1989-90

through the second follow-up in 1994. The NCES (1997) data show the 1994

attainment of BPS students in 2-year and less-than-2-year institutions who

specified the kind of credential they were seeking in 1989-90. The data in

55 41
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Table 15.-Attainment of GEDs and high school graduates, by type of beginning

postsecondary program (percentage of beginning students)

Institution or program/ GED HSG GED/HSG

credential/data source (percent) (percent) ratio

Vocational programs'

Vocational certificate/graduation

NCES 1997 45.0 50.7 0.89

Appendix B-5 56.2 62.3 0.90

Associate's degree

* NCES 1997 1.5 4.9 0.31

Bachelor's degree

* NCES 1997 0.6 0.5 1.20

2-year colleges2

Vocational certificate

NCES 1997 15.4 11.1 1.39

NCES 1996 15.1 12.9 1.17

Associate's degree

NCES 1997 12.2 24.8 0.49

Appendix B-5 14.9 28.5 0.52

NCES 1996 4.3 18.5 0.23

Bachelor's degree

* NCES 1997 1.6 8.1 0.20

NCES 1996 1.9 6.7 0.28

4-year colleges

Bachelor's degree

Cameron and Heckman (males) 5 75 0.07

Appendix B-5 27.3 30.9 0.88

' Students in vocational programs at 2-year or less-than-2-year institutions.

2 Students in all programs at community colleges or all 2-year colleges.

SOURCES: NCES 1996 data are from The Condition of Education 1996e (U.S. Department of Education

1996e), table 9-1. NCES 1997 data are from The Condition of Education 1997 (U.S. Department of

Education 1997), tables 11-1 and 11-2 . Cameron/Heckman data are from Cameron and Heckman 1993,

table 8.

56

42
Postsecondary Outcomes

appendix B-5 are mean graduation rates from local studies of postsecondary

students enrolled in credential-granting programs. The Cameron and Heckman

(1993) data are for males in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979-

87; the authors make the reasonable assumption that students who begin

degree-granting programs in 4-year institutions intend to graduate.

Examining the lines in bold, we see that GEDs who sought vocational certificates were almost as likely as high school graduates to attain them; those who

sought associate degrees were about half as likely to attain them; and male

GEDs who sought bachelor's degrees were very unlikely to attain them. (The

.88 GED/HSG ratio from appendix B-5 does not carry much weight, because it

is based on 4 local studies conducted before 1959. Other studies based on

national surveys and examined in this section show that no more than 5 or 6

percent of GEDs in postsecondary institutions earn bachelor's degrees or

complete four years of college.)

As might be expected, the data suggest that attainment rates for individuals

specifically seeking credentials (individual rates) are higher than for all students

in a given type of institution (institutional rates). This is especially evident

among beginners at 2-year colleges.45 Among associate's degree seekers (in

bold), 12.2-14.9 percent of GEDs and 24.8-28.5 percent of high school graduates earned the degree. Among all community college beginners (NCES 1996),

4.3 percent of GEDs and 18.5 percent of high school graduates earned an

associate's degree.

In general, table 15 shows that the longer it takes to graduate from a program or

institution, the smaller the proportion of GEDs who graduate, relative to high

school diploma holders. An interesting exception is the roughly one-half percent

of GEDs and high school diploma holders who start vocational programs

intending to earn a certificate and actually earn bachelor's degrees.

Table 16 presents another measure of institutional persistenceyears of college

completed by beginnersat all colleges, 2-year colleges, and 4-year colleges.

The data do not indicate what the students' educational goals were or whether

they earned degrees.

On average, GEDs complete fewer years of postsecondary education than high

school graduates. According to Garet's (1996) analysis, almost three-fourths of

GEDs at age 28 who began at postsecondary institutions completed 1 year or

less, as compared to somewhat over one-fourth of high school graduates. Less

than 5 percent of GEDs (males and females combined) completed 4 years or

more, as compared to just under one-half of high school graduates. Cameron

and Heckman's (1993) data for men and Cameron's (1994) data women at age

30 are consistent with this pattern. (The relatively high GED/HSG ratios for

men completing 2 years of college (1.36, 1.19) do not mean that GEDs are more

likely than high school graduates to finish 2-year programs. It means that they

are a little more likely to complete just 2 years of college, not more or less.

Cameron and Heckman's data show that 55.7 of high school graduates who

57 43
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Table 16.-Years of college completed by GEDs and high school graduates

(percentage of beginning college students)

Type of institution/ GED HSG GED/HSG

number of years/gender (percent) (percent) Ratio

All college beginners (Garet et al. 1996)

Less than 1 year

Males 44.0 11.2 3.93

Females 36.8 12.7 2.90

1 year

Males 31.0 16.7 1.86

Females 36.8 15.6 2.36

2 years

Males 20.2 14.8 1.36

Females 19.0 18.3 1.04

3 years

Males 2.2 7.8 0.28

Females 1.6 9.2 0.17

4 years or more

Males 2.6 49.4 0.05

Females 5.8 44.1 0.13

2-year college beginners

(Cameron & Heckman 1993, Cameron 1994)

Less than 2 years

Males 73 44.3 1.65

Females 78 60 1.30

2 years

Males 25 21 1.19

Females 20 30 0.67

4 years or more

Males 2 34.7 0.05

Females 2 10 0.20

4-year college beginners

(Cameron & Heckman 1993, Cameron 1994)

Less than 2 years (females) 95 28 3.39

2 years (females) 5 22 0.23

4 years or more (females) 0 50 0.00

4 years or more (males) 5 75 0.07

SOURCES: For 2-year and 4-year college beginners, data for males are from Cameron and Heckman

1993, table 8; data for females are from Cameron 1994, table 4. For all college beginners, data are from

Garet et al. (1996), exhibits 11 and 12; estimates for high school graduates are weighted averages of

those who started college directly after high school and those who delayed entry.

44 58
Postsecondary Outcomes

began at 2-year colleges completed 2 years or more, as compared to 27 percent of

GEDs.)

In all, the data support the hypothesis that GED recipients are less likely than

high school graduates to persist in postsecondary education, whether persistence

is measured by individual attainment rates, institutional attainment rates, or

years of college completed. (Also see U.S. Department of Education 1996b and

Murnane et al. 1997.)

59 45
LABOR MARKET PERFORMANCE OF

GED RECIPIENTS

60
LABOR MARKET PERFORMANCE OF GED RECIPIENTS

What are the economic benefits of the GED to high school dropouts? Do GED

holders receive earnings comparable to those of high school graduates? In

considering questions such as these, it is important to keep a long-term trend in

mind. The real earnings of young adults in the United States have been declining for over two decades, and their rate of decline is related to level of education

(figure 2).

While college graduates, including those with advanced degrees, came close to

maintaining their earnings after an initial decline in the early 1970's, those with

less education continued to lose ground. The quantified slopes of the lines in

this figure (not shown here) indicate that the rate of decline is negatively associated with education level. Those with the least education and the lowest earnings, the dropouts, are losing ground most quickly.46 Dropouts would gain

substantially if they had the earnings of high school graduates, and the rate at

which they are losing ground would decrease somewhat. Nevertheless, they

would still be experiencing a long-run decline in real earnings.

To assess the economic performance of GED recipients, we review studies using

cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches. A discussion of the strengths and

weaknesses of these analytic strategies is found in appendix C.

Cross-sectional Studies

We begin with simple and multivariate analyses of the labor-market performance

of GED recipients, then examine the effects of three key independent variables

on wages, and finally assess the indirect effects of GED attainment on wages

and earnings. The data are found in appendix tables B-6 and B-7.

Labor Force Participation and Employment

Earlier we saw that GED certification enhances self-esteem, and increased selfesteem may prompt greater efforts to find employment. Moreover, GED

certification may signal employers that the recipient has better skills than dropouts do. If so, we would expect employers to hire GEDs in preference to

dropouts, other things being equal. What does the research tell us about the

relationship between GED certification, labor market participation, and employment or unemployment?

Simple comparisons of labor force participation showed that GEDs were more

likely than dropouts but less likely than high school graduates to participate (see

the "Difference" column in table B-6). However, in controlled analyses the

differences among the 3 groups were slight or nil in all but one study (Passmore

1987). Credentials seem to have little effect on labor market participation.

49

61
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Figure 2.Median annual earnings of male wage and salary

workers age 25-34, by level of education

$ 45,000

40,000

35,000 'ft.*

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 -41111-4-1-1-1-111111111111111-

r5 AcD Acb 9' 43 55 \ cbt. Ncb NC3 NC5 NC3 Nq 4:6 op

Year

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education (1996e), table 34-2.

Dropouts

HSGs

Some college

BA and above

In simple estimates of employment rates, GED maleswere a little more likely

than dropouts to be employed (full-time or part-time). GED females and adults

in general (both sexes) were considerably more likely to be employed. High

school graduates had higher employment rates than GEDs, whether male or

female. One study (Reder 1994) found that GED males and adults of both

sexes had higher rates of full-time employment than other dropouts.

In controlled comparisons, GED males were 5 percent more likely than dropouts to be employed, and GED adults were about 6 percent more likely to be

employed full-time. Male high school graduates and adult high school graduates

in general had higher overall employment rates than their GEDcounterparts.

There were no controlled comparisons of employment among females.

Simple comparisons of unemployment rates showed that GED recipients were

more likely than high school graduates to be unemployed. Female GEDs were

less likely than dropouts to be unemployed (in 2 of 3 studies), though the

evidence regarding GED males and dropouts was mixed. The one controlled

study of unemployment (Sum 1996) showed that among adults of both sexes,

the GED rate is the same as that of dropouts and higher than that of high school

graduates.

In general, the studies suggest that while GED attainment has little effect on

labor-force participation or unemployment, it seems to increase full-time employment somewhat.

50 62
Wage Rates

Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Much of the research on labor market outcomes of the GED has focused on

wage rates. Wage rates reflect what employers are willing to pay an employee

and, by implication, the value of the employee's work." In simple comparisons

(table B-6), the average wage rates of male GED recipients were between 6 and

19 percent higher than of other dropouts. For females they were between 2 and

13 percent higher, and for adults of both sexes in one study the rate was 14

percent higher.

The results of controlled analyses were similar. The wages of GED males were

still 6 to 12 percent higher than those of dropouts; the wages of GED females

were up to 13 percent higher; and the wages of GED adults in general were 5 to

11 percent higher. In every study but one, GEDs earned more than other

dropouts but less than high school graduates.

In controlled studies, then, GEDs tended to have higher wages than dropouts

and lower wages than graduates. However, the introduction of certain controls

in some analyses reduced the wage differences between GEDs and dropouts

considerably. In one study, for example, introducing controls for level of education, literacy, and work experience reduced the difference between GED and

dropout wages from 19 percent to 10 percent (Reder 1994). This suggests that

much of the apparent wage effect of GED status may actually be an effect of

other pivotal characteristics of GED recipients. Shortly we will examine the

extent to which, and ways in which, key variables such as these affect the wages

of GED recipients.

Time Spent Working

Wage rates indicate the value of an employee's skills, but if he or she chooses not

to work very much or is not able to find work, the economic benefit of these

skills will be limited.

Simple and controlled comparisons of time worked (e.g., hours per week) and

work experience (total weeks) tell a fairly consistent story (table B-6). GED

males work less than or about the same amount as dropouts. GED females

work more than dropouts. High school graduates, in turn, work more than

GEDs, regardless of sex. Simple comparisons of job tenure for the three groups

reveal a similar patternmale GEDs have less tenure than dropouts, females

have more, and high school graduates of both sexes have more than GEDs.48

Analysts disagree about whether the greater number of hours worked by GED

females, as compared to dropouts, is due to the credential. Cao et al. (1993)

and Cameron (1994) concluded that the differences between GEDs and other

dropouts were not statistically significant. Cameron suggested that "all differences in the annual labor supply and accumulated work experience are governed

by differences in fertility and marital decisions."

63 51
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

On the other hand, Maloney (1993) found that for women there were labor

supply effects of obtaining a GED (or a high school diploma). He concluded

from two controlled analyses that "the average dropout would see her actual

hours of work rise by 17.6 and 17.3 percent with a high school diploma and 8.0

and 6.4 percent with a GED degree."49

In sum, GED males tend to work less than or about the same amount as dropouts and experience more job turnover. GED females tend to work more than

dropouts and have less turnover, but there is disagreement about whether their

increased working time is a result of GED attainment. GEDs in general tend to

work less than high school graduates and have more turnover.

Annual Earnings

Annual earnings are affected by both wage rates and time worked and so represent a useful composite labor market outcome. In simple comparisons, the

average annual earnings of male GED recipients were up to 19 percent higher

than those of other dropouts; those of females were 4 to 29 percent higher; and

those of adults in general were 20 to 31 percent higher (table B-6). The earnings of GEDs were consistently lower than those of high school graduates.

Controlled comparisons of annual earnings are found in three studiesSum

(1996), Cave and Bos (1994), and Tyler et al. (1997).

Sum's analysis of NALS data controlled for literacy, educational attainment,

school enrollment status, marital status, and race-ethnicity, among other things.

He found that GED males with no further education earned 13 percent more

than dropouts, and GED females, 21 percent more. The magnitude of these

differences, even after controlling for the higher literacy skills of GED recipients, is substantial. However, the GEDs still earned less than high school

graduates.

Cave and Bos (1994) presented evidence from an experiment designed to

evaluate the effect of JOBSTART, an education and training program for high

school dropouts, all of whom were reading below the eighth-grade level. One

component of the program was many hours of basic education, along with

encouragement and assistance in getting a GED credential. Among the experimental JOB START group, 36 percent obtained the GED, compared to 21

percent in the control group. Combining the GED recipients in both groups

and comparing them to nonrecipients in both groups, the authors found that the

GEDs earned $12,766 compared to $9,405 for the nonrecipients during the

third and fourth years of the program. This is a substantial difference, but the

groups were not balanced with respect to many individual characteristics. To

alleviate the possible bias, the authors used membership in the experimental

group as an instrumental variable to predict receipt of the GED. Although the

resulting estimates were not statistically distinguishable, the magnitudes of the

estimates were similar to those of the simple comparison between GED recipients and nonrecipients.

52 64
Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Using data from the GED Testing Service and the Social Security Administration, Tyler et al. (1997) conducted a natural experiment to assess the effect of

GED attainment on annual earnings. They compared the earnings of dropouts

who passed the GED in states having relatively low passing standards with the

earnings of other dropouts who took the test and received the same scores but

did not pass because they lived in states with relatively high standards. This

approach enabled the researchers to compare outcomesfor dropouts having the

same motivation to take the test and the same cognitive skills, some of whom

received GED credentials (the treatment group) and some who did not (the

controls), by virtue of the states they happened to live in.

Five years after taking the tests in 1990, white GED recipients earned 10-19

percent more than controls (in 3 experiments), but nonwhite GEDs gained no

earnings benefit." GED earnings gains increased year by year but were relatively

low or negative in the first 2 years after attainment of the credential. The

authors think that GED certification affects earnings by increasing opportunities

for additional education and training, stimulating job search, and signalling skills

to others. The relatively low returns to the GED in the first 2 years may be

opportunity costs of acquiring more education and training.

In general, this research shows that GED recipients earn more than comparable

dropouts and indicates or strongly suggests that a major factor in the increased

earnings is the additional education and training that the GED enables recipients to acquire.

Key Control Variables

The GED certifies one form of accumulated human capitalbasic cognitive

skills. Education contributes to these skills and, arguably, to noncognitive forms

of human capital such as perseverance and work ethic. Thus we might expect

that level of education and test scores would account for much of the GED

effect on labor market outcomes such as wages. In this section we examine the

relationships between three key independent variables and wages. The variables

are years ofsecondary schooling, higher education attainment, and aptitude test

scores. Appendix table B-7 contains the data for this section.

Years of Secondary Education

High school graduates have more education than GEDs, who in turn have more

than other dropouts. It may be that years of schooling explain the wage differences between the three groups. When years of schooling are controlled in an

analysis of the effects of the high school diploma (which certifies 12 years of

schooling), what remains is sometimes called a certification or "sheepskin"

effect.

In Cameron and Heckman's (1993) analysis, GEDs had a mean 10.40 years of

schooling, compared to 9.46 years for dropouts, and of course, 12 years for high

school graduates. Excluding those with any higher education, the authors found

65 53
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

that the wage differences between male diploma graduates, GEDs with 11 years

of schooling, and dropouts with 11 years of schooling were much smaller than

those between all male diploma graduates, GEDs, and dropouts.5' When the

authors added years of schooling to a model that included race and ethnicity, the

wage coefficients of the GED and the high school diploma fell to near zero,

except for high school graduates at age 28. Across all groups, the coefficients

were jointly insignificant, suggesting that there was no additional "sheepskin" or

certification effect of either credential on wages.

Murnane et al. (1995) reported findings similar to those of Cameron and

Heckman. Their sample of male GEDs had a mean 9.12 years of schooling and

dropouts had 8.79 years. Their analysis found 4 percent higher wages for each

additional year of schooling completed, controlling forrace, ethnicity, and

mother's education. Once years of schooling were taken into account, GED

certification had no additional effect on wages.

Cameron (1994) reported that among females at age 25, GEDs had a mean 10.3

years of schooling, compared to 9.5 years for dropouts. He found that earnings

rose with years of schooling, as Cameron and Heckman did for males. Unlike

Cameron and Heckman, however, he found that for females at ages 25, 28, and

30, high school graduates did earn more than GED recipients and other dropouts with 11 years of schooling. Also, GED recipients with 11 years of schooling

earned significantly more than similar dropouts at ages 25 and 28. The findings

for females at age 30 were in the same direction, but not significant.

Cao et al. (1993) reported that for women aged 22-29, each year of additional

schooling completed was associated with $0.38 higher hourly wages. After

adjusting for years of schooling, the difference in hourly earnings between

diploma graduates and GED graduates fell from $0.33 per hour to an insignificant amount in the opposite direction. That is, the wage difference between

GEDs and high school graduates was attributable to their respective years of

schooling. However, controlling for years of schooling did not eliminate the

wage difference between GEDs and other dropouts. Rather, the difference fell

from $1.50 to $0.47 per hour. Other attributes of the two groups, or their

situations, must explain the remaining difference.

In summary, among males of similar race, ethnicity, and maternal education, all

differences in hourly earnings between the three groups can be accounted for by

differences in years of secondary schooling completed. Neither the high school

diploma nor the GED have a "sheepskin effect." Among females, some, but not

all, of the wage differences can be accounted for by years of schooling, leaving

open the possibility that there may be some GED credential effect.

Higher Education Attainment

Completion of education beyond high school is also an important predictor of

wage rates. Diploma graduates are more likely to complete postsecondary

education than GED recipients, and GED recipients are much more likely than

other dropouts to participate in higher education. The fact that high school

54 66
Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

graduates have higher wages than GEDs, who in turn have higher wages than

dropouts, may be due to the amount of postsecondary education each group

receives, rather than to their secondary credentials, or lack of them. By comparing the wages of groups who have no higher education, or by controlling for the

amount of postsecondary education that individuals with different secondary

credentials receive, we can better assess the direct wage benefits of the GED.

Cameron and Heckman (1993) compared the wages of GED males with those

of dropouts and high school graduates and then added indicators of

postsecondary completion-2 years with a GED, 2 years with a diploma, and

neither. Including these variables reduced the estimated difference in hourly

wages between the groups. For 25-year-old males, the difference between

dropouts and GEDs declined a little, from -6.7 to -5.8 percent; the difference

between GEDs and high school graduates dropped from +16.2 percent to +8.8

percent. (The negative signs denote lower earnings than GEDs, the positive

signs, higher earnings.) An analysis of the wages of 28-year-old males produced

similar results.

Cameron (1994) estimated the hourly wages of females at age 25, first including

and then excluding those with any formal schooling beyond high school (and

those actually in school). The exclusion reduced the difference between GED

wages and those of dropouts from -11.1 percent to -9.7 percent, and it reduced

the difference between GED wages and those of high school graduates from

+19.1 percent to +9.1 percent. Results were similar for 28-year-olds. Adding

other control variables in a regression equation changed these results very little.

Maloney (1993) found differences similar to Cameron's among the three groups

of women he examined, once those with postsecondary education were excluded

from the analysis.

Variation in postsecondary attainment helps explain the wage differences between GED recipients and diploma graduates. To a lesser extent, variation in

postsecondary attainment helps explain the difference between GED recipients

and other dropouts. Nevertheless, the GED is still associated with increased

wages vis-a-vis dropouts after the effect of postsecondary education is taken into

account.

Cognitive Ability

GED recipients have about the same cognitive skills as high school graduates

and considerably more than other dropouts. Therefore, we expect that controlling for cognitive ability, as measured by aptitude tests, will greatly reduce the

wage differences between GEDs and dropouts but will reduce the difference

between GEDs and high school graduates much less. Moreover, by statistically

removing cognitive ability from a credential that represents cognitive ability and

certification, we are left with a GED sheepskin effect plus the effect of any

unmeasured characteristics of GED recipients.

67 55
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Cameron and Heckman (1993) estimated wage models for males, controlling on

standard background variables and then adding AFQT scores. The difference in

hourly wages between dropouts and GED recipients changed from -5.8 percent

for 25-year-olds and -6.0 percent for 28-year-olds to +3.9 percent and +2.0

percent, respectively (dropouts earning more than GEDs). The differences

between GEDs and high school graduates were less affected by introducing

AFQT as a control: they fell from +8.8 and +11.9 percent to +7.3 and +10.5

percent. With the relatively small samples of GED recipients in the NLSY,

neither the wage differences between groups nor the changes in differences

passed conventional tests of statistical significance.

One finds the same pattern for females in Cameron's 1994 study. After estimating wage equations, controlling for standard background variables, he added

AFQT as a control. Once again, the addition of AFQT to the equation reduced

the wage differences between GEDs and dropouts to near zero, or to a positive

advantage for dropouts, while reducing the differences between GEDs and high

school graduates only a little. For example, among females at age 28, the

difference between GEDs and dropouts fell from -7.8 percent to +1.9 percent,

while the difference between GEDs and high school graduates dropped from

+16.2 percent to +13.4 percent with the introduction of the AFQT variable.

The results of Garet, Jing, and Kutner's (1996) analysis are largely consistent

with these findings, though there are differences. The authors estimated log

hourly wage rates for GEDs and high school graduates at age 28, controlling for

demographics, work experience, and local unemployment rates. Both groups

were compared to high school dropouts. Adding an ASVAB composite score to

the equation caused the GED coefficient for males to fall from a statistically

significant .10 to a non-significant .046. For male high school graduates, the

diploma coefficient dropped from .18 to .101 (both significant) with the introduction of the ASVAB composite. The coefficients for female high school

graduates also dropped, but the change cannot be attributed entirely to the

ASVAB .52

Maloney (1993) treated select ASVAB scores as a measure of cognitive achievement reflecting human capital accumulation. He attempted to estimate the

direct effects of GED certification and of a high school diploma on the wages of

females age 23-31, and to estimate their indirect effects on wages through the

ASVAB." Dropouts were the comparison group. Like Cameron and Heckman,

Maloney found no significant direct effect of GED certification on wages after

the ASVAB variable was included in the regression. The introduction of the

ASVAB variable also reduced the direct effect of high school graduation, sometimes to nonsignificant levels.

In the Cao et al. (1993) analysis of females, the introduction of AFQT scores

made the differences between the wages of high school graduates on the one

hand and GEDs and dropouts on the other nonsignificant. The coefficient for

the difference between GEDs and high school graduates (-.22) was smaller than

the coefficient for the difference between dropouts and graduates (-.47)."

56 68
Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Reder (1994) estimated the effects of the GED on wages directly and indirectly

through a measure of cognitive skills, in this case, National Adult Literacy

Survey scores in Oregon. Comparing GEDs to other dropouts, and controlling

on a number of variables, he found a .107 GED effect on wages. Of this total,

.047 or 44 percent was an indirect effect through literacy, and the remainder was

a direct effect of the GED."

As expected, the introduction of cognitive ability as a control greatly reduces or

eliminates any wage differences between GEDs and dropouts but has a smaller

effect on differences between GEDs and high school graduates. Controlling on

ability statistically removes the GEDs' primary advantage over other dropouts

their greater cognitive skills, the basis on which they were selected as GEDs. On

the other hand, because the cognitive skills of GEDs are fairly close to those of

high school graduates, the difference in their wages is less affected by the

introduction of ability as a control.

These analyses of the effects of secondary schooling, higher education, and

cognitive ability suggest that accumulated human capital, reflected here in level

of education and aptitude scores, accounts for most of the wage differences

among high school graduates, GEDs, and dropouts.

Indirect Effects of the GED

Although GED certification shows little direct effect on wages, once education

level or ability are controlled, the credential may affect wages indirectly by

increasing access to postsecondary education. GED recipients who take advantage of that access may receive higher wages because they have better skills. As

we saw earlier, the study by Tyler et al. (1997) suggested that GED certification

works through additional education and training to increase earnings. Since job

tenure and work experience also tend to increase wages, we would expect to see

an indirect effect through them, as well.

Indirect Effects through Additional Education and Training

Cameron and Heckman (1993) reestimated a regression predicting log hourly

wages for males at ages 25 and 28 by adding variables for further education and

training. As table 17 shows, they found that most of the effect of the GED on

wages was through education and training after high school. Estimating a similar

regression model for females, Cameron (1994) found that from 23 to 58 percent

of the total effect of the GED was indirect through further education and

training (table 17).

In a multivariate analysis with controls for race, work experience, and unemployment, Garet, Jing, and Kutner (1996) estimated the indirect effects of

postsecondary education on log wages through higher education. Dropouts were

the omitted category. The authors found that completing some college (up to

two years) was associated with a 6 percent wage increase formale GED recipients and a 7 percent increase for male high school graduates. Female high

69 57
Table 17.-Indirect effects on log hourly earnings of GED and diploma completion through further education and training and job tenure and experience Study Population/ sample GED Diploma Total effect Total indirect through further education Total direct and training Total effect Total indirect through further education Total direct and training Cameron and Heckman (1993), table 16 Males age 25 0.069 -0.003 0.072 0.197 0.129 0.068 Cameron and Heckman (1993), table 16 Males age 28 0.065 0.024 0.041 0.249 0.142 0.017 Cameron 1994, table 13 Females age 25 0.107 0.082 0.025 0.272 0.168 0.104 Cameron 1994, table 13 Females age 28 0.107 0.052 0.055 0.369 0.202 0.167 Cameron 1994, table 13 Females age 30 0.106 0.044 0.062 0.386 0.200 0.186 Total indirect through tenure and experience Total indirect through tenure and experience Cameron and Heckman (1993), table 9 Males age 25 0.060 0.071 -0.011 0.144 0.108 0.036 Cameron and Heckman (1993), table 9 Males age 28 0.062 0.115 -0.053 0.174 0.154 0.020 Cameron 1994, table 8 Females age 25 0.102 0.064 0.038 0.189 0.071 0.118 Cameron 1994, table 8 Females age 28 0.081 0.053 0.028 0.231 0.081 0.150 Cameron 1994, table 8 Females age 30 0.069 0.018 0.051 0.238 0.086 0.152 NOTE: Indirect effects through tenure and experience are calculated by comparing coefficients on high school completion status in equations including and excluding tenure and experience. Indirect effects through further education and training are calculated by multiplying the coefficients of the education and training variables by the proportion of the group that completed that level of education. See footnotes to tables 16 and 17 in Cameron and Heckman (1993).
Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

school graduates benefitted from some college, with a 9 percent increase in

wages, but female GEDs did not. The authors further found that completing

two years of college was associated with wage gains of 10 percent and 8 percent

for male GEDs and high school graduates, respectively, and 27 percent and 19

percent for their female counterparts.

Indirect Effects through Tenure and Work Experience

Like higher education, accumulated work experience is a strong determinant of

hourly wage rates, particularly for people early in their careers, and time in the

current job (tenure) has an even stronger relation to wages. However, as we saw

earlier, male GEDs tend to have less tenure and work experience than even

dropouts, while female GEDs have more. Thus we would expect female GEDs,

but not males, to gain wage benefits indirectly through these factors.

Cameron and Heckman (1993) and Cameron (1994) investigated these indirect

effects, following a two-step procedure. The first step, which did not control for

tenure and experience, yielded total effects of the GED and the high school

diploma on hourly wages. The second, which did control for tenure and experience, yielded direct (or partial) effects. The difference between the total effect

and the partial effect was the indirect effect of the GED or the high school

diploma on wages through tenure and experience."

As table 17 shows, the authors found that for 25-year-old males, including tenure

and experience in the equation increased the effect of the GED from 0.060 to

0.071, rather than reducing it. This occurred because (as we saw in table B-6)

the male GED recipients in these studies had less tenure and experience than

other dropouts, and this deficit tended to lower their wages. Once tenure and

experience were controlled, the wages of GEDs vis-a-vis dropouts increased. In

fact, it was the dropouts who experienced a positive and indirect effect on wages

through tenure and experience.

For similarly aged females, however, Cameron found that including tenure and

experience in the equation decreased the effect of receiving the GED, as

expected, from 0.102 to 0.064. For these females, the author estimated that

between 37 and 74 percent of the total effect of the GED on wages was indirect

through greater tenure and experience.

In sum, both male and female GEDs receive indirect wage benefits from their

certification through additional education. Female GED recipients also benefit

indirectly through additional tenure and experience. Male GEDs, however, do

not increase their wages through tenure and experience, because they have less

than dropouts in these studies.

Longitudinal Analyses

We turn from cross-sectional analyses, which compared the labor market performance of GEDs, dropouts, and high school graduates at points in time, to

longitudinal analyses which examine the performance of GEDs (and usually

7 2 59
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

dropouts) before and after attainment of the credential. We begin with analyses

based on the NLSY, then review evidence from two evaluations, and finally

examine data from follow-up surveys of GED recipients.

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NSLY) Data

Cameron and Heckman (1993) identified 107 males in the NLSY who were

employed both before and after receiving a GED certificate. They found that

hourly wages increased from $6.18 per hour the year before receipt of the GED

to $6.36 per hour the year after; hours worked per year increased from 1,541 to

1,563. Neither of these differences was large enough to be statistically significant, given the sample size.

60

Cameron (1994) used before and after evidence to study the effect of GED

attainment for females. His method was to pool all observations on hourly

wages during the sample period, 1979-80, for people who had not completed

any college. If an individual obtained a GED at any time during this period, a

variable indicated whether the wage observation occurred before the GED or

afterward. The author examined wages for high school dropouts, GED recipients, and high school graduates, controlling for age, ethnicity, year, and local

unemployment rate." Cameron found that these female GED recipients earned

on average 10.8 percent more than dropouts before getting the GED and 12.1

percent more afterwards. In another specification of the model, he controlled

for accumulated work experience and months of training (vocational, companyprovided, and apprenticeship) to remove indirect effects. With this specification, he found that GED recipients earned 5.1 percent more than other

dropouts before and 5.9 percent more after earning the GED. These slight

changes were insufficient to permit a conclusion that GED recipients increased

their earnings after receiving the GED.

Murnane et al. (1995) also studied the effect of GED certification for males in

the NLSY. Their method was to pool all hourly wage observations for people

who dropped out of high school, including those who later passed the GED.

One variable identified individuals who obtained a GED at any time during the

sample period; another variable indicated whether the observation occurred

before the GED or afterwards." The specification of the model included labor

force experience and an interaction between experience and receipt of the GED.

Analyzing data separately for whites, blacks, and Hispanics, the authors found

that the GED had a positive effect on the rate of wage growth. There was no

initial effect, but over time, GED wages grew more rapidly than they would have

had the individuals not received GED certification. Hours worked per year also

dropped initially after receipt of the GED, but then climbed faster than before.

However, the change in hours worked was slight, and the authors were unable to

reject the null hypothesis that acquisition of a GED had no impact on labor

supply. They suggested that the GED's observed positive effects on wages may

be indirect, through additional training and job search. The authors emphasized

(3
Evaluations

Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

that the GED wage effects, while positive, are modest and do not provide a

powerful tool for reducing poverty.

The findings in this study parallel those in Tyler et al., showing that the GED

yields economic benefits and that the benefits increase over time. Both studies

suggest that the GED may work through additional education and training, and

through job search, to increase compensation."

Earlier we discussed Cave and Bos' (1994) analysis of the JOBSTART program,

which was designed to help high school dropouts reading below the eighth grade

level. The program provided many hours of basic education instruction and

encouraged participants to take the GED Tests as a culmination and validation

of their efforts to improve their skills. Bos (1995) used monthly data collected

over a 4-year period to help evaluate the program. He pooled the 48 months of

data for each of approximately 2,000 participants in the evaluation (half from the

experimental group and half from the control group). His model treated current

monthly earnings as determined by level of involvement in basic education

during the month, accumulated time in basic education up to the beginning of

the month, possession of a GED credential, and other factors. He reported that

having the GED was associated with $47.37 higher monthly earnings for males

and females combined. His methodology made use of individual fixed effects,

which capture effects of unobserved characteristics of an individual that are

unchanging over time.

Bos (1996) also evaluated New Chance, a national demonstration project for

mothers on welfare. Enrollment in the program was limited to young women

who were teenagers when they had their first child, who were receiving AFDC,

who had not completed high school, who were between 16 and 22 years old at

baseline, and who were not pregnant. Bos' analytic approach was similar to the

one employed in the analysis of the JOB START data. He pooled 42 months of

data on earnings, weeks of education (basic education, training, and college),

and receipt of credentials (GED, diploma, trade license certificate), and he

employed individual fixed effects to capture the effects of unobservable characteristics. Bos found that receipt of the GED was associated with $29.24 higher

monthly earnings. He also estimated models with a term to capture the effect of

age on earnings and another to account for number of children. The GED

effect only fell to $27.31. Finally, he added a term for weeks of work since

enrolling in the project. The GED effect fell further to $22.60. However, these

estimates represented 8 to 10 percent increases in earnings, as the average

sample members earned $280 in the last month of the follow-up.

These GED effects on earnings are net of the effect of adult basic education on

earnings. Bos found that weeks of basic education were negatively associated

with earnings, possibly because a person tends to work less in order to participate in basic education. On the other hand, Bos found strong positive effects of

weeks in job training and obtaining a trade license. Simulating the cumulative

7 4

61
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

effects of education and education credentials on 42-month earnings, he estimated that a combination of 26 weeks of basic education and a GED credential

had a small negative effect, whereas 26 weeks of basic education, a GED

credential, 26 weeks of job training, and a certificate had a large positive effect.

Bos also found positive effects for the combination of basic education, a GED,

and 2 years of college. He concluded that "because remedial basic education

and a GED are often considered necessary to gain access to more advanced

training opportunities, they may be useful components of programs for young

school dropouts. However, participants should be made aware that basic

education has little value by itself and should be strongly induced to pursue

post-GED training and credentials."

The evidence from JOB START and New Chance suggests the GED credential

may be an important part of a strategy for disadvantaged high school dropouts to

improve their economic position. The strategy is to obtain the basic or remedial

education needed to pass the GED and through the GED to obtain further jobrelated training and associated credentials.

Evidence from GED Follow-up Studies

Follow-up surveys have been used to learn about such things as the subsequent

employment and education of GED examinees, together with the respondents'

views of the benefits or disappointments of participating in the tests. These

surveys often provide before and after comparisons based on respondents'

perceptions and judgments. Some provide nonGED comparison groups, but

most do not, and most have significant methodological limitations.60 One study

that used a comparison group (Kroll and Qi 1995) showed that the wages of

GED recipients increased more after the test than those of GED examinees who

did not pass the tests. The studies and some of their results are described in

appendix D.

62

Eight of these studies provided before and after information on employment for

GED recipients. Seven of the eight showed that full-time employment rates

increased after receipt of the GED. Part-time employment rates went down or

stayed about the same, and most unemployment rates went down. Since

people's chances of finding employment increase with age (up to a point), we

cannot tell whether or to what extent receipt of a GED was a factor in the

observed gains.

The increase in all employment and full-time employment is consistent with the

results of the controlled analyses in table B-6 (examined earlier). The decrease

in unemployment rates is consistent with the simple comparisons in table B-6,

but not with the findings of the more sophisticated multivariate analyses, and

preference has to be given to the results of the latter. In short, these findings

from the GED followup surveys tend to support the conclusion that GED

attainment increases employment opportunities.

75
THE GED AND THE U.S. ARMED FORCES

76
THE GED AND THE U.S. ARMED FORCES

The U.S. Armed Forces is one of the largest employers and trainers of America's

young people. Each year about 200,000 men and women are selected for active

duty enlisted positions in the Army, Navy Air Force, and Marines. By one

estimate, some 10 percent of GED males in the NLSY cohort entered the

military between 1979 and 1986, as compared to 5 percent of high school

diploma graduates (Cameron and Heckman 1993). Current estimates place the

enlistment rate of GED holders at around 7-8 percent.6'

In the 1970s and early 1980s, as much as one-third of an entering cohort of

enlistees left military service before the end of their contracted enlistment term

(Buddin 1984, Laurence 1987). These early departures constituted a serious

problem for the military. Most enlisted positions require occupational and

technical training, and the military services themselves shoulder the cost. Attrition is costly to both the military and the taxpayerestimated at $18,400 per

premature separation in 1987 dollars (Laurence 1987).

Often, too, attrition is a reflection of behavior detrimental to the military's

functioning. While some dismissals are the result of medical disabilities and

other nonpejorative causes, as many as 80 percent of enlisted dismissals occur

for adverse reasons, including ineptitude, behavior disorders, alcoholism,

motivational problems, acquired civil court convictions, drug use, financial

irresponsibility, and other misconduct (Laurence 1993, Laurence, Ramsberger,

and Arabian 1996).

For these and other reasons, the military seeks to reduce attrition as much as

possible. One means of doing so is to recruit individuals who, based on personal

characteristics, have a relative high probability of completing their first term of

service.

Studies conducted by the military since 1959 have examined the impact of

demographics, background experiences, high school completion status, and

cognitive ability on first-term attrition. These studies have shown that of the

measures available to the military, the high school completion status of recruits is

the single best predictor of attrition, even after controlling for age, cognitive

aptitude, and other personal characteristics (e.g., Buddin 1984; U.S. Department of Defense 1974; Elster and Flyer 1981; Flyer 1959; Laurence 1984, 1987;

Sinaiko 1977; Toomepuu 1981). Historically, failure to complete the first term

of service has been approximately twice as likely among nongraduates as among

high school graduates (Elster and Flyer, 1981).

Initially, GED recipients were classified along with regular high school graduates

in the preferred group of applicants for enlistment. In the late 1970s, however,

all four services changed their enlistment classification of GED credential

holders, consistent with accumulating research evidence showing that the

77 65
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

attrition rates of GEDs were close to those of high school dropouts (Means and

Laurence 1984). The military services became reluctant to enlist GED recipients. GEDs, other high school equivalency certificate holders, and non-high

school graduates were, and are, required to attain higher scores on the AFQT

than high school diploma graduates (Laurence 1993). The 1981 Defense

Authorization Act even placed a ceiling on the annual proportion of recruits that

could be enlisted without regular high school diplomas (Eitelberg et al. 1984).

Consequently, the services have enlisted fewer GED holders and more high

school graduates as a proportion of all recruits (Means and Laurence 1984).

In the early 1980s, some members of the education community, as well as the

general public, voiced concern over the military's differential aptitude standards

for holders of different educational credentials. For example, the American

Council on Education raised questions about the military's treatment of people

with nontraditional credentials. In response, the Department of Defense

contracted for a comprehensive study of the background factors, self-reported

experiences, and military performance records of enlistees with different statuses

of high school completion (regular diploma, GED, no credential). The study

confirmed earlier findings that of all the variables examinedage, race, AFQT

score, sex, marital status, and otherscompletion of high school was the single

best predictor of first-term completion. High school completion status remains

an efficient and effective screening tool for the military services. Although the

military's screening policies with regard to educational credentials remain

controversial, the robustness of their relationship to attrition has allowed the

changes to endure over time.

Table 18 pulls together data on attrition rates of GED recipients, high school

graduates, and high school dropouts in various years between 1977 and 1989.

For each of the years listed between 1977 and 1983, the 36-month attrition rates

for GED holders were just about twice those of regular high school diploma

graduates and close to those of high school dropouts. For example, in 1983,

attrition rates were lowest for regular high school graduates (22 percent) and far

higher for GED holders and those without a high school credential (45 and 52

percent, respectively).62 These patterns are similar across military services and

are similar to those in earlier and later studies (Elster and Flyer 1981; Means and

Laurence 1984; Laurence 1993).

Why is high school completion status such a powerful predictor of attrition?

Laurence (1984) observes that the social attributes and experiences that enable a

student to complete high school may be the underlying trait associated with an

individual's probability of fulfilling the first term of service. That is, perseverance, maturity, successful participation in group learning situations, team spirit,

tolerance of and adaptability to rules and regulations, determination, selfcontrol, and other similar attributes may be the true predictors of persistence in

the military, rather than whatever educational attainment is represented by the

diploma (Laurence 1984, 1993)

7 8

66
The GED and the U.S. Armed Forces

Table 18.-Attrition rates for nonprior service enlistees, by

enlistment year and high school completion status

High school 36-month attrition rate (males)

24-month

attrition rate

completion status 1977 1978 1979 1982 1983 FY 1988-89

High school diploma

graduate

GED

Nonhigh school

graduate

Difference between GED

and regular high school

diploma graduate

Difference between

nongraduate and regular

high school diploma

graduate

23.1

44.3

46.7

21.2

23.6

21.6 22.4 23.1 22.0 20.0

43.9 45.0 44.8 45.4 36.8

39.8 42.7 49.2 51.5 38.6

Percentage point difference

22.3 22.6 21.7 23.4 16.8

18.2 20.3 26.1 29.5 18.6

SOURCE: For 36-month rates, Laurence 1987, tables 4 and 6. For 24-month rates,

Laurence 1993, table 1.2.

Although earning a GED may signal that an individual is motivated and has the

basic cognitive skills of a high school graduate, it may not signal that the individual has developed or internalized the skills needed to be successful in a highly

structured environment such as the military. Variability in the attrition rates

among enlistees with other types of high school completion credentials lends

some support to this view. Table 19 lists the 24-month attrition rates of individuals who enlisted without high school diplomas by branch of military service and

high school completion status.

Enlistees who persisted through two or more years of college, even though they

had not earned a high school diploma, had the lowest attrition rate, 20.4 percent. High school graduates had the next lowest, 22.5 percent. In the midrange were holders of a variety of different certificates requiring some sustained

effort to attain. At the low end of the range, GED recipients had a 40.9 percent

attrition rate, and other dropouts, a rate of 42.9 percent.

Given the differences in these attrition rates, one could argue that attrition is

associated with both the degree of formal structure in the enlistee's education

and the length of time it takes to complete that education. The types ofskills

and attitudes required to complete a regular high school diploma or twofull

years of college may be similar to the skills and attitudes necessary to succeed in

the military. By earning a regular high school diploma, or another credential

79 67
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

68

Table 19.-Twenty-four month attrition rates for FY 1988-93, by

education credential and service

Education credential Total

Marine Air

Army Navy Corps Force

Nonhigh school graduate 42.9 41.3 44.5 38.1 31.8

GED 40.9 40.5 42.2 43.5 30.1

Home study diploma 38.2 *36.9 38.1 38.8 -

Adult education diploma 36.8 35.7 38.6 33.2 34.3

Correspondence school

diploma 36.2 *29.2 *23.8 41.4 *0.0

College-one semester

(no high school diploma) 36.0 38.0 37.1 35.3 **15.3

High school certificate of

attendance or completion 33.9 35.7 37.7 33.2 13.0

Occupational program

certificate 29.4 31.3 26.1 *44.0 29.7

Regular high school diploma 22.5 23.6 23.2 23.2 18.0

College-2 years or more

(no high school diploma) 20.4 21.6 20.6 24.1 14.8

Percentage point difference

Difference between GED and

regular high school diploma

graduate 18.4 16.9 19.0 20.3 12.1

Difference between nongraduate

and regular high school

diploma graduate 20.4 17.7 21.3 14.9 13.8

-Not available.

*Fewer than 30 enlistees in this education credential X military service category.

**May include traditional high school diploma graduates with at least one semester of

college.

SOURCE: Laurence, Ramsberger, and Arabian 1996, table 3.

requiring the same degree of discipline and persistence, an individual can

demonstrate the ability to persevere in a formalized and structured environment-a characteristic likely to be desirable in both military and civilian organizations. Holders of an occupational program certificate or high school

certificate of attendance or completion may be demonstrating that they have

internalized some of these characteristics, although not to the extent that regular

high school graduates have. Holders of other types of credentials may have

internalized fewer of the social skills necessary to succeed in the military

60
The GED and the U.S. Armed Forces

By raising the required AFQT score for GEDs seeking to enlist, the military can

restrict the number of GEDs admitted and thus reduce overall attrition. However, it is doubtful that increased AFQT scores ensure better retention rates for

those GEDs who are accepted by the military. Laurence (1984, 1993) notes that

tested aptitude, as measured by AFQT, is inversely, if weakly, related to retention." While aptitude scores do not predict attrition, education differentials can

help in selecting among the higher risk, and thus less preferred, candidates.

Aptitude test scores are used primarily to gauge ability to absorb military training

and perform the necessary job skills, while education level is used mostly as an

index of social adjustment (Flyer and Elster 1981; Laurence 1987; Toomepuu

1981). After doing extensive research on attrition, in 1987 the military services

recategorized education credentials into three tiers (Laurence 1993; Laurence,

Ramsberger, and Arabian 1996). Figure 3 shows the classification system.

For the first time, all the services began categorizing high school credentials in

the same way, although each independently determined its own enlistment

standards and the enlistment priority of each tier. This system remains largely

intact today, with the exception of adult education diplomas, which were moved

into the first tier in 1988 after intense lobbying by the adult education community and its friends in Congress (Laurence 1993).

Data on the 24-month attrition rate of 1988-93 recruits presented in table 19

show that those without a traditional diploma who completed just one semester

of college had attrition rates similar to those of Tier 2, rather than Tier 1, recruits. Although this category seems to be out of synch with others in the

classification scheme, the various credentials and experiences currently remain in

the tiers to which they were assigned in the late 1980s.

Because of continued political debate over the fairness of the three-tier credential system, the services began considering adaptability screening and an "Assessment of Background and Life Experiences" (ABLE) program to supplement or

replace the current classification based on education credentials (Trent and

Laurence 1993). These programs would use inventories of biographical and

temperament information for selecting men and women for military service.

Interest in implementing these types of screening mechanisms has abated,

however, because of concerns that applicants could either fake or be coached

into desirable responses. For the time being, in spite of its unpopularity among

advocates of alternative education credentials, the three-tier system remains a

fairly reliable and cost-effective means of screening new recruits.

Although the classification system places GED recipients in the second tier,

many GEDs do enter the military. The 7-8 percent of GED recipients who

enlist each year translates into 35,000-40,000 individuals.

81

69
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Figure 3.Educational classification system for military recruits

Tier 1: High School Graduate

High School Diploma (and higher)

Completed One Semester of College (not traditional diploma)

Tier 2: Alternative Credential Holder

Test-Based Equivalency Diploma (e.g., GED)

High School Certificate of Attendance

Adult Education Diploma

Correspondence School Diploma

Home Study Diploma

Tier 3: Nonhigh School Graduate

SOURCE: Laurence 1987, pp. iv, v.

82

70
CONCLUSION

83
CONCLUSION

As a rule, the GED process does not change people, it just identifies people with

particular characteristics and certifies them as having those characteristics.

Specifically, it identifies and certifies high school dropouts whose basic cognitive

skillsthe ability to read, write, think, and do mathare better than those of

other dropouts and about equal to those of high school graduates, on average.

Like most other tests, the GED does not measure noncognitive characteristics

that are related to performance in postsecondary education, the civilian labor

market, and the military. The GED recipients typically have more schooling than

other dropouts and (of course) less than high school graduates. They also tend

to come from families with more socioeconomic status than those of dropouts

but less than those of high school graduates. Characteristics such as these

explain a substantial part of the differences in the performance of GEDs,

dropouts, and high school graduates.

There are exceptions to the statement that the GED process does not change

people. First, GED examinees typically invest about 30 hours, and a little

money, in preparing for and taking the tests. This investment is very modest

and, in itself, is unlikely to produce measurable gains in education and employment. However, about one-fourth of GED examinees in 1989 reported spending more than 100 hours preparing for the exam, a big increase over the

percentage doing so in 1980. Second, by providing an initial step toward selfimprovement, the GED builds self-confidence. The self-esteem of GED

candidates increases as a result of passing the tests.

Thirty hours of preparation, or even 100 hours, is much less than the estimated

410 hours of instruction in core subjects that students receive in a typical high

school year. In 1995, GED test takers had completed a mean 9.9 years of

school. With 2.1 additional years of schooling, high school graduates had 861

more hours of core curriculum than GED examinees, on average.

For high school dropouts who attain the GED, the certification does provide

reliable information about an individual's cognitive skills to postsecondary

institutions, employers, the military, the federal government, and others who

might be asked to make a selection decision about that person. Evidence from

the National Adult Literacy Survey shows that GED recipients are equal to high

school graduates in everyday thinking skills.

By signalling cognitive competencies to decision makers who usually know little

about the individual in question, the GED can help open the door to opportunity. Once through the door, however, the individual has to use the cognitive

skills and other personal resources not measured by the tests in order to succeed.

84 73
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

74

GED certification can help open the door to postsecondary education. Most

colleges accept the credential, and multivariate studies show that GED recipients are more likely than comparable dropouts, though less likely than high

school graduates, to attend. Under federal student financial aid policies, GED

certification can also help recipients get financial assistance.

Once enrolled, how well do GEDs perform? Judging from the institutional

studies we examined, their grade point averages are close to those of high school

graduates. For example, in the 4-year colleges reviewed, the mean GPA of GED

recipients in the first year was about a C, while that of high school graduates was

a little under C+. In postsecondary vocational programs, GEDs got the same

average grades as high school graduates. Moreover, in both the 2- and 4-year

colleges and the vocational programs examined, the longer GED recipients

stayed in, the more their grades converged with those of high school diploma

holders. Upon graduation, the mean grades of the two groups were the same.

Their tested cognitive skills no doubt play a significant role in the grades GEDs

receive.

There is less parity in postsecondary persistence rates. GED recipients tend to

have more attrition-related risk factors than high school graduates (e.g., delayed

enrollment, part-time enrollment, single-parent status, and dependent children).

While GEDs graduate from vocational programs at almost the same rate as high

school diploma holders, they are only one-half as likely to earn associate's

degrees and much less likely to earn bachelor's degrees. Relatively low rates of

persistence tend to be a problem for GEDs who enroll in college.

In vocational education and training programs, GED recipients seem to be

average students. Their grades, time-in-program, and graduation rates are about

the same as those of high school graduates. The short-term, job-related nature

of these programs and the hands-on learning they entail probably have an appeal

for students who left high school early and want to take steps to find better jobs.

As with postsecondary education, GED certification can also help open the door

to opportunity in the labor market. It increases full-time employment somewhat, probably by helping part-time workers find full-time jobs, though it seems

to have little effect on unemployment. The great majority of employers accept

the GED credential as a substitute for a diploma in hiring, and most say they

regard it as equivalent to a diploma.

Once on the job, certification itself is of little help. Like other workers, GED

recipients have to produce in order to succeed. In two small surveys, most

employers said that GEDs performed as well as high school graduates on the

job. Controlled studies showed that GED males earned more than other

dropouts, but less than high school graduates, and GED females did at least as

well as their male counterparts.

However, male GEDs tended to have more job turnover than dropouts, work

the same amount of time per year, and have less work experience. Most GED

females, on the other bend, have less job turnover than dropouts, spend more

0 8S
Conclusion

time working per year, and have more work experience. High school graduates

spent more time working and had less turnover than GEDs of either sex.

In some respects, the labor market performance of female GEDs is stronger

than that of males. Relative to dropouts, female GEDs were less likely to be

unemployed, spent more time working, had less job turnover, and had greater

annual earnings than their male counterparts.

The hourly wages of GED recipients tend to be higher than those of dropouts

but lower than those of high school graduates. Most of the GED's effect on

wages comes not from the credential, but from the human capital that it represents. (This is also true of high school diplomas and college degrees, but one has

to accumulate human capital by investing substantial time and meeting course

requirements to earn them.) People who receive GEDs have more secondary

schooling and better cognitive skills than other dropouts before they take the

tests, and these factors, rather than GED certification, explain most of the wage

differences between GEDs and dropouts.

Although GED certification has little direct effect on wages, once education

level or ability are controlled, the credential does have indirect effects through

further education and training. The GED increases access to postsecondary

education and job training, and those who take advantage of this opportunity

tend to receive additional gains in earnings.

Formerly, the GED credential also opened the door to opportunity in the

military. Until the 1980s the services made no practical distinction between high

school graduates and GED recipients. Then a series of research studies demonstrated that GED attrition rates were double those of high school graduates and

about the same as those of dropouts. Over a period of time, the military developed a three-tier system for assessing the educational qualifications of applicants. High school graduates are placed in the first tier and are regarded as the

best prospective recruits. GEDs are placed in the second tier, and dropouts in

the third. Low rates of persistence have been the major problem for GEDs in

the military.

All things considered, it's worthwhile for a high school dropout to get a GED.

Its biggest advantage is that it increases access to postsecondary education and

training, which in turn tend to increase earnings.

On the other hand, GED rates of persistence in the organized, structured

activities examined in this study seem to be problematic, especially for males.64

First evident in high school, the problem appears to recur in other contexts. In

the military, GED attrition rates were close to those of dropouts. In

postsecondary education, other than vocational programs, GED graduation rates

were much lower than those of high school diploma holders. In labor market,

male GEDs had more less work experience and more job turnover than dropouts. (The labor market outcomes are suggestive but difficult to interpret. To

some extent, they may reflect the opportunity costs of acquiring more education

and a tendency to leave old jobs for new ones with better pay.)

86

75
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance ofGED Recipients

The GED measures and certifies cognitive skills, but not the range of other

attributes that contribute to persistence. Based on studies of attrition in the

military, researchers have concluded that completion of high school demonstrates such attributes and that a high school diploma reflects them. Other

standardized tests such as the ASVAB and the SAT do not measure noncognitive

attributes, either, but the combination of the tests and a high school diploma

covers both the cognitive and the noncognitive dimensions.

Noncognitive skills, abilities, and attitudes come from many sources, especially

the family and the school. The role of the school in developing them is widely

recognized, but not well enough understood, and the subject would benefit from

further inquiry. Involvement in the process of schooling (e.g., regular attendance, meeting deadlines, complying with authority, and cooperating with

others) may affect later outcomes as much as learning the content of schooling.

Years of education and training, either preceding or following GED attainment,

have much more impact on labor market outcomes than the credential itself.

Hence, marginal students should be (and usually are) encouraged to finish high

school, wherever possible. For those who do drop out, participation in alternative programs that have structure, rigor, and longevity may recoup some of the

advantages lost by not finishing high school. Education policy makers should

give more attention to developing innovative high school completion programs

leading to a regular or adult diploma. Along other lines, awarding higher levels

of GED certification for higher test scores, which educators in South Dakota are

considering, may provide an incentive for dropoutsto invest more time and

energy in studying for the test. Those who pass the test should understand that

GED certification is primarily a stepping stone and that additional progress in

the labor market can best be made by completing postsecondary education and

training programs. Specialized counseling should be considered to help GED

recipients persist in their efforts to complete these programs.

In some respects, GED recipients resemble high school graduates (e.g., in basic

cognitive skills and college grades); in others, they resemble dropouts (e.g.,

military attrition, job turnover). In hourly or yearly earnings, they fall between

the two. Compared to the earnings of high school graduates, the GED glass

appears half empty; compared to those of other dropouts, it appears half full.

Given these mixed findings, the common practice of counting GEDs as high

school graduates in educational statistics should be reconsidered.

Further, we should keep in mind that neither the high school diploma nor "some

college" have been sufficient to enable young adults to maintain earnings over

the years since the 1970s. It seems unlikely that, in the absence of other

macroecononmic changes, education policy alone can reverse this trend.

87

76
NOTES

83
NOTES

' For example, the headline for the June 2, 1997 ACE News reads "Record

Numbers Complete GED Tests, Earn High School Diplomas; Most Plan

Further Education" (American Council on Education 1997). Also see the

announcement for GED Profiles: Adults in Transition (GED Testing Service n.d.).

Another example at the local level is the fall 1997 continuing education course

catalogue of the Anne Arundel Community College, which indicates that successful GED completers can earn their "Maryland State High School Diploma"

(Anne Arundel Community College 1997). Many states have adopted policies

designating GED certification as a high school diploma.

2 For example, see Malizio and Whitney (1982), p. 10.

'In the years during and immediately after the war, there were two GED tests, a

high school equivalency or "high school level" test and a more difficult advanced

placement "college-level" test. The college test became the College-Level

Examination Program (CLEP), currently administered by the College Board.

The high school test became the GED that is used today and that is produced

and administered by ACE's GED Testing Service.

4 Early studies of GED outcomes in the late 1940s and early 1950s focused on

the performance of veteransall malesin postsecondary education. Later

studies focused on civilians, both male and female, in college and in the labor

market.

Data provided by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The

increase is probably not due to immigration; growth was strongest in the

midwest.

6 Completions include tests completed the first time they are taken plus those

completed by individuals retaking the GED. Obviously completions do not

include tests administered but not completed in that year. In 1995, 829,904

tests were administered. Of those, 615,132 tests (74 percent of the total) were

first-time completions; 108,767 (13 percent) were completions by individuals

retaking the GED; and 106,005 (13 percent) were tests taken for the first time

but not completed.

Since not all examinees complete the GED, the percentage difference between

these two years is not quite as large as it appears. When the denominator is all

tests administered, as it was in 1958, the percentage of those retaking the test

will be somewhat smaller than when the denominator is all tests completed, as it

was in 1995.

8 Kroll and Qi's rate is based on tests administered in the United States and the

Territories, while table 1 reports on all GED tests, including those in Canada.

89

79
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

80

9 The essay is the chief difference between the second and third versions of the

test and the exception to the multiple-choice approach.

'° Note that the early pass rates of veterans without high school diplomas (e.g.,

92 percent) exceeded those of the high school seniors whose performance was

used to norm the tests. The reasons for this difference are not clear but may be

related to military experience.

" Probabilities have been calculated from data in Quinn 1997a and GED

Testing Service 1993a. Quinn's (1997a) report provides the number of questions on each test and the number greater than chance required to meet the

minimum passing score. It does not provide the number correct expected by

chance or the required minimum number. The 1995 GED writing test includes

an essay that does not involve multiple choice. Chance probabilities on this test

cannot be computed from the data available.

12 On the entire five-test battery, the lowest possible standard score is 100 points

(20 points on each of five tests). The Princeton Review (Martz 1995) calculates

that in 1995, guessing on every question would have added 47 standard points to

100, making up a little over one-third of the difference between the lowest

possible score and the minimum required for passing.

13 Seniors who do not graduate are excluded from the sample after the fact.

14 Of course, both groups answered substantially more questions correctly than

did the GED examinees who failed the regular test battery.

15 Although percentages of correct answers and the means for the two groups are

similar, the distributions are not, as Cameron and Heckman (1993a) have

observed. The high school graduates' score distribution is approximately normal, while the GED recipients' distribution is truncated at the cut point for

passing the test. The left tail of the distribution is lopped off, resulting in a

concentration of GED recipients around the mean for all GED examinees. On

another point, Quinn (1997a, 1997b) observes that, unlike high school seniors

who take the tests, GED examinees can take the tests more than once and many

are coached on the tests. However, the GED examinees in the Enger and

Howerton study took the test only once, and many high school seniors are

coached on other standardized tests such as the SAT

16 Quinn (1997a) notes that Lindquist's data from early years of the test show

that the majority of Iowa students entering the ninth grade were passing each

subtest at the passing norms established for veterans. Moreover, the 1977

Educational Testing Service norming study found that 73 percent of ninthgraders could pass all five of the GED tests under the GED standards at the

time-35 or 45.

" For example, see Gary S. Becker's Human Capital (1964) and Jacob Mincer's

Schooling Experience, and Earnings (1974).

90
Notes

18 According to a major evaluation of adult literacy programs (Development

Associates 1994), participants in English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) programs

received a median 113 hours of instruction, compared to 35 hours for those in

Adult Basic Education (ABE) and 28 hours in Adult Secondary Education

(ASE). Moreover, many immigrants take some combination of ESL, ABE, and

ASE classes before taking the GED test. In general, the role of the GED in the

acculturation of immigrants is an important subject on which little systematic

research has been conducted.

19 This rough estimate is derived from Cheryl M. Kane, Prisoners of Time (1994),

the report of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning. The

commission found that American students spend an average of 1,000 hours per

year in school and an estimated 41 percent of this time was spent on core

academic subjects. Elsewhere the commission estimated that the amount of

time required by states to be spent on core subjects was 1,460 over 4 years, or an

average of 365 per year.

20 Note that the data on preparation time apply to GED examinees; no comparable data on GED recipients are available.

21 There are some incentives to do well on the test, rather than merely passing it.

Many colleges include GED scores among the factors they consider in admissions, and some states base scholarships in part on GED scores. Examinees

wanting to enroll in these institutions or to win the scholarships do have incentives to do well on the tests.

22 The Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT) is a subset of the Armed Services

Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB).

23 The GED data in this comparison reflect the mean NALS scores of the GED

recipients in Baldwin's 1993 sample of GED test takers. A substantial number

of these recipients, we can safely assume, later went on to college (Baldwin et al.

1995, p. 20). The NALS scores of all high school graduates are weighted

averages for those with high school diplomas and above (Kirsch et al. 1992, pp.

119-121). The NALS scores for adults are weighted averages for all NALS

examinees. These adults include GED recipients, but removing GEDs with no

further education from the calculations results in minimal changes to the estimates. The data did not enable us to remove GEDs who received additional

education, but their impact on the estimates for all adults is probably small or

negligible. There may be a slight upward bias in the scores of the GED test

takers, but we cannot tell from these data. Only GED examinees who completed the five-test battery at one sitting were included in the survey. It is

possible that non-completers, who might have retaken and passed the test later,

would have had lower scores than those who passed the first time.

24 Though the comparison with high school graduates in table 8 seems to contradict the first part of table 7, it does not. In table 8, many of the GEDs will go to

college, but the high school graduates have no college experience, by definition.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

81 91
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

82

The GED examinees have not yet had a chance to go to college. The high

school graduates have had a chance to go to college but have not done so. 25 Of course, the GEDs and high school graduates scored better on these tests

than did high school dropouts (not shown in table 8).

26 Maloney's method of comparing each group with the whole sample yields

smaller differences than one would find by comparing each group with the other.

27 To make this estimate, we calculated the weighted percentage of GED test

takers who passed the test in the years 1981-86 inclusive, using the data in table

1. The result was 72.9 percent. We also used data from Kolstad and Kaufman

(1989), who estimated that 30.7 percent of the dropouts in the High School and

Beyond sophomore cohort obtained a GED between 1980 and 1986. This is

very close to the estimate by Murnane, Willett, and Boudette (1994). Using

NLSY data from the period 1979-91, they concluded that one-third of the

dropouts in their cohort obtained a GED. If GED recipients equal 30.7 percent

of dropouts and 72.9 percent of test takers, then test takers equal .307/.729 of

dropouts, or 42.1 percent.

28 This estimate is in Baldwin's August 8, 1997 comments on the draft of this

study. Obviously an adult dropout chosen at random is much less likely to have

taken the test than a younger person without a diploma. One reason is that test

administration was not widespread when many adults who are now older were in

their teens and twenties.

29 Correspondence from Janet Baldwin, director of research, GED Testing

Service. April 15, 1997.

3° A small percentage of postsecondary institutions accept nonhigh school

graduates who do not have GED degrees. Many of these have other alternative

credentials, such as adult high school diplomas or acceptable CLEP scores.

31 Class rank is one criterion for admission that 4-year colleges frequently use.

The GED testing service has attempted to convert GED scores into class-rank

equivalents.

32 Outside the United States, a survey of 15 postsecondary institutions conducted by the Department of Continuing Education in Saskatchewan found that

13 accepted the GED certificate. In 6 of the 13, the GED alone was sufficient

for admission. (Jantzen and Quigley 1982).

33 Cited in Carson (1986).

" Here and elsewhere in this paragraph, item nonresponse accounts for the

difference between the percentages presented and 100 percent.

35 Murnane et al. also found that for females, GED attainment was associated

with a slight increase in the probability of receiving company training and more

substantial increases (6-13 percent) in the probability of receiving noncompany

92
Notes

training (often in government-sponsored training programs). GED attainment

was also associated with increased male participation in noncompany training,

but not in company training.

36 Unpublished data available on the Internet (http://www.ed.gov/NCES/pubs/

r94/r9412t23.html).

37 The "other outcomes" in table 12 include 5 percent of high school graduates

and 10 percent of GED recipients who enter the military in Cameron and

Heckman's study. It also includes participants in adult basic education and

GED classes in Behal's study.

38 Altogether, the proportions receiving education and training across the categories in Cameron's study total 72 percent, but only 51 percent of the GED

women in this study had either some college or some training after passing the

tests.

39 The Cameron/Heckman data in table 12 reflect the first educational decisions

after attainment of the GED. The Cameron/Heckman data in table 11 reflect

all educational decisions after attainment of the GED.

40 Data are from U.S. Department of Education (1996a), table 10 and U.S.

Department of Education (1995b), table 165.

4' Three technical points bear on the following analysis: (1) College grades are

not standardized the way tests are, but within the last several decades most

colleges have adopted a four-point scale: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and F=0.

Grades based on other metrics can often be converted to this scale; we have

done so wherever possible. (2) The studies of grade point averages examined

here are based on student records, and the treatment of course withdrawals in

calculating grade point averages varies somewhat across institutions. As a rule,

students may withdraw from a course for any reason without GPA penalty until

fairly late (e.g., within the last two weeks or a month of the course's conclusion)

and their performance in the course is not counted in their GPA. However, late

withdrawal is usually treated the same as a failing grade and is counted as a zero.

(3) For studies of institutions that use a four-point grading system (or one that

can be converted to it) and that conform to the treatment of withdrawals

described above, it is possible to provide summary statistics for comparative

purposes by averaging GPAs.

42 Some of the studies reviewed aggregated statistics for more than one college.

The data have been weighted to reflect the number of colleges in the studies.

" Along the same lines, a study by Keller (1958) shows that GEDs and high

school diploma holders who graduated from East Tennessee State had about the

same average grades across four subjects: American history, American literature,

composition and rhetoric, and mathematics. The mean grade for GEDs was

2.53, that for high school graduates, 2.49.

93 83
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

84

44 The Army is a good example. People who enlist in the Army have a variety of

goals in mind. Some may want to leave after their goals have been met but

before their term of service has been completed. Their early departure is

counted as attrition, regardless of their individual goals or reasons for leaving.

45 It is reasonable to assume that most students who enroll in certificate-granting

one-year vocational programs intend to complete the programs. The same is

probably true of most students who initially enroll in degree-granting programs

in 4-year colleges.

46 The current problem may not be quite as serious as these data indicate. If the

Current Price Index (CPI) overstates inflation, as many economists believe, the

earnings declines would be less marked than they appear. Moreover, the current

full-employment labor market may bid up wages. Nevertheless, the long-term

declines are probably real and a matter of concern.

47 They also reflect the wages at which employees are willing to work.

48 Averaging the data for time worked shows that male dropouts worked 0.73

percent more time (hours, weeks) per year than male GEDs in simple comparisons and 3 percent more in controlled comparisons. In effect, they work the

same number of hours. At ages 25 and 28, male dropouts had 15.1 percent and

21.5 percent more work experience than GED males. Male dropouts at these

ages spent 28.2 percent and 42.2 percent more time working on the current job

than comparable GED males. The finding that male dropouts work about the

same amount of time per year as GEDs is consistent with the finding of

Murnane et al. (1995) that the GED did not have a significant impact on the

number of hours worked per year.

49 Maloney (1993), p. 27.

5° This study used repeated cross-sectional analyses to show the earnings effects

of the GED over time. It did not directly compare the earnings of GEDs (and

of controls) before and after the GEDs attained their credential in 1990.

Rather, it examined differences in the earnings of GEDs and controls in each of

the 2 years before and 5 years after 1990. These cross-sectional comparisons

provided a longitudinal assessment of earnings effects.

51 They find dropouts with 10 years of schooling earn significantly more (10

percent) than dropouts with only 9 years. Similarly dropouts with 11 years earn

18 percent more than dropouts with only 9 years. There is a similar pattern for

GED recipients, although two of the four coefficients are statistically insignificant. See Cameron and Heckman (1993), table 14.

52 Interpretation of the ASVAB effect is clouded by the fact that the variables for

marital status and children were added at the same time as the ASVAB variable.

" To use ASVAB in this way, attainment of the ASVAB scores had to follow

GED certification and high school graduation. However, the ASVAB tests were

94
Notes

administered to NLSY participants of different ages (15-23) at different stages

of their education in 1980. Maloney therefore "updated" the ASVAB scores of

the respondents to the time of the followup survey, using multivariate techniques

to predict what an individual's score would be in 1987. He then used the

updated ASVAB score as the mediating variable in estimating indirect effects of

the GED and the high school diploma. Dropouts were the omitted category.

" Here the negative signs indicate wages lower than those of high school graduates.

Not in table B-7 because the coefficients were not reported.

56 Note that this specification assumes that the return to additional tenure and

experience is the same for all three groups. Below we review the evidence from

Murnane et al. (1995) that finds that the return to tenure increases for GED

recipients after they receive certification.

57 The age dummies captured the increase in earnings with age across the three

groups. The year variable (1979 or 1980) captured general economic conditions

in that year.

58 One limitation of this approach is that the wages of some individuals are

represented only after receipt of the GED, because they obtained it early in the

sample period, or only before receiving the GED, because they obtained in late

in the period.

59 Richard Murnane and John Willett collaborated in both of these studies.

60 The surveys have typically been conducted by mail, and the response rates

have usually been lowbetween 20 percent and 40 percent. Some of the

reports have included nonresponse analyses examining differences between

respondents and nonrespondents in demographic and other characteristics. The

subjective nature of the respondents' percept:7,ns and judgments about whether

they had benefitted occupationally from the GED is another limitation of this

approach.

61 Estimates by Janice Laurence of the Human Resources Research Organization

and Ed Schmitz of Navy Recruiting using GED and Bureau of Labor Statistics

data.

62 In these studies, the category high school graduate also includes individuals

who have some college in addition to a regular high school diploma.

63 Although AFQT scores may not be a useful tool for reducing attrition, a study

by Lyle (1988) showed that GED scores and certain ASVAB subscores (auto and

shop knowledge, mathematics knowledge, mechanical comprehension, electronic information) are negatively correlated with attrition. Among 3,979 army

enlistees in the 1984 fiscal year holding GED certificates at the time of entry, the

attrition group had significantly lower average GED scores than the nonattrition

95 85
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

group (264.16 compare to 267.24). Although the difference in average GED

scores was small (less than a 10th of a standard deviation), the author recommended that GED scores rather than the certificate alone become an integral

part of the screening process of recruits for service in the Army.

64 Persistence, as used throughout the study, is an individual and organizational

outcome, not a personal characteristic. It is partly a function of personal characteristicssuch as perseverance, work ethic, and adaptabilitythat enable one to

work well within an organization. It is also a function of factors, such as low

income, single parent status, and having dependent children, that may adversely

affect participation in an organization.

65 Quinn (1997b) cites a report of student resentment at being pulled from

regular classes in a Wisconsin school during the two days of GED testing (p. 44).

The quotation is from the same source and page.

66 Among other things, the survey sample was self-selecting, because it was

drawn only from GED Test takers who agreed at the time of the test to participate in the planned survey. The survey response rate was only 24 percent.

Nonresponse analysis showed that respondents were older, had higher GED test

scores, had slightly less postsecondary education, and were more likely to be

female than nonrespondents. The author concluded that both groups represented a single population but urged caution in generalizing from the data.

67 Two different calculations in the study estimated the "employed" rate at 59

percent and 61 percent.

68 As in Cervero and Peterson, the survey sample was drawn only from GED

Test takers who agreed at the time of the test to participate in the future survey.

Even so, the response rate was low (22 percent).

69 Behal's 1982 follow-up survey of GED examinees has no comparative data on

labor market outcomes, but it does have data on employment status and occupation of respondents at the time of the survey. Despite a low response rate (35

percent), Behal's estimate of the GED examinees' unemployment rate (24

percent) is similar to Cervero and Peterson's (21 percent) and Kroll and Qi's

(also 21 percent).

96

86
BIBLIOGRAPHY

9'7
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alsalam, N. and Conaty, J.C. (1989). The relative value of the GED and the high

school diploma in the labor market: Evidence from the sophomore class of 1980.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, OERI. Working Paper,

March 1989.

Alsalam, N., Fischer, G.E., Ogle, L.T., Rogers, G.T. and Smith, T.M. (1993).

The Condition of Education 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

American Council on Education (1997). ACE news. June 2,1997. Washington,

DC: Author.

Anderson, G.V. (1948). "Validity of General Educational Development Tests for

college entrance." College and University, 23, 371-381.

Andrew, C. (1951a). "A comparative study of the academic achievement of highschool graduates and non-graduates." College and University, 27, 50-55.

(1951b). "Predicting college success of non-high school graduates."

School Review, 60, 151-156.

Anne Arundel Community College. (1997). Fall 1997 continuing education

schedule of noncredit classes. Arnold, MD: Author.

Auchter, J.C. and Skaggs, G. (1994). The performance of 1993 graduating high

school seniors: How do U.S. high schools measure up? New Orleans, LA: Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in

Education.

Ayers, C.V. (1978). A study to compare the academic success of the General Educational Development Test graduates and the high school graduates at Surry Community College for the 1977-1978 academic year. ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED 184 650.

. (no date). An educational and employment growth study of General

Educational Development (GED) graduates of Surry Community College. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 196 472.

Ayers, J.D. (1980). Relationship of first-year university grades of non-high school

graduates with the Tests of General Educational Development. The Canadian

Journal of Higher Education, X-1, 76-82. ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED 228 179.

Baird, T.B. (1960). A study of the college achievement of the GED student in

relation to seven variables. Master's thesis, East Tennessee State University,

Tennessee.

98 89
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

90

Baldwin, J. (1990). GED Candidates: A Decade of Change. Washington, DC:

American Council on Education, GED Testing Service.

. (1991). Why did they drop out? Reasons GED candidates give for leaving

school. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, GED Testing

Service.

. (1992). GED Test performance of adult examinees and high school seniors.

Washington, DC: American Council on Education, GED Testing Service.

Baldwin, J., Kirsch, I.S., Rock, D., and Yamamoto, K. (1995). The literacy

proficiencies of GED Examinees: Results from the GEDNALS comparison study.

Washington, DC and Princeton, NJ: The American Council on Education and

the Educational Testing Service.

Banner, D.V. (1989). The Tests of General Educational Development as predictors of

student performance in five programs at AshvilleBuncome Technical Community

College for the years 1982-88. Greensboro, NC: Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Bauer, B.R. A comparison of the performance of adult high school diploma program

students with graduating seniors in three areas of basic skill development. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 145 085.

Bean, J.P. and Metzner, B.S. (1985). "A cognitive model of nontraditional

undergraduate student attrition." Review of Educational Research, 55(4) 484-

540.

Becker, G.S. (1964). Human Capital. New York, NY National Bureau of

Economic Research.

Behal, E.L. (1983). After the GED Tests: postsecondary education enrollment

patterns and perceptions of GED examinees. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, GED Research Studies, No. 5. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 272 755.

. (1984). Postsecondary enrollment patterns of GED examinees. Los

Angeles, CA: Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 02A.

Beltzer, S.Z. (1985). Persistence of GED and traditional students at a public community college: A test of a conceptual model. Washington, DC: American

Council on Education, GED Testing Service, GED Research Brief No. 7.

ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 100 439.

Berdie, R.F. and Sutter, N.A. (1950). "Predicting success of engineering students." Journal of Educational Psychology, 41, 184-190.

Bledsoe, J.D. (1953). "Success of non-high school graduate GED students in

three southern colleges." College and University, 28, 381-388.

99
Bibliography

Boesel, D. and McFarland, L. (1994). National Assessment of Vocational Education. Final Report to Congress. Volume I, Summary and Recommendations.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement.

Borden, K.J. (1973). Adult high school diploma programs: An emergingalternative.

Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts School of Education.

Bos, J.M. (1995). The labor market value of remedialeducation: Evidence from

time series data on an experimental program for school dropouts. New York, NY

Doctoral dissertation, New York University.

. (1996). Effects of Education and Educational Credentials on the Earnings

of Economically Disadvantaged Young Mothers. New York, NY Manpower

Demonstration Research Corporation. Working Paper, December 1996.

Brant, E.E. (1975). Deriving and using a table of GED scores expected from specific

ITED scores and some ancillary forms. ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED 112 031.

Brenna, D.W. (1969). "Use of the GATB in predicting success on the Tests of

General Educational Development." Journal of Employment Counseling, 1969,

6, 181-185.

Buddin, R. (1984). Analysis of early attrition behavior (R-3069-MIL). Santa

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Byrd, F., Hayes, E., Hendrix, J., Simpson, D., and Cluster, B. (1973). A comparison of the educational success of GED recipients and traditional high school

graduates in selected areas at Wilkes Community College, North Carolina. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 100 439.

Callis, R., and Wrenn, C.G. (1947). "The GED Tests as predictors of scholastic

success." Educational and Psychological Measurement, 7, 93-100.

Cameron, S.V (1994). Assessing high school certification for women who dropout.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Working Paper.

Cameron, S.V. and Heckman, J.J. (1993). "The nonequivalence of high school

equivalents." Journal of Labor Economics, 11(1) Part 1, 1-47.

Cannon, E.H. (1948). Status of service personnel who qualified, academically, for

admission to the freshman class of the member colleges of the Kentucky Association

of Colleges and Secondary Schools, fall quarter 1947. Paper read before the

Association of Kentucky College Registrars, January 23, 1948. Bowling Green

KY Western Kentucky Teachers College. (Mimeographed.)

Cao, J., Stromsdorfer, E.W, and Weeks, G. (1993). Is the GED a viable human

capital treatment for poor and welfare dependent women? Pullman, WA: Washington State University. Working paper.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 10 0 91
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Carbol, B.C. (1985). An evaluation of the Alberta high school equivalency program.

Edmonton, Alberta: Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta.

Carbol, B.C. and Maguire, T.O. (1986). "Benefits and disappointments from

participation in the Alberta high school equivalency program." The Alberta

Journal of Educational Research. (Vol 33, No. 1, 66-76).

Carr, A.E.T. (1994). Factors associated with attrition and retention of students in

postsecondary health occupational programs in Kentucky. Lexington, KY Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, A-10.

Carson, B. W (1983). Acceptance of General Educational Development (GED) in

hiring policies of Denver-area employers. Greely, CO: Doctoral dissertation,

University of Northern Colorado.

. (1986). Acceptance of General Educational Development (GED) in hiring

policies of Denver-area employers. Washington, DC: American Council on

Education, GED Testing Service, GED Research Brief No. 11.

Cave, G. and Bos, H. (1994). The value of a GED in a choice-based experimental

sample. New York, NY Manpower Development Research Corporation.

Paper presented at the 106th Annual Meeting, American Economic Research

Association, Boston, MA.

Cervero, R.M. (1981). 'Assessment in adult basic education: A comparison of

the APL and GED tests." Adult Education, 31, 2, 64-84.

. (1983). 'A national survey of GED Test candidates: Preparation,

performance, and 18-month outcome." Adult Literacy and Basic Education, 7,

13-29. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 229 425.

Cervero, R.M. and Peterson, N. L. (1982). After the GED Tests: Employment and

training activities of GED examinees. Washington, DC: American Council on

Education, GED Testing Service, GED Research Studies, No. 4. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 272 754.

Clark, R.S. (1987). Academic achievement of the GED graduates of the Community

College of Allegheny County. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED

284 050.

Colert, S. (1983). "High school equivalency and high school diploma students at

Brandon University: A comparison of academic success." (GED Research

Brief No. 5). Washington, DC: American Council on Education, GED Testing

Service.

Committee on the Evaluation of the Tyler Fact-Finding Study of the American

Council on Education. (1956). Conclusions and recommendations on a study of

General Educational Development Testing programs. Washington, DC: American

Council on Education.

101
Bibliography

Covington, J.B., Trimmer, H.W, and Klein, F. (1978). "Use of the General

Aptitude Test Battery to predict success on the Tests of General Educational

Development." Journal of Employment Counseling, March 1978, 29-35.

D'Amico, L.A. (1957). "The scholastic achievement of GED students at Indiana

University." North Central Association Quarterly, 31, 256-259.

D'Amico, L.A. and Schmidt, L.G. (1957). "The comparative achievement of

veterans admitted to college on the basis of General Educational Development Tests and a selected group of other college students." Journal of Educational Research, 50, 551-556.

Darkenwald, G.G. and Valentine, T. (1985). The General Educational Development Tests: Benefits of graduation and a typology of graduates. New Brunswick,

NJ: Rutgers University. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Development Associates (1994). National evaluation of adult education programs:

Draft fourth report. Arlington, VA: Author.

Dixon, P.T. (1948). Scholastic achievement of students admitted to the University of

Missouri on the basis of performance on Tests of General Educational Development. Columbia, MO: Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri.

Dressl, P.L. and Schmid, J. (1951). An evaluation of the Tests of General Educational Development. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Dynarski, M. (1994). "Who defaults on student loans? Findings from the

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study." Economics of Education Review,

13, 1, 55-68.

Eitelberg, Mj., Laurence, J.H., Waters, B.K, and Pereleman, L.S. (1984).

Screening for service: Aptitude and education criteria for military entry. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Elster, R.S. and Flyer, E. S. (1981). A study of the relationship between educational

credentials and military performance criteria (BDM/M-TR-0018-81). Monterey,

CA: Naval Postgraduate School.

Enger, J.M. and Howerton, D.L. (1988). Performance on the 1988 GED tests by

graduating high school seniors and adult GED examinees. Washington, DC:

American Council on Education, GED Testing Service. ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 306 220.

EQW National Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce (no date).

First findings from the EQW Employer Survey. Philadelphia, PA: Author.

Farr, C.W., Moon, C.E., and Williams, A. (1986). "Correlating the Test of Adult

Basic Education and the Test of General Educational Development." Lifelong

Learning, June 1986, 17 25.

102 93
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

94

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high

school. Albany, NY State University of New York Press.

Flyer, E. S. (1959). Factors relating to discharge for unsuitability among 1956

airman accessions to the Air Force (WADC-TN-59-201). Lackland Air Force

Base, DC: Personnel Research Laboratory.

Fugate, C.W (1972). The academic performance of students admitted on the basis of

the General Educational Development Tests to the Middle Tennessee State University. University, MS: Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33 07.

Garet, M.S., Jing, Z., and Kutner, M. (1996). The labor market effects of completing the GED: Asking the right questions. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research

Center, American Institutes for Research.

GED Testing Service. (1970). Annual statistical report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

. (1980). The 1980 GED statistical report. Washington, DC: American

Council on Education.

. (1990a). Admissions and scholarships of GED graduates: Guidelines for

interpreting GED scores. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

. (1990b). 1990 statistical report. Washington, DC: American Council on

Education.

. (1993a). The tests of General Educational Development: Technical

Manual. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

. (1993b). Wisconsin 1993 GED norming study: Final report. Washington,

DC: American Council on Education.

. (1996a). Who took the GED? GED 1995 statistical report. Washington,

DC: American Council on Education.

. (1996b). Change to higher minimum GED score requirements. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

. (1997). Who took the GED? GED 1996 statistical report. Washington,

DC: American Council on Education.

. (no date) Announcing! GED Profiles: Adults in Transition. Washington,

DC: American Council on Education.

Goodwin, J. (1991). A study of differences in employment, salary, and enrollment in

postsecondary education associated with completion of the General Educational

Development (GED) exam. Tallahassee, FL: Doctoral dissertation, Florida

State University.

103
Bibliography

Grady, D.K. (1983). The academic performance of General Educational Development entrants compared with high school diploma entrants to Broward Community

College, 1980-1983. Boca Raton, FL: Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic

University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44. 11A.

Grise, P.J. and Klein, J.D. (1987). Continuing research on the General Educational

Development examination: Florida program. (Research Report No. 12.) Washington, DC: American Council on Education, GED Testing Service.

Hannah, WC. (1972). Achievement and dropout rates of GED students and high

school graduates from Alabama junior colleges. Mississippi State, MS: Doctoral

dissertation, Mississippi State University. Dissertation Abstracts International,

33 12A.

Hartung, A.W (1948). "The case of the GED student." School and Society,

August 28, 1948, 137-38.

Hayes, E. (1991). Follow-up report of 1989 GED recipients in 'Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Department of Continuing and Vocational

Education.

Hexter, H. and Anderson, CJ. (1986). Admission and Credit Policies for Adult

Learners, Higher Education Panel Report Number 72. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Hole, W.C. (1980). External high school diploma program evaluation project. Final

Report, October 1, 1979June 30, 1980. Part II: Testing Phases. Madison, WI:

Wisconsin State Board of Vocational, Technical, and Adult Education. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 195 691.

Iowa Department of Education. (1992). What has happened to Iowa's GED

graduates? A two-, five-, and ten-year follow-up study. Des Moines, IA: Author.

Jantzen, L. and Quigley, A. (1982). Acceptance of GED by employers and educational institutions. Regina, Saskatchewan: Department of Continuing Education, Community Colleges Branch.

Johnson, M. and Valentine, T (1992). Outcomes of GED graduation; An annotated

bibliography of research reports. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 796.

Kaplan, D. and Venezky, R.L. (1993). What can employers assume about the

literacy skills of GED students? Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult

Literacy.

Keller, L.J. (1958). A comparative investigation of the college achievement of selected

GED students and high school graduates. Reno, NV Masters thesis, University

of Nevada.

104 95
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

96

Kelly, J. (1950). A study of the General Educational Development Tests at HardinSimmons University. Abiline, TX: Master's thesis, Hardin-Simmons University,

1950.

King, J. (1984). What is a GED worth? Bloomington, IL: Illinois State Board of

Education, Adult and Continuing Education.

Kirsch, I. and Jungeblut, A. (1986). Literacy: Profiles of America's young adults.

Report No. 16-PL-02. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational

Progress.

Kirsch, I., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., and Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in

America. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Klein, J.D. and Grise, P.H. (1987). GED and traditional high school diploma

holders attending Florida's community colleges: A comparison of academic success. (GED Research Brief No. 12). Washington, DC: American Council on

Education, GED Testing Service.

Kolstad, A. and Kaufman, P (1989). Dropouts who complete high school with a

diploma or GED. San Francisco: Paper presented at the annual meetings of

the American Education Research Association.

Kothenbeutel, N.C. (1993). A comparison of variables associated with persisters/

nonpersisters of high school graduates and General Educational Development

(GED) diploma holders. Iowa City, IA: Doctoral dissertation, University of

Iowa. Doctoral Abstracts International, 54, 09A.

Kroll, B.S. (1993). Does the key fit the lock? A review of research on GED recipients in community colleges. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED

377 893.

Kroll, B.S. and Qi, S. (1995). A promise of empowerment: Results of the GED 1992

Follow-up Survey. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, GED

Testing Service.

Kutarana, J.A. (1990). Is there a correlation between successful completion of the

GED Tests and success in postsecondary education? A literature review. St.

Francis Xavier University: Author.

Ladner, R.A. (1987). Educational and occupational activities of GED andconventional high school graduates in Florida. (GED Research Brief No. 8.) Washington, DC: American Council on Education, GED Testing Service.

LaPine, H.J. (1958). "Do the GED Tests really measure the outcomes of general

educational learning experiences?" University of Kansas Bulletin of Education,

12, 72-80.

Larin, K. (1994). Summary of research on the GED. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation.

105
Bibliography

Larsen, J.A. (1979). Performance analysis of students admitted to UWStevens Point

on the basis of the General Educational Development examination of high school

equivalency focus: 1976-77 and 1977-78. Stevens Point, WI: Office of Undergraduate Admissions, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

Laurence, J.H. (1984). Education standards for military enlistment and the search

for successful recruits (FR-PRD-84-4). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources

Research Organization.

. (1987). Military enlistment policy and education credentials: Evaluation

and improvement (FR-PRD-87-33). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources

Research Organization.

. (1993). Education standards and military selections: From the Beginning. In Adaptability Screening for the Armed Forces byThomas Trent and

Janice H. Laurence (eds.). Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary

of Defense (Force Management and Personnel).

Laurence, J.H., Ramsberger, PF., and Arabian, J. (1996). Education credential tier

evaluation (FR-EADD-96-19). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research

Organization.

Littlefield, J.F. and Dowling, W.D. (1980). "The Test of Adult Basic Education

(TABE) as a predictor of success on the revised General Educational Development Tests (GED) in a correctional setting." Journal of Correctional Education, 31, 3, 27-28.

Love, L.L. and Love, L.E. (1947). "Performance of veterans." Journal of Higher

Education, XVIII, 95-98.

Lyle, B. (1988). "The GED Certificate as an alternative credential in the U.S.

Army enlistment process." Adult Literacy and Basic Education, 12, 3, 142-150.

Malizio, A.G. and Whitney, D.R. (1981) Who takes the GED Tests? A national

survey of spring 1980 examinees. (GED Research Studies, No. 1). Washington,

DC: American Council on Education, GED Testing Service. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 272 753.

. (1985). Educational credentials in employment: A nationwide survey.

(Research Brief.) Washington, DC: American Council on Education, GED

Testing Service.

Mally, N. and Charuhas, M. (1977). A survey: Perceptions of the College of Lake

County's GED program as seen by former students and area personnel managers.

Lake County, IL: College of Lake County.

Maloney, T (1991a). Estimating the returns to a secondary education for female

dropouts. Brunswick, ME: Department of Economics, Bowdoin College.

106 97
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

98

. (1991b). Estimating the returns to a secondary education for female

dropouts. (Discussion Paper No. 937-91.) Brunswick, ME: Institute for

Research on Poverty, Department of Economics, Bowdoin College.

. (1991c). Estimating the impact of the increased earnings capacity from a

secondary education on the future welfare recipiency of female dropouts. (Working

paper.) Auckland, New Zealand: Department of Economics, University of

Auckland. Working paper.

. (1993). Will a secondary education increase the earnings of female dropouts?" (Working paper.) Auckland, New Zealand: Department of Economics,

University of Auckland.

Manitoba Department of Education (1981). Acceptance of General Educational

Development (GED) Tests by employers in the province of Manitoba. Winnepeg,

Manitoba: Author.

Marshall, J.C. and Birenbaum, R.A. (1980). "A longitudinal study of disadvantaged persons placed in postsecondary educational institutions." College and

University, 5, 221-236.

Martin, L.G. (1992). Assessment of the 1987 changes in GED score requirements in

Wisconsin. Final report. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Sponsored by the Wisconsin State Board of Vocational, Technical, and Adult

Education.

Martz, G. (1995). The Princeton Review, 1995 edition. Cracking the GED. New

York, NY Villard Books.

McClurg, R.B. (1977). Assessing the effect of adult high school completion programs

on graduate placement. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 156

848.

McElroy, C. (1990). GED certification and college success. ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 339 273.

McLawhorn, K.B. (1981). Investigation of the postsecondary performance of adult

high school diploma graduates and GED equivalency graduates in a 2-year institution. Whiteville, NC: Southeastern Community College. ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 203 042.

Means, B. and Laurence, J.H. (1984). Characteristics and performance of recruits

enlisted with General Education Development (GED) credentials (FR-PRD-84-

6). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Mickulecky, L. and Lloyd, P (1993). The impact of workplace literacy programs: A

new model for evaluating the impact of workplace literacy programs. Philadelphia,

PA: National Center on Adult Literacy.

107
Bibliography

Milligan, E.E., Lins, L.J., and Little, K. (1948). "The success of non-high-school

graduates in degree programs at the University of Wisconsin." School and

Society, 67,1724,27-29.

Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, Experience, and Earnings. New York, NY National

Bureau of Economic Research.

Mock, R. (1979). Comparison of adult student performance on the General Educational Development Test and the Adult Literacy Performance Level Test. College

Station, TX: Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.

Moore, L. (1982). A follow-up study of adults who were administered the General

Educational Development Test in Kentucky during 1976. Frankfort, KY Division

of Adult Education, State Department of Education.

Moore, M.T. and Stavrianos, M. (1995). Review of adult education programs and

their effectiveness: A background paper for reauthorization of the Adult Education

Act. Washington, DC: Mathematical Policy Research.

Mumma, R.A. (1950). "The college record of students admitted on the basis of

GED Tests." College and University 26,79-86.

Murnane, R.J., Willett, J.B., and Boudett, K.P. (1995). "Do high school dropouts

benefit from obtaining a GED?" Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17,

2,133-47.

. (1997). Does acquisition of a GED lead to more training, postsecondary

education, and military service for school dropouts? (Working paper.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education and Harvard Kennedy

School of Government.

Murnane, R.J., Willer, J.B. and Tyler, H. (1996). What are the high school diploma

and the GED certificate worth in the labor market: Evidence for males from High

School and Beyond. (Working paper.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate

School of Education. Working Paper, June 1996.

Nelson, J.J. (1975). A follow-up appraisal of selected General Educational Development Test examinees at McLennan Community College, Waco, Texas. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 121 978.

New Brunswick Department of Advanced Education and Training. (1990).

Success study: GED certified students in New Brunswick community college

programs. Fredericton, New Brunswick: Author.

Olsen, E.H., Jr. (1954). The prediction of academic success by the General Educational Development Tests. Denver, CO: Doctoral dissertation, University of

Denver.

99

108
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Olsen, N.K. and Passmore, D.L. (1989a). Does obtaining a GED affect employment and income? A critical review of research. San Francisco, CA: Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association.

(1989b). Labor supply of young GED recipients. San Francisco, CA:

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco.

Parrish, L.K. (1994). A comparison of attrition and NCLEX:PNsuccess rates of

GED holders and high school graduates in practical nursing programs in Alabama.

Tuscaloosa, AL: Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama.

Passmore, D.L. (1987). Employment ofyoung GED recipients. (GED Research

Brief No. 14). Washington, DC: American Council on Education, GED

Testing Service.

Patience, WM. and Whitney, D.R. (1982). What do the GED Tests measure?

Washington, DC: American Council on Education, GED Testing Service.

Pawasarat, J. and Quinn, L.M. (1986). Research on the GED and its use in Wisconsin. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Employment

and Training Institute. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 274

811.

Province of Saskatchewan. (1977). GED acceptance survey. Regina,

Saskatchewan: Author.

Putnam, P (1947). "Scholastic achievement of GED students at the Vanport

Extension Center." School and Society, 66, 1705, 161-164.

Quinn, L.M. (1986). Performance of GED holders enrolled at the University of

Wisconsin's thirteen campuses: 1979-1985. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Employment and Training Institute. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 274 813.

. (1990). The test that became an institution. Milwaukee, WI: Doctoral

dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Dissertation Abstracts

International, A 51 07.

. (1997a). An institutional history of the GED. Milwaukee, WI: University

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Employment and Training Institute.

. (1997b). Attempted reform of the GED credential in Wisconsin. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Employment and Training

Institute.

109

100
Bibliography

Quinn, L.M., Bouman, S. and Pawasarat, J. (1986). Literature survey of the use of

the GED to measure readiness forpost-secondary education. Milwaukee, WI:

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Employment and Training Institute.

ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 274 814.

Quinn, L., and Haberman, M. (1986). 'Are GED certificate holders ready for

postsecondary education?" Metropolitan Education 1, 2, 72-82.

Quinn, L. and Pawasarat, J. (1986). Equivalency certificates report to the superintendent: Findings and recommendations. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department

of Public Instruction.

Reder, S. (1994). The nature and impact ofGED training in Oregon. Portland, OR:

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Reed, N. (1985). Maryland GED graduates: Changes in education, employment

and perceptions of self-worth two years later. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State

Department of Education.

Roeber, E.C. (1950). "The GED Tests as a measure of college aptitude." Educational Research Bulletin, 29, 40-41, 55.

Rogers, G.W, Jr. (1977). First semester collegeperformance of GED testees. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 857.

Rogers, J.D. (1987). The high school equivalency graduate and the high school

diploma graduate: A comparison of student backgrounds and academic performance at the University of Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR: Doctoral dissertation,

University of Arkansas. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48 05.

Rolfe, P.G. and Wilson, R.C. (1979). A comparison of the self-description of high

school completion (GED) dropouts and persisters. Eric Document Reproduction

Service No. ED 186 776.

Roon, E.L. (1972). The relationship between achievement levels and the mode of

admission of students at Metropolitan State College. Greely, CO: Doctoral

dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.

Roy, A.D., Jr. (1975). A study of high school equivalency certificate holders who

attended Bristol Community College between 1969 and 1973. Greely, CO:

Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.

Rumberger, R.W. (1987). "High school dropouts: A review of the issues and

evidence." Review of Educational Research, 57, 2, 101-121.

St. Pierre, R., Swartz, J., Murray, S., Langhorst, B., and Nickel, P (1994).

National Evaluation of the Even Start Literacy Program: Final Report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

110 101
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

102

Scales, N.J. (1990). A comparison of the academic achievements of high school

diploma graduate students and General Educational Development-credentialed

students in selected junior college institutions in Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL:

Doctoral Dissertation, University of Alabama. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 06A.

Schillo, P.A. (1990). A comparison of the academicsuccess of GED certificate

students and high school graduates at Lorain County Community College. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324 076.

Schlick, E.F. (1969). Academic success of junior college students admitted on basis of

high school equivalency certificates. Tempe, AZ: Doctoral dissertation, Arizona

State University.

Sharon, A.T. (1971). The use and validity of the GED and CLEP examinations in

higher education. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American

Personnel and Guidance Association, Atlantic City, N.J., April 6, 1971. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 054 194.

. (1972a). The validity of the Tests of General Educational Development for

admission of non-high school graduates to higher education. Washington, DC:

American Council on Education, Commission on Accreditation of Service

Experiences. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 064 304.

. (1972b). "Predicting the college success of non-high school graduates

with the Tests of General Educational Development." Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 1055-1059.

(1972c). The non-high school graduate adult in college and hissuccess as

predicted by the Tests of General Educational Development. Princeton, NJ:

Educational Testing Service. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED

109 168.

Shepherd, J.B. (1992). A comparison of postsecondary academic success of traditional high school graduates and GED graduates enrolled in vocational and

technical programs at selected North Carolina community colleges. Greensboro,

NC: Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Dissertation Abstracts 53, 10A.

Sinaiko, H.W. (ed.). (1977). First term enlisted attrition, Volume I: Papers (TR-3).

Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.

Smith, G.S. (1986). The use of the GED for placement in community college

English courses. College Station, TX: Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M

University.

Smith, TM., Perie, M., Alsalam, N., Mahoney, R.P, Bae, Y, and Young, B.A.

(1995). The Condition of Education 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

111
Bibliography

Sonnenblick, C. (1980). High school equivalency candidate performance on the

New York State High School Reading Competency Tests and on the GED Tests.

(Research Brief No. 2.) Washington, DC: The American Council on Education, GED Testing Service.

Spillar, W.T. (1982). A comparison of scholastic success of community college

students admitted on the basis of alternative admission requirements. College

Station, TX: Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University. Dissertation

Abstracts International 43, 03A.

Stadler, F.J. (1994). The performance of GED students at Milwaukee Area Technical College, 1989-1992. Milwaukee, WI: Doctoral dissertation, University of

Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 09A.

Stull, W. (no date). Is high school economically relevant for noncollege youth?

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Center for Research in Human Development and Education.

Sultan, M.H. (1989). Academic performance of GED recipients in two 4-year

postsecondary institutions in Mississippi. University, MS: Doctoral dissertation,

University of Southern Mississippi. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50,

08A.

Sum, Andrew. (1996). Literacy in the labor force: Resultsfrom the National Adult

Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Swift, W.D. (1989). A comparison of the academic success of practical nursing

students who graduated from high school with those who completedthe GED.

Athens, GA: Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia. Dissertation

Abstracts, 50, 06A.

Thiele, J.E. and Sloan, C.A. (1984). Impact of the successful completion of the

GED on candidates and their employers. ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED 244 051.

Tiner, D.R. (1995). Academic self-efficacy and college achievement: A comparative

analysis of non-traditional vs. traditional students and high school graduates vs.

GED graduates. Memphis, TN: Doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 06A.

Toomepuu, J. (1981). Soldier capabilityArmy combat effectiveness (SCACE)

Volume I Main Report (ACN64024). Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN: U.S. Army

Soldier Support Center.

Topp, E.J. (1972). Scholastic achievement of students admitted on the basis of general

educational certificates to selected colleges and universities. Tempe, AZ: Doctoral

dissertation, Arizona State University.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

112 103
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

104

Tyler, J.H., Murnane, R.J., and Willett, J.B. (1997). Estimating the impact of the

GED on the earnings of young dropouts using a series of natural experiments.

Cambridge, MA: Paper presented at the Summer 1997 National Bureau of

Economic Research Labor Studies Workshop.

Tyler, R.W. (1930). What high school students forget. Educational Research

Bulletin, 9,17.

. (1956). Conclusions and recommendations ofa study of the General

Educational Development Testing Program. Washington, DC: American Council

on Education.

Waller, E.A. (1976). Summary of research findings on the military General Educational Development program. Final report. Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Air

Force Human Resources Lab. AFHRL- TR- 76 -55; OSD-MR-76-5. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 139 986.

U.S. Department of Defense (1974). Defense manpower quality requirements.

Report to the Committee on Armed Services of the U.S. Senate. Washington,

DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense, Manpower, Reserve

Affairs, and Logistics.

U.S. Department of Education. (1995a). The condition of education 1995.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

. (1995b). Digest of education statistics 1995. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

. (1996a). Nontraditional undergraduates. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

. (1996b). 1990 beginning postsecondary students longitudinal studysecond

follow-up. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

. (1996c). Digest of education statistics 1996. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

. (1996d). Dropout rates in the United States: 1994. Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics.

. (1996e). The condition of education 1996. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

. (1997). The condition of education 1997. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Labor, Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary

Skills (no date). Skills and tasks for jobs: A SCANS report for America 2000.

Washington, DC: Author.

113
Bibliography

Veterans' Testing Service (no date). 1958 annual statistical report of the Veterans'

Testing Service. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

. (no date). 1960 annual statistical report of the Veterans' Testing Service.

Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Wardlaw, H.P. (1956). The use and value of GED Tests for college entrance of

veterans of the armed forces. North CentralAssociation Quarterly, 26, 295-306.

Welch, W.M. (1980). A comparison of the academic performance of GED, high

school, and college transfer students in an associate of science degree program in

nursing. Nashville, TN: Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 09A.

Whitaker, W.B. (1995). A study of North Carolina employers' perceptions of the

credibility of the Tests of General Educational Development (GED) Tests. Columbia, SC: Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina.

Whitley, W.C. (1958). A comparative study of the performance of male General

Educational Development students and male high school graduates who matriculated at Florida State University. Tallahassee, FL: Doctoral dissertation, Florida

State University.

Whitney, D.R., Malizio, A.G., and Patience, W.M. (1986). "The reliability and

validity of the GED Tests." Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46,

689-698. (Also Research Brief No. 6. Washington, DC: American Council on

Education, GED Testing Service.)

Willett, L.H. (1982). "Longitudinal comparison of GED and high school graduates' postsecondary education success." Adult Literacy and Basic Education. 6,

4, 218-225.

Wilms, W, Moore, R., and Bolus, R. (1987). "Whose fault is default? A study of

the impact of student characteristics on guaranteed student loan defaults in

California." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 42-54.

Wilson, R.C., Davis, PD., and Davis, J.C., Sr. (1980). "A comparison of

postsecondary vocational success of high school diploma and high school

equivalency (GED) certificate students." Adult Literacy and Basic Education,

4, 3-8.

. (1981). The success of high school diploma and GED equivalency students

in vocational programs at Lake City Community College, Florida. Washington,

DC: American Council on Education, GED Testing Service, GED Research

Brief No. 3.

Wilson, S.C. (1977). A comparison of the academic performance ofhigh school

graduates and GED certificate holders at Tulsa Junior College. Tulsa, OK:

Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University.

105

114
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

106

Wolf, J.C. (1976). An investigation of the predictive validity of the Tests of General

Educational Development for 2-year college study. Denton, TX: Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 18

05.

(1980). Predictive validity of the GED Tests for 2-year college study, South

Plains College, Texas. (GED Research Brief No. 1). Washington, DC, American Council on Education, GED Testing Service.

Ziegler, L.J. (1992). General Educational Development certified students compared

to high school graduates on communications and social science achievement in 2-

year technical colleges. Cincinnati, OH: Doctoral dissertation, University of

Cincinnati. Dissertation Abstracts, 53, 07A.

115
APPENDIX A. THE GED NORMING:

EVIDENCE FROM WISCONSIN

116
APPENDIX A. THE GED NORMING: EVIDENCE

FROM WISCONSIN

After setting rigorous new standards for passing the GED test (40 and 50), the

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction contracted with the GED Testing

Service for a 1987 state norming of the test and collaborated in the process.

According to Quinn (1997b), the Wisconsin case provides evidence of problems

inherent in the GED norming process. While 77 percent of the schools asked to

participate in the norming did so, only 38 percent of the seniors who started the

five-test battery finished. The state Department of Public Instruction questioned the representativeness of the seniors in the study, particularly on the

urban/rural dimension (Martin 1992). The GED Testing Service also said that

the 1987 Wisconsin sample may have been biased (GED Testing Service 1993b).

Subsequently, a 1993 norming was conducted in Wisconsin to replicate the 1987

study with a more representative sample. According to Quinn, 46 percent of the

schools contacted actually participated, and 81 percent of the students who

started the test battery finished it. An analysis of the 1993 data showed that the

participating schools were representative of the population of Wisconsin schools

with regard to urbanicity, and the examinees were representative of Wisconsin

seniors with regard to sex and race (GED Testing Service 1993b).

Student reluctance to take the test may have contributed to the participation

problems. Quinn (1997b) provides anecdotal evidence of student unhappiness

about taking the GED battery in the 1993 administration of the test, and ACE

excluded from its calculations students who scored below the level expected by

chance "to remove the deleterious effects resulting from students who may not

have taken the examination seriously.""

117

109
APPENDIX B. TABLES

118
APPENDIX B. TABLES

Table B-1.Correlations between the GED and other tests in local areas

Study Test and location Correlation

Brant 1975 citing

Morgan 1969

Smith and Goetz 1988

Cervero 1981

Sonnenblick 1980

Farr et al. 1986

Littlefield and

Dowling 1980

Iowa Test of Educational Development

Minneapolis, MN

American College Test (ACT)

North Harris County, TX

Adult Performance Level (APL) Survey

Cook County, IL

Degrees of Reading Power (DRP)

Staten Island and Queens, NY

Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE)

Cheyenne, WY

Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE)

Chillicothe, OH

.88

.80

.81

.77

.68

.66

SOURCE: Studies in this table.

Table B-2.--Correlations between GED composite and GATB general (G) scores

in local areas in four states

Study and state n Correlation

Brenna 1969 , Wisconsin 40 .64

Klein and Trione 1970, Nevada 92 .67

Covington et al. 1978, Arizona 70 67

Covington et al. 1978, Minnesota 186 .61

NOTE: The General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) was designed to measure the work-related skills of

applicants for white-collar civil service jobs in the U.S. government. It consists of nine tests of aptitude,

including general ability, verbal aptitude, numerical aptitude, and other occupationally related aptitudes

such as clerical perception and manual dexterity. Of the nine, general ability and verbal aptitude are the

most closely related to the GED.

SOURCE: Studies in this table.

119 113
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Table B-3.-Standard scores on four ASVAB factors

Attended college Did not attend college

Test factor, HSG,

by gender direct entry

HSG,

delayed entry GED

HSG

only GED Dropout

Males

Math reasoning 1.05 .55 .19 -.02 -.28 -.65

Verbal ability .72 .44 .34 -.02 -.18 -.80

Processing speed .51 .23 -.06 -.14 -.40 -.83

Mechanical knowledge .97 .92 .68 .55 .36 -.13

Females

Math reasoning .75 .14 -.12 -.19 -.36 -.69

Verbal ability .71 .45 .29 .12 -.03 -.72

Processing speed .67 .49 .21 .28 -.08 -.53

Mechanical knowledge .09 -.12 -.19 -.33 -.39 -.71

NOTE: The numbers in the table are standard deviations above and below the mean for the test.

SOURCE: Garet et al. (1996), exhibits 3, 4.

114 120
Appendix B. Tables

Table B-4.-Grade point averages of GED recipients and high school graduates

Postsecondary Vocational Programs

College/program

Author Students/year

Population

or sample Number GPA

See Ratio

ftns. GED/HSG

Enrollees

Wilson, Davis, Lake City Community Sample of voc. 27 GED 2.80 1.09

and Davis 1981 College, Florida. enrollees 77 HSG 2.56

Enrollees in 5 vocational Age adjusted:

programs 1976-77 GED 2.67 ns HSG 2.60

Shepherd 1992 12 of 58 NC Community All students 3,429 260 GEDs 2.59 rn 0.91

Colleges. Vocational-tech 3,169 HSGs 2.85

entrants, Fall 1987. At least Vocational 798 71 GEDs 2.37

12 credit hours 4 years later 727 HSGs 2.91

Technical 2,631 189 GEDs 2.81

2,442 HSGs 2.79

Parrish 1994 2-yr coils, AL All full-time 114 GEDs 2.51 rn 1.08

4 randomly

selected LPN

programs out of 10

fall enrollees

88-90 in the

4 programs

414 HSGs 2.32

Mean GPA GED 2.58

Mean GPA HSG 2.71

Mean Ratio GED/HSG 0.95

Number of Colleges 17

Graduates

Welch 1980 U. Tenn. - Nashville All 492 graduates 42 GEDs 2.73 rn 0.99

1972 entrants in 2-yr 211 HSGs 2.77

AS Nursing programs 244 Transfers 2.79

Graduated by Spring 1978

Swift 1989 12 of 28 postsecondary All 1,254 nursing 282 GEDs 3.19 ns 1.03

vocational schools, GA graduates 972 HSGs 3.09

Enrollees in 1 year Nursing

program, 1983-86

Ziegler 1992 3 Ohio tech. coils. All AS grads 111 GEDs 3.02 rn 0.98

5 Tech major areas 1978-85 357 HSGs 3.08

Grades in (required)

social science and

communications courses

Parrish 1994 2-yr coils, AL All full-time 114 GEDs 2.94 rn 0.99

4 randomly

selected LPN

programs out of 10

fall enrollees

88-90 in the

4 programs

414 HSGs 2.98

Mean GPA GED 3.09

Mean GPA HSG 3.05

Ratio: MeanGED/MeanHSG 1.01

Number of Colleges 20

121

115
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Table B-4.-Grade point averages of GED recipients and high school graduates

(continued)

Postsecondary Vocational Programs (continued)

College/program Population See Ratio

Author Students/year or sample Number GPA ftns. GED/HSG

Other (ftn)

Kothenbeutel 1993 Kirkwook Community

College, Iowa

5 technical programs.

Enrolled Fall 1985. Data

as of Spring 1990

Ratio: GED/HSG

ftn. Study focused on restricted population.

* = HSG significantly greater than GED p<.05

A = GED significantly greater than HSG p<.05

ns = No signifcant difference

rn = Real numbers (not estimates)

rc = Our recalcuation

410 remedial test

takers. Limited

population

56 GEDs

354 HSGs

1.94

2.59

0.75

rc 0.75

2-year colleges

College/program

Author Students/year

Population

or sample Number GPA

See Ratio

ftns. GED/HSG

First Year

Hannah 1972 3 Junior Colleges, Alabama

All enrollees 1965-71

(1st year GPAs)

Moore 1973 5 community/junior colleges

in Texas. Full-time

Entrants, Fall 1971

Ayers 1978 Surry Community

College, NC Enrollees

1977-78. After 1 year

Wilson 1977 Tulsa Junior College

Oklahoma. Entrants,

1st semester 1981

Scales 1990 3 Alabama 2-year

colleges. Entrants

Fall 1987. Full time,

1st quarter only

Schillo 1990 Lorain Co. Community

College, Ohio

Entrants, Fall 1988-89

Data for school year

Mean GPA GEDs

Mean GPA HSGs

Ratio: MeanGED/MeanHSG

Number of Colleges

All GEDs

Random HSGs

All GEDs

Random HSGs

All GEDs

Random HSGs

All GEDs

All HSGs

All GEDs

Random HSGs

All GEDs

Random HSGs

300 GEDs

300 HSGs

220 GED

220 HSG

37 GEDs

37 HSGs

187 GEDs

2322 HSGs

47 GEDs

45 HSGs

40 GEDs

40 HSGs

1.87

2.07

1.61

2.31

2.75

2.93

1.92

2.16

1.88

2.02

1.95

2.66

1.85

2.26

0.82

14

ns

* ns

rn

ns

*

0.90

0.70

0.94

0.89

0.93

0.73

116 122
Appendix B. Tables

Table B-4.--Grade point averages of GED recipients and high school graduates

(continued)

2-year colleges (continued)

College/program

Author Students/year

Population

or sample Number GPA

See Ratio

ftns. GED/HSG

All Years

Hartung 1948 U. of Tennessee All GEDs 53 GEDs 1.37 0.64

Junior College ? others Other vets 2.13

Non-vets 2.01

Women 2.29

Non-GED Av. 2.14

Hannah 1972 3 Jr. Colleges, Alabama All GEDs 120 GEDs 2.66 A 1.26

(2nd yr. GPAs) Enrollees 1965-71 Random HSGs 158 HSGs 2.11

Wolf 1980 South Plains College, "Representative 100 GED 2.61 ns 0.99

Texas. Enrollees sample" 100 HSG 2.64

Fall 1970-Fall 1973 100 non-HSG 2.60

Spillar 1982 (Community) College of All GEDs 105 GED 2.71 ns 1.08

the Mainland, Texas Random HSGs 105 HSG 2.50

Entrants Fall 1978

3 years later

Willett 1982 Elgin Community Coll., Random GEDs 68 GEDs 2.33 ns 0.95

Illinois. Entrants 1976 Random HSGs 68 HSGs 2.44

5 years later

Grady 1983 Broward Community All GEDs 458 GEDs 2.46 ns 0.95

College, FL. Entrants Random HSGs 458 HSGs 2.58

Fall 80. >1 course

3 years later

Match age, sex, race Klein and Grise 1987 Survey of registrars at GEDs 2.54 0.92

10 of 28 Florida

community colleges

HSGs 2.75

McElroy 1990 Kankakee Community Random GEDs 50 GEDs 2.93 A 1.06

College, Illinois Random HSGs 50 HSGs 2.76

Enrollees in FY 1990

Mean GPA GEDs 2.52

Mean GPA HSGs 2.57

Ratio: MeanGED/MeanHSG 0.98

Number of Colleges 19

123 117
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Table B-4.Grade point averages of GED recipients and high school graduates

(continued)

2-year colleges (continued)

College/program Population See Ratio

Author Students/year or sample Number GPA ftns. GED/HSG

Graduates

Clark 1987 Community College of All GEDs 56 GEDs 3.21 ns Allegheny Co., PA Random HSGs 56 HSGs 3.03

Graduates 1/1985-8/1986

Ratio GED/HSG 1.06

Number of Colleges 1 Other (ftn.)

Tiner 1995 Ark. St. U.-Beebe (2-yr.) Sample of 54 GED 3.28 A 1.21

"Volunteers" with 276 students. 222 HSG 2.72

at least 12 hrs Self-selecting

About 1994 sample.

Ratio GED/HSG 1.21

ftn. Study has methodological problems that raise questions about the reliability/validity of the findings.

* = HSG significantly greater than GED p<.05

A = GED significantly greater than HSG p<.05

ns = No signifcant difference

rn = Real numbers (not estimates)

rc = Our recalculation

4-year colleges

College/program Population

Author Students/year or sample Number

See Ratio

GPA ftns. GED/HSG

First Year

Putnam 1947 Vanport Extension All GEDs 71 GEDs

Center, Oregon All HSGs 1129 HSGs

State System. Enrollees,

Winter quarter 1947

Stinson 1947 Colorado A&M 30 GEDs

in Whitley 1958 HSGs

Dixon 1948 University of Missouri All GEDs 257 GEDs

Enrolled 1st semester Sample HSGs 257 HSGs

1947. Took ACE psych. Match vet sex

examination age marital

college term

aptitude entrance

Roeber 1950 Kansas State All GEDs 71 GED

Teachers' College All ? HSGs 397 HSG

Completed at least 1

semester. 1st semester

GPAs

2.42 rn 1.01

2.39

1.94 0.82

2.36

1.93 0.92

2.10

2.00 rc 0.86

2.33 adj

118 124
Appendix B. Tables

Table B-4.Grade point averages of GED recipients and high school graduates

(continued)

4-year colleges (continued)

College/program

Author Students/year

Population

or sample Number GPA

See Ratio

ftns. GED/HSG

First Year (continued)

Adams 1950 Southwest Texas GED vets GEDs 1.79 0.74

in Whitley 1958 State Teachers College HSGs HSGs 2.42

Milligan, Lins, U. of Wisconsin All GEDs (1 female) 72 GEDs 1.60 rn 0.75

& Little 1948 Entrants in first year All male students All males 2.13 rc Co lert 1983 Brandon University All GEDs 26 GEDs 1.68 ns 0.85

Canada. Entrants

1982-83. 1st year GPAs

Systematic

sample HSGs

27 HSGs 1.98

Means 1987 Casper College All GEDs GEDs 2.31 rn 0.99

in Johnson 1992 WY. Entrants Fall 1986 All Freshmen Freshmen 2.34

Rogers 1987 U. of Arkansas, All GEDs 178 GEDs 1.82 rc 0.78

Fayetteville. Enrollees Random HSGs 207 HSGs 2.34

Fall 1982Spring 1986

First yr. GPA

Van de Ven 1985 University of Wisconsin- All GEDs 28 GED 1.88 rn 0.85

in Quinn 1986 Green Bay. Entrants All HSGs 211 HSG 2.21 rc Fall 1981. 1st sem. GPA.

Quinn 1986 U. Wisconsin - All GED 51 GED 2.35 0.85

Madison. Enrolled Fall All HSG 22655 HSG 2.76 rn 1979-80 through Fall

1984-85. 1st sem. GPA

Mean GPA GED 1.97

Mean GPA HSG 231

Ratio: MeanGED/MeanHSG 0.86

Number of Colleges 11

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

125 119
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Table B-4.Grade point averages of GED recipients and high school graduates

(continued)

4-year colleges (continued)

College/program

Author Students/year

Population

or sample Number GPA

See Ratio

ftns. GED/HSG

All Years

Dixon 1948 Univ. of Missouri All GEDs 257 GEDs 2.02 0.94

(After 1st term) Entered 1st sem. 1947. Sample HSGs 257 HSGs 2.15

Took ACE psych exam.

Over 7 semesters.

Match vet sex

age marital

college term

aptitude entrance

Andrew 1951 University of Utah. All matchable 209 GED 0.56 0.63

Male entrants GEDs. Sample 209 HSG 0.89

Fall 1945Summer 1950.

Probably as of late 1950

early 1951. Completed

at least one quarter.

HSGs. Matched

on sex, age,

college, quarter

admitted, ability.

Selection

methods unclear.

D'Amico 1957 Indiana University All GEDs 307 GED 2.85 0.90

Males admitted Random HSGs 307 HSG 3.16

1946-50.

Roon 1972 Metropolitan State Random GEDs. 237 GEDs 1.84 rc 0.81

College, Colorado.

All those enrolled

through 1971.

Random HSGs,

stratified by HS

rank. 30/30/40

660 HSGs 2.28

Quinn 1986 U. Wisconsin - All GEDs 538 GEDs 1.98 rn 0.77

Milwaukee All HSGs 12146 HSG 2.56 rc Enrolled Fall 1979-80

through Fall 1984-85.

After 4

semesters

Rogers 1987 U. of Arkansas, All GEDs 442 GEDs 2.12 0.90

Fayetteville Random HSGs 375 HSGs 2.36

Enrollees Fall 1982

Spring 1986.

Mean GPA GED 1.90

Mean GPA HSG 2.23

Ratio: MeanGED/MeanHSG 0.85

Number of Colleges 6

120 126
Appendix B. Tables

Table B-4.--Grade point averages of GED recipients and high school graduates

(continued)

4-year colleges (continued)

College/program

Author Students/year

Population

or sample Number GPA

See Ratio

ftns. GED/HSG

Graduates

Whitley 1958 Florida State U. All GEDs 31 GEDs 2.37 0.96

Entrants 1948-49 thru 15% systematic 59 HSGs 2.48

1952-53. Graduates HSGs

Sultan 1989 Miss St. U & U of All GEDs 37 GEDs 3.13 ns 1.03

Southern Miss Sample HSG 37 HSGs 3.04

1982-87 Graduates Match sex,

majors, yr grd

Mean GPA GED 2.75

Mean GPA HSG 2.76

Ratio: MeanGED/MeanHSG 1.00

Number of Colleges 3

Other

Keller 1958 East Tennesee State Random GEDs 150 GEDs 2.53

College. Graduates. HSGs 150 HSGs 2.49

Average of grades in History,

Literature, Composition and

Rhetoric, and Math

' = HSG significantly greater than GED p<.05

A = GED significantly greater than HSG p<.05

ns = No signifcant difference

m = Real numbers (not estimates)

rc = Our recalculation

127 121
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Table B-5.Postsecondary graduation rates of GED recipients and high school

graduates

Postsecondary Vocational Programs

College,

Author Program

Population Percent GED/HSG

Sample Number Graduating Ratio

Tyler 1956 Institute Applied Arts & All GEDs 58 GED 62.0 0.86

Sciences, Buffalo All HSGs 2,154 HSG 72.0

Entrants 1947-52.

Murphy 1973 LPN students 46 GEDs 78.0 1.28

in Rogers 1987 1960-1972 40 HSGs 61.0

Wilson, Davis, Lake City Community Voc. enrollees 27 GEDs 63.0 1.05

& Davis 1981 College, FL 1976-77. 77 HSGs 60.0

Duration unclear. Selection unclear

5 voc programs.

Pawasarat Milwaukee Area All GEDs 501 GED 38.0 0.64

& Quinn 1986 Technical College. All others 3,300 HSG 59.0

Entrants 1980-83;

by 1985. 7 or more

credits, 1st semester.

827 HSDrops 31.0

Swift 1989 12 of 28 postsecondary All practical 282 GED 68.0 0.97

vocational schools, GA nursing studs 972 HSG 70.0

1983-86 Age, race? 1,254 total

Carr 1994 Kentucky Tech All leavers (376) GED 40.0 0.65

Institutions

3 health programs

random stayers (375) HSG

enrolled 1989-92

62.0

Parrish 1994 2-year coils, AL All full-time 114 GEDs 44.7 0.85

4 randomly

selected LPN

programs out of 10

fall enrollees 414 HSGs

1988-90 in the

4 programs

52.4

Mean GED 56.2

Mean HSG 62.3

Ratio: Mean GED/Mean HSG 0.90

Number of colleges 20

122 128
Appendix B. Tables

Table B-5.-Postsecondary graduation rates of GED recipients and high school

graduates (continued)

2-year colleges

College, Population Percent GED/HSG

Author Program Sample Number Graduating Ratio

Willet 1982 Elgin Community College Random 68 GEDs 22.0 0.79

IL Entrants, in 1976,

5 years later.

Random 68 HSGs 27.9

Grady 1983 Broward Community All GEDs 458 GEDs 3.5 0.49

College, FL Entrants,

Fall 1980. >1 course.

Random HSGs

Match age, sex, race.

458 HSGs 7.2

3 years later.

Klein & Grise 1987 Survey of registrars at All GEDs GEDs 26.0 0.53

10 of 28 Florida

community colleges.

All HSGs HSGs 49.0

Pawasarat Milwaukee Area All GEDs 1578 GEDs 8.0 0.27

& Quinn 1986 Technical College. All others 9500 HSG 30.0

Entrants 1980-83;

by 1985.

7 or more credits 248 HSDrops 10.0

Mean GED 14.9

Mean HSG 28.5

Ratio: Mean GED/Mean HSG 0.52

Number of colleges 13

4-year colleges

College, Population Percent GED/HSG

Author Program Sample Number Graduating Ratio

Bledsoe 1953 University of Georgia All GEDs GED 27.0 0.79

All 1946 Freshmen Full cohort. 34.0

Bledsoe 1953 Middle Tennessee All GEDs GED 24.0 0.77

State College. All 1946 Freshmen Full cohort. 31.0

Freshmen in 1946;

D'Amico 1957 Indiana University All GEDs 307 GED 25.4 0.86

Males admitted Random HSG 307 HSG 29.6

1946-1950 GED 35/45

Complete 1+ courses

Whitley 1958 Florida State University All 89 GED 34.8 1.14

Entrants 1948-9/1952-3 15 percent

chosen systematically

194 HSG 30.4

Mean GED 27.8

Mean HSG 31.3

Ratio: Mean GED/Mean HSG 0.89

Number of colleges 4

129 123
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Table B-5.Postsecondary graduation rates of GED recipients and high school graduates

(continued)

4-year colleges (continued)

College, Population Percent GED/HSG

Author Program Sample Number Graduating Ratio

Other'

Bledsoe 1953 University of Tennessee All GEDs GED 17.0 0.40

Freshmen 1946; All 1946 Freshmen Full cohort 42.0

5 years later. Cohort rate informal

estimate.

Tyler 1956 Champlain College, VT Selection 170 GED 14.0 1.27

Period unknown. unknown 78 HSG 11.0

Tyler 1956 Indiana University Selection 221 GED 34.0 0.87

Period unknown. unknown 221 HSG 39.0

Mean GED 21.7

Mean HSG 30.7

Ratio: Mean GED/Mean HSG 0.71

Number of colleges 3

' The "other" studies have methodological problems that raise questions about the validity/reliability of the findings.

130

124
Nn Table B-6.--Labor market outcomes for GED recipients, high school graduates, and dropouts: Simple and controlled comparisons Outcome/Author Measure Male/ Female Difference (Percent)* Dropout GED Diploma Age or Dropout HSG year vs. GED vs. GED Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff Labor Force Participation Simple Comparisons Passmore (1987) % in labor force M 1985 -4.6 8.4 71.7 76.3 84.7 Smith et al. (1995) % in labor force M 16 to 64 in '92 -3.1 3.6 86.2 89.3 92.9 Reder (1994) % in labor force M 16-64 -9.0 2.0 73.0 82.0 84.0 Smith et al. (1995) °h. in labor force F 16 to 64 in '92 -9.4 1.9 59.9 69.3 71.2 Reder (1994) °A in labor force F 16-64 -8.0 17.0 44.0 52.0 69.0 Reder (1994) % in labor force Ad 16-64 -12.0 4.0 60.0 72.0 76.0 Controlled Comparisons Passmore (1984) probability M 1985 -3.6 9.8 cc 3.6 13.4 Reder (1994) probability M 16-64 ns ns Reder (1994) probability F 16-64 ns ns Sum (1996) probability Ad 16-64 -1.4 0.7 -2.1 -0.7 cc Reder (1994) probability Ad 16-64 ns ns Employment Simple Comparisons Passmore (1987) % employed M 20-27 in 1985 -8.4 13.6 55.9 64.3 77.9 Alsalam et. al, (1993) % employed M 25-33 in 1990 3.0 11.0 86 83 94 Alsalam et. al, (1993) % employed M 25-33 in 1990 -1.0 4.0 86 87 91 Reder (1994) % employed M 16-64 in 1992 -14.0 6.0 62.0 76.0 82.0 Smith et. al. (1995) % employed M 16-64 in 1992 1.1 10.9 76 74 85 Exclusions/ Table or Controls page table 1 table 31-3 & 31-5 fig. 9 table 31-3 & 31-5 fig. 9 fig. 9 Controls: Race, sex, marital status, college attend., region table 1 Fin. 1 Ftn. 1 Ftn. 2 appendix 7 B p.241 Ftn. 1 Excl: In school 85 table 1 Excl: Diploma or GED table 34-1 age 20 or after. Those with 2 or more years of college Excl: Diploma or GED table 34-1 before age 20. Those with 2 or more years of college fig. 10 Diploma graduates exclude table 31-5 those with any college. 131 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 132
133 Table B-6.-Labor market outcomes for GED recipients, high school graduates, and dropouts: Simple and controlled comparisons (continued) Outcome/Author Measure Male/ Female Difference (Percent)* Dropout GED Diploma Age or year Dropout vs. GED HSG vs. GED Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff Mean or Exclusions/ Coeff Controls Employment Simple Comparisons (continued) Alsalam et. al (1993) % employed M 25-33 in 1990 0.7 8.5 86 85 94 Excludes those with more than 2 years of college, in military, self-employed, enrolled in college full-time, or having a health condition that would prevent them from working. Maloney (1991a) % employed F 20-27 in 1985 -18.7 12.5 35.5 54.2 66.7 Alsalam et. at (1993) % employed F 25-33 in 1990 -17.0 7.0 52 69 76 Excl: Diploma or GED age 20 or after. Those with 2 or more years of college Alsalam et. al (1993) % employed F 25-33 in 1990 -12.0 -1.0 52 64 63 Excl: Diploma or GED before age 20. Those with 2 or more years of college Reder (1994) % employed F 16-64 in 1992 -11.0 18.0 37.0 48.0 66.0 Smith et. al. (1995) % employed F 16-64 in 1992 -12.4 3.0 49 62 65 Diploma graduates exclude those with any college. Alsalam et. al (1993) % employed F 25-33 in 1990 -14.3 9.2 52 66 75 Excludes those with more than 2 years of college, in military, self-employed, enrolled in college full-time, or having a health condition that would prevent them from working. Reder (1994) % employed Ad 16-64 in 1992 -15.0 7.0 51.0 66.0 73.0 Reder (1994) % employed full time M 16-64 in 1992 -23.0 3.0 42.0 65.0 68.0 Reder (1994) % employed full time F 16-64 in 1992 0.0 22.0 18.0 18.0 40.0 Reder (1994) % employed full time Ad 16-64 in 1992 -18.0 4.0 31.0 49.0 53.0 Controlled Comparisons Passmore (1987) % employed M 1985 -5.3 15.4 cc 5.3 20.7 Ftn. 3 Sum (1996) prob. employed Ad 16-64 -0.9 4.4 -0.053 -0.044 cc Ftn.2 Sum (1996) prob. full time employ Ad 16-64 -5.5 -0.8 -0.047 0.008 cc Ftn.2 Table or page table 34-1 table 1 table 34-1 table 34-1 fig. 11 table 31-5 table 34-1 fig. 9 fig. 10 fig. 11 fig. 9 table 1 appendix 7B p. 241 appendix 134
Table B-6.-Labor market outcomes for GED recipients, high school graduates, and dropouts: Simple and controlled comparisons (continued) Outcome/Author Measure Unemployment Simple Comparisons Cameron and Heckman (1993) Cameron and Heckman (1993) Smith et. al. (1995) Reder (1994) Maloney (1993) Smith et. al. (1995) Reder (1994) Reder (1994) Controlled Comparisons Sum (1996) Wages Simple Comparisons Passmore (1987) Alsalam and Conaty (1989) Cameron and Heckman (1993) Cameron and Heckman (1993) Smith et. al. (1995) Reder (1994) Alsalam and Conaty (1989) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1992) Maloney (1993) Smith et. al: (1995) Reder (1994) %unemployed %unemployed Y. of LF unemployed % unemployed % unemployed % of LF unemployed % unemployed % unemployed prob. unempl. hourly (1985 $) hourly hourly (1988 $) hourly (1988 $) weekly 1992 $ hourly (1992 $) hourly hourly hourly hourly weekly 1992 $ hourly (1992 $) Male/ Female Difference (Percent)* Dropout GED Diploma Exclusions/ Controls Age or year Dropout vs. GED HSG vs. GED Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff

M 25 -1.0 -5.0 6.0 7.0 2.0 M 28 1.0 -2.0 5.0 4.0 2.0M 16-64 -4.3 -8.5 12 17 8 Diploma graduates exclude those with any college.M 16-64 5.0 -4.0 11.0 6.0 2.0

F 23-31 -0.4 -7.9 37.9 38.3 30.4 F 16-64 6.7 -1.8 18 11 9 Diploma graduates exclude those with any college. F 16-64 3.0 -1.0 7.0 4.0 3.0 Ad 16-64 3.0 -3.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 Ad 16-64 0.0 -4.7 0.047 0.047 cc Ftn. 2M 1985 -6.7 15.6 5.13 5.50 6.36 Excl: In school 85 M 1986 -6.4 2.5 5.98 6.39 6.55 All 1980 Sophomores M 25 -6.7 16.2 6.84 7.33 8.52M 28 -10.9 21.2 7.51 8.43 10.22 M 16-65 -11.9 1.5 407 462 469 Diploma graduates exclude those with any college.M 16-64 -19.3 8.9 7.87 9.75 10.62 Excl: Postsecondary degree

F 1986 -12.6 2.3 4.58 5.24 5.36

F 25 -11.1 19.1 6.19 6.96 8.29F 28 -9.7 34.0 6.32 7.00 9.38 F 1988 -10.7 6.3 4.83 5.41 5.75F 16-65 -1.7 12.6 281 286 322 Diploma graduates exclude those with any college. F 16-64 -9.9 29.2 5.00 5.55 7.17 Excl: Postsecondary degree Table or page table 5A table 5A table 31-3 fig. 10 table 1 table 31-3 fig. 11 fig. 9 appendix 7B p. 241 table 1 table 5 table 5 table 5 table 31-2 table 5 table 7 table 6B p. 14 table 31-2 135 136
Table B-6.-Labor market outcomes for GED recipients, high school graduates, and dropouts: Simple and controlled comparisons (continued) Outcome/Author Difference (Percent)* Dropout GED Diploma Male/ Age or Dropout HSG Mean or Mean or Mean or Exclusions/ Table or Measure Female year vs. GED vs. GED Coeff Coeff Coeff Controls page Wages Simple Comparisons (continued) Sum (1996) Controlled Comparisons weekly '92 $ Passmore (1987) hourly ('85$) Cameron and Heckman (1993) log hourly Cameron and Heckman (1993) log hourly Garet, Jing, & Kutner (1996) log hourly Sum (1996) log weekly Reder (1994) log hourly Cameron (1994) log hourly Garet, Jing, & Kutner (1996) log hourly Sum (1996) log weekly Ad 16-65 -13.5 -0.2 373 431 M 1985 -7.1 19.3 cc 0.39

M 25 -5.8 8.8 cc 0.06 M 28 -6.0 11.9 cc 0.06 M 28 -9.5 8.3 cc 0.10 M 16-65 in 1992 -11.6 12.2 -0.238 -0.122 M 16-65 in -10.4 12.7 Oregon in 1992F 28 -7.8 16.2 cc 0.08 F 28 2.4 4.5 cc -0.02F 16-65 in 1992 -12.9 2.2 -0.2 -0.022 430 Excl: Not employed full-time table 4.3, and some postsecondary p. 117 education 1.45 Excl: Enrolled in school in 1985. table 1 Controls: Race, ever married, ever attended college, and region of residence. Ftn. 3 0.14 Excl: Enrolled in college table 6, 9. and persons not working 0.17 Excl: Enrolled in college table 9 and persons not working 0.18 Excl: Those with more two or table 17A more years of college. Controls: Race/ethnicity, weeks worked unemployment rate. Ftn. 4 cc Full-time employed appendix adults, prose literacy 7B p. 250 A measure of functional literacy, level of parent's education, literacy material available in the home, years in occupation, age, and squared age, Reder's coding of the contrasts do not fit the format of this table. table 10 0.23 Exclu: >12 yrs. education table 8 0.02 Excl: Those with more two table 17A or more years of college. Controls: Race/ethnicity, weeks worked, unemployment rate. Ftn. 4 cc Full-time employed adults, appendix prose literacy 78p. 250 70CDCDrfel eoonN 0. 0

007co- g0g.. a. CD0GI "WI 7:1 tD7a

, 137 133
Table B-6.Labor market outcomes for GED recipients, high school graduates, and dropouts: Simple and controlled comparisons (continued) Outcome/Author Measure Wag es Controlled Comparisons (continued) Reder (1994) log hourly Sum (1996) log weekly Sum (1996) log weekly Reder (1994) log hourly Time Worked Simple Comparisons Cameron and Heckman (1993) annual hours Cameron and Heckman (1993) annual hours Alsalam et. al (1993) weeks worked Alsalam et. al (1993) weeks worked Smith et. al. (1995) weeks worked Reder11994) weeks worked Maloney (1993) annual hours Cameron (1994) weeks worked Male/ Female Difference (Percent)* Dropout GED Age or Dropout HSG year vs. GED vs. GED Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff

F 16-65 in Oregon in '92 -10.5 28.6 Ad -5.1 8.9 -0.140 -0.089 Ad -9.3 6.6 -0.159 -0.066 Ad -10.7 17.5

M 25 0.5 9.6 1,747 1,738 M 28 6.8 21.2 1,836 1,720 M 25-33 in 1990 5.1 17.9 41 39 M 25-33 in 1990 13.9 33.3 41 36 M 16-64 -1.0 2.1 48 48 M 16-64 -20.9 2.3 34 43

F 23-31 in 1988 -31.0 39.2 613 888F 25 -37.5 21.4 18 29 Diploma Mean or Exclusions/ Table or Coeff Controls page A measure of functional literacy, level of parent's education, literacy material available in the home years in occupation, age, and squared age. Reder's coding of the contrasts do not fit the format of this table. table 11 cc Controls: Prose proficiency appendix 7B p. 251 cc Controls: Composite proficiency appendix 7B p. 252 A measure of functional literacy, table 9 level of parent's education, literacy material available in the home, years in occupation, age, and squared age. Reder's coding of the contrasts do not fit the format of this table. 1,906 table 5 2,084 table 5 46 Excl: Diploma or GED table 34-1 age 20 or after and those with 2 or more years of college. 48 Excl: Diploma or GED table 34-1 before age 20 and those with 2 or more years of college. 49 Diploma graduates exclude table 31-4 those with any college. 44 Excl: Any college 1,23735 Excl: Any college table 7, panel B 139 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 140
Table B-6.-Labor market outcomes for GED recipients, high school graduates, and dropouts: Simple and controlled comparisons (continued) Outcome/Author Measure Time Worked Simple Comparisons (continued) Alsalam et. at (1993) Alsalam et. al (1993) Smith et. al. (1995) Reder (1994) Cameron (1992) Cameron (1992) Cameron (1992) Controlled Comparisons Cameron and Heckman (1993) Cameron and Heckman (1993) Cameron and Heckman (1993) Cameron and Heckman (1993) Reder (1994) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1994) weeks worked weeks worked weeks worked weeks worked hrs. per week hrs. per week hrs. per week annual hours (log) annual hours (log) annual hours (log) annual hours (log) weeks worked annual hours (log) annual hours (log) annual hours (log) annual hours (log) annual hours (log) annual hours (log) Male! Female Difference (Percent) Dropout GED Diploma Age or Dropout HSG year vs. GED vs. GED Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff F 25-33 in 1990 -23.3 -3.3 23 30 29 F 25-33 in 1990 -34.3 5.7 23 35 37 F 16-64 -3.2 1.7 46 47 48 F 16-64 6.9 37.9 31 29 40 F 25 -1.1 1.3 37.5 37.9 38.4 F 28 -5.8 -4.3 37.2 39.5 37.8 F 30 -2.6 -2.3 37.4 38.4 37.5 M 25 -4.0 ns 10.7- cc 0.041 0.143 M 28 5.4ns 15.4*** cc -0.053 0.090 M 25 6.0ns 19.6*** cc -0.058 0.121 M 28 16.2' 27.1*** cc -0.150 0.090 M 16-64 -8.6 ns 20.0* F 25 -6.7 ns 20.3*** cc 0.069 0.254 F 28 -13.5 ns 18.4- cc 0.145 0.314 F 30 -3.5 ns 23.5- cc 0.036 0.247 F 25 -1.9 ns 19,0- cc 0.019 0.193 F 28 -10.1ns 19.1*** cc 0.107 0.282 F 30 -2.1 ns 22.8- cc 0.021 0.226 Exclusions/ Table or Controls page Excl: Diploma or GED age 20 or after and those with 2 or more years of college. Excl: Diploma or GED before age 20 and those with 2 or more years of college. Diploma graduates exclude those with any college. Excl: Any college Controls: Race/ethnicity, work experience, job tenure, unemployment rate, postsecondary education table 34-1 table 34-1 table 31-4 table 6A table 6B table 9 Controls: AFQT table 10 Ftn. 1 Controls: Kids in household, toddler present, baby present, 2 years of college interacted with GED and diploma, college graduate, spouse present, spouse, income, local unemployment rate, age effects. table 11 Controls: AFQT table 12 141 142
Table B-6.-Labor market outcomes for GED recipients, high school graduates, and dropouts: Simple and controlled comparisons (continued) Outcome/Author Measure Time Worked Controlled Comparisons (continued) Maloney (1993) Maloney (1993) Cao et. at (1993) Cao et. al (1993) Cao et. al (1993) Reder (1994) Cameron (1992) Cameron (1992) Cameron (1992) Reder (1994) Work Experience Simple Comparisons Cameron and Heckman (1993) Cameron and Heckman (1993) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1993) Cameron (1993) Maloney (1993) Job Tenure Simple Comparisons Cameron and Heckman (1993) Cameron and Heckman (1993) annual hours annual hours annual hours annual hours annual hours weeks worked hrs. per week (log) hrs. per week (log) hrs. per week (log) weeks worked Total (weeks) Total (weeks) Total (weeks) Total (weeks) Total (weeks) Total (weeks) Total (years) weeks weeks Male/ Female Difference (Percent)* Dropout GED Age or year Dropout vs. GED HSG vs. GED Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff F 1988 -13.8" 13.0" cc 0.149 F 1988 -1.6 ns 5.9** cc 0.016 F 22-29 -2.4 ns 2.5 ns -79.1 -39.8 F 22-29 -1.6 ns 1.7 ns -53.8 -27.6 F 22-29 0.3 ns 2.4 ns -33.6 -38.1 F 16-64 - 21.5 "' 38.5 "' F 25 -6.7 20.3 cc 0.069 F 28 -13.5 18.4 cc 0.145 F 30 -3.5 23.5 cc 0.036 Ad 16-64 ns sig M 25 15.1 21.4 243 211 M 28 21.5 24.2 355 293 F 25 -38.4 27.5 130 212 F 25 -38.6 24.0 130 212 F 28 -37.5 34.5 170 273 F 28 -37.0 27.3 170 271 F 1,988 -30.6 33.3 2.5 3.6 M 25 28.2 44.5 96 75 M 28 42.4 82.8 130 91 Diploma Mean or Coeff Exclusions/ Table or Controls page 0.271 Controls: Race/ethnicity, urbanicity, table 5 region, health, local unemployment rate, work experience, job tenure, ASVAB, age, age squared, residence with parents, marital status, number and age of children, household nonlabor nontransfer income, spouse's earn 0.073cccccc 0.254 0.314 0.247 256 363 Ftn. 8 Ftn. 8 + yrs. schooling Ftn. 8 + AFQT Ftn. 1 Ftn. 6 Ftn. 6 Ftn. 6 Ftn. 1 table 6 table 4A table 4B table 4C table 12 table 12 table 12 table 5 table 5 270 table 7 263 Excl: >12 yrs. ed. table 7B 367 table 6B 344 Excl: >12 yrs. ed. table 6B 4.8 table 1 109 167 table 5 table 5 143 144
Table B-6.-Labor market outcomes for GED recipients, high school graduates, and dropouts: Simple and controlled comparisons (continued) Outcome/Author Measure Male/ Female Difference (Percent)* Dropout GED Diploma Age or year Dropout vs. GED HSG vs. GED Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff Exclusions/ Controls Job Tenure Simple Comparisons (continued) Cameron (1994) weeks F 25 -2.2 58.8 68 70 111 Cameron (1994) weeks F 25 -6.8 69.2 68 73 124 Excl: Not working, >12 yrs. ed. Cameron (1993) weeks F 28 -15.9 62.7 81 96 157 Cameron (1993) weeks F 28 -19.7 65.7 81 101 167 Excl: Not working, >12 yrs. ed. Annual Earnings Simple Comparisons Cameron and Heckman (1993) '88 $ 25 -11.9 29.2 10,379 11,777 15,214 Excl: 2 or more year of higher education Cameron and Heckman (1993) '88 $ M 28 -10.8 45.1 12,412 13,922 20,196 Alsalam et. al (1993) 1993 $ (median) M 25-33 in 1990 -6.5 31.4 17,822 19,066 25,048 Excl: Diploma or GED age 20 or or after. Those with 2 or more years of college Alsalam et. al (1993) 1993 $ (median) M 25-33 in 1990 -1.4 11.8 17,822 18,069 20,202 Excl: Diploma or GED before age 20. Those with 2 or more years of college High School and Beyond 1991 $ M 27 approx. -5.8 28.4 18,040 19,158 24,591 All 1980 Sophomores Smith et. al. (1995) 1992 $ M 16-64 -16 3.8 18,194 21,672 22,494 Diploma graduates exclude those with any college. Cave and Bos (1995) 1988-93 $ (2 years) M -19** 13,286 16,318 Alsalam et. al (1993) 1993 $ (median) F 25-33 in 1990 -29.1 10.5 9,895 13,955 15,415 Excl: Diploma or GED age 20 or after. Those with 2 or more years of college Alsalam et. al (1993) 1993 $ (median) F 25-33 in 1990 -17.1 9.8 9,895 11,929 13,103 Excl: Diploma or GED before age 20. Those with 2 or more years of college High School and Beyond 1991 $ F 27 approx. -28.7 58.5 7,768 10,902 17,277 All 1980 Sophomores Smith et. al (1995) 1992 $ F 16-64 -5.2 15.3 11,145 11,754 13,554 Diploma graduates exclude those with any college. Cave and Bos (1995) 1988-93 $ (2 years) F -27.1** 5,994 8,220 Sum (1996) 1992 $ (mean) Ad 16-65 -30.7 11.7 10,440 15,070 16,840 Excl: Not employed Cave and Bos (1995) 1988-93 $ (2 years) Ad -20.2 9,405 11,788 Table or page table 7A table 7B table 6B table 6B table 5 table 5 table 34-1 table 34-1 tabulation table 31-1 table 5, panel 2 table 34-1 table 34-1 tabulation table 31-1 table 5, panel 2 table 5, panel 2 145 146
Table B-6.Labor market outcomes for GED recipients, high school graduates, and dropouts: Simple and controlled comparisons (continued) Difference (Percent)* Dropout GED Diploma Male/ Age or Dropout HSG Mean or Mean or Mean or Exclusions/ Table or Outcome/Author Measure Female year vs. GED vs. GED Coeff Coeff Coeff Controls page Annual Earnings Controlled Comparisons Sum (1996) log annual M 16-64 -13.2 14.7 -0.279 -0.147 cc Same as above appendix 7B p. 255 Cave and Bos (1995) 1988-93 $ (2 years) M -28.9 ns 12,955 18,221 table 6, panel 2 Sum (1996) log annual F 16-64 -21.1 5.9 -0.270 -0.059 cc Same as above appendix 78 p. 255 Cave and Bos (1995) 1988-93 $ (2 years) F -54.0 ns 5,113 11,117 table 6, panel 2 Sum (1996) log annual Ad 16-64 -15.2 10.0 -0.252 -0.100 cc Control: Prose proficiency, appendix 78 educational attainment, p. 256 race/ethnicity, marital status, disability, enrollment status, region of residence. Excl: Not employed Cave and Bos (1995) '88-'93 $ (2 years) Ad -34.0 ns 8,985 13,605 table 6, panel 2 NOTE: Simple comparisons are ones that make no adjustments for differences between the groups in characteristics that could influence labor market outcomes. The controlled comparisons make statistical (regression) adjustments for variables such as race, parent's education, and so forth. In many cases the population has been restricted to, for example, persons who did not complete any postsecondary education. The restriction in effect controls for the effect of any postsecondary education on earnings. The restriction also eliminates anyindirect effect of high school completion status on earnings through postsecondary education. The difference between percents or proportions is expressed as percentage points. Other differences are expressed as percentages. Control Variables 'A measure of functional literacy, level of parent's education, literacy material available in the home, years in occupation, age, and squared age. Reder's coding of the contrasts do not fit the format of this table. ,Prose literacy, gender, race/ethnicity indicators, enrollment status, region of residence, marital status, whether born abroad, whether having lived in U.S. more or less than 5 years, disability status. 'Enrolled in school in 1985. Gender, race, ever married, ever attended college, and region of residence. 'Those with up to two years of college. Race/ethnicity, weeks worked, unemployment rate. 'Race/ethnicity, work experience, job tenure, unemployment rate, postsecondary education, AFQT.A140+A94 6 Year, college, race/ethnicity, unemployment rate, spouse's income, number and age of children. ' Race/ethnicity, urbanicity, region, health, local unemployment rate, work experience, job tenure, ASVAB, age, age squared, residence with parents, marital status, number and age of children, household nonlabor nontranster income, spouse's earnings °Race, region, 2-years of higher education completed interacted with high school completion status, and 4 years of education completed. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 147 148
Table B-7.-Effects of years of schooling, higher education, and cognitive skills on wages Outcome/Author Measure Years of Schooling Cameron and Heckman (1993) Cameron and Heckman (1993) Murnane et al. (1995) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1994) Cao et. al (1993) Cao et. al (1993) Higher Education Cameron and Heckman (1993) hourly Cameron and Heckman (1993) Cameron and Heckman (1993) hourly Cameron and Heckman (1993) Garet, Jing, & Kutner (1996) Garet, Jing, & Kutner (1996) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1994) Cameron (1992) Cameron (1994) Maloney (1991a) Maloney (1993) Maloney (1993) 149 log hourly wage log hourly wage log hourly wage log hourly wage log hourly wage log hourly wage hourly wage hourly wage wage (88 dollars) log hourly wage wage (88 dollars) log hourly wage log hourly wage log hourly wage hourly wage log hourly wage hourly wage log hourly wage hourly wage Hourly wage (88 dollars) hourly wage Male/ Female Age or year Difference (Percent)* Dropout GED Diploma Dropout HSG vs. GED vs. GED Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff Mean or Coeff M 25 1.6 0.7 cc -0.02 -0.01 M 28 -1.5 6.7 cc 0.02 0.08 M 1991 -2.0 -2.0 cc 0.02 F 25 -9.7 9.1 cc 0.10 0.19 F 28 -7.8 16.2 cc 0.08 0.23 F 30 -6.7 18.4 cc 0.07 0.24 F 22-29 -1.50 -0.33 cc F 22-29 -0.47 0.13 cc M 25 -6.7 16.2 6.84 7.33 8.52 M 25 -5.8 8.8 cc 0.06 0.14 M 28 -10.9 21.2 7.51 8.43 10.22 M 28 -6.0 11.9 cc 0.06 0.17 M 28 -5.4 1.2 cc 0.06 0.07 M 28 -9.7 -2.0 cc 0.10 0.08 F 25 -11.1 19.1 6.19 6.96 8.29 F 25 -9.7 9.1 cc 0.10 0.19 F 28 -9.7 34.0 6.32 7.00 9.38 F 28 -7.8 16.2 cc 0.08 0.23 F 1985 -10.7 8.9 4.50 5.04 5.49 F 79-87 -10.7 6.3 4.83 5.41 5.75 F 1988 -10.7 6.3 4.83 5.41 5.75 Exclusions/ Table or Controls Page Yrs. HS table 15 Yrs. HS table 15 Yrs. HS Yrs. HS Yrs. HS Yrs. HS table 2 table 8 table 8 table 8 table 4A Yrs. HS table 4B w/o postsec. completion table 5 with postsec. completion table 6, 9. w/o postsec completion table 5 with postsec. completion table 9 GED/HSG plus table 17A some college. GEDMSG plus table 17A 2 yrs. college. Exclu: >12 yrs. education Exclu: >12 yrs. education Exclu: >12 yrs. education Exclu: >12 yrs. education Exclu: >12 yrs. education table 7A table 8 table 6B table 8 table 1 table 1 table 1 150
Table B-7.-Effects of years of schooling, higher education, and cognitive skills on wages (continued) Difference (Percent)* Dropout GED Diploma Male/ Age Dropout HSG Mean or Mean or Mean or Exclusions/ Table or Outcome/Author Measure Female or year vs. GED vs. GED Coeff Coeff Coeff Controls Page Garet, Jing, & Kutner (1996) log hourly wage F 28 -3.0 5.7 cc 0.03 0.085 GED/HSG plus some college. table 17A Garet, Jing, & Kutner (1996) log hourly wage F 28 -23.7 -7.7 cc 0.27 0.19 GED/HSG plus table 17A 2 yrs. college. Cameron and Heckman (1993) log hourly wage

M 25 -5.8 8.8 cc 0.06 0.14 w/o AFQT table 6, 9. Cameron and Heckman (1993) log hourly wageM 28 -6.0 11.9 cc 0.06 0.17 w/o AFQT table 9 Cameron and Heckman (1993) log hourly wageM 25 3.9 7.3 cc -0.04 0.03 with AFQT table 10 Cameron and Heckman (1993) log hourly wageM 28 2.0 10.5 cc -0.02 0.08 with AFQT table 10 Cameron (1994) log hourly wage F 25 -9.7 9.1 cc 0.10 0.19 w/o AFQT table 8 Cameron (1994) log hourly wage F 28 -7.8 16.2 cc 0.08 0.23 w/o AFQT table 8 Cameron (1994) log hourly wage F 30 -6.7 18.4 cc 0.07 0.24 w/o AFQT table 8 Cameron (1994) log hourly wage F 25 -3.5 6.4 cc 0.04 0.10 with AFQT table 9 Cameron (1994) log hourly wage F 28 1.9 13.4 cc -0.02 0.11 with AFQT table 9 Cameron (1994) log hourly wage F 30 12.4 18.3 cc -0.12 0.05 with AFQT table 9 Garet, Jing, & Kutner (1996) log hourly wage

M 28 -9.5 8.3 cc 0.10 0.18 w/o ASVAB table 17A Garet, Jing, & Kutner (1996) log hourly wageM 28 -4.5 5.5 cc 0.05 0.10 with ASVAB table 17B Garet, Jing, & Kutner (1996) log hourly wage F 28 -2.3 -4.6 cc 0.023 -0.024 w/o ASVAB table 17A Garet, Jing, & Kutner (1996) log hourly wage F 28 -0.5 -7.0 cc 0.005 -0.068 with ASVAB table 17B Maloney (1993) log hourly wage F -3.2 5.0 cc 0.033 0.082 w/o ASVAB table 3 Maloney (1993) log hourly wage F 0.2 4.2 cc -0.002 0.039 with ASVAB table 3 Cao et. al (1993) hourly wage F 22-29 -1.50 -0.33 cc w/o AFQT table 4A Cao et. al (1993) hourly wage F 22-29 -0.47 -0.22 cc with AFQT table 4C ' Percentage differences. 151 152
APPENDIX C. TECHNICAL ISSUES

153
APPENDIX C. TECHNICAL ISSUES

Does the GED credential improve the labor market opportunities of those who

hold it? In comparison to what? To what would have been the case if they had

not prepared for, taken, and passed the GED Tests? To what would have been

the case if they had graduated from high school? To show a GED effect, we

need evidence of how well GED certificate holders are doing in the labor

market compared to how they would have done had they not received the GED.

To see whether any effects are equivalent to those of a high school diploma, we

need to know how the GEDs would have done had they graduated from high

school. These hypothetical conditions are termed "counter-factual," because

they describe events that did not happen. The challenge for empirical research

in dealing with such questions is to approximate the counter-factual condition.

Possibilities include (1) comparing GED recipients to other individuals with

similar characteristics who did not get the GED or who graduated from high

school (cross-sectional evidence), and (2) the comparing the same individuals

(and comparison groups) before and after they received the GED (longitudinal

evidence). This study examines both cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence

from large-scale national surveys.

Four types of survey sample data have been used to study the relationship

between passing the GED Tests and labor market outcomes.

1. Follow-up Surveys of GED Test-takers or Passers

These might be called one-step longitudinal studies. There is usually no baseline

survey, other than the administration of the test and collection of a modicum of

background data at that time. A follow-up survey is conducted some time later.

There are usually no additional follow-up surveys after the first one. The

strength of these surveys is that they focus on the group of interest. For example, it is common for surveys to follow up individuals who took the GED

Tests. However, most follow-up surveys do not include a comparison group.

Therefore, inferring the effect of taking the GED can only be done by comparing the GED examinee's status before and after taking the GED. The problem

with this approach is that it is normal for individuals to get promotions and

salary increases. There is no benchmark or basis for estimating how well the

GED test-takers would have done if they had not taken the GED. A variation is

to ask the recipients to provide their own judgments about whether getting the

GED caused an improvement in employment. This approach is problematic

because GED test-takers may not be a reliable source for this judgment.

2. Panel Surveys

These include (1) the National Longitudinal Survey of the LaborMarket Experiences of Youth (NLSY), (2) High School and Beyond (HS&B), (3) the National

Education Longitudinal Study of Eighth Graders in 1988 (NELS), (4) the

154 139
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

Beginning Postsecondary Student Longitudinal Study (BPS), and (5) the October Current Population Survey.

These surveys provide good data for before-and-after comparisons and they

avoid recall bias. Respondents are asked about items such as employment,

hours worked, weeks worked, salaries, and earnings for the current week or the

past year and then surveyed again in one, two, or more years and asked the same

questions again. Most longitudinal surveys also provide a rich array of control

variables such as measures of academic achievement, family background information, labor force experience, and so forth. They offer as comparison groups

both high school graduates and individuals who dropped out of high school and

did not get a GED. As was noted for follow-up surveys, labor market rewards

typically improve with age and experience. To isolate the effects of the GED

from the effects of age and experience requires that they be modeled correctly.

An alternative comparison group is high school graduates. This group includes

many who went on to postsecondary education and may differ from GEDs in

ways related to postsecondary education. Therefore in making comparisons, it is

important to exclude those with college experience or control for level of education after high school. Some longitudinal studies, such as the NLSY, follow

individuals for 12 or more years. This allows time to measure such differences

between GED recipients and other dropouts in, for example, the growth of wage

rates.

3. Cross-Sectional Surveys

The strength of cross-sectional surveys is that they typically offer a wide age

distribution and a wide range of post-GED periods of time in the labor market.

The National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), for example, is a sample of individuals 16- to 64-years-old who may have taken the GED over a period as long

as 40 years. A cross-sectional study provides comparison groups similar to

longitudinal studies. However, labor market outcomes are available at only one

point in time, and of course, people's labor market experiences vary over time.

4. Experiments

Studies that use any of the three types surveys discussed above, including

longitudinal studies, are plagued by the fact that there may be differences, that

are important for labor market outcomes, between those who take and pass the

GED Tests and those who do not and that are not reflected in the long list of

variables available to the analyst. Experiments through randomization provide a

means of controlling for the unmeasurable differences between those who get a

GED and those who do not. Social experiments are usually difficult to conduct,

because researchers can neither force individuals to participate who do not want

to nor can they prevent individuals from participating who do want to (and are

eligible). However, researchers have taken advantage of the fact that there are

sometimes more applicants than a program can accommodate, and a fair way to

decide who gets in is through random selection. This makes it possible to

140 155
Appendix C. Technical Issues

compare the experiences of program participants with other similar people who

also wanted to participate but who were denied access just by chance. Another

way of conducting an experiment, in this case a "natural experiment," is to

compare outcomes for similar categories of individuals who can be separated

into treatment and control groups by virtue of systematic coincidences, such as

laws and rules of states they happen to live in. One experiment that considered

GED outcomes was based on random selection among applicants (Cave and

Bos 1995). Another compared outcomes for GED test-takers in states with

different standards for passing the test (Tyler et al. 1997).

156

141
APPENDIX D. GED FOLLOW-UP SURVEYS

157
APPENDIX D. GED FOLLOW-UP SURVEYS

In Fall 1981, Cervero and Peterson (1982) conducted a national survey of

successful GED candidates who had first taken the tests in the Spring of 1980.

Like most of the GED follow-up surveys, this one had a low response rate and

methodological shortcomings that caused the authors to urge caution in generalizing from the data.66 The study found that 18 months after taking the tests,

approximately 60 percent of the respondents were employed full-time or parttime, and approximately 40 percent were out of the labor market or unemployed.67 Nevertheless, the proportion of GEDs working full-time for pay

increased from 39 to 48 percent in those 18 months. All other employment

status categories (e.g., unemployed, not in the labor force) fell between 1 and 3

percentage points. The perceived results of taking the GED were not as great as

expected, but a significant proportion of respondents thought the tests had

helped them. For example, 52 percent said it had helped them qualify for a job

and 20 percent said it had helped them win a job promotion.

Kroll and Qi (1995) conducted another national follow-up survey, in this case of

examinees (rather than just GED recipients). As in the previous study, there

were methodological problems that caused the authors to advise against generalizing from the data." Among the strengths of this study was the fact that it

provided both before and after measures and GED/non-GED comparisons.

The results of the Kroll and Qi survey were rather similar to those of Cervero

and Peterson. For example, they found that 2 years after taking the test, 61

percent of their respondents were employed full-time or part-time, and 39

percent were out of the labor market or unemployed. Their data also suggest

some labor market benefits of GED test taking. Among GED recipients, those

who had their current jobs before taking the tests reported post-test hourly

wages that were 14 percent higher than pretest wages. Comparable GED

examinees who did not pass the test had a 10 percent increase. GED recipients

who got new jobs after the test (jobs that did not require a GED) had wages 17

percent higher than before, while their unsuccessful GED counterparts saw only

a 3 percent increase. Finally, GED recipients who got new jobs that required

GED certification reported wages that were 24 percent higher than their previous wages; for this group there could be no nonGED comparison.69

Several state and local follow-up surveys used similar methods and also reported

GED benefits. For example, the Iowa Department of Education (1992) surveyed GED recipients two, five, and ten years after their completion of the tests

in 1980, 1985, and 1988. Controlling for inflation, reported personal income of

GED graduates declined 6 percent between the time of passing the tests and the

survey administration in 1990, while the mean income of all Iowans declined 10

percent between 1980 and 1990. (The comparison with all Iowans would have

been better had it been limited to the GED 1980 cohort.)

158 145
Research Synthesis: Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients

In 1981, Moore (1982) surveyed both successful and unsuccessful candidates for

the GED in Kentucky five years after they had taken the tests. Again, there

were methodological problems, including a 28 percent response rate among

successful GEDs in the sample and a very low 15 percent rate among the

unsuccessful candidates. Moore's data show that successful GED candidates

who responded to the survey were more likely to report before and after improvement in employment status (54 percent) than were unsuccessful candidates

(30 percent).

Eight state or local follow-up surveys collected data on the employment status of

GED recipients before and after they earned their credentials. In all eight of

these studies we have data on two important status variablesfull-time employment and unemployment (table D-1). On average, across the 8 studies, the fulltime employment rate of GEDs increased from 46.1 percent before certification

to 57.0 percent afterward. In two of the studies (Darkenwald and Valentine

1985 and Iowa Department of Education 1992) GED full-time employment

rates increased substantially more than statewide rates over the periods in

question. The average GED unemployment rate across the 8 studies fell from

18.6 percent to 14.3 percent.

146 159
Appendix D. GED Follow-up Surveys

Table D-1.Employment status of GED recipients

Author,

GED employment status

Percentage rate

Before After

At time of testing At time of survey

Reed 1985, Maryland

Employed full-time 40 54

Unemployed, looking 23 18

Carbol 1985, Alberta

Employed full-time 53 58

Employed part time 13 12

Unemployed, looking 16 15

Unemployed, not looking 8 3

Darkenwald & Valentine 1985, New Jersey

Employed full-time 31 49

Employed part time 21 16

Unemployed, looking 35 22

Unemployed, not looking 14 14

Goodwin 1991, New York

Employed full-time 46 42

Employed part-time 13 14

Unemployed, looking 12 16

Not in labor force 27 28

Hayes 1991, Wisconsin

Employed full-time 43 49

Employed part time 16 18

Unemployed, looking 15 13

Unemployed, not looking 24 17

Iowa Department Education 1992

Employed 54 71

Unemployed, looking 19 9

Martin 1992, Wisconsin

1986 GEDs in 1990

Employed full-time 53 73

Employed part-time 19 12

Unemployed, looking 12 9

Unemployed, not looking 16 6

Martin 1992, Wisconsin

1989 GEDs in 1990

Employed full-time 49 60

Employed part-time 19 12

Unemployed, looking 17 12

Unemployed, not looking 16 15

NOTE: Martin's employment rates have been recalculated. Martin's rates for 1986 and 1989 used the

same sample base, but the item nonresponse rate (the percentage of survey items not answered) seems

to have been much higher for reports of employment status before the test than for current employment

status. Using the entire sample as a base provided an inflated denominator for calculating employment

rates before the test, thereby making pretest rates look much lower than they must have been. Here rates

have been recalculated based on number of respondents to each question.

SOURCE: Studies in this table.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

160 147
Untied States

Department of Education

Washington; DC 20208-565

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

N --ZOZ

I I

Postage and Fees Paid

U.S. Department of ducation

Permit No. G-17

S.
(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research and improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

!ERIC'

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release

(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all

or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,

does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to

reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may

be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release

form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").