EXTANT DATA ANALYSIS

Educational Experiences of English Learners:

Grade Retention, High School Graduation, and GED 

Attainment, 2011–12

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

March 2016

Researchers and policy makers frequently use grade retention, high school graduation, and GED® program participation 

and completion as indicators of school success, either individually, in combination, or in relation to measures of future 

education and workforce outcomes (e.g., student achievement, degree attainment, and post-school earnings).1 Studies 

have shown, for example, that grade retention may be associated with lower academic performance and greater risk of 

dropping out of school.2 Research on employment outcomes shows that high school graduates earn higher wages and 

have lower unemployment rates than adults without a high school diploma.3 Though the economic benefits of a 

traditional high school diploma are generally considered to be superior to the GED,4 for students who do not graduate 

from high school, earning a GED promotes enrollment in postsecondary institutions and does confer benefits in terms of 

future earnings compared with no credential at all.5 Of particular interest to practitioners, policymakers, and researchersis 

the extent to which English learner students (ELs) experience grade retention, complete high school, and/or participate in 

and complete GED programs — especially as compared with non-ELs. These experiences can impact students’ long- term 

outcomes, such as future earnings.6 To ensure that this growing portion of the school population can participate fully in 

the national economy and in society at large, they must progress through and complete school.

This brief uses data from the 2011–12 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 7 EDFacts, and other data sources to examine the 

educational success of ELs in the U.S. It addresses the questions: 

(1) How does the EL proportion of students retained in grade compare with the EL proportion of students enrolled in

each grade?

(2) How do high school graduation rates for ELs compare with those for non-ELs?

(3) How does the EL proportion of students who earn the GED credential compare with the EL proportion of students

who participate in GED preparation programs?

The analyses in this brief are descriptive, and it is not possible to identify the factors leading to grade retention, high 

school graduation, or GED participation and completion with these data. Also, determining why ELs perform below nonELs is outside the scope of this analysis and requires analyzing multiple interrelated student, school, and district factors 

(such as prior academic achievement and school supports). These data present two additional limitations for 

understanding the educational experiences of ELs. First, since ELs who attain English proficiency are reclassified and exit 

the EL subgroup, the composition of that subgroup is continuously changing; as a result, comparisons of the academic 

outcomes of ELs to their English proficient peers will be imperfect.8 Additionally, these data do not allow us to identify 

important characteristics of ELs, such as whether they are recent arrivals to the U.S. or long-term ELs, which may 

contribute to lower academic performance in English, compared with ELs in other circumstances. For these reasons, 

causality cannot be established based on the comparisons presented in this brief.

This brief is part of a series of extant data analyses about the educational experiences of ELs. The topics of the other two 

briefs are instructional staff and college preparatory courses and programs. Those briefs present descriptive analyses of 

the 2011–12 CRDC data to explore ELs’ exposure to novice, uncertified, or frequently absent teachers, and the extent to 

which ELs have access to and participate in advanced coursework and other college preparatory activities.9

1 
HIGHLIGHTS

• In every grade except kindergarten, ELs were overrepresented among the students retained in grade at the end of

the school year. A larger proportion of the students retained at grade level were ELs, compared to the proportion

of ELs enrolled (e.g., 13 percent compared with 10 percent). The overrepresentation of English learners among

retained students was largest in high school.

• In 2011–12, ELs had lower high school graduation rates (59 percent) than non-ELs (82 percent).10

• The gap between the graduation rate for ELs and the rate for non-ELs was largest in states that include in the EL

graduation cohort only those students who are EL in 12th grade (28 percentage points).11

• ELs were underrepresented among students earning the GED credential. ELs represented 3.1 percent of students

participating in local education agency (LEA)-operated GED programs but 1.5 percent of students completing the

requirements for the GED credential. Completion rates for ELs varied greatly among states.12

GRADE RETENTION

Retaining students in a particular grade is intended to improve their chances for success in subsequent grades. However, 

research suggests that grade retention does not help struggling students in the long run.13 Although students who are 

retained may experience short-term gains in academic subjects (e.g., reading and math), they later experience declines in 

school performance, particularly during adolescence, and are more likely to drop out of school.14

In every grade except kindergarten, ELs were overrepresented among the students retained in grade at 

the end of the school year, particularly in high school. 

Data from the CRDC about students retained in grade, in combination with grade-level enrollment data from the Common 

Core of Data (CCD) and EDFacts, show that ELs were overrepresented among retained students relative to their 

representation in the student body as a whole. Nationally, in 2011–12 there were 47 million students enrolled in public 

school, of which 4.6 million were ELs (representing about 10 percent of enrollment). Of the 1.2 million students retained, 

roughly 159,000 were ELs (representing 13 percent of students retained in grade). The difference between these 

percentages (3 percentage points) is one measure of the degree to which ELs are overrepresented among retained 

students. This three-point difference also indicates that ELs comprise 32 percent more of the retained population than of 

the student body as a whole. 

The disparity between enrollment and retention in grade among ELs appears in nearly every grade. As shown in Exhibit 1, 

ELs are overrepresented among students retained in every grade except kindergarten. In addition, the relative size of the 

overrepresentation (the black line in Exhibit 1) varies by grade. The data for grades 9 through 12 are particularly striking. In 

11th and 12th grades, the percentage of retained students who were ELs was more than double the percentage of ELs 

enrolled in each grade. For example, in 2011–12, the EL percentage of all students retained in 12th grade (11 percent) was 

more than twice the EL percentage of students enrolled in 12th grade (5 percent).

2 
Exhibit 1

EL percentage of students enrolled and retained in grade and the size of the percent difference between these 

percentages, by grade: 2011–12

19

18

17

15

12

10

8

7

7

7

6

5

5

17

20

22

19

15

14

10

9

8

12

11

11

11

-13%

7%

30% 33%

24%

37%

26% 24%

18%

80% 78%

110%

129%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

0

5

10

15

20

25

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Difference between EL enrollment 

composition and EL retention composition, 

as percent of enrollment composition

Percent ELs

Grade

EL enrollment composition EL retention composition Percent difference

Exhibit reads: The EL percentage of all students retained in kindergarten (17 percent) is 13 percent lower than the EL percentage of 

students enrolled in kindergarten (19 percent).

Note: The data value labels display rounded percentages; however, unrounded percentages are used to display bar lengths and to 

calculate percent differences. English learner (EL) enrollment and grade retention composition data for all grades are in Exhibit A1 in the

appendix.

Source: Retention data come from the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2011–12; 

Enrollment data come from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), 

“Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey,” 2011–12.

The limited availability of nationally representative data on grade retention has, to date, hampered efforts to investigate 

retention patterns.15 Though the CRDC data offer an opportunity to begin examining trends in grade-level retention, these 

data cannot address reasons for the overrepresentation of ELs among students retained in grade. Retention status alone 

does not tell us whether ELs are performing at lower levels than non-ELs or are simply more likely to be retained than nonELs with similar performance. Although promotion and retention policies vary among schools, districts, and states, 

decisions to retain a student generally include recommendations from school staff and can be influenced by parental 

input. Due to language and cultural barriers, families of English learners may be less willing than other families to challenge 

the school’s decision to retain a student.16 However, data on ELs’ grade-level academic performance also suggest that ELs 

may be less academically proficient than non-ELs; for example, 5 percent of eighth-grade ELs scored at or above the 

proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics, compared to 37 percent of non-ELs.17

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION

Graduating from high school is an important achievement with tangible benefits for young adults. In 2014, adults with a 

high school diploma (including high school equivalency credentials) but no college attainment earned 27 percent more 

than adults without a high school diploma: $668 per week, on average, compared to $488 per week, respectively. 

Additionally, having a high school diploma or its equivalent means greater likelihood of employment and protection from 

economic downturns; in 2014, 6 percent of adults with a high school credential and no further education were 

unemployed, compared to 9 percent of adults with no high school diploma.18

ELs had lower high school graduation rates (59 percentthan non-ELs (82 percent. 

In 2011–12, ELs had lower high school graduation rates — nationally and across almost all states — than students who 

were not ELs. There were nearly 3.6 million students in the cohort of students who could have graduated in 2011–12; of 

these students, 226,000 (6 percent) were ELs. Among ELs, 59 percent graduated within four years. Among students who 

were not ELs, 82 percent graduated within four years. This represents a 23 percentage point difference; in other words, 

the EL graduation rate is 28 percent lower than the non-EL graduation rate. High school graduation rates and the size of 

3 
the difference between the rates varied by state. In all but one state (West Virginia, which had 112 ELs in its graduation 

cohort), the graduation rate for ELs was below the rate for non-ELs (Exhibit A1).19

Gaps between EL and non-EL graduation rates ranged from 54 percentage points (Arizona) to 6 percentage points (New 

Mexico) (Exhibit A2). The percent difference between EL and non-EL graduation rates ranged from 69 percent (Arizona) to 

8 percent (Arkansas) (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2

Percent difference between the four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rates for ELs and non-ELs: 2011–12

Exhibit reads: In Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Utah, 

and Virginia the graduation rate for ELs was lower than the graduation rate for non-ELs by 35 percent or more.

Notes: Gap size is calculated using unrounded percentages, but states are grouped based on rounded percentages. In West Virginia, the 

graduation rate for ELs was above the rate for non-ELs. Data from Idaho, Kentucky, and Oklahoma are not included; the U.S. Department 

of Education granted these states timeline extensions to begin reporting four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate data. The EL cohort 

assignment method can be based on EL status at the beginning, end, or any time during the four-year cohort period.

Source: Graduation data come from the U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts(see Technical Notes for more detail).

There does not appear to be a relationship between the percentage of the graduation cohort who are EL and the gap 

between EL and non-EL four-year graduation rates. For example, New Mexico’s ELs accounted for 28 percent of the 

graduation cohort, but graduated at nearly the same rate as non-ELs (66 percent and 72 percent, respectively). In contrast,

in California, ELs represented 20 percent of the graduation cohort and the graduation rate for ELs was 21 percentage 

points lower than the rate for non-ELs (62 percent vs. 83 percent, respectively).

The gap between the graduation rate for ELs and the rate for non-ELs was largest in states that only 

included in the EL cohort those who were ELs in the final year of the cohort period. 

For the purpose of reporting four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rates, states decide which students to include in their 

EL cohort. Twenty states included all students classified as EL at any time during the four year cohort period (“anytime”)

and almost as many states (n = 19) included only students classified as EL in the final year of the cohort period (“end”).

20

Only a few states (n = 4) based EL cohort assignment on students’ ninth grade EL status (“beginning”).

21 Students who are 

ELs in the final year of the cohort period are likely to underperform on content assessments relative to students who were 

ELs in ninth grade and are no longer ELs four years later, so it is logical that “end” states (those that define their EL cohort 

based on EL status at the end of the cohort period) will have lower EL graduation rates and, consequently, larger gaps 

between EL and non-EL graduation rates, as is shown in Exhibit 3.22 On average, the lowest EL graduation rate and the 

largest gap between the EL and non-EL graduation rates was in the 19 “end” states: the difference between the average EL 

and non-EL graduation rates was 28 percentage points in these states, compared with 21 percentage points in the four 

“beginning” states that based EL cohort membership on students’ status in ninth grade (Exhibit 3). 

4 
Exhibit 3

Average four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rates for ELs and non-ELs and size of difference (gap), 

by state EL cohort assignment method: 2011–12

59

53

60

80

82

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

Beginning

(n=4)

End

(n=19)

Anytime

(n=20)

EL cohort assignment method

EL graduation rate

Non-EL graduation rate

Gap 

20

Gap 

28

Gap 

21

Exhibit reads: In the four states where students were included in the EL cohort based on their EL status at the beginning of the cohort 

period, 59 percent of ELs graduated in four years, compared to 80 percent of non-ELs, a difference (gap) of 21 percentage points.

Note: Gaps are calculated using unrounded data.

Source: Graduation data come from the U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts(see Technical Notes for more detail). Information on EL 

cohort assignment methods comes from metadata provided by the U.S. Department of Education. 

PARTICIPATION IN GED PREPARATION PROGRAMS AND ATTAINMENT OF GED CREDENTIAL

English learners are more than twice as likely to drop out of high school as their English-proficient peers.23 The GED 

credential is an option for students who drop out and those who are otherwise unable to complete traditional secondary 

schooling and serves as an alternative to the traditional high school diploma.24 Local education agencies can operate GED 

programs to prepare students to attain these credentials. While studies comparing later life outcomes among GED 

credential holders, dropouts, and traditional high school graduates have mixed results, they generally show that earning a 

GED credential confers academic and, in some cases, economic benefits compared to not earning a high school diploma. 

According to two studies, those earning the GED credential have economic outcomes more similar to dropouts than high 

school graduates, except in the case of low-skilled GED-earners who earn more than their low-skilled un-credentialed 

peers.25 For the small share of GED holders who pursue additional schooling, the GED might serve as an effective gateway 

to postsecondary education.26

Nationally, ELs comprised 3.1 percent of students participating in LEA-operated GED preparation 

programs but only 1.5 percent of students who participated in such a program and attained the GED

credential; this underrepresentation was not found in all states. 

According to data from the CRDC, 1,576 LEAs (10 percent of all LEAs) operated GED preparation programs for students 

ages 16 to 19 in 2011–12 (Exhibit A3). Of the 110,452 students who participated in these LEA-operated GED preparation 

programs, 35,843 (32 percent) received their GED credential in 2011–12.

English learner performance in these LEA-operated GED preparation programs can be assessed by comparing the EL 

composition of participants to the EL composition of those who received a GED after such participation. In the 50 states 

and the District of Columbia, 3.1 percent of program participants were ELs but only 1.5 percent of program participants 

who received a GED were ELs, a 52 percent difference (Exhibit A3). Only 531 ELs nationwide earned the GED credential 

after participating in an LEA-operated GED preparation program in 2011–12.

States varied in whether their LEAs operated GED preparation programs, EL participation in those LEA-operated 

preparation programs, and EL representation among GED earners who participated in those preparation programs. Eight 

states (Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, and North Carolina) and the District of Columbia 

had no ELs participating in any of their 52 LEA-operated GED preparation programs (Exhibit A3). On the other end of the 

5 
spectrum, ELs accounted for more than 10 percent of LEA-operated GED preparation program participants in New Mexico 

(11 percent) and New York (12 percent). In most (n = 30) of the 41 states with EL participants in LEA-operated preparation 

programs, the EL percentage of participants who attained the GED credential was lower than the EL percentage of 

participants. There were 13 states in which none of the ELs who participated in the preparation program attained the GED 

credential; ELs accounted for 0.2 to 5 percent of participants in these states (Exhibit A3). Interestingly, there were 11 

states27 where ELs were overrepresented among those who attained a GED credential after participating in an LEAoperated preparation program (i.e., EL success outpaced that of non-ELs) (Exhibit A3); in 3 of these states (Kentucky, 

Maine, and Rhode Island) 100 percent of ELs who participated in an LEA-operated preparation program successfully 

attained their GED credential. 

The CRDC data offer only a limited opportunity to examine GED preparation and attainment rates for ELs because they 

have several significant limitations. First, the CRDC GED data are limited to participants in LEA-operated preparation 

programs; participants in these preparation programs who earn the GED credential appear to represent about one-third of 

those who attained a GED credential.

28 Second, there is no way to know whether participants in the LEA-operated 

preparation programs failed to obtain a GED credential because they failed the test, or because they never took the test 

(or took but did not complete the test).29 A very small number of English learners (531) were reported to have earned their 

GED credential after participating in an LEA-operated GED program. In addition, four states account for approximately 

three-quarters of all ELs who earned their GED credential after participating in an LEA-operated GED program (California 

accounted for 43 percent; Utah, 16 percent; New York, 10 percent; and Virginia, 6 percent). Therefore these data reflect 

patterns in a small share of programs in a handful of states. 

CONCLUSION

Research links the academic indicators of grade retention, high school graduation, and GED completion to later academic 

and workforce outcomes. According to national data from the 2011–12 CRDC and other sources, English learners fared 

worse than their non-EL peers on these indicators of school success: they were overrepresented among students who 

were retained in grade, particularly in high school; they had lower graduation rates, particularly among those who finished 

high school without exiting from EL status; and those who participated in an LEA-operated preparation program, on 

average, did not earn the GED credential at rates similar to non-ELs. Overall, these findings suggest a pattern of schools 

not supporting ELs and ensuring their progress at the expected pace through elementary and secondary schooling, which 

may set ELs up for disadvantage in terms of access to post-secondary education and workforce participation. The CRDC 

data provide an opportunity to begin to understand ELs’ academic experiences and identify avenues for further research. 

6 
APPENDIX

Exhibit A1

EL enrollment and retention in grade, by grade: 2011–12

Grade

Number of 

ELs enrolled 

EL percentage of all 

students enrolled (%)

Number of 

ELs 

retained 

EL percentage of all 

students retained (%)

Percentage point 

difference 

between EL 

percent enrolled 

and EL percent 

retained1

Percent 

difference 

between EL 

percent enrolled 

and EL percent 

retained2

All 4,607,378 10 158,698 13 3 32

K 647,167 19 19,998 17 -2 -13

1 639,012 18 22,884 20 1 7

2 579,725 17 15,569 22 5 30

3 495,471 15 9,776 19 5 33

4 413,547 12 5,824 15 3 24

5 334,511 10 4,061 14 4 37

6 270,476 8 3,611 10 2 26

7 236,515 7 3,798 9 2 24

8 212,322 7 3,717 8 1 18

9 238,951 7 25,145 12 5 80

10 197,379 6 16,141 11 5 78

11 159,394 5 12,360 11 6 110

12 142,123 5 15,626 11 6 129

1Percentage point difference is equal to the numeric difference between the EL percentage of students retained and the EL percentage of 

students enrolled. Differences are calculated based on unrounded data.

2Percent difference is equal to the percentage point difference between the EL percentage retained and the EL percent of students 

enrolled divided by the EL percentage of students enrolled. Differences are calculated based on unrounded data.

Source: Retention data come from the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2011–12; 

Enrollment data come from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), 

“Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey,” 2011–12.

7 
Exhibit A2

State regulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rates for ELs and non-ELs, difference (gap) between rates, number 

of ELs in graduation cohort, and EL percentage of cohort, by state: 2011–12

State

EL 

graduation 

rate (%)

Non-EL 

graduation 

rate (%)

Percentage point 

difference between

EL and non-EL rate

Percent difference 

between EL and 

non-EL rate

Number of ELs 

in graduation 

cohort

EL percent of 

graduation 

cohort

47 States and DC 59 82 23 52 225,958 6

Alabama 36 76 40 35 606 1

Alaska 47 72 25 69 956 9

Arizona 24 77 54 8 1,221 2

Arkansas 77 84 7 25 1,201 4

California 62 83 21 32 99,753 20

Colorado 53 78 25 27 6,171 10

Connecticut 63 86 23 10 2,026 5

Delaware 71 80 8 13 307 3

District of Columbia 52 59 8 26 327 6

Florida 57 76 19 38 14,881 8

Georgia 44 71 27 37 4,011 3

Hawaii 52 83 31 20 732 5

Illinois 66 83 16 10 5,462 3

Indiana 78 87 9 18 1,445 2

Iowa 74 90 16 14 1,035 3

Kansas 74 86 12 32 2,680 7

Louisiana 49 72 23 14 517 1

Maine 74 86 12 35 297 2

Maryland 55 84 29 29 1,328 2

Massachusetts 61 86 25 18 4,774 6

Michigan 63 77 13 35 3,107 2

Minnesota 51 79 28 28 4,529 7

Mississippi 54 75 21 22 118 #

Missouri 65 84 19 37 721 1

Montana 53 85 32 28 314 3

Nebraska 64 89 25 66 885 4

Nevada 23 67 45 21 3,196 9

New Hampshire 68 87 18 16 355 2

New Jersey 73 87 14 9 3,539 3

New Mexico 66 72 6 44 7,367 28

New York 44 79 35 38 12,077 5

North Carolina 50 81 31 23 3,003 3

North Dakota 68 88 20 24 223 3

Ohio 62 81 19 30 1,613 1

Oregon 49 70 21 24 3,578 8

Pennsylvania 64 84 20 11 2,878 2

Rhode Island 69 78 9 15 985 8

South Carolina 64 75 11 29 1,594 3

South Dakota 60 84 24 18 245 3

Tennessee 72 88 16 33 1,529 2

Texas 59 89 30 38 11,329 4

Utah 51 81 31 15 1,728 4

Vermont 75 88 13 35 127 2

Virginia 55 84 29 31 4,410 5

Washington 54 79 25 -5 4,509 6

West Virginia 83 79 -4 25 112 1

Wisconsin 66 88 22 30 1,971 3

Wyoming 56 80 24 52 186 3

# Rounds to zero.

Note: Data from Idaho, Kentucky, and Oklahoma are not included in Exhibit A2; the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary

and Secondary Education granted these states timeline extensionsfor when they must begin reporting four-year adjusted-cohort 

graduation rate data. Gaps are calculated from unrounded data. 

Source: Graduation data come from the U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts(see Technical Notes for more detail).

8 
9 

Exhibit A3

Number and percentage of LEAs offering GED preparation programs for students aged 16-19 and number and EL 

percentages of GED preparation program participants who received the GED credential, by state: 2011–12

LEAs offering GED 

programs GED program participants (ages 16-19)

GED program participants who received 

GED credential

State Number 

Percentage1

(%) ELs

All 

students

EL

percentage (%) ELs

All 

students

EL percentage 

(%)

50 States and DC 1,571 12.6 3,441 110,452 3.1 531 35,843 1.5

Alabama 13 8.5 0 192 0.0 0 95 0.0

Alaska 1 1.9 0 2 0.0 0 2 0.0

Arizona 12 4.0 74 1,020 7.3 8 204 3.9

Arkansas 12 4.9 7 806 0.9 2 401 0.5

California 101 15.6 576 9,606 6.0 229 5,094 4.5

Colorado 16 8.8 78 1,450 5.4 13 370 3.5

Connecticut 45 32.8 21 1,722 1.2 6 443 1.4

Delaware 4 14.8 0 369 0.0 0 100 0.0

District of Columbia 3 16.7 0 112 0.0 0 46 0.0

Florida 53 71.6 596 12,788 4.7 0 4,132 0.0

Georgia 8 4.2 4 1,726 0.2 0 244 0.0

Hawaii 1 100.0 0 799 0.0 0 352 0.0

Idaho 5 4.1 2 88 2.3 0 39 0.0

Illinois 19 3.4 2 769 0.3 0 141 0.0

Indiana 33 10.4 13 4,846 0.3 2 1,205 0.2

Iowa 9 2.8 0 213 0.0 0 65 0.0

Kansas 9 3.1 6 468 1.3 0 266 0.0

Kentucky 35 20.5 2 1,964 0.1 2 628 0.3

Louisiana 38 44.7 13 3,824 0.3 2 1,167 0.2

Maine 52 47.7 8 1,332 0.6 8 745 1.1

Maryland 6 22.2 0 908 0.0 0 320 0.0

Massachusetts 13 4.5 10 427 2.3 0 198 0.0

Michigan 64 9.7 12 3,516 0.3 0 1,235 0.0

Minnesota 64 16.0 71 2,254 3.1 10 769 1.3

Mississippi 86 54.8 10 2,518 0.4 0 835 0.0

Missouri 84 18.5 16 3,488 0.5 4 1,502 0.3

Montana 11 7.1 59 1,081 5.5 0 357 0.0

Nebraska 11 4.1 0 332 0.0 0 171 0.0

Nevada 8 42.1 4 905 0.4 0 594 0.0

New Hampshire 25 30.1 2 355 0.6 0 233 0.0

New Jersey 11 3.4 9 495 1.8 2 180 1.1

New Mexico 3 2.6 10 88 11.4 4 30 13.3

New York 211 29.7 1,277 11,065 11.5 52 2,462 2.1

North Carolina 3 2.0 0 59 0.0 0 21 0.0

North Dakota 6 4.1 4 210 1.9 2 99 2.0

Ohio 29 3.6 23 3,117 0.7 4 746 0.5

Oklahoma 30 7.2 61 1,931 3.2 2 525 0.4

Oregon 56 30.8 159 3,637 4.4 8 1,000 0.8

Pennsylvania 24 3.8 4 585 0.7 2 370 0.5

Rhode Island 2 5.6 4 79 5.1 4 39 10.3

South Carolina 50 55.6 16 8,037 0.2 2 1,499 0.1

South Dakota 8 5.4 2 130 1.5 0 70 0.0

Tennessee 38 30.4 38 6,333 0.6 21 988 2.1

Texas 47 4.3 57 2,997 1.9 14 1,217 1.2

Utah 18 26.9 106 1,534 6.9 87 684 12.7
Exhibit A3 (continued)

Number and percentage of LEAs offering GED preparation programs for students aged 16-19 and number and EL 

percentages of GED preparation program participants who received the GED credential, by state: 2011–12

State

LEAs offering GED 

programs GED program participants (ages 16-19)

GED program participants who received 

GED credential

Number 

Percentage1

(%) ELs

All 

students

EL percentage 

(%) ELs

All 

students

EL percentage 

(%)

Vermont 0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Virginia 108 66.7 51 4,407 1.2 33 2,208 1.5

Washington 9 3.5 8 825 1.0 2 202 1.0

West Virginia 34 61.8 6 2,734 0.2 4 1,196 0.3

Wisconsin 39 10.0 4 477 0.8 2 338 0.6

Wyoming 4 7.5 16 1,832 0.9 0 16 0.0

1Denominator is the total number of LEAs in the state in the 2011–12 CRDC that offered grades 12 or ungraded. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2011–12. 

10
TECHNICAL NOTES

The Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) is a biennial (i.e., every other school year) survey required by the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The 2011–12 CRDC was designed to include data about every public school in the 

nation. Generally, school districts submit their data directly to OCR. The CRDC is a mandatory data collection, authorized 

under the statutes and regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Department of Education Organization Act (20 

U.S.C. 3413). The regulations implementing these provisions can be found at 34 CFR 100.6(b); 34 CFR 106.71; and 34 CFR 

104.61. To learn more about the Civil Rights Data Collection, visit http://ocrdata.ed.gov. The CRDC data used in these 

analyses are privacy protected by rounding student counts in groups of three to prevent the disclosure of individual student 

information. For example, student counts from one to three are rounded to two and student counts from four to six are 

rounded to five. Schools that did not meet data quality requirements for specific analyses were excluded from those 

analyses.

This brief used the following measures obtained or derived from the CRDC, Common Core of Data (CCD), and EDFacts: 

Retention in Grade: The numbers of students (total and English learners) in each grade in each school who were not 

promoted to the next grade prior to the beginning of the following school year were obtained from the CRDC. These 

school-level data were aggregated to the national level, and the grade-level EL composition of retained students was 

calculated for each grade by dividing the total number of English learners retained by the total number of students 

retained. The overall EL composition of retained students was calculated by summing the number of English learners 

retained across all grades and dividing the result by the sum of all students retained across all grades. 

Enrollment: The numbers of students (total and English learners) enrolled in each grade in each school district were 

obtained from the CCD, and these district-level data were aggregated to the national level. The grade-level enrollment EL 

composition was calculated for each grade by dividing the total number of English learners enrolled by the total number of 

students enrolled. The overall EL composition of enrolled students was calculated by summing the number of English 

learners enrolled across all grades and dividing the result by the sum of all students enrolled across all grades.

Graduation: State-level four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rates and cohort sizes for ELs and all students were obtained 

from EDFacts, regulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table (Data Group 695) and cohorts for regulatory 

four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table (Data Group 696). The four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate is the 

number of students who graduate in four years or less with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of 

students who formed the cohort. The number of graduating students in each state was estimated by multiplying the 

number of students in the cohort by the graduation rate. The number of non-ELs in the cohort was derived by subtracting 

the number of ELs in the cohort from the number of all students in the cohort, and the number of graduating non-ELs was 

estimated by subtracting the estimated number of graduating ELs from the estimated number of all graduating students. 

The graduation rate for non-ELs was then calculated by dividing the estimated number of graduating non-ELs by the 

derived number of non-ELs in the cohort.

GED Completion: The CRDC includes, for each local education agency (LEA), the number of students (total and English 

learners) aged 16 to 19 who participated in LEA-operated GED preparation programs and the number of participating 

students (total and English learners) who received the GED credential. These counts do not include participation in GED 

programs operated by other entities (such as community colleges or other community organizations) unless these 

programs were contracted by the school district. Further, the counts do not include data on other types of high school 

equivalency credentials.

11
ENDNOTES

1 Shane R. Jimerson, “Meta-analysis of Grade Retention Research: Implications for Practice in the 21st Century,” School Psychology 

Review 30 (2001): 420–437; Karl L. Alexander, Doris R. Entwisle, and Susan L. Dauber, On the Success of Failure: A Reassessment of the 

Effects of Retention in the Primary School Grades (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Russell W. Rumberger, “Dropping Out 

of Middle School: A Multilevel Analysis of Students and Schools,” American Educational Research Journal 32 (1995): 583–625; U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections, “Earnings and Unemployment Rates by Educational 

Attainment (April 2015),” http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_001.htm; Catherine A.Wood, “Unemployment continued its downward

trend in 2013,” Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (April 2014), 

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/unemployment-continued-its-downward-trend-in-2013.htm; Margaret Becker Patterson, 

Jizhi Zhang, Wei Song, and Anne Guison-Dowdy, “Crossing the Bridge: GED Credentials and Postsecondary Educational Outcomes,” 

(Washington, DC: GED testing Service and American Council on Education, 2010), http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509888.pdf; John H. 

Tyler, “Economic benefits of the GED: Lessons from recent research,” Review of Educational Research 73 (2003): 369–405.

2 Jimerson (2001); Alexander et al. (2003); Rumberger (1995).

3 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015); Wood (2014).

4 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the 

United States: 1972–2012 (NCES 2015-015)”, by Patrick Stark, and Amber M. Noel (Washington, DC: 2015).

5 Patterson et al. (2010); Tyler (2003).

6 Barry R. Chiswick, and Paul W. Miller, “Occupational Language Requirements and the Value of English in the US Labor Market,” Journal 

of Population Economics 23 (2010): 353–372; Hoyt Bleakley and Aimee Chin, “Language Skills and Earnings: Evidence from Childhood 

Immigrants,” Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (2004): 481–496.

7 The Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) is a biennial survey required by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). 

The 2011–12 CRDC was designed to include data about every public school in the nation. See the technical notes for more information. 

8 Comparing non-ELs to students who were ever classified as ELs would be the optimal comparison; however, the CRDC data do not 

support such comparisons.

9 These briefs are available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.

10 The regulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate (ACGR) is the number of students who graduate in four years with a regular 

high school diploma divided by the number of students who formed the cohort for that graduating class. The four-year adjusted cohort 

rate also includes students who graduate in fewer than four years. From the beginning of ninth grade (or the earliest high school grade), 

students who are entering that grade for the first time form a cohort that is “adjusted” by adding any students who subsequently transfer 

into the cohort and subtracting any students who subsequently transfer out, emigrate to another country, or die. 2010–11 was the first 

year that states were required to use the regulatory cohort rate. While the ACGR is more comparable across states than previous rates, 

there are still some differences in state implementation of the requirements, leading to the potential for differences in how the rates are 

calculated.

11 For the purpose of reporting the four-year ACGR for English learners, states apply their own rules for whether to count as an English 

learner any students identified as an English learner in 9th grade and designated proficient in English by the end of high school. The EL 

cohort assignment method can be based on whether students were EL at the beginning, end, or any time during the four-year cohort 

period.

12 See technical notes for limitations of GED data in the CRDC.

13 Chiharu S. Allen, Qi Chen, Victor L. Willson, and Jan N. Hughes, “Quality of Research Design Moderates Effects of Grade Retention on 

Achievement: A Meta-Analytic, Multilevel Analysis,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31 (2009): 480–499.

14 Jimerson (2001); Alexander et al. (2003); Rumberger (1995).

15 John Robert Warren, Emily Hoffman, and Megan Andrew, “Patterns and Trends in Grade Retention Rates in the United States, 1995–

2010,” Educational Researcher 43 (2014): 433–443.

16 Victor L. Willson, and Jan N. Hughes, “Retention of Hispanic/Latino students in First Grade: Child, Parent, Teacher, School, and Peer 

Predictors,” Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006): 31–49.

17 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2013 

Mathematics Assessment,” http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata. In most cases, the NAEP assessment is only administered in 

English, thus putting students with limited English proficiency at a greater disadvantage than their English-proficient peers. In certain 

12
cases, ELs can receive accommodations for the NAEP assessment, which include extended time, bilingual dictionary (without definitions 

in any language), directions read aloud in Spanish, Spanish/English version of the test, or test items read aloud in Spanish. However, only 

a small percentage of ELs received accommodations on the 2013 mathematics assessment (ranging from zero to less than 5 percent, 

depending on the particular accommodation).

18 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015).

19 The method of assigning English learners to the four-year graduation cohort varied across states; students could be included in the 

cohort depending on their EL status at the beginning or end, or at any time during, the cohort period.

20 U.S. Department of Education, “High School Graduation Rate: Non-regulatory Guidance” (December 22, 2008), 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf. 

21 Based on when the student first entered ninth grade. 

22 Rebecca M. Callahan and Dara R. Shifrer, “High School ESL Placement: Practice, Policy, and Effects on Achievement,” in Linguistic 

Minority Students Go to College: Preparation, Access, and Persistence, ed. Yasuko Kanno and Linda Harklau (New York: Routledge, 2012), 

19–37; Robert Linquanti, “The Redesignation Dilemma: Challenges and Choices in Fostering Meaningful Accountability for English 

Learners,” The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy Report 2001-1 (September 2001), 

http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/redesignation.pdf. About 7 out of every 10 districts consider state academic content area tests for 

exiting students from EL status. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service, National Evaluation of Title III Implementation—Report on State and Local Implementation (Washington, DC: 

2012), http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#titleiii. 

23 Rebecca M. Callahan, “Tracking and High School English Learners: Limiting Opportunity to Learn,” American Educational Research 

Journal 42 (2005): 305–328.

24 Most states offer certification of completion of a high school equivalency education program through assessment on the GED test.

25 Richard J. Murnane, John B. Willett, and John H. Tyler, “Who benefits from obtaining a GED? Evidence from High School and 

Beyond,” Review of Economics and Statistics 82 (2000): 23–37; Tyler (2003).

26 Stephen V. Cameron and James J. Heckman, “The Nonequivalence of High School Equivalents,” Journal of Labor Economics 11 (1993): 

1–47; Tyler (2003).

27 Those states were: Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and 

West Virginia.

28 According to the GED testing service’s 2012 annual statistical report, in the 50 states and DC, there were about 105,500 test passers

who were ages 16-18. The CRDC data indicated that there were 35,853 participants in LEA-operated preparation programs who earned a 

GED credential. So, the CRDC data might represent about 34 percent of all test passers of those ages in 2012. Source: GED Testing 

Service, 2012 Annual Statistical Report on the GED Test, 

http://www.gedtestingservice.com/uploads/files/92fc2c38402f4d8da1554120921f0291.pdf. 

29 The GED testing service’s 2012 annual statistical report states that, in the 50 states and DC, 80 percent of all test takers who were ages 

16-18 passed the test. That 20 percent failure rate would not, alone, explain the 67.5 percent reported drop between those participating 

in an LEA-operated preparation program and those passing the test.

13